Thompson's New Book Powerfully Confirms the HSCA Acoustical Evidence

[Pat Speer]

FWIW, I added an article to my website last year trying to push Tink away from the Dictabelt nonsense. No matter what the tapes show, the photographic evidence proves beyond all doubt that McLain was not where the acoustics evidence requires him to be. As a consequence, I was hoping Tink would come up with a counter argument claiming the tape was recorded by McLain or someone else, but that they weren't where the acoustics experts thought they were. Upon reading his book, however, I see he avoided the photo evidence re McLain altogether, and focused on the shortcuts and/or deceptions of the Ramsey Panel.

So, no, the acoustics evidence has not been confirmed. The Ramsey Panel has been trashed, yes.

But the photo evidence still proves McLain was not where those pushing the acoustics needs him to have been.

http://www.patspeer.com/debunking-the-dictabelt

[Dan O'meara]

Not to mention the fact that the vast majority of witnesses heard three clearly audible shots.
How does Thompson's work deal with that?

[Walt Cakebread]

I think Dr. Thomas soundly refuted Myers' research on the acoustical evidence years ago.

Myers' research on the Tippit shooting is also extremely problematic.

https://miketgriffith.com/files/malice.pdf

I read Myer's book, With Malice, years ago, and felt like tossing it out the window into the trash can as I read.  As you've pointed out the book is full of falsehoods.     A couple of items that really irk me are Myer's treatment of the information surrounding the BEIGE Jacket that was WHITE when it was first reported to have been "found".   And the absolute BS about the wallet that was allegedly found near the Tippit squad car.     

[Michael T. Griffith]

FWIW, I added an article to my website last year trying to push Tink away from the Dictabelt nonsense. No matter what the tapes show, the photographic evidence proves beyond all doubt that McLain was not where the acoustics evidence requires him to be. As a consequence, I was hoping Tink would come up with a counter argument claiming the tape was recorded by McLain or someone else, but that they weren't where the acoustics experts thought they were. Upon reading his book, however, I see he avoided the photo evidence re McLain altogether, and focused on the shortcuts and/or deceptions of the Ramsey Panel.

So, no, the acoustics evidence has not been confirmed. The Ramsey Panel has been trashed, yes.

But the photo evidence still proves McLain was not where those pushing the acoustics needs him to have been.

http://www.patspeer.com/debunking-the-dictabelt

Dr. Thompson feels that Dr. Thomas has already sufficiently dealt with the issue of the photographic evidence regarding McClain's location.

https://www.maryferrell.org/pages/Essay_-_The_Bike_With_the_Mike.html

https://www.maryferrell.org/pages/Essay_-_Debugging_Bugliosi.html

Dr. Thompson's approach is to show that the dictabelt recording absolutely, positively contains at least four gunshot impulse patterns that were recorded in Dealey Plaza during the assassination, and that one of the shots came from the grassy knoll. So someone's microphone in Dealey Plaza recorded those gunshots, whether it was McClain's, Beilharz's, Price's, or someone else's mike. Personally, I find Dr. Thomas's research on the bike with the mike convincing. 

The gunshot impulse patterns match the unique patterns of gunshots fired in Dealey Plaza. They have the echo speed and locational characteristics of shots that were fired in Dealey Plaza and that were recorded by a motorcycle moving in Dealey Plaza. Dr. Aschkenazy put it this way:

Mr. ASCHKENASY. Congressman Sawyer at that time asked the question, if somebody were to tell me that the motorcycle was not at Dealey Plaza--and he was in fact somewhere else and he was transmitting from another location--my response to him at that time was that I would ask to be told where that location is, and once told where it is, I would go there, and one thing I would expect to find is a replica of Dealey Plaza at that location. That is the only way it can come out. (5 HSCA 592)

I think it would be helpful to keep in mind that even the NRC panel admitted that there was only a 7% probability that the numerous locational correlations between the dictabelt gunshots and the test-firing gunshots were the result of chance (https://miketgriffith.com/files/hscaacous.pdf, pp. 12-13).

As for the argument that the vast majority of plaza witnesses said they heard three shots and that therefore this disproves the acoustical evidence, it is hard to believe that anyone is still pushing this patently silly, lame argument after all we now know about how the FBI and the DPD manipulated the eyewitness accounts, given that we now know that the shots in two shot groups came within fractions of a second of each other, and given that the Zapruder film plainly and clearly shows reactions to at least five shots.

https://miketgriffith.com/files/6shots.htm

[Walt Cakebread]

Dr. Thompson feels that Dr. Thomas has already sufficiently dealt with the issue of the photographic evidence regarding McClain's location.

https://www.maryferrell.org/pages/Essay_-_The_Bike_With_the_Mike.html

https://www.maryferrell.org/pages/Essay_-_Debugging_Bugliosi.html

Dr. Thompson's approach is to show that the dictabelt recording absolutely, positively contains at least four gunshot impulse patterns that were recorded in Dealey Plaza during the assassination, and that one of the shots came from the grassy knoll. So someone's microphone in Dealey Plaza recorded those gunshots, whether it was McClain's, Beilharz's, Price's, or someone else's mike. Personally, I find Dr. Thomas's research on the bike with the mike convincing. 

The gunshot impulse patterns match the unique patterns of gunshots fired in Dealey Plaza. They have the echo speed and locational characteristics of shots that were fired in Dealey Plaza and that were recorded by a motorcycle moving in Dealey Plaza. Dr. Aschkenazy put it this way:

I think it would be helpful to keep in mind that even the NRC panel admitted that there was only a 7% probability that the numerous locational correlations between the dictabelt gunshots and the test-firing gunshots were the result of chance (https://miketgriffith.com/files/hscaacous.pdf, pp. 12-13).

As for the argument that the vast majority of plaza witnesses said they heard three shots and that therefore this disproves the acoustical evidence, it is hard to believe that anyone is still pushing this patently silly, lame argument after all we now know about how the FBI and the DPD manipulated the eyewitness accounts, given that we now know that the shots in two shot groups came within fractions of a second of each other, and given that the Zapruder film plainly and clearly shows reactions to at least five shots.

https://miketgriffith.com/files/6shots.htm

Hi Mike,   I haven't read Thompson's new book,( and I probably won't, because  I imagine it to be too "scholarly" for me.)  However, Since Thompson has established himself to be a totally honest and candid man by admitting his error in his views of the Z film. ( At least he now believes that he was mistaken about the movement of JFK's head, and candidly accepts his error ) I'll accept that he knows what he's talkin about.....and leave it up to men like you to sort it out.

[Dan O'meara]

As for the argument that the vast majority of plaza witnesses said they heard three shots and that therefore this disproves the acoustical evidence, it is hard to believe that anyone is still pushing this patently silly, lame argument after all we now know about how the FBI and the DPD manipulated the eyewitness accounts, given that we now know that the shots in two shot groups came within fractions of a second of each other, and given that the Zapruder film plainly and clearly shows reactions to at least five shots.

Over 160 witnesses described hearing three shots. Not just a majority but the vast majority of witnesses. Your assertion that the FBI and DPD manipulated all these witness accounts is childish. There's no point in asking you to provide evidence that any of these witnesses, in the decades that have passed, complained about having this aspect of their witness account altered. How can you justify the assertion these witness accounts were altered in the way you suggest? You can't.
You just want to get lost in the technical details of something that has already been blown out of the water.

Provide one scrap of evidence that any witness specifically mentioned having this aspect of their witness account changed. There is an unbelievably large witness group involved here, let alone the fact they would have mentioned it to friends and family.
You're talking nonsense.

"...given that we now know that the shots in two shot groups came within fractions of a second of each other,"


Do "we"?
I'd like to hear about this.
What's the one piece of hard evidence that confirms this assertion?

"...and given that the Zapruder film plainly and clearly shows reactions to at least five shots."

You tried to push this baloney in your thread - "Reactions to 6 Shots in the Zapruder Film".
The theory you put forward was crushed to such an extent you had to abandon your own thread!
I urge any reader to check this thread out.
You think you can just slide by these insurmountable problems to get lost in the technical argument but that won't be happening.

[Walt Cakebread]

Over 160 witnesses described hearing three shots. Not just a majority but the vast majority of witnesses. Your assertion that the FBI and DPD manipulated all these witness accounts is childish. There's no point in asking you to provide evidence that any of these witnesses, in the decades that have passed, complained about having this aspect of their witness account altered. How can you justify the assertion these witness accounts were altered in the way you suggest? You can't.
You just want to get lost in the technical details of something that has already been blown out of the water.

Provide one scrap of evidence that any witness specifically mentioned having this aspect of their witness account changed. There is an unbelievably large witness group involved here, let alone the fact they would have mentioned it to friends and family.
You're talking nonsense.

"...given that we now know that the shots in two shot groups came within fractions of a second of each other,"


Do "we"?
I'd like to hear about this.
What's the one piece of hard evidence that confirms this assertion?

"...and given that the Zapruder film plainly and clearly shows reactions to at least five shots."

You tried to push this baloney in your thread - "Reactions to 6 Shots in the Zapruder Film".
The theory you put forward was crushed to such an extent you had to abandon your own thread!
I urge any reader to check this thread out.
You think you can just slide by these insurmountable problems to get lost in the technical argument but that won't be happening.

Provide one scrap of evidence that any witness specifically mentioned having this aspect of their witness account changed.

Geeez, Dan, I can't believe that you'd invite scorn upon yourself like this... Have you never heard of Julia Ann Mercer......

[Dan O'meara]

Provide one scrap of evidence that any witness specifically mentioned having this aspect of their witness account changed.

Geeez, Dan, I can't believe that you'd invite scorn upon yourself like this... Have you never heard of Julia Ann Mercer......

Erm...as I understand it Julia Ann Mercer never even heard the shots so how could she have her testimony changed regarding how many shots there were?

Go easy with the scorn