Brown/Weidmann, Mini-Debate?

[Mitch Todd]

That turns out to be an invalid assumption, given that the supervisor of the dispatchers, James Bowles, is on record saying that the clocks were not precise, were not regularly calibrated or synchronized, and the dispatcher didn’t always say what was on the clock at the time of the announcement.

https://www.jfk-online.com/bowles1.html#ref

Specifically, what in Bowles missive do you think invalidates the analysis?

[Martin Weidmann]

Specifically, what in Bowles missive do you think invalidates the analysis?

The analysis was fine as long as you kept it neutral, starting with Bowley's call at 0:00:00.

As soon as you related the timeline to the first timestamp either being at 1:19:00 or 1:19:59 you invalidated the analysis and conclusions simply because you completely ignored everything Bowles told the HSCA about time calls not being made correctly, dispatcher's clocks not matching, by as much as two minutes, the master clock in the town hall, which in turn did not match real time.

To assume that the timestamps were 100% correct after all, when the likelyhood of that being the case is nearly non existent, given what Bowles said, invalidates the conclusion that Callaway's call happened at 1:20:06PM +/- 10 seconds.

[Mitch Todd]

The analysis was fine as long as you kept it neutral, starting with Bowley's call at 0:00:00.

As soon as you related the timeline to the first timestamp either being at 1:19:00 or 1:19:59 you invalidated the analysis and conclusions simply because you completely ignored everything Bowles told the HSCA about time calls not being made correctly, dispatcher's clocks not matching, by as much as two minutes, the master clock in the town hall, which in turn did not match real time.

To assume that the timestamps were 100% correct after all, when the likelyhood of that being the case is nearly non existent, given what Bowles said, invalidates the conclusion that Callaway's call happened at 1:20:06PM +/- 10 seconds.

Bowles didn't tell the HSCA anything. His FUDdly screed was written well after the HSCA had closed up shop.  I swear I brought this up before, and you'd acknowledged it.

Bowles does not say that the dispatcher's clocks could differ by two minutes. He said that the dispatcher clocks were kept to within a minute of each other. Francis Cason, one of the phone operators in the dispatch center, also testified that the clocks were kept to within a minute of each other.  Bowles did say that the various clocks in the dispatch center could vary by as much as two minutes from city hall time, but that doesn't invalidate what he as Cason said. And, since I'm just talking about channel one time, the City Hall clock (and what you call "real time") doesn't even begin to come into play.

You'll have to try again.

[Martin Weidmann]

Bowles does not say that the dispatcher's clocks could differ by two minutes.

Bowles;
A master clock on the telephone room wall was connected to the City Hall system. This clock reported "official" time. Within the dispatcher's office there were numerous other time giving and time recording devices, both in the telephone room and in the radio room. Telephone operators and radio operators were furnished "Simplex" clocks. Because the hands often worked loose, they indicated the incorrect time. However, their purpose was to stamp the time, day and date on incoming calls. While they were reliable at this, they were not synchronized as stated in the Committee report. Therefore, it was not uncommon for the time stamped on calls to be a minute to two ahead or behind the "official" time shown on the master clock.

He said that the dispatcher clocks were kept to within a minute of each other.

Misrepresent much?

Bowles;
Accordingly, at "exactly" 10:10, various clocks could be stamping from 10:08 to 10:12, for example. When clocks were as much as a minute or so out of synchronization it was normal procedure to make the needed adjustments. During busy periods this was not readily done.

In addition to the times stamped on calls by telephone operators, the radio operators stamped the "time" as calls were dispatched, and the "time" that officers completed an assignment and returned to service. 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.

Next, consideration should be given to the methods of individual radio operators. A given operator at a given time might broadcast "time" a little early in one event then a little late the next. Accordingly, a call initiated at, say, 10:10 might be stamped at 10:13 by the dispatcher, only to have intervening radio traffic delay his broadcast. He might go ahead and announce the dispatch time as 10:13 and the digital clock then showed 10:14. Time intervals of less than one minute were never used.

And, since I'm just talking about channel one time, the City Hall clock (and what you call "real time") doesn't even begin to come into play.

You wish, it would only make your speculation "analysis" even more flawed and less valid.

You seem to have missed or ignored the bottom line completely. With dispatcher's clocks out of sychronization, not matching the "official time" of the master clock, which in turn did not match real time and with the two dispatchers not always calling out the correct time, the likelyhood of a time stamp call on the audio recording being 100% correct is minimal. Yet your entire "analysis" is rather foolishly completely based on that time stamp being 100% correct.

There is no way to connect "police time" with "real time." - J.C. Bowles

It seems you are the one who needs to try again.

[John Iacoletti]

By the way, just because it was “normal procedure” to reset the clocks when they were “a minute or two” apart doesn’t mean that the maximum they could ever be off is two minutes.

And I have never seen any compelling reason to assume that the existing recordings are a continuous recording during the time period in question.

[John Iacoletti]

Misrepresent much?

He’s misrepresenting Cason too. Not only does she not say anywhere that the clocks were kept to within a minute of each other, she’s not even talking about the same clock.

[Mitch Todd]

Bowles does not say that the dispatcher's clocks could differ by two minutes.

Bowles;
A master clock on the telephone room wall was connected to the City Hall system. This clock reported "official" time. Within the dispatcher's office there were numerous other time giving and time recording devices, both in the telephone room and in the radio room. Telephone operators and radio operators were furnished "Simplex" clocks. Because the hands often worked loose, they indicated the incorrect time. However, their purpose was to stamp the time, day and date on incoming calls. While they were reliable at this, they were not synchronized as stated in the Committee report. Therefore, it was not uncommon for the time stamped on calls to be a minute to two ahead or behind the "official" time shown on the master clock.

He said that the dispatcher clocks were kept to within a minute of each other.

Misrepresent much?

Bowles;
Accordingly, at "exactly" 10:10, various clocks could be stamping from 10:08 to 10:12, for example. When clocks were as much as a minute or so out of synchronization it was normal procedure to make the needed adjustments. During busy periods this was not readily done.

In addition to the times stamped on calls by telephone operators, the radio operators stamped the "time" as calls were dispatched, and the "time" that officers completed an assignment and returned to service. 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.

Next, consideration should be given to the methods of individual radio operators. A given operator at a given time might broadcast "time" a little early in one event then a little late the next. Accordingly, a call initiated at, say, 10:10 might be stamped at 10:13 by the dispatcher, only to have intervening radio traffic delay his broadcast. He might go ahead and announce the dispatch time as 10:13 and the digital clock then showed 10:14. Time intervals of less than one minute were never used.

You don't understand the words you quote, do you? To wit: "When clocks were as much as a minute or so out of synchronization it was normal procedure to make the needed adjustments." To spell it out for you, that sentence is Bowles' own admission that they kept the dispatcher's clocks within a minute of each other. Just like I said.

The rest is best summarized by the string of weaselly qualifiers that Bowles relies on: "it was not uncommon" (litotes often being the weaseliest of the weaselies, which is why lawyers are so fond of the practice),  "could easily be," "might," "might be," "might go." Nothing more than a big bag of "maybe." The problem is, Bowles was both the supervisor of the dispatch center and the person responsible for the first transcript of the channel one and channel two recordings. As such, he is the one person who would know of any concrete Nov. 22 examples of these maybes and mights and litotic obfuscations. But he can't point to a single example of any of them occurring on Nov 22. There is a reason for that. 

As lagniappe, I offer this particularly clever bit of misdirection:

"Telephone operators and radio operators were furnished "Simplex" clocks. Because the hands often worked loose, they indicated the incorrect time. However, their purpose was to stamp the time, day and date on incoming calls."

So, Bowles said that the hands on the faces of the Simplex clocks "often" [ed: exactly how often is often?] became loose.....and then admits that the DPD didn't use those clock faces to tell time in the first place. But he admits it in a way that the average sucker --that is, you-- is liable to miss it on the way to their self-congratulating, self-serving assumptery.

And, since I'm just talking about channel one time, the City Hall clock (and what you call "real time") doesn't even begin to come into play.

You wish, it would only make your speculation "analysis" even more flawed and less valid.

You seem to have missed or ignored the bottom line completely. With dispatcher's clocks out of sychronization, not matching the "official time" of the master clock, which in turn did not match real time and with the two dispatchers not always calling out the correct time, the likelyhood of a time stamp call on the audio recording being 100% correct is minimal. Yet your entire "analysis" is rather foolishly completely based on that time stamp being 100% correct.

Sorry, Martin, you are the one who keeps missing what is important. For instance, channel one dispatch is handled by one guy from 12:30PM to some time past 1:20. One guy looking at one clock. This one guy and his one clock defines channel one time. So the time announcements he makes are going to be internally consistent with each other, as well as with the other time announcements he makes after 12:30. That's one of the things that makes the analysis I did possible, but it requires that the analysis be limited only to channel one time. And that's exactly what I did. 

You have yet to present any coherent or cogent rebuttal of this analysis. So far, all you can do is once again dredge up some ancient FUD-piece by Bowles that doesn't actually apply to what I've done.  Now, the analysis does lead to the question, how is channel one time offset from channel two time or standard time. I've already done that --if you haven't noticed-- and Mr O'Meara has done something very similar on his own.

There is no way to connect "police time" with "real time." - J.C. Bowles

Which means what, exactly? Really, it's just an assertion by Bowles. That's all you have.