The Synchronizing Cross-Talk Event
Polynomial Trend Model for Time Gap in Cross-Talk Events in Channel 1 from Channel 2
We used the cross-talk event "I'll Check It" for synchronization purposes between Channel 1 and Channel 2. As mentioned in the Gray Audograph section of this study we expected to find a polynomial trend with regard to the decompression of the audio on Channel 2 as compared to Channel 1 after the sync cross-talk event. In simple terms the audio on Channel 2 is much faster than the audio in Channel 1 for a few minutes until the playback warp is self-corrected thus the audio on Channel 2 slows down and aligns with Channel 1.
What We Expected
Figure 4 - Hyphothetical Model of Polynomial Trend of Decompression of Channel 2 Audio Compared to the Time Gap in Cross-Talk Events in Channel 1.
The graph above represents the polynomial rate of change that would be associated with the decompression of Channel 2 audio. The vertical axis represents the hypothetical time, in seconds, that would separate hypothetical cross-talk events in Channel 1 that would originate in Channel 2. As the gap increases, represented in negative seconds, a point would be reached where the gap between hypothetical cross-talk events between Channel 1 and 2 would reach its most extreme thus the gap would close and eventually align. This is represented as a polynomial rate of change.
This is not what we found. We discovered, by using actual cross-talk events, that a drastic gap existed between cross-talk events in Channel 1, that originated in Channel 2, that is actually backwards of the hypothetical model.
Like any hypothetical model one must be able to prove it. To prove it we aligned, or synchronized Channel 1 and Channel 2 by using a 2nd cross-talk point (CT2). What we found was what we expected to find.
Figure 5 - Synchronized Channel 1 (Top) and Channel 2 (Bottom) at Cross-Talk Event 2 or CT2
As you can see in the screenshot above the cross-talk events after the sync point (CT2) become more extreme in their time distance between Channel 1 and Channel 2.
Figure 6 - Synchronization at Cross-Talk event 2 (CT2) Time difference between CT events in CH1 and CH2
If we have enough data points the decompression of Channel 2, as compared to the cross-talk events in Channel 1, would resemble a polynomial trend. In the graph above you can see that the negative time difference between the cross-talk events in Channel 1 as compared to the origin of the communications in Channel 2 perfectly matches the first half of the polynomial trend model which would resemble a linear trend then, as we mentioned before, the gap in time would close then eventually align.
Existing and New Cross-Talk Discoveries
We discovered about 10 seconds after the sync cross-talk event of "I'll Check It" in Channel 1 another cross-talk event (CT1) that many researchers have identified as being an event that occurred some 40 seconds to 75 seconds after the sync cross-talk event in Channel 2. This would make no mathematical sense what-so-ever. So we have concluded that this cross-talk event (CT1) is cross-talk that originated some 2 to 4 seconds after the sync cross-talk event of "I'll Check it" in Channel 2 and not an event that happened 75 seconds after the sync cross-talk event. However, the cross-talk audio in Channel 1 with regard to this event is extremely hard to make out, thus we expect our conclusion with regard to this matter to be challenged. It does however match the mathematical model of what we expected to find. We found most of the new cross-talk events by "predicting" where they would be using the "real" trend of the cross-talk events in Channel 1.
Figure 7 - Actual Cross-Talk Events in Channel 1 (Top) as Compared to the Origins in Channel 2 (Bottom). Channel 1 Audio on top and Channel 2 Audio on bottom of photo.
As you can see in the screenshot of the audio analysis software above the cross-talk events in Channel 1, represented by the top signal and associated label being directly below the audio signal or second row, the hypothetical trend was on par with CT1 or cross-talk 1. After this event however, the hypothetical model breaks down in dramatic fashion. Before we get too deep into this analysis we will list all the cross-talk events below with a label next to newly discovered, or corrected, cross-talk events.
CT1 - 10 seconds from Sync point in Channel 1
CT1 - Origin - 2 seconds from Sync point in Channel 2
CT1 - Time Difference: Channel 2 time - Channel 1 = -8 seconds
CT2 - 86 seconds from Sync point in Channel 1
CT2 - Origin - 147 seconds from Sync point in Channel 2
CT2 - Time Difference: Channel 2 time - Channel 1 time = 61.1 seconds
CT3 - 93 seconds from Sync point in Channel 1
CT3 - Origin - 150 seconds from Sync point in Channel 2
CT3 - Time Difference: Channel 2 time - Channel 1 time - 52.47 seconds
CT4 - 112 seconds from Sync point in Channel 1
CT4 - Origin - 152 seconds from Sync point in Channel 2
CT4 - Time Difference: Channel 2 time - Channel 1 time = 39.40 seconds
CT5 - 166 seconds from Sync point in Channel 1
CT5 - Origin - 193 seconds from Sync point in Channel 2
CT5 - Time Difference: Channel 2 time - Channel 1 time = 26.97 seconds
CT6 - 182 seconds from Sync point in Channel 1
CT6- Origin - 208 seconds from Sync point in Channel 2
CT6 - Time Difference: Channel 2 time - Channel 1 time = 25.62 seconds
CT7 - 192 seconds from Sync point in Channel 1
CT7 - Origin - 216 seconds from Sync point in Channel 2
CT7 - Time Difference: Channel 2 time - Channel 1 time = 23.50 seconds
CT8 - 210 seconds from Sync point in Channel 1
CT8 - Origin - 224 seconds from Sync point in Channel 2
CT8 - Time Difference: Channel 2 time - Channel 1 time = 13.80 seconds
CT9 - 321 seconds from Sync point in Channel 1
CT9 - Origin - 317 seconds from Sync point in Channel 2
CT9 - Time Difference: Channel 2 time - Channel 1 time = -4.30 seconds
The data above is represented in the graph below.
Figure 8 - Actual Time Difference between Cross-Talk Events in Channel 1 from Origin in Channel 2
As you can see in the graph above Channel 2 audio, which is compressed, is actually ahead of the cross-talk events in Channel 1, which represents a huge problem that must be solved.
Figure 9 - Illustration of Channel 1 (Top) and Channel 2 (Bottom) and Cross-Talk Events
Missing Audio
The only explanation as to why Channel 2 skipped ahead of Channel 1 is that a portion of the audio is Channel 1 is missing, likely up to 80 seconds of audio.
If you refer to Figure 7 you will notice a "red box" illustrated in Channel 1 audio to the right. This box would represent the region in which it appears audio is missing. Quite ironically this region of audio is where one would expect to find sounds of gun fire during the assassination event, if the motorcycle officer with the stuck microphone was even in the area of the motorcade to begin with. There are a number of explanations as to why audio would "appear" to be missing. The first likely conclusion is that it was purposely deleted, or omitted, from the original recording. However, there could be a perfectly mundane explanation such as; needle skip, needle displacement during playback, a time gap if the recording belt was changed during this time period (This can be answered by examining the inventory of Dictabelt recording belts and the times they covered) and or the recorder stopped .
Recording Stoppage
Each recording machine for both Channel 1 and Channel 2 were programmed to stop recording after "about" 4 seconds of silence. This however should not be the case for Channel 1 as line noise from the Harley Davidson motorcycle engine resulting from the stuck microphone should have been enough noise to keep the Dictabelt recorder from stopping. However, there is no discernible method of identifying where the recording would have stopped after a programmed cutoff. We feel this explanation is not sufficient and will not be considered.
Conclusion
We feel we have scientifically analyzed the acoustic evidence in both Channel 1 and Channel 2 to the best of our ability. We went back to the beginning and used recordings that appear to be the most authentic. We used a recording of Channel 2 reputed to have been "a copy" of the original copy made by Dallas Police Officer J.C Bowles in the days following the assassination of President John F. Kennedy. We confirmed the authenticity of this recording simply by the speed warp associated with it. This speed warp, or playback speed warp, perfectly resembles the same type of warp associated with the Gray Audograph machine in which Channel 2 was recording on.
We also feel we have provided a solid hypothetical model of the "expected" time gaps in cross-talk between the more stable Channel 1 recording and the origin of the cross-talk in Channel 2. We have proven this model by synchronizing CT2 in our study and discovered that the time gaps in cross-talk between Channel 1 and its origin in Channel 2 were increasing, thus the negative trend in seconds. If we had more data points we would have undoubtedly discovered the polynomial trend when the time gaps would have decreased and eventually aligned
However, we have found an anomaly in Channel 1 where the cross-talk audio, that originated in Channel 2, "skipped" ahead of the more compressed Channel 2 audio. Mathematically this is impossible unless a portion of Channel 1 is missing and ironically the portion that appears to be missing is located in a region of Channel 1 where one would expect to find sounds of the assassination event, or gunshots. We also provided a perfectly non-malicious explanation as to why the audio is missing. But at the end of the day it certainly smells.
We have also discovered 5 new cross-talk events and corrected one very important cross-talk event (CT1) that was used to disprove the acoustic analysis made by the HSCA in 1978. We are not confirming their analysis, we are simply providing a mathematical explanation of the origin of the cross-talk in question. We must also stress that out of the 10 cross-talk events provided in this analysis CT1 is by far the hardest to make out, or has the worst audio quality. Thus we certainly expect our conclusion on CT1 to be challenged but hopefully the bulk of evidence will provide the serious Kennedy researcher a reason for pause.
We invite all serious Kennedy researchers to utilize our research. We do however simply request that you give this publication credit when using this analysis. If anyone wants to request a hard-copy or whitepaper of this analysis, or if anyone has any questions, please email us at americaunitedparty AT gmail DOTcom
