JFK Assassination Hearings - E. Aschkenasy & Mark Weiss (Part III)
JFK Assassination Hearings - E. Aschkenasy & Mark Weiss (Part III)
(01:00:57) Opens to MARK WEISS telling Deputy Chief Counsel GARY T. CORNWELL the probability of his and E. ASCHKENASY'S conclusion that from reviewing a tape taken during the JFK assassination that there was a shot fired from the grassy knoll, Weiss declares that it is 20-1 that their conclusion is accurate (01:01:54) Cornwell asks if in having the microphone location moving in their tests (as the microphone would have been, being attached to a motorcade motorcycle) if Weiss and Aschkenasy might not have been compensating for error in their placement location of the shooter - Weiss answers that they tried moving the location of the knoll shooter around to test this, the result was that even with movement of the microphone it was impossible to get as closely similar a pattern from any other locations (01:03:46) Cornwell asks if from the wave patterns Weiss can determine what kind of gun fired the shot - Weiss uses the exhibits of sound wave graphs to show that there was a shock wave before the muzzle shot, meaning the gun had fired at super-sonic speeds and was therefore likely a rifle (01:05:46) Cornwell asks if from the wave pattern Weiss can determine where the rifle was pointing - Weiss responds with a map of Dealey plaza that he can only suggest a region of aim - Cornwell and Weiss then discuss the possibility of determining the trajectory and target of the shot
JFK Assassination Hearings - E. Aschkenasy & Mark Weiss (Part III)
(01:09:03) Weiss explains further that they know that the wave pattern corresponds to a gun shot because of the uniqueness of its echo pattern, Weiss then goes on to explain in detail a unique attribute of the gun shot waves which was due to the fact that the initial sound was obstructed from reaching the microphone by the motorcycle windshield (01:16:07) Chairman LOUIS STOKES tells Weiss and Aschkenasy the "historical importance" of their testimony in stating that there was a shot fired from the grassy knoll and therefore a second shooter and likely a conspiracy, Stokes then asks what sort of scrutiny will Weiss and Aschkenasy's work come under - Weiss gives a long response, listing all the factors that he and Aschkenasy took into account when conducting their analysis, Weiss feels confident they left nothing out (01:22:12) Stokes confirms with Weiss that the two men have determined that 4 shots were fired in Dealey Plaza (01:23:23) Stokes asks if Weiss and Aschkenasy did anything in their tests that could not have been done in 1963 - Weiss responds no (01:25:00) Stokes asks why Dr. JAMES BARGER did not come to the same conclusions as Weiss and Aschkenasy - Weiss explains that his tests left him with a significantly larger margin of error (01:28:31) Stokes recognizes Representative RICHARDSON PREYER who first confirms that the acoustic tests performed by the two men are objective science, and then asks if the what Weiss has identified as a bullet shot could not have been a motorcycle back-firing - Weiss said it could have been, but that it would have to have been a motorcycle up on the grassy knoll, this receives much laughter from the gallery (01:33:00) Preyer asks about the number of peaks above the noise level Weiss affiliated with the gun shots - Weiss explains the peaks and their relation to his calculations
JFK Assassination Hearings - E. Aschkenasy & Mark Weiss (Part III)
(01:34:20) Stokes recognizes Representative SAMUEL DEVINE , Devine asks about the differences between Bargers test and conclusions and those of Weiss and Aschkenasy - Weiss explains how their conclusions were merely a progression from Barger's (01:37:00) Devine asks about the different sounds of gun shot blips on a version of the tape of the JFK assassination and then asks whether or not Weiss could know the trajectory or target of the bullet - Weiss responds he has not heard the tape that Devine references nor can he tell the committee where the knoll shot would have been aimed (01:39:15) Weiss answers a local paper's editorial charge that acoustics is an arcane science (01:39:49) Stokes recognizes Delegate WALTER FAUNTROY who confirms with Weiss that the noise he identified as coming from the grassy knoll could not have been an engine back-fire, Stokes then asks Weiss if he could say if the shot fired from the knoll came from a pistol - Weiss responds that all he knows is that the shot was super-sonic and that as far as he knows pistols do not fire at such high velocities (01:42:25) Fauntroy asks the committee itself, what information they have about a person who supposedly was on the grassy knoll, claimed he was a secret service agent and flashed identification - Blakey responds that a police officer on the knoll encountered such a person but that the person was not identified and no more information was available about him (01:44:08) Stokes recognizes Representative CHRISTOPHER DODD, Dodd asks if any of the techniques used by Aschkenasy and Weiss and Barger were not available 15 years ago - Weiss responds no other than an inconsequential test of Barger's (01:45:50) Dodd and Weiss discuss and discount the possibilities of what other noises could have caused the sound wave pattern that has been identified as the knoll gun shot (01:47:38) Dodd, Weiss and Aschkenasy have a long discussion about the sound of a bell which is heard on the police tape - Weiss and Aschkenasy say it most likely came from another radio at another location sharing the transmission band, the two men then go on though to explain why this still does not allow for the possibility that the sound waves they identified as gun shots could have come from anywhere other than Dealey Plaza (01:55:06) Representative FLOYD FITHIAN confirms with Weiss and Aschkenasy that they entered their analysis without preconceptions about what they would find and that they had no outside influences pushing them in any particular direction, Fithian then asks the two men about the use of acoustical analysis in criminal cases - they both say that the use of the science in criminal cases is new but the science itself is old and always abides by the same rules regardless of the context of its application (02:01:40) Fithian wants to differentiate between Barger's tests and those of Aschkenasy and Weiss - Aschkenasy's response is cut short by the end of the tape