The Bus Stop Farce

[Martin Weidmann]

Practical does not mean convenient. Here are two definitions from the dictionary that are applicable to Bowles’ use of the word:

1. (of an idea, plan, or method) likely to succeed or be effective in real circumstances; feasible

2. so nearly the case that it can be regarded as so; virtual.

And a phrase from the same dictionary:

 for all practical purposes — virtually, or essentially.
"Zimmerman had become, for all practical purposes, an arms smuggler"

You two seem to have a problem with the term “rational assumption.” Just because it is an assumption does not mean that it is arbitrary. In fact rational is an antonym of arbitrary (opposite meaning).

Now, if you have a problem with how Bowles derived the time, and can demonstrate that he made a mistake, lets hear it.

Arbitrary does not describe Bowles’ method by any sense of the word.

You really like to argue an insignificant point to death, while avoiding far more interesting discussions that actually have some significance.

Arbitrary does not describe Bowles’ method by any sense of the word.

Dale Myers describes it as arbitrary! This is what you posted 3 days ago;

Here is an exerpt from Chapter One of “With Malice” by Dale Myers:

Former dispatch supervisor Jim Bowles used a stop watch and some mathematics to deduce a “real” time from the police recordings by comparing an arbitrary zero base-time with the recorded time announcements that followed. A similar technique was applied to the entire channel one recordings for this book. The study shows that with the exception of five areas, the rapid radio exchanges that occurred in the wake of the Kennedy assassination caused the channel one recorder to operate in an almost continuous fashion. The result is a virtual “running clock” on the events surrounding Tippit’s death and the arrest of Lee Harvey Oswald. It should be stressed that the recording contains no exact record of “real time.” What it does contain is a sequence of events whose relationship to one another can be measured. For example, a time check of 1:19 p.m. and a check of 1:22 p.m. do not necessarily relate to “real time,” yet a stop watch review of the tapes show that the two instances did occur three minutes apart. By applying a stop watch and some mathematics to the channel one recordings, and comparing the resulting sequence of events with the eyewitness accounts, a reasonably accurate reconstruction of the Tippit murder and its aftermath was possible. The result is the real-life detective story that follows.

This is what I was suggesting is possible earlier in this thread. Dale’s description is better than mine.

So what's next? Now you are going to argue that Myers, who you relied on before, got it wrong?

Something like; Myers did say he used an arbitrary zero base-time but what Bowles did wasn't arbitrary at all.

[Charles Collins]

You really like to argue an insignificant point to death, while avoiding far more interesting discussions that actually have some significance.

Arbitrary does not describe Bowles’ method by any sense of the word.

Dale Myers describes it as arbitrary! This is what you posted 3 days ago;

So what's next? Now you are going to argue that Myers, who you relied on before, got it wrong?

Something like; Myers did say he used an arbitrary zero base-time but what Bowles did wasn't arbitrary at all.

This is your post that started the whole discussion about arbitrary:

He fixed the time, for practical purposes, at 12:29. That doesn't mean that time was correct. He needed a starting point from where to time the duration of the open mike episode. He could just as easily have used 12:28 or 12:31. What he tried to establish was if the open mike episode could have occurred when the acoustics report claimed it did.

There is no reason that a similar method could not be applied to a particular point in the time frame of the recordings during the period of the Tippit shooting

Oh yes there is a reason. The radio calls were recorded on voice activated devices. When you do not know how long each interval is between each activation you will get nowhere. Had the recording been continuous it would have been a different matter because all you then needed was a starting point. But it wasn't continuous. I have actually heard a part of the dictabelt recording and what the time calls by the dispatchers suggested was a one hour period only lasted (if I remember correctly) 48 minutes on the dictabelt

No, not reliable to tie it down to a particular minute. Who says I only accept the parts of the report I want to? That's total BS. You can do a song and dance routine as much as you like, but you will never be able to deny that Bowles said;

"Telephone operators and radio operators were furnished "Simplex" clocks. Because the hands often worked loose, they indicated the incorrect time."

and

"Radio operators were also furnished with 12-hour digital clocks to facilitate their time references when they were not using call sheets containing stamped time. These digital clocks were not synchronized with any time standard. Therefore, the time "actual" and time "broadcast" could easily be a minute or so apart."

These two factual comments are enough to conclude that the times provided by the dispatchers can not be relied upon.

Scoggins time does not need to match the DPD time. Why do you insist that it must?

For crying out loud, when you claim that DPD times and the time Scoggins gave are correct, they have to be in sinc with eachother, don't you think? There is only one sequence of events that is and can be the right one.....

If the DPD time is off a minute or two, and the cab company’s time is off a minute or two, and the dispatcher delayed his recording of the call to notify the police; then there is no conflict between them.

Aha, I see... between the two of them they can be off by a couple of minutes, but they can't be off against all the other time related evidence that is out there? Got it... that's some special pleading!

So the conflict between Bowley’s watch and the other two times is what is in dispute.

Sure.. and the time(s) Markham's bus left Jefferson, and the time recorded on the authorisation for autopsy which says Dr Ligouri declared Tippit DOA at 1.15, and the time Detective Davenport registered for the DOA and the time that NBC news reported Tippit's DOA (before it actually could have happened in Scoggins' alternative time line).

But there is no way that I will believe that both the DPD and the cab company’s time are off by 6 or 7 minutes.

No worries. There is also no way that I will believe that you are willing to look at the evidence honestly and are only interested in the truth (as you claim) ....  I suppose living in cuckoo land will eventually drive you cuckoo...But it is good of you to expose your bias.

This is a statement from your post that you made that I disagree with:

He fixed the time, for practical purposes, at 12:29. That doesn't mean that time was correct. He needed a starting point from where to time the duration of the open mike episode. He could just as easily have used 12:28 or 12:31.

The point is that his deduction of a time of 12:29: was not arbitrary. He could not have just as easily used 12:28 or 12:31.

Read the entire sentence that Dale Myers wrote:

Former dispatch supervisor Jim Bowles used a stop watch and some mathematics to deduce a “real” time from the police recordings by comparing an arbitrary zero base-time with the recorded time announcements that followed.

The word arbitrary describes his selection of the beginning of the open-mike transmission as his zero base time. Now, he could have selected another point in the recording as his zero-base time and deduced the “real” time accordingly. This is what Dale Myers is saying.

Is the “real” time exact. Hell no. Is the “real” time close to the exact time? Bowles invites anyone to review his methods and decide for himself. His methods are explained in detail. So, knock yourself out if you so desire to. However, there is no way that his decision to use 12:29 is arbitrary. And if either one of you had any integrity whatsoever, you would admit that you are wrong and accept Bowles report and Dale Myers’ words for what they are.

[Bill Chapman]

What wife? Do I have a wife? I thought she died 3 years ago... Is there something you know that I don't?

Are are you just exposing yourself as the true life jerk you are?

My condolences. May she rest in peace.

But I need not apologize, since how could I have possibly known about her passing..

[Martin Weidmann]

My condolences. May she rest in peace.

But I need not apologize, since how could I have possibly known about her passing..

BS.. when you start talking about family members you always need to be careful. But I never expected an apology from you.

[Martin Weidmann]

This is your post that started the whole discussion about arbitrary:

This is a statement from your post that you made that I disagree with:

He fixed the time, for practical purposes, at 12:29. That doesn't mean that time was correct. He needed a starting point from where to time the duration of the open mike episode. He could just as easily have used 12:28 or 12:31.

The point is that his deduction of a time of 12:29: was not arbitrary. He could not have just as easily used 12:28 or 12:31.

Read the entire sentence that Dale Myers wrote:

Former dispatch supervisor Jim Bowles used a stop watch and some mathematics to deduce a “real” time from the police recordings by comparing an arbitrary zero base-time with the recorded time announcements that followed.

The word arbitrary describes his selection of the beginning of the open-mike transmission as his zero base time. Now, he could have selected another point in the recording as his zero-base time and deduced the “real” time accordingly. This is what Dale Myers is saying.

Is the “real” time exact. Hell no. Is the “real” time close to the exact time? Bowles invites anyone to review his methods and decide for himself. His methods are explained in detail. So, knock yourself out if you so desire to. However, there is no way that his decision to use 12:29 is arbitrary. And if either one of you had any integrity whatsoever, you would admit that you are wrong and accept Bowles report and Dale Myers’ words for what they are.

And there you go.... arguing for argument's sake.

When you start out with something that's arbitrary everything that follows is by definition arbitrary.

I've already proven beyond any doubt that the time stamps on the DPD recording do not justify the conclusion that Tippit was killed at 1.14. So, either the 1.17 and 1.18 time stamps for the calls by Bowles and Callaway (both men made calls roughly within 2 minutes after the shots and not 4) are wrong or Myers is pathetically bad at mathematics.

However, there is no way that his decision to use 12:29 is arbitrary.

You can take that up with Dale Myers. He seems to disagree with you.

And if either one of you had any integrity whatsoever, you would admit that you are wrong and accept Bowles report and Dale Myers’ words for what they are.

You really mean we should take your version of what Bowles and Myers said for what it is, don't you?

But you just keep on believing the fairytale.

[Bill Chapman]

BS.. when you start talking about family members you always need to be careful. But I never expected an apology from you.

So, you don't even accept my condolences. You're a class act, Martin. You can't even put differences aside for one moment, can you. That speaks volumes as to your involvement here.

By contrast, when I mentioned the death of my brother in May 2018, John Iacoletti was the only member on this entire forum to offer condolences. And in a timely manner, I might add.

[Martin Weidmann]

So, you don't even accept my condolences. You're a class act, Martin. You can't even put differences aside for one moment, can you. That speaks volumes as to your involvement here.

By contrast, when I mentioned the death of my brother in May 2018, John Iacoletti was the only member on this entire forum to offer condolences. And in a timely manner, I might add.

So, you don't even accept my condolences.

Where did I say that? All I said was that I did not expect an apology from you.

You're a class act, Martin. You can't even put differences aside for one moment, can you. That speaks volumes as to your involvement here.

So, you decide to turn it into an issue and I am the class act? Really?

[Bill Chapman]

So, you don't even accept my condolences.

Where did I say that? All I said was that I did not expect an apology from you.

You're a class act, Martin. You can't even put differences aside for one moment, can you. That speaks volumes as to your involvement here.

So, you decide to turn it into an issue and I am the class act? Really?

You brought it up; I offered my condolences.
You disrespected that. Tell us who made this an issue.

Are you sure you're honouring your wife's memory here today?

You started your reply with 'BS'.
I'll take that as meaning my entire post.

'You're a class act' is obviously meant as sarcasm in this context. (Let me change that to a 'real' class act so the sarcasm might be made clear to any mentally-challenged posters here). What the hell happened to your self-proclaimed 'superior education'?

And you are doing what you just accused Charles Collins of doing: Arguing for the sake of argument.

--------------------------------------------------

You lot break up things into far too many pieces
Then break up those pieces into evermore tiny pieces

Inspired by Vincent Bugliosi's 'split the split hairs'