Will "Lone Nuts" Trot Out More Malarkey for the 50th Anniv. of JFK Assassination?

It seems the lone nuts, those who assert (after the Warren Report) that Lee Harvey Oswald was the sole assassin of JFK, just can't tolerate any evidence that disproves their farcical contentions. They will go to any lengths to try to show that any evidence is faulty, flawed, or disputable. A recent case is Michael O'Dell, who - in a paper on a known disinfo web site (of John Mcadams) tries to disprove D.B. Thomas Echo correlation analysis of the acoustic data published in the British journal Science and Justice in 2001.

In his paper, O'Dell makes much ado over a "60 Hz hum tone" that has already been repeatedly explained by others as evidence of copying. (Though as Groden and Livingstone point out, it could also arise from attempts to edit out any indication of a second or third gunman). O'Dell then performs a linear regression analysis which he claims takes this into account. (See top diagram of Fig. 1). The problem is that O'Dell doesn't even present the graph in its proper scaled perpsective, choosing truncated scales that make the line appear to have more gradient than it really does (see my correction)

Note there’s nearly a thousandfold factor disparity between the two scales in terms of units. (Another reason that his graph depiction shows only horizontal lines from the vertical axis and not vertical lines issuing from the horizontal, because he knows the latter would give it away since his one tenth increment spacing on the vertical scale is nearly 1000 times smaller than the same spacing shown on the horizontal, despite being shown nearly the same size) As for the hum tone, as Groden and Livingstone point out ('High Treason', p. 223):


“Every time a recording is copied, the copy will record an additional 60 Hz hum tone. The recordings studied by the HSCA have that extra hum tone, indicating they are the copies not the originals"

Thus, the 60 Hz tone was already taken into account. If the HSCA tape was really a copy from the original dictabelt recording it would also explain the voice-overs and other anomalies. O’Dell for his part used a regression formula to take the ratio of the given impulse signal to the 60 Hz tone, but in the end this is a vacuous exercise that sheds no insight into the actual issues.

To test the claim of the 60 Hz hum already being taken into account, I decided to perform a linear regression analysis of the O’Dell “correction ratio” (y) on the times (x) based on dispatcher annotations (see previous). If the relation was genuine and not spurious I reasoned that a clear correlation ought to manifest. The resulting least squares regression line is:


y= 0.0001475 x + 0.698


The plot is shown in the lower graph. This compares to O’Dell’s 60 Hz ratio regression line:


y = 0.000406 x + 0.601909

Note the slope in either case is essentially zero disclosing no kind of relationship whatever. This also means that O’Dell’s “correction ratio” linear regression:

C = (0.000406 ((T1 + T2)/2) + 0.601909) (T2 - T1)


is also useless. If, on the other hand, O’Dell’s correction ratio had provided an unbiased measure of time correction, we ought to have seen the regression as a straight line through the origin. A much more appropriate and correct regression equation would therefore be approximately:

y = 0.96 x + 0.100

Once more, the presence of error in y decreases the slope of the regression line. Where did this error originate? I suspect in the method used by O’Dell, in the form of systematic errors (and selection bias). As he describes it:

"A band-pass filter between 40Hz and 80Hz was applied and the hum measured where it was prominent. Cycles were measured where the waveform intersects the central zero line. Time markers were placed at the proper points to measure multiple cycles. The total duration of the measured cycles divided by the number of cycles is the wavelength at the midpoint of the markers.”

In his paper O’Dell argues this correction analysis was needed because of “distortions” in the Channel 2 tape speed, when played over the original Gray Audograph. However, it’s already been noted in numerous sources, e.g. Groden and Livingstone, op. cit., that such a voice-activated machine meant that implicitly there’d be “many gaps in the recording process”. Moreover, the FBI itself acknowledged the tape as being nearly useless because of repeated playing! Despite that, no gaps occurred in the Channel 1 recording which leaves open why O’Dell would be so obsessed with using Channel 2 data.

Using a “bandpass filter” for frequency corrections is a bit like me making kilometer corrections (along the orbits for differing radius vectors) to planetary distances when these won’t affect the distance in astronomical units! The gaps displayed in the latter (which conform to something called Bode’s Law) still remain. All one has succeeded in doing is juggling or interposing numbers, but the same distance gaps remain! Ditto with the gaps in the Channel 2 record, so one can’t help concluding that O’Dell is just trying to baffle with baloney! No wonder the same peer-reviewers of the Journal Science and Justice,  who published Thomas’ excellent paper likely wouldn’t give the time of day to O’Dell’s and why he was left to post it on John McAdams’ site.

As we approach the 50th anniversary of the JFK assassination this November, people need to be aware of the full court press which the lone nut brigade intends to mount.  Never mind that a clear majority (59%)  still disbelieves the Warren Commission Report - that Oswald was the sole assassin- this is down from the 73% it was barely a decade ago. In other words, the lone nut disinformation has begun to have its intended effect, including with nonsense such as the NATGEO production of two years ago, e.g. http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2011/11/nat-geo-continues-with-elites-kennedy.html

Make no mistake the lone nut disinformationists want it lower, preferably below 50% so they can brag on how a "majority of Americans agree with the Warren Commission". As a nation,  hopefully of critical thinkers, we can't let that travesty transpire. Look out, especially, for Tom Hanks' anti-conspiracy extravaganza due to be shown on HBO in 13 parts.

The DOE "Fracking is Safe for Water" Study: Don't Jump on the Bandwagon Yet!

As I noted in the previous blog post, newspapers, media sites across the nation are spreading the news (mainly in editorials) that AHA! Now we can exhale deeply and drink our water safely because, HEY! The Feds at the Dept. of Energy found out it's " safe!" Not so fast!

In many ways, this smells the same as the effort to torpedo the initial acoustic findings in the Kennedy assassination (which led the House Select Committee on Assassinations - HSCA-  to conclude a 96% probability of conspiracy), when government scientists under a team from the National Academy Of Sciences-  led by Dr. Norman Ramsey-  attempted to refute the findings using their own analysis.   But their efforts were basically all  for naught. Key impediments to accepting their analysis were: a) the team was not comprised of actual acoustic experts like the Barger and Weiss group from MIT that did the original, and b) their conclusions could not be confirmed, nor did they offer any basis by which the results might be replicated - a necessary condition of good science. 

Researcher W. Antony Marsh, in an email to me during the writing of a FAQ for one newsgoup, noted:

"The NAS did not allow any dialogue with critics to review and challenge such a study. They worked in total secrecy. In fact, they did not even make their raw materials available so that other researchers could try to duplicate their work."

They also made loads of basic statistical errors, mostly to do with the nature of a Poisson distribution. It was only relatively recently (2001)  that a paper by D.B. Thomas  (in the journal Science and Justice) went over all the original acoustic data using a much more refined analysis and arrived at the conclusion that the Barger-Weiss team was correct, and there were at least 4 shots as indicated by the telltale impulses, two of which were spaced 1.66 seconds apart . (The recycling time for the 6.5mm bolt action Mannlicher -Carcano allegedly used by Oswald was 2.33 secs.)

The takeaway here? It is always best to look askance when - after a previous study finds for a conclusion not popular with embedded, reactionary interests in the government- a subsequent study arrives to try to refute it. Basically, that is exactly what this new DOE study is all about, trying to refute or neutralize previous adverse fracked water assays taken in PA, and at Pavilion, WY. It is also highly suspicious (the naïve might say "coincidental") that it arrives at thousands of major newspapers mere days after Josh Fox's Gasland II premiers.

As I said, I smell a rat, but then I am a suspicious person by nature, and trust very little of what putative authorities say unless what they say can be independently confirmed.

Rob Jackson, a scientist at Duke University, has warned that a single study should not serve as evidence that fracking is safe, especially since the geology and fracking practices vary across the US. He told the AP that the drilling company might have been unusually meticulous at their research site, knowing that the procedure was being closely monitored. (Hmmmm.......might they have in some way influenced the outcome deploying measures we may not know? Unless the full paper -report is made publicly available the adoption of a suspicious mindset is the only reasonable one, given the government's previous history)

Jackson also explained that other aspects of the drilling process can contaminate groundwater, including poor well construction, accidental surface spills of chemicals and chemical-laced fluids, and wastewater.  What I'd also like to know is whether this DOE study investigated any of the hundreds of wells that have already been deemed leaking, or compromised.

We also need to be aware that the depth of the well might also have an impact on the potential effect on groundwater. Drilling at the well in western Pennsylvania occurred at 8,000 feet below ground, with groundwater in the Marcellus Shale usually found at a depth of 300 feet.  This fact itself is extremely suspicious, since these types of statistical, methodology shenanigans have been seen before in other areas.

A classic example is a spurious climate science paper, a joint 2003 effort by Willie Soon and Sallie Baliunas. Baliunas and Soon's misuse of statistics may be found at: http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=0007A664-3534-1F03-BA6A80A84189EEDF

 Standing out in the paper was  their choice of using 50-year data periods or  increments when the IPCC scientists had already disclosed anthropogenic warming appears at 30 -year levels.  In other words, the duo specifically ignored the threshold or resolution of data at which the climate effects would be most significant. In effect, Baliunas and Soon employed what we call a 'selective effects filter' to cull the data they preferred not to have to deal with.

In like manner, it seems that with their choice of 8,000 feet below ground for monitoring, the DOE scientists played a similar game. Especially as any fool purporting to do frack water research should know that  groundwater in the Marcellus Shale is usually found at a depth of 300 feet. Hence, the DOE scientists deliberately plumbed to much deeper layers than the contamination would be found, in the same way Soon and Baliunas extended increments to much longer extents than climate effects would be found.

All of which shows the "scientific" game can be rigged to yield the results one wants, and try to pass these over on people who are either gullible, ignorant, stupid or all three.

We also need to note that drilling at a fracking site in Pavillion, Wyoming, on the other hand, occurred at a depth of 1,200 feet. Groundwater in that region is acquired from depths of 800 feet, which means that the fracking site is in close proximity to drinking water. The Environmental Protection Agency in 2011 released a report concluding that chemical-laced fracking fluids contaminated the groundwater in Pavillion, and I listed those nasties, including saturation levels of methane (at 19 mg/L ) in the last two blog posts and benzene etc. at 50 times safe levels.


Yes, the EPA last month dropped its plans to further investigate the preliminary findings, and instead allowed state officials – many of whom are strong drilling advocates – to take over the study. A number of rationales can be surmised for this, none of them good. One is that strong pro-frack voices in the Obama administration have overridden all others. Another is that these voices or other embedded interests knew Josh Fox's incendiary documentary was soon to come out, so tossed the hot potato over to the state hyper-drilling interests to deal with it. In this way they could at once: a) appear to abdicate on their earlier (2011) water test findings by virtue of not pursuing further tests, and b) appease the gas-oil industry interests that obviously have them by the (political) balls.

A third is that the Obama-ites had little choice, given they had already stuck their necks out as gung ho over natural gas development (check out Obama's State of the Union speech). So by doing further tests on the Pavilion water and coming up with confirmation, they'd be in a position we call between the devil (gas-oil interests and PR flacks) and the deep blue sea, i.e. having to back away from the strong stance on natural gas as a transitional fuel on account of its wreaking toxic havoc on water.


As Josh Fox's Gasland II showed, though the EPA shied away from its Pavilion investigation, its initial results caused alarm and convinced environmental activists that fracking can contaminate drinking water – especially at drilling sites close to the surface. Most of us haven't budged from that earlier finding,  DOE study or not, just as most of us (JFK assassination researchers) haven't budged from the original acoustic test results no matter what Norman Ramsey's government pod people had to say or do.


 Readers also need to be aware that a more recent study conducted by researchers at Duke University examined fracking sites across northeastern Pennsylvania and southern New York, where drilling usually occurs at greater depths. The researchers found that household drinking water that comes from any of the 141 wells near fracking sites has higher concentrations of methane, which is the main component of natural gas.  Researchers found that 82 percent of the 141 water wells had elevated levels of methane, and that ethane concentrations were 23 times higher in drinking water at nearby homes.

The main author of the study, Jackson, noted:

“The methane, ethane and propane data, and new evidence from hydrocarbon and helium isotopes, all suggest that drilling has affected some homeowners’ water,”

This again, brings up the issue of awareness. We the public on whose minds (and bodies!)  these findings impinge, need to ask ourselves whether we are prepared to accept the studies, analyses of REAL scientists who adhere to objective measures and don't play statistical games.....or if we are going to allow ourselves to be hoodwinked by blatant sellouts and tools working for the same interests who fund their bogus science investigations - albeit under a "federal government"  patina.