With John Costella, Ph.D. on board, a man of science and scholastic achievement that includes a Ph.D. in physics and a Bachelor of Engineering and Science degree, most would, I think, expect to find that research and claims questioning the authenticity of the Zapruder film have reached a new level. A level one would expect to demonstrate scientific methodology, employing logic, reason, research and application of the null hypothesis.

While technical discussions of de-blurring, distortion, pincushion effects, "ghost images" and the like, peppered with references to complicated algorithms, are far and away over the heads of most readers, Costella does, it seems, give readers a peek at his scientific approach and methodology at work on another subject in his chapter in the recently released book, "The Great Zapruder Film Hoax." Costella devotes a sizeable chunk of his chapter, "A Scientist’s Verdict: The Film is a Fabrication," to Dealey Plaza rain sensors.

Over eight pages, including nine photographs, are spent detailing his adventures in Dealey Plaza discovering, considering and concluding that four rain sensors are, in fact, listening devices. Devices strategically placed to eavesdrop on the conversations and work of important assassination researchers.

Yes, audio surveillance. Costella rambles on about symmetrical placement, filtering out background noise and other information detailing this find. One sensor stood out as particularly suspicious because of its placement on the back of an "Airports" sign instead of on a lamppost like the other three. Its location, he notes, is "… by far the closest location to the concrete pedestal on which Zapruder allegedly stood when shooting his film. The only reason to put the device on the back of the Airports sign was blindingly obvious: concealment." More researchers gather – and talk – in this area, you see.

Costella says, "Having determined, to my satisfaction, the reason for the existence of the devices, I gave them no further thought during my visit to Dallas."

Satisfaction? "Determined" what exactly?

Did Costella do any research into the irrigation system installed in Dealey Plaza? He mentions none in his chapter, and failed to respond when I asked him this very question on alt.assassination.jfk.

Dealey Plaza is a park of about three acres, bordered by Commerce St. on one side, Elm St. on the other, and divided in half by Main St. All are major, busy and wide streets. How many controllers, governing how many zones, take care of watering the plaza? Is the entire plaza watered at one time, or are sections watered hours … or even days … apart?

Did Costella do any research into these rain sensors? He mentions none in his chapter, and failed to respond when I asked him this very question on alt.assassination.jfk.

It took me about 30 seconds on Google to find the very brand of rain sensors shown in the photos he included in his chapter. The "Wireless RainSensor" is manufactured by R&D Engineering; Dealey Plaza has the WRS1 model.

Installation specs note that the transmitter (the nefarious "listening device") has a 300 foot line of sight range to the receiver, which must be housed indoors. Information on the web site did not say whether or not a sensor is required for each controller, or if they could be networked together, but a phone call to the company, phone number is on their web site, would have made that information readily available to him.

For an electrical engineer, the most obvious way to test a thesis concluding that these rain sensors were instead audio surveillance devices, would have been to determine if they were actually transmitting audio on an RF link. Did he do this either? He doesn’t mention it in his book, and when I asked him this exact question on alt.assassination.jfk, he did not respond.

Information on the Wireless RainSensor web site notes that this sensor complies with FCC part 15 and also includes the Industry Canada Certification number, through which one … certainly an engineer … could glean useful information about the system, how it transmits, etc. by visiting the Industry Canada web site. Even without knowing this information about this particular rain sensor, anyone knowledgeable and competent in electronics could rent, borrow, beg or steal either a spectrum analyzer or an EMC receiver. Either of these devices, connected to a small antenna or near field probe, would detect any transmission emanating from the sensor. Evaluation of the signal would determine if audio signals were being transmitted on the carrier at times when the rain sensor should not be transmitting. The Wireless RainSensor sends a signal to its receiver only when it has detected a set amount of rain, and then again when it has become dry and reset itself. Whisper sweet nothings to one of these sensors on a dry day, with transmission analyzer and antenna in hand, and if it’s a listening device, it will begin transmitting a signal.

Simple as that.

With not even the most elementary research/evaluation of other possibilities, Costella’s "satisfaction" and what he "determined" is nothing more than an assumption on his part, apparently requiring no more than his imagination to reach a conclusion … and publish it. There is no evidence that he took even one simple step to test his conclusion that these rain sensors are audio surveillance devices. He apparently took his observation and determination seriously enough to devote over 8 pages and 9 photographs to it in his chapter … and all based on zero inquiry, nada research and zip simple experimentation with a common analyzer.

If he is this easily satisfied regarding the rain sensors, how scientifically robust is his research on the authenticity of the Zapruder film? Should this give readers pause when considering what Costella plates up for them as his evidence and conclusions on the film? That’s something each reader will have to decide for themselves.

For more on Dr. Costella's study of the rain sensors, see Dave Perry's Rain Senseless.