Audio Analysis Brings New Revelations From Kent State Shooting 289
a_nonamiss writes "The Cleveland Plain Dealer is reporting today on new forensic analysis by audio scientists Stuart Allen and Tom Owen on a recently discovered audio tape from the Kent State shootings. The analysis suggests that four shots from a .38-caliber pistol were fired 70 seconds before the National Guard opened fire on a crowd of student protesters, killing four and wounding nine others. The alleged shooter, student Terry Norman, was hired by the FBI to take photos of the protesters. It has been known for some time that he had a .38-caliber pistol on his person the day of the shootings, but he has always claimed that the gun was not fired during the protest, a claim that was backed up in sworn testimony from authorities at the time."
Cause and Effect (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Was this Hoover's rogue FBI? (Score:4, Informative)
If it was Hoovers blackmailing rogue "evil" FBI, the same FBI that was doing cointel pro and using urban warfare tactics on the weathermen and black panthers, this is an FBI that could have easily incited this. They call them agent provocateurs. Their role is to incite violence.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agent_provocateur [wikipedia.org]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kVNu9XWQob4 [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:2)
That's not the problem. The problem is that 70 seconds is an eternity when it comes to modern firearms.
Re:Cause and Effect (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Cause and Effect (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
kill yourself, fascist
It's funny how this is marked troll but what he's responding to isn't. Society is doomed. (Yes, I just determined that by the mod behavior on Slashdot.)
Re: (Score:2)
That goes double for people implying they're planning to use "second amendment remedies" if their candidates don't win.
Let then. No where in the second amendment does it give people the right to kill others, simply the right to bear arms. If a bunch of people show up with arms bared and start shooting they could all be thrown away for reckless endangerment, assault with a deadly weapon, attempted murder, murder, manslaughter, etc.
Re:no firearms != unarmed (Score:5, Interesting)
Ever been hit in the face with a thrown rock? It won't just leave a bruise; you WILL require surgery, and pray to God you don't have a fractured skull or spinal column (the likely result if the rock busts through your teeth into your mouth).
This sounds as if you were hit on the face with a thrown rock. Were you?
I actually researched this once, in the context of the Israeli soldiers killing Palestinian rock-throwers and justifying it with the claim that stones were "lethal weapons."
No Israeli soldier was ever killed by a Palestinian throwing a rock at him.
As it turned out, Slate had an article on the more general subject ("Getting stoned: how many police officers have been killed by rocks?"), which reported 3 police officers killed by rocks, 1 of them thrown, since 1792, and none in the last 70 years (out of 18,983 fatalities). Police departments teach that a rock isn't deadly beyond 50 feet.
I can't imagine how a policeman wearing riot gear, which includes a helmet and face shield, could be killed by a thrown rock.
(Actually, I was hit in the face myself with a thrown rock, by a neighborhood kid who was pelting my house with stones. He broke the window I was looking through. I had a minor cut from the glass, but no serious damage. I caught the kid and brought him home to his parents, who were profusely apologetic and fixed the window.)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, I know anecdotal evidence means practically everything and Slate's research department is so thorough and concise that it's useless to argue against it, even after the writers expand on it and take things into their own context to prove a point that supports your view of Israel and Palestinian rock throwers.
Anyways, I was hit in the head with a rock once when I was 14. It was at camp and someone was throwing rocks over the side of a hill totally clueless that someone else may have been down hill. Well
Re:no firearms != unarmed (Score:5, Informative)
Re:no firearms != unarmed (Score:4, Insightful)
FBI response to information requests (Score:5, Funny)
Reporter: We want to interview Terry Norman. Where is he?
FBI Liazon: He's deceased.
Reporter: Oh, I'm sorry to hear that. When did he die?
FBI Liazon: Tomorrow.
It pays to know older people (Score:5, Interesting)
He is working on a blog post about it now.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The copy of the tape was found in 2007. Have there been "various trials and news specials" in the last 3 years about an event that's 40 years old?
Huh? Not that I know of in the past 3 years. Other copies of the same tape have been in use for 40 years. I hope that eases your confusion. He got the post finished here [blogspot.com].
Re:Cause and Effect (Score:4, Interesting)
Grew up in the area, had friends that (later) went to KSU, was pre-HS at the time.
My father had a friend at work who had a daughter going to KSU. A few days before this got so bad, she called her dad, telling about what she heard from the apartment above. (thin walls, thin floors, cheap college rental) She heard the students there calling all over the US, lining up people to bring in to help with the protest. She was scared - her father picked her up and brought her home.
Re:Cause and Effect (Score:5, Insightful)
At some point, the soldiers selected targets and fired on them. No matter what the "tension" or "provocation," those men placed their cross-hairs on people who were obviously not a threat and executed them.
I would love to hear, in the soldiers' own words, how they picked their targets.
Re:Cause and Effect (Score:4, Insightful)
Protestors are always a threat to those in power, whom the soldiers serve. In the end, the US - or any other country - is no different from China. Fear keeps the people in line. Fear of being killed next.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
70 seconds seems like a substantial delay between an action and a provoked response
Not really. It sounds like just about enough time for the chain-of-command to relay an order down to the troops to clear out the area with force.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
\
Indeed. From TFA:
Re:Cause and Effect (Score:4, Interesting)
It doesn't mean it was HIS .38 firing. That's hardly an uncommon caliber.
Re:Cause and Effect (Score:5, Informative)
More from TFA:
The new analysis of the audio recording lends credibility to existing evidence that Norman fired *his* gun. It's no longer just a case of his word against that of a bunch of hippie protestors, and warrants the further investigation that is now taking place.
Re:Cause and Effect (Score:5, Interesting)
My brother was a student at Kent State and there the day of the shooting. He had always insisted that the guards did not fire first.
Re:Cause and Effect (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Cause and Effect (Score:4, Funny)
Oh, sorry, wrong conversation.
Re: (Score:2)
Looks like the FBI fired first.
In the article it says that photographer was free-lance and sold photos to the FBI after events, not an FBI employee.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Looks like the FBI fired first.
Based on what, besides your paranoid conspiracy theories? The photographer wasn't an FBI agent, he essentially took a free lance job from them. And this tape doesn't necessarily prove that HE was the shooter, just that someone fired 38 caliber bullets before the National Guard opened fire.
People here keep assuming that it was some federal conspiracy, when it's more likely it was the work of some radical students. This WAS the era of the SDS and Weathermen, after all. It's not like there weren't any students
The whole thing could have been planned. (Score:2)
I don't and will never trust an informant. And if it's an informant then did the informant do this because the FBI wanted to give the national guard the excuse to fire? It almost seems too convenient.
70 seconds ??? (Score:3, Interesting)
In a live fire situation 70 seconds may as well be next Tuesday.
Re:70 seconds ??? (Score:4, Interesting)
It's true. The average gunfight lasts mere seconds...now, what happened an Kent State was anything but average, but still...over a minute?
There are so many things that are wrong with what happened that day, from all of the evidence, it looks to me and many others like this was orchestrated...someone wanted the anti war college students to be fired on, likely within the FBI - cointelpro, etc.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
In a live fire situation 70 seconds may as well be next Tuesday.
This was 40 years ago. The Ohio National Guard was equipped only with muzzle loaders then and 70 seconds was a quite rapid time to load and fire. Its a good thing they didn't bring in the trebuchets.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Sniper fire from a .38 Special revolver? Not likely. Doesn't even sound similar.
It's more likely they fired because they were ordered to [cleveland.com].
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
First definition i found for "sniper" - "a marksman who shoots at people from a concealed place"
I see nothing in that definition that indicates what style of gun they need to use. granted revolvers aren't accurate at long range but that doesn't preclude them from the definition above.
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed. Someone could even get silly and stick a 2x (or greater) optic on the revolver. There's a popular photo (and/or shop) of a kitten with one... I'm sure you've seen it.
Re: (Score:2)
Optics on revolvers don't help for shots hundreds of feet away, they're just not that accurate. Even mounting one in a clamp to adjust the sights only buys limited accuracy at longer distances. (I've done this, working with a friend to calibrate his laser sights: it was fascinating to learn about.)
The kitten picture you're referring to is this one, I think: http://www.funny.co.uk/stuff/art_175-2815-Sniper-Kitten.html [funny.co.uk]. It's not a pistol, it's a plastic toy. It is a very funny picture: if I'm not mistaken, th
Re: (Score:2)
Bah. Damn brain getting confused. Well, that's no revolver :P
Still - even if the accuracy sucks it could still be considered sniping. Nobody said it had to be good... you could get lucky (or if your plan was to cause disruption... mission accomplished)
Re: (Score:2)
Optics on revolvers don't help for shots hundreds of feet away, they're just not that accurate.
Isn't that partly because of the typical combination of bullet size, amount of gunpowder, and barrel length in a revolver? My granddad had an S&W .22 Jet revolver which I believe came from the factory with an optical sight. It was intended for use as a "varmint gun" on farms. It looked like a full-size .357 or .44 magnum (long barrel, etc.), and the cartridge size was (IIRC) the same as a .357 magnum, but neck
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Well, yes. If you make the barrel of a pistol 2 feet long, you start looking like Jack Nicholson as the Joker handling it. You'll increase the muzzle velocity and reduce the tumbling, so your maximum range will increase. Of course, since your hand always wobbles somewhat, even for a skilled shooter with a 2-handed grip, your grouping will be awful at significant distances, even if your bullets and barrel are the equivalent of a rifle's.
A quick search shows pages like this (http://home.inreach.com/marine/usm
Re: (Score:2)
There's plenty of people who can shoot near-MOA groups at 100 yards with a revolver. That's 300 feet. That's "hundreds of feet" in other words. There's plenty of people who can shoot more accurately at 100 yards with a handgun than an AK-47 is capable of shooting at 100 yards (of course, with deference to very accurate AKs -- some of them have been worked on and can shoot fairly well, but even the 'accurized' sniper-variant AKs that you can find being used to snipe US troops abroad tend more towards a 2"
Re: (Score:2)
Concealment usually implies distance.
Distance means you need a more accurate weapon.
That pretty much eliminates pistols. It also eliminates a lot of rifles too.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Go to a rifle or pistol range and close your eyes, and I'm sure you can distinguish the sounds of a small pistol from a high velocity, high accuracy rifle. Higher muzzle velocity, longer barrel, more explosive involved, etc. all make the sound different. But a few isolated shots across hundreds of feet of distance, in a noisy environment with angry protesters and loudspeaakers in action raising the noise floor, wearing a helmet? That seems extremely unlikely to allow such a clear distinction: the "sniper" c
Re:70 seconds ??? (Score:5, Funny)
Sniper fire from a .38 Special revolver? Not likely. Doesn't even sound similar.
"Don't worry about those bullets coming from an unknown shooter, men, they're only 38's!"
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
There isn't much way to distinguish caliber that precisely (unless the same ammo is fired AT you from a distance day after day).
Further, .38 Special RIFLES have been available for many years before Kent State. It's an OLD (1899) cartridge. If you hear the report, and it's not outgoing, it's not unreasonable to assume it's incoming.
Re: (Score:2)
.38 is hardly uncommon. How do we know it was Norman's that we (now) can hear?
flowers to a gun fight (Score:4, Insightful)
hmm FBI employee shoots his weapon to get something started and then plausibly denys it. nothing to see here.
on that note. never take a flower to a gun fight. when an armed person(legal authority or otherwise) tells you to stop, leave, get out of his face, and you don't have a weapon. you leave, period. you don't just stay there thinking they are not going to shoot you because you are "peaceful". they don't know that and they probably don't care.
Employee or Informant? (Score:2)
Which is it?
Re:Employee or Informant? (Score:4, Informative)
Re:flowers to a gun fight (Score:5, Insightful)
Absolutely. Obey authority. Always. Because they will kill you if you do not.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Absolutely. Obey authority. Always. Because they will kill you if you do not.
WRONG
He said don't go unarmed.
I bet you're against the Second Amendment being interpreted as an individual right, too, aren't you? Now do you see WHY there's a Second Amendment, and why it is an INDIVIDUAL right?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Lovely. Conservatives murder hippie protesters and then use that murder to point out that it wouldn't have happened if everyone would have been armed. You forgot to mention that if taxes weren't so high, the government wouldn't have been able to pay for the Guard to murder the hippies. Really, it was their bad politics that lead to them being shot at since no conservatives were being shot at by the National Guard that day.
Re:flowers to a gun fight (Score:5, Insightful)
Conservatives murder hippie protesters
It is this polarization between parties that results in nothing being accomplished in America. Blanket statements like that are A) False, unless you can confirm that everybody that landed a bullet was a conservative, B) Begging the questions, for them to be murderers renders them shooters, for them to be shooters renders them conservative, for them to be conservative renders them against hippie protesters, round and round we go.
How about just saying that the Man fucked up. Screw party affiliation. If we are always blaming left or right, we will always get screwed up the middle by both. Stop viewing the world through the R-D filter and start viewing it as us (people) vs them (people we elect). Oh wait.
Re: (Score:2)
Thinking About Freedom
Robert LeFevre
The Freeman, February 1983, p. 115
Could I control others by a simple exercise of my own will I would have no reason to inflict control, punishment or death upon another of my kind. Since my wishes would control others, each and every person would gladly do my bidding. Unhappily, for me, this isn’t true.
Every other person has the same kind of control I ha
Re:flowers to a gun fight (Score:5, Insightful)
Or how about noticing that "left" and "right" are pretty much media inventions. To make politics easy to explain using sports metaphors. Yay for our team!
What this was, was people in power manipulating a situation to disadvantage people without power, and masses of people accepting the explanation, because they didn't have much choice, and anyway only one side was really heard. (Different sides in different places, but still only one side.)
It was after this that it coincidentally happened that all the major publishers started being acquired by major corporations...which wasn't a directly profitable action, publishing being relatively unprofitable. But which did mean that those publishers wouldn't print anything that the major corporations didn't approve of. (At least nothing they strongly disapproved of. The control was, and remains, indirect. The management chooses the editor who chooses what to publish.)
In this context it's worth noting that demonstrations now get minimal coverage in any media. This despite the fact that one would expect them to be more newsworthy as that occur less frequently.
Note that this is not a unanimous group. To call this a conspiracy is probably incorrect. It's merely that people in a position of power have certain interests in common that are not the same as the interests of people who are not in a position of power. And they tend to act to forward those interests.
Another thing that happened at around this time was that the political process was nominally loosened by allowing the easier formation of political parties while simultaneously centralized by removing the requirement that broadcasting stations allow equal amounts of partisan campaigning by all parties. This made money the central requirement for being heard. (It had already become a major requirement.)
Also note that in the US the election system (primarily, but not entirely, the means used to count the votes) is so structured that only two parties have a reasonable chance to win an election. There have been only a few times when an incumbent party became so weak that it essentially abdicated it's position to an alternate third party. Even Teddy Rooseveldt wasn't able to overcome this bias. I *think* that Instant Runoff would be quite superior, and I'm quite convinced that Condorcet voting would be superior. And, yes, it's true that it can be proven that no fair voting system can exist, but this doesn't mean that some aren't better than others. And the majority rule system is about the worst. (Not as bad as minority rule, of course.)
Re: (Score:2)
First off, with that reply, it's no wonder you posted AC. It was truly cowardly.
Second, when it came to "hippie protestors" in the 60's, they were often joined by fellow protestors whose intent wasn't quite so peaceful. [wikipedia.org].
Re: (Score:2)
Your right because everyone should be able to live off of 3 dollars an hour.
Re: (Score:2)
Try poking holes in THAT without utterly ignoring a basic economic theory called supply-and-demand.
Not going to every try to poke holes in that, or any other silly, simplistic political ideology. All of them are overly simplistic and fail to really;sum up the complicated mess that is reality; they only serve to self-justify people who have heavy personal investment in political dogmas.
But the basic economic theory called supply-and-demand is that, basic. Yes, the basics exist, but with enough caveats an
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And we wouldn't also now have a system that all but requires a college degree to be competitive. While loading down much of the populace with debts at a time when income is typically lowest, and then burdened by taxes to pay for other people to end up in the same situation.
The reason college is so expensive and ubiquitous is because liberals demanded student loan programs. These increased demand and demand elasticity, which have inflated the price of a college education.
It will be interesting to see what happens when the tuition bubble bursts, but I'm going to guess that you'll blame conservatives for that, too.
Re: (Score:2)
Raising demand elasticity wouldn't hurt the consumer. In fact, higher demand elasticity helps the consumer.
Sorry, should have said that consumers have higher price elasticity. So they're willing to spend more because they can get more loans.
I strongly suspect that your economic theory here is just wrong.
This is just basic microeconomics, not some elaborate theory.
But, for whatever reason, politicians routinely ignore this stuff. Otherwise they'd never call for price controls, protectionism, etc. I don't pretend to understand why.
Re: (Score:2)
I agree. If you aren't born into wealth you have no place at an institution of higher learning.
Depends, if you're willing to become a wage slave to pay off endless loans, you can still do it. You can pay them off quicker, though, if you follow the super-rich liberal example and don't pay your taxes.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
never take a flower to a gun fight
Nor should you throw rocks, bricks, and bottles at a group of people carrying rifles. If anyone provoked the shooting it was the students. Deadly force was probably not justified at the point it was used, but the confrontations had been pretty violent for several days leading up to the shooting.
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed. It's hardly a peaceful protest if people are shouting and throwing dangerous objects about.
If you are throwing anything besides a flower, expect retaliation.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
It's worth pointing out that in those days, there were no non-lethal weapons that were very effective. A rifle and a bayonet deter only by credible threat of use, and when that doesn't work, the operator either loses the field or uses the weapons.
Re:flowers to a gun fight (Score:5, Insightful)
Government agents infiltrate situations or causes to instigate and manufacture threats, violence, or confusion in order to promote or convince the rest of the country to condone action against said infiltrated group? Tell me it ain't so?
Also, in other news, the sky is blue.
It baffles me how people just accept the stories they are fed without ever questioning them. It is downright sickening to see how people just open their heads and let things just pour in, unchecked.
Next thing you know, someone is going to suggest that governments spread stories through the media outlets or back actual actions -- either of which promote suspicion of and urgency in dealing with foreign threats to justify taking action on a national level -- from sanctions to blockades and tariffs to military action against them....!
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:flowers to a gun fight (Score:4, Interesting)
Your statement is very strange. The Kent State shooting contributed directly to the US withdrawal from Vietnam by showing the callousness of the Nixon administration and the unjustness of those calling protests "un-American". By remaining, and being shot, they actually helped end the war by exposing the criminal and callous behavior of those leading the war.
Shooting unarmed protesters has, repeatedly, triggered national changes of policy in favor of the people who were shot. Look up "Crispus Attucks" for an example at the core of the US revolution against British rule.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think he's saying that the students had it coming. He's saying that, in a direct conflict between you and the machinery of the state, there are two outcomes: You fleeing, and you dead. Don't make the mistake of believing that, because you're peaceful, they won't shoot. As this story demonstrates, they'll do whatever they have to, to create a provocation that lets them shoot you.
Re: (Score:2)
There's a third option you missed: the machinery breaks.
It's happened before, and could happen again.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
No psychic signal is necessary. All you need is the "freelance" photographer's boss to say "get in a scuffle and fire some shots where the guardsmen can here you. Or you get another "freelancer" to pick a fight with a guy who has a gun. [I put "freelance" in scare quotes because the photographer's gig was to go to protests and photograph the people there, to sell to the police and FBI.]
When you throw a match on a pool of gasoline, you don't need to send a psychic signal to get the gas to ignite.
Re: (Score:2)
And be prepared to go to jail (or worse) for your beliefs. Ghandi and MLK were.
Re: (Score:2)
The few people that have gone the non-violent peaceful route have changed the world. The problem is there's too many people hiding at home and not enough Ghandi's and Martin Luther King's.
People of strong will change the world. They utilize various methods, but they change the world. Look at the American Revolution, violent and not so violent men fighting for freedom changed the world. The influence that the United States has had on the world is undeniable and that can be attributed to both those who fought with guns and those who fought with politics and diplomacy.
Not a direct provocation, but... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Not a direct provocation, but... (Score:5, Insightful)
I'll give you that Mr. Norman probably didn't directly trigger the massacre, although shooting a gun in a crowd of angry people probably didn't contribute to happy peaceful feelings at the protest. However, the government at the time seems to have actively and knowingly participated in a cover-up. This bothers me a lot. It should bother everyone. A lot.
Re:Not a direct provocation, but... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Not a direct provocation, but... (Score:5, Insightful)
Spend any time with the justice system and you will see this for yourself.
It's not just Hollywood nonsense. Cops actually act like this. It's probably not limited to American cops either.
Cops won't even make their lies terribly believable. They benefit greatly from the respect they get from most people.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
in other words, as a citizen confronted with the continued silence by 'good' cops on the crimes of the 'bad' cops one must assume all cops to be 'bad'. because if one cop decides to cave in your skull you cannot count on another cop to ever act as an agent of the law on your behalf, quite the opposite, in fact.
Re: (Score:2)
I've never met a cop that didn't separate the world into two camps, cops and criminals. And anyone that is "clean" just hasn't been caught. You might assert such cops exist, but I've never met one.
Re: (Score:2)
You've been watching too many cop shows on TV.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
a) Mr. Norman was on the payroll of the FBI at the time
[citation needed]
Re: (Score:2)
Norman was on campus the day of the protests, wearing a gas mask and and a .38-caliber pistol for protection. He was photographing demonstrators and said he regularly sold the photos to the FBI and the Kent State police department.
(Emphasis is mine)
Re:Not a direct provocation, but... (Score:5, Informative)
Read more carefully. While the officer was seen opening Norman's gun by a camera crew, it seems they weren't filming at the time. The reason the new analysis is interesting is that it contradicts the FBI's claim that that gun was not fired, while matching up well with eyewitness accounts ("oh my God, he fired four times") which were made by people with no knowledge of the tape.
Re: (Score:2)
True, though the people who made the tapes may well have had knowledge of the eyewitness accounts, so it's not as convincing as two completely independent conclusions. It's possible that those doing the audio analysis were influenced (whether consciously or not) by what they were looking for.
Actual story (Score:5, Informative)
--it should have been in TFS.
Does this mean... (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
They're Neil's lyrics -- and why would he need to revise them? She's still dead on the ground.
And this Terry fellow could very well be described as a Tin Soldier. ...that said, I'm still not sure what the President's orgasms had to do with that shooting.
Great when the truth finally comes out... (Score:2)
It may have been 40 years ago but it was a major event in US History that still reverberates today so it's wonderful when the truth of what happened is finally, finally revealed. The protesters wanted to believe that the guardsmen opened fire for no reason. The guardsmen wanted to believe that the protesters were trying to shoot them. In the end, the shootings were provoked by Norman who should be tracked down and prosecuted to the extent possible. Maybe, someday, the truth will also come out about the othe
Re: (Score:2)
What caliber was used on the students? (Score:2)
What did ballistic forensics say was the caliber of the bullets that killed the students? Won't this show if the .38 pistol was used?
Re:What caliber was used on the students? (Score:5, Informative)
Ohio Gov. James Rhodes still a criminal (Score:2, Interesting)
For ordering the Ohio National Guard to be at Kent State. Maybe I'll go spit on his grave today.
cointelpro (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Should Have Shot Them All (Score:5, Insightful)
Should have shot all of the traitors.
Except where would Obama get his advisors?
if you think shooting "traitors", such as those college kids, is acceptable, then shouldn't you be shot now for your opposition to Obama?
nice logic!