Talk:John F. Kennedy assassination Dictabelt recording

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Texas portal This article is supported by WikiProject Texas (assessed as Low-importance).

Bias

Frankly, this article is biased and misleading in the extreme. The current product is a naive overview, without adequate substantiation, of an extremely deep and complex technical discussion. The best way to judge the quality of a technical analysis is to consider the experience and qualifications of the parties conducting the analysis. While this is hardly determinative, it provides some insight into assigning likelihoods to conflicting and contradictory results. Specifically:

The study of the recording by Bolt Beranek and Newman was conducted by the foremost scientific acoustics consultancy in the nation. Individual staff members contributing to this analysis were world-class acousticians and statisticians. The result was not something that could be trivially discarded by opinionated but uninformed and incapable people (including the FBI and other critics of this finding). The follow up study by the team from Queens University brought the foremost analytical capabilities from academia to bear on the problem. The QU team made extensive recordings to document the dynamic acoustics of the Dealy Plaza area as a basis for refined modeling of the possible events which led to and extended the orignal BBN analysis.

After news of this analysis became publicly available, the FBI hurried to find someone to refute the evidence. In this they failed miserably. Subsequent commentators were grossly unqualified to understand or pass judgment on the very complex and sophisticated work of BBN and QU. The press was incited to make fun of the BBN-QU studies as the product of "eggheads" to be ignored. Unfortunately, such political and social interference in a scientific effort all too often results in absudities becoming "common knowledge". In this case, the not-so-subtle effort to suppress the scientific/acoustic truth was largely successful, as indicated by the biased tone of this article, which fails to examine the actual qualifications of the various unqualified and partisan groups and individuals who were drafted to publicly oppose the BBN/QU findings, while more or less freely embracing their criticisms.

I suggest, at a minimum, this article should be flagged as controversial. To present it as a fair discussion is obscene.

68.55.164.69 00:18, 7 January 2007 (UTC)ldmjr@comcast.net[reply]

I believe the above was written by a deceased former employee of BBN, however, the comments that "the FBI hurried to find someone to refute the evidence" and "various unqualified and partisan groups and individuals who were drafted to publicly oppose the BBN/QU findings" should be addressed. First, it was the HSCA who recommend that the DoJ conduct further investigation of the acoustic findings. Second, the NAS group included Norman Foster Ramsey, Jr., Luis Walter Alvarez, Herman Chernoff, Robert H. Dicke, Richard Garwin, and Paul Horowitz, so it is not so easy to dismiss them as unqualified. - Location (talk) 15:42, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Bolt Beranek Newman report is a warning example of how not to do science. http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/jfkinfo/jfk8/sound1.HTM Barger et al assumed the conclusion in advance, failed to demonstrate that the necessary conditional premises were met and discounted or falsified evidence that disproved their theory. They never showed that the transmission originated from Dealey Plaza, or that it contained gunshots, or that there was a police motorcycle, with its radio wrongly set to Channel 1 and its microphone button stuck on transmit, just 120 feet behind the President's limousine at the time of the shooting. The internal evidence strongly suggests that the transmission came from the Trade Mart two and a half miles away. Barger et al discounted any number of acoustically suitable impulses as random noise simply because they did not fit the desired pattern (a version of the Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy). The selected 'gunshots' were no more likely to be gunshots, and no less likely to be random noise, than the discounted impulses, unless the position of the police motorcycle could be proved.

Barger et al claimed: 'Frames from the film taken by Robert Hughes, an amateur photographer, were introduced as evidence at the December 29 Hearing. This film was taken from the left-hand edge of Houston St., near Main St. With the camera pointed north up Houston St., the limousine is seen just disappearing around the corner after a left turn onto Elm St. A few frames later a motorcycle passes through the field of view, moving from right to left, proceeding north on Houston St.' In fact the limousine disappears at Hughes frame 608, equivalent to Towner frame 096. Both films can be synchronised with the Zapruder film by the motion of the vehicles, so this is about 13.5 seconds before the fatal shot and probably about 5 seconds before the first, missed shot. HB McLain's motorcycle does not in fact appear in the Hughes film 'a few frames later'. There is an obvious break in the film, measurable at almost exactly two seconds, again by the motion of the vehicles. There is another momentary break of about 0.3 seconds. McLain does not appear until Hughes 631, just under 10 seconds before the fatal shot and probably less than 2 seconds before the first shot (placed by the HSCA at Zapruder 160). He crosses the viewfinder and is last seen at Hughes 648, equivalent to Zapruder 150, about 9 seconds before the fatal shot and probably within 1 second of the first shot. He is then more than 174 feet short of the microphone position where Barger's theory requires him to be at the time of the first shot and he is travelling at about 20 feet per second. He is only going that fast because he is on the outside of the Main-Houston turn and he would otherwise fall back out of position, so he will decelerate as he rounds out of the turn. The Dorman film, shot from the fourth floor of the Book Depository, which again can be synchronised with the Zapruder film, shows McLain finally reaching that microphone position at the Houston-Elm turn about 12 seconds later, after the shooting is over, and he is now going 10 feet per second. His average speed along Houston is about 15 feet per second. He could not possibly have been in the 'Shot 1' position in time, so the Barger theory fails. Computer animator Dale Myers' 2007 study, synchronising the films with the aid of 3D computer modelling, goes into this in some detail. Text version: http://www.jfkfiles.com/jfk/html/acoustics.htm Full version: https://www.heywebguy.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/acoustics_report.pdf Khamba Tendal (talk) 14:17, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dictabelt

I think that the origins of the dictabelt recording may be more relevent then originally thought; maybe that's contraversial? [1][2] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.41.155.8 (talk) 17:47, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain what you mean by "the origins", and why they may be more relevant than originally thought? — Walloon 18:39, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DictaBelt or Dictabelt

All contemporary evidence I have seen from the 1950s and 1960s (packaging, advertisements) spells the word as Dictabelt, not DictaBelt. Ironically, it looks like the Dictaphone historical page is in error about their own product. — Walloon 16:09, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

IMPULES PATTERNS

Somebody included about a billion dead links in this article to every reference to "IMPULES PATTERNS" and "Impulses".

1- First, begin the IMPULES PATTERNS article, then create a hyperlink. 2- Second, only the first reference to a related topic needs to be linked, otherwise you could practically write the every article with nothing more than hyperlinks. Basic wiki stuff, here, folks. 207.237.232.74 (talk) 09:14, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your pedantic instruction misses the mark with the misspelling of "impulse" and your use of all-caps words. The confidence level in your expertise in the editing of Wikipedia pages isn't helped by this. Binksternet (talk) 17:11, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the advice. I see that I misspelled the word; it's due to the fact that while I was removing the multitude of dead links, I copied and pasted from the article itself. Apparently I used a word that was misspelled and CAPITALIZED initially. A misspelling (even repeatedly) does not qualify my edits as 'pedantic', and, truthfully, while I may not be an expert Wikipedian, this does not mean that numerous dead links in an article is acceptable. Isn't that correct? But it's good to see that you can keep calm and polite and that your focus is on the quality of the article, not on name-calling or pointing out the 'expertise level' or 'confidence' of other wiki-users. 207.237.232.74 (talk) 01:11, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

this article is badly written

very poorly organized. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.237.232.74 (talk) 09:25, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

...and your solution is? Binksternet (talk) 17:08, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

...to point out the fact above, that I believe the article is poorly organized and needs attention. Perhaps if you are more invested than I, you could review the article yourself, and make your own opinion known here on the discussion page... If not, then perhaps someone else will see my opinion and agree or disagree, and we could discuss it here. Isn't that how wiki works? PS- I've retitled this section in a more neutral tone. You're welcome. 207.237.232.74 (talk) 01:17, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Beginning time

The open-microphone portion of the recording lasts 5.5 minutes, and begins about a minute after the shooting occured at 12:34 p.m. local time

This has to be revised. Virtually everyone agrees that the shooting occurred at 12:30 p.m., not 12:34. If you mean that the recording began at 12:34, that is still not one minute after the shooting occurred. — Walloon (talk) 14:36, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read my sources? All the experts who have analyzed the tape agree it started a minute after, because of the cross-talk on the tape and for other reasons. If you mean virtually all conspiracy theorists - sure, but you need to make that clear - and as you may note, I kept that in. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 04:58, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article presents the timing of the recording as a solid fact in the opening section and it should not do this!

The claim that the recording, "begins about 12:29 p.m. local time, about a minute before the assassination at 12:30 p.m." is not backed up by the citation number 3 that follows it, from Steve Barbar. You can also check an interview with Barbar on YouTube, entitled, "JFK Assassination Steve Barber Talks About His Acoustic Evidence." Barbar is saying that the recording was made after the shooting and the National Academy of Sciences validated his conclusion in 1982.JKLambert (talk) 18:58, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

and their information was found to be faulted based on "cross talk" that occurs on both channels, but made under the assumption that the two channels were in synch. they are not . 204.101.140.125 (talk) 13:54, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Calibration of the dictabelt evidence to the Zapruder film

While the technical aspects of the dictabelt evidence are complicated and fascinating, there is a rather large elephant in the room - why is there no discussion on attempts to sync the Zapruder film to the supposed audio recording of the assassination? For a very good reason: The four impulses bear no relation to the visual record of the assassination.

Might be worth incorporating this calibration. Here is a discussion of the issue from Michael Beck in 1998, on McAdams' JFK site [3] :

If two permanent records of the assassination really existed, essentially a movie and a soundtrack, why not synchronize the two and present the full record? I was soon to find out.

["Conspiracy" author Anthony] Summers presented the shots as occurring (with zero as a reference) at 1.66 seconds, 7.49 seconds, and 8.31 seconds after the first shot. Shots 1, 2, and 4 were said to come from behind and shot 3 from the "grassy knoll".

Since I had already convinced myself that the fatal shot at Z313 came from behind, and that it occurred after the other wounds were sustained by the two men, I decided to synchronize the film, to the soundtrack myself. What I computed (based on 18.3 frame / sec.) was that the shots occurred at Z152, Z191, Z298, and Z313. That was surprising. My original premise was that different bullets hit JFK and Connally. But my shock was that the acoustics record indicated that both men were hit way before they disappeared behind the sign on Elm street. That didn't make sense. Connally was obviously not hit until (I thought at the time) Z230 or so. It just didn't add up.

I then tried to synchronize the time-line using the third (frontal) shot as the fatal headshot at Z313. The results weren't better. I was left with shots at Z167, Z206, and Z313 and one later than the fatal hit. Again, I found frustration since the action just couldn't be linked to the time frame established by the acoustics evidence. What was presented, as "a scientific certainty" couldn't even pass a simple, preliminary examination. This basic fact really made me start questioning the entire set of "facts" presented by the "conspiracy buffs". My government had just completed spending millions of taxpayer dollars on a study that concluded that the acoustics evidence "proved" a conspiracy. But this same evidence couldn't be matched to the Zapruder film. Furthermore, it was obvious that the conspiracy writers like Summers danced around this point or avoided the obvious and simple question. My conclusions certainly didn't match those of Robert Groden who later wrote in High Treason (page 262) "When the fourth shot matched the head shot, no other shots aligned to a verifiable action on the film. But when the third shot was matched up, every other impulse matched an action on the film exactly". I obviously didn't come to the same conclusion.

Canada Jack (talk) 20:03, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm an utter amateur but I wanted to toss in the idea that, of course, the speed with which a given sound travels from its source (x; y) to a given point (the location of the Dictabelt) may be material to the issue of syncing to the film: was the officer located near the motorcade, near a gunman, or further away? Al Begamut (talk) 05:01, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 21 August 2015

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved to John F. Kennedy assassination Dictabelt recording. No one is happy with the current title and this has got the most support of the alternate titles. Jenks24 (talk) 10:12, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dictabelt evidence relating to the assassination of John F. Kennedy → Dictabelt evidence – The current title is overly precise. There is other known historical discussion of "dictabelt evidence" in any other case but the JFK assassination, and Dictabelt evidence already redirects here. Hence, let's make it so. hbdragon88 (talk) 22:59, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose the nomination as given. The title isn't overly precise, just overly wordy. A better title would be Kennedy assassination Dictabelt recording or similar. 209.211.131.181 (talk) 02:31, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, I'd be open to anything but the current title, really. Let's not get into too much procedure. hbdragon88 (talk) 02:44, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, there's no doubt that the current title is terrible. 209.211.131.181 (talk) 03:25, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment there's more than one Kennedy assassination. RFK was also assassinated. You'd need "John" attached to that. -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 04:35, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong oppose WP:PRECISE the proposed title does not describe the topic of the article sufficiently to determine what it is about. This is not the JFK Presidential Library Wiki, we do cover other subjects besides JFK. -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 04:34, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - seriously WP:PRECISE needs rewriting to prevent RMs like this even coming to proposal. In ictu oculi (talk) 06:24, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't mean to come off as hostile, but nobody here is really helping me understand what part of the guideline I have misread/misinterpreted. I mean, if you do a Google search for just "Dictabelt" (not logged in, cleared cookies), four of the first ten hits talk about it in relation to the JFK assassination already. So, then, do you and the other IP address believe this is an example like Leeds North West where we add a disambiguation anyway...or what? hbdragon88 (talk) 07:00, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that the problem is that the suggestion is so imprecise as to be misleading. It may be true that only one case has 'Dictabelt evidence' as an important factor, but the reader does not know that. The suggestion in the title is that the article is going to be about 'Dictabelt evidence' in general, like 'DNA evidence' etc. Pincrete (talk) 10:04, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per 209.211.131.181, "The title isn't overly precise, just overly wordy." How about Kennedy assassination dictabelt evidence? Pincrete (talk) 10:04, 22 August 2015 (UTC) ps I don't think it necessary to distinguish John F. from Robert.Pincrete (talk) 10:04, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose changing to Dictabelt evidence, but tentatively support name change. We have John F. Kennedy assassination rifle, so other options are John F. Kennedy assassination Dictabelt evidence (my preference) or John F. Kennedy assassination Dictabelt recording (similar to the suggestion by 209.211.131.181). John F. Kennedy assassination acoustic evidence or John F. Kennedy assassination acoustical evidence are other options as newspaper sources during the various investigations referred to "acoustic evidence" or "acoustical evidence"; the HSCA used "acoustical".[4] (I am hesitant to support either of these options in that it opens the gateway for editors to add "witness X testified that she heard a shot from the grassy knoll".) Other variations of the above: Dictabelt evidence in the assassination of John F. Kennedy, Dictabelt recording in the assassination of John F. Kennedy, Acoustic evidence in the assassination of John F. Kennedy, and Acoustical evidence in the assassination of John F. Kennedy. There is also Dallas Police Department Dictabelt recording. - Location (talk) 15:02, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would be very wary of the generic "acoustical evidence", for the same reason you are. The title should clearly be about this one item of evidence, just as the title of the Zapruder film article is. 209.211.131.181 (talk) 15:28, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose proposed title, Support John F. Kennedy assassination Dictabelt recording per User:Location. SnowFire (talk) 18:21, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose this, support John F. Kennedy assassination Dictabelt recording Location. Question: should we or should we not capitalize Dictabelt? Gamaliel (talk) 19:58, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Gamaliel: I think Dictabelt is the brand name. The HSCA capitalized it, too.[5] - Location (talk) 20:38, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, but support John F. Kennedy assassination Dictabelt recording. Binksternet (talk) 21:04, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on John F. Kennedy assassination Dictabelt recording. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:25, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on John F. Kennedy assassination Dictabelt recording. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070428232229/http://www.rd.com:80/content/can-technology-solve-the-jfk-murder/ to http://www.rd.com/content/can-technology-solve-the-jfk-murder/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:31, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on John F. Kennedy assassination Dictabelt recording. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Corrected formatting/usage for http://geocities.com/whiskey99a/dbt2002.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:27, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on John F. Kennedy assassination Dictabelt recording. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Corrected formatting/usage for http://pages.prodigy.net/whiskey99/emendations.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:27, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on John F. Kennedy assassination Dictabelt recording. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.forensic-science-society.org.uk/Thomas.pdf
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050520074845/http://www.courttv.com:80/onair/shows/kennedy/JFK_Audio_Analysis_Report.doc to http://www.courttv.com/onair/shows/kennedy/JFK_Audio_Analysis_Report.doc

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:48, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on John F. Kennedy assassination Dictabelt recording. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:07, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]