10 Webster Ave. 1-2 Somerville, MA 02143 March 24, 1993 Harrison E. Livingstone 3025 Abell Ave. Baltimore, MD 21218 Dear Harry, I have copied the acoustics chapter and written some corrections in the margins. Most of the corrections are of minor spelling and grammar errors, and awkward phrasing. I will try to restate some of the major disagreements here in case you have trouble reading my handwriting. I do not expect to change your mind, but I must make some sort of pro forma challenge to some points lest anyone say that no one challenged a particular point or pointed out some error. In the second paragraph of page one, I feel the "proof" is too strong a word. That implies some type of scientific method and using facts to draw specific conclusions. It seems to me that what you are doing in the chapter is offering an explanation of the acoustics issue. At the end of the third paragraph you use the term "Sequence 3" without having explained what the sequences mean. In the first sentence of the fourth paragraph, I disagree with the use of the word "assassination." That implies that you have already accepted the time when BBN identified shots on the tape as being the real time of the assassination. Instead of using the word "assassination" I feel it would be better to use a term like, "time when BBN said that there were shots on the tape." I feel that the phrasing "Every single vehicle, probably without exception," is poor rhetoric and not supported by fact. Several cycles in the motorcade did not turn on their sirens immediately, such as Baker, Haygood, and Hargis. Not every cycle immediately rushed off to escort the limo to the hospital. I also disagree with the argument that the motorcycle with the stuck mic was at the Trade Mart and do not think that should be stated as fact, but merely a few people's alternative explanation. But if you buy that argument, I see little chance that you would change the wording. I strongly object to the wording in the last sentence of the first paragraph of page 3. I see no need for that type of ad hominem argument if your intended targets are relatively few. When you say "some researchers, who may have been involved in the cover-up" that turns out to be a blanket indictment of anyone who dares challenge Steve Barber's work. I, and I am sure many others, resent the implication. At least you could say "some of whom" instead of whom. On page 5 you state that channel 1 was voice activated as if that were a fact. I have seen no proof of that claim, only a rumor based on a conversation with a DPD officer who seems to remember that both channels might have been voice activated. The BBN linear regression studies seem to show that channel 1 was continuosly recorded and not voice activated. And the Dictaphone was not running continuously BECAUSE of channel 2 and background noise. That is an extraneous argument. It was running continuously BECAUSE of the fact that the microphone was stuck open, regardless of channel 2 and any background noise. In the last complete paragraph, I think you meant to say "the microphone" rather than "another microphone" as you are still talking about the open microphone on channel 1. On page 6, did you meant to say "oscilloscope" rather than "oscillogram?" Whenever people discuss how many shots were found, I see them talk about seven impulse patterns. But that may leave a false impression that those seven impulses represent seven possible shots. They do not. A couple of those impulses are just matches to two neighboring microphone locations and in one case a match with a grassy knoll pattern when it was more likely a shot from the TSBD. So, all the matches boiled down to 5 possible shots, one of which was rejected by HSCA as coming too quickly to be fired by Oswald's rifle. Also, you should specify which window was used in the test, such as "the TSBD sixth-floor window." In the last paragraph of page 6, I think you meant to type in "their" instead of "the in." I also noticed that several times you typed in an extraneous "i" in "Audograph" making it "Audiograph." On page 7 you accept the time when the dispatcher announces the time as being exact 12:30:00. But his announcement is only an arbitrary time which Todd uses as a benchmark. It is not the real time. The real time could have been anywhere from 12:29 to 12:31, depending on which clock was off by how many minutes from the real time. You may need to explain that assumption in a footnote. On page 10, it is not clear how much of Decker's message was missing from what transcripts. Much of that language can be found in some transcripts of channel 2. You also need to remind the reader of which channel is being quoted. Steve Barber's claim is that the same message we know is on channel 2 can be heard on channel 1. What I have never been able to pin him down on is exactly how many words can be heard on channel 1 which he believes is crosstalk. On page 11, I would use the term "monograph" instead of "pamphlet." The word pamphlet often implies something which has been commercially printed and explains an established event or place. The word monograph is more often used to describe an unpublished manuscript which is usually a brief explanation of a new theory. On page 12, I think the last paragraph is out of place for a discussion of the acoustics issue. I see no reason to get sidetracked on the Tippit shooting just to get some jabs in against Mack. The Tippit shooting happened too late to have any impact on the time when BBN identified the shots. On page 14, the point about the fence being neck high is a strawman argument. Everyone who thinks Badgeman was real assumes that he would have needed to be standing on something in order to appear so visible behind the fence. On page 17, the wording "six seconds" may be too precise. There is no absolute proof that it was exactly six seconds. That was a guess that Groden made. The statement about no match being found for the mic at the corner of Main and Houston is a strawman argument. The Hughes film which shows McLain rounding the corner was being exposed before the shots. Exactly how many seconds before is the crux of the matter. I have sketched out a possible scenario for Todd to explain how McLain could have sped up for 5 seconds to get from the corner of Main and Houston to the corner of Houston and Elm in time to record the shots. And we know from comparing the Hughes film to the Dorman film that McLain started out behind the camera cars at the corner of Main and Houston, but passed them at the corner of Houston and Elm. So he was definitely going faster than the cars in the motorcade up Houston. You state that Elsie Dorman was in a fifth floor window. I thought it was a fourth floor window. The Dorman film does not show McLain rounding the corner of Main and Houston. That was in the Hughes film. Synchronizing the two films is the heart of the matter. On page 19, I would recommend that you leave out Todd's point about the "limited circuitry." I believe Todd misinterpreted the BBN wording. They were talking about the "limiting" circuitry, not "limited" circuitry. They were not criticizing the quality of the equipment. They were explaining why the the proper design of the equipment would reduce the apparent volume of the loudest sounds. That is why a very loud sound which would be easily recognizable as gunfire to the naked ear would be harder to recognize after having gone through the open microphone. That is also why some of the impulses chosen as echoes were barely above the background noise. You may not be able to include all my suggestions now, but I still wanted you to be aware of areas still open to debate and what my position on them is. You wanted me to source my opinion that the HSCA identified McLain as the open microphone before Groden was asked to look for him in photographs. I think the wording in 2HSCA92, 5HSCA679, and 5HSCA616-617 suggests that the HSCA was sure that it was McLain and only asked Groden if he knew of any photographic evidence which showed that McLain could have been in the right place to record the shots. Have you decided on a title yet? I have a title for you to consider. "The Hunt for JFK's Killers." The word "Hunt" describes your long efforts to find the real mastermind behind the assassination, the who in addition to the why and how, but it also is a play on words to suggest the Hunt family. By the way, someone uploaded the AARC database (which I think is based on the NAMEBASE program) to CompuServe, so I printed out a few listings for you. Let me know what other names you want me to look up for you. My final observation has nothing to do with the book, so you may want to ignore it until you have some free time to consider it in depth. Todd's theory about the open microphone being in the V.P. Secret Service follow-up car is interesting, but I see a couple of flaws in it. Even if the Ramsey panel was right about the synchronization between channel 1 and channel 2, the time when the shots would have occured would be during the time when the microphone was stuck open. So, the shots would still be on the tape. How could BBN have not found the real shots when they supposedly found the others? This next point is very subtle, but worth examining. Let's assume that the real shots were recorded on the tape, but that the segment was moved out of sequence. So, BBN really did detect the shots. If that was the case, the BBN and W&A studies are inconsistent with the open mike being in a car rather than a cycle for many reasons. 1) The sound of the exhaust from the cycle is much too loud to have been recorded from any other location than on the cycle. 2) The BBN study found that the open mike was outside the cone of the shockwave for the first two shots, whereas the VP SS car would have been inside that cone. 3) The VP SS car was already on Elm when the first two shots were being recorded by a mike on Houston. 4) W&A identified the location of the open mike at the time of the grassy knoll shot as being near the traffic line dividing the left lane from the middle lane, and up at the top of Elm. The VP SS car was farther down Elm at that time and in the middle of the street. There may also be some more technical arguments against the VP SS car being the open mike which I can someday explore if you are interested. I am also interested in Todd's theory that the "bell" sound was merely electrical interference, but it needs more work before publishing. In particular, I would like to see any proof that similar electrical interference would have the unique pattern of overtone characteristics which the "bell" sound had. And I would like to see a resolution of the problem of the bell having one frequency on channel 1, but another frequency on channel 2. Resolving that has implications for the timing of the two channels. I hope we will have further opportunities to discuss these issues. Best wishes for success, W. Anthony Marsh