MT: When Bowles writes "When clocks were as much as a minute or so out of synchronization it was normal procedure to make the needed adjustments," he sets the standard by which the DPD dispatch office set it's clocks. By doing so, Bowles sets the normal behavior of the DPD time system. And this state of affairs is borne out by analysis of the transcripts themselves, and by more than one regression analysis beginning with BBNs from the HSCA.
He sets the standard? Really? Based on the clocks being out of synch by "as much as a minute or so"? That's some standard, if it were true. In fact it is just something you made up and it is BS.
But even if it were true, Bowles himself tells you that this so-called "standard" was not adhered to when it was busy.
Bowles himself said that the DPDs standard was to keep the dispatcher clocks to within a minute. Francis Cason said the same thing. I've quoted both saying it. The idea that I've made it all up is nothing more than an invention all your own that you've concocted from thin air, you having long ago run out of substantial rebuttals.
And, you've misrepresented what Bowles said. He didn't say that they stopped adhering to the standard during busy times. He said that clocks would occasionally run out of spec, and that sometimes of these sometimes they would be too busy to adjust the errant timepiece as quickly as they normally did. But the other clocks remained within spec. They didn't just abandon the standard for one clock. It's a subtle difference, but it's an important difference. This might also be a good time to point out that a fraction (ie, the percentage of the time that a clock goes out of spec) multiplied by a fraction (the percentage of the time when a clock is out of spec that the dispatch office is too busy to intervene at normal speed) is an even smaller fraction. That's not much to bet on.
I don't rely on anything. I merely state factual information. It's not my problem that you don't like it. When the man in charge of the DPD dispatchers tells you that the entire system does not work on real time, then that's good enough for me. Bowles knows what he is talking about. You, on the other hand, not so much.
You started off here saying that you rely on nothing. Then, three sentences later, you declare that you rely on Bowles ('...that's good enough for me'). At least, your own highly personalized interpretation of Bowles. Just like I said. You just proved me right trying to prove me wrong. Nice!
Here's a quote from Bowles that might help you to overcome your feigned ignorance;
There is no way to connect "police time" with "real time." The Committee Report stated that the Dallas Police Communications system was recorded by continuously operating recorders. That statement is incorrect. Channel 1 was recorded on a Dictaphone A2TC, Model 5, belt or loop recorder. Channel 2 was recorded on a Gray "Audograph" flat disk recorder. Both were duplex units with one recording and one on standby for when the other unit contained a full recording. Both units were sound activated. It is important to note "sound" rather than "voice" because either sound or noise from any source, received through the transmission line, would activate the recorders. Once activated, the recorders remained "on" for the duration of the activating sound plus 4 seconds. The four second delay permitted brief pauses or answers to questions without the relay mechanism being overworked. On occasion, the recorders would operate almost continuously because rapid radio traffic kept them operating. On November 22, 1963, the Channel 1 recorders became, for practical purposes, continuous recorders for just over five minutes starting at approximately 12:29 pm (Channel 1 time) because the microphone on a police motorcycle stuck in the "on" position. The resulting continuous transmission kept the Channel 1 recorders operating for just over five minutes thus giving us a real-time recording for that period. The only problem was determining a basis for an accurate time reference during that period.
and he continues;
It is, however, important to remember that
1. No exact record of "time" exists;
2. The several clocks were not synchronized;
3. The radio operators were not exact with regard to "time statements" on either radio;
4. The recordings were continuous only on Channel 1, and only while the mike was stuck open;
The big take away from everything Bowles said is that you can not rely on the DPD time stamps to reflect real actual time, period! If you want to make a case that those time stamps can be relied on and do reflect real time, then it's up to you to prove it.
It's pretty obvious from your commentary at the end that you've either never understood what I've written about the DPD clocks in the past couple of years, or you maybe you'd never really read it carefully in the first place.
MT: Which brings me to the sentence you so desperately want to make something of: "during busy periods this was not readily done." This sentence has relevance only if one of the clocks was out of spec that afternoon. However, you haven't presented one single iota of evidence that any of the dispatcher clocks were off that day. Neither has Bowles. So that sentence is utterly meaningless in the current context. You're just barking into the wind and hoping that something sticks.
More BS. Of course the sentence has relevance at any given time, because it was something that clearly happened frequently when DPD radio was busy. I don't need to prove that the dispatcher clocks were off that day, because Bowles has already told us that they were. They always were, that's the point that is going way over your head. If the dispatcher clocks were in synch with real time, Bowles would have said so and there wouldn't have been any need for his explanation about them not being in synch.
Again, if you want to prove Bowles wrong, go ahead, but as long as you don't/can't I'll take his word over yours anytime.
it was something that clearly happened frequently when DPD radio was busyBowles didn't say how often this occurred, and definitely didn't say that it happened "frequently." Cason said that "
t doesn't happen very often that they get out of time, but sometimes they do." That sure doesn't sound like clocks were "frequently" running out of spec. In reality, "frequently" is simply another invention that you've conjured up out of thin air in order to buttress an otherwise baseless line of argument.
I don't need to prove that the dispatcher clocks were off that day, because Bowles has already told us that they were.
Bowles doesn't say whether the clocks were actually off that day, whether you mean 'off of standard time', or off of the normal operating parameters that he related. This is just another invention of yours. The best he can do is say that this one thing could have happened, or maybe that thing could have happened. But he doesn't back that up with specific examples, so all he can do is insinuate that something or another might have happened.
MW1: There is no way to connect "police time" with "real time." - J.C. Bowles
MT1: Which means what, exactly? Really, it's just an assertion by Bowles. That's all you have.[\b]
MW2: Typical LN behavior; playing down evidence you don't like. You can try to discredit Bowles as much as you like, but the information he provided still stands. The mere fact that you prefer to dismiss it out of hand doesn't do much for your own credibility.
"There is no way to connect "police time" with "real time."" - J.C. Bowles
To any honest person it's self explanatory what this means.
MT2: Then you should have no problem whatsoever explaining specifically what Bowles meant by that statement. Unless, of course, you aren't an honest person.
To me it's self explanatory. By your reasoning that makes me an honest man. If you want to argue for argument's sake that you can't figure out something so obvious and simple, what does that make you?
It makes me curious as to why, when faced with a question that should have a simple a answer, you continue to avoid answering the question. All at the same time you're patting youself on the back about your honesty.
So what exactly does Bowles means by "There is no way to connect 'police time' with 'real time'?"
What is standard time?
Standard time is the time standard standardized by the National Beureau of Standards. At least, that's the standard answer. Put another way, it is the official US time standard as derived from UT1.
What I've argued is that channel one time is within one minute of channel two time, and channel two time is within one minute of standard time.
So you accept that the clocks were not in synch with eachother, just like Bowles said?
You do understand that you admitting that the clocks were not in synch, makes your asinine demand for "one single iota of evidence that any of the dispatcher clocks were off that day" utterly superfluous and completely disingenuous, don't you?
Before I start, what do mean by "synch," precisely? That word has a number of different overlapping meanings, and I'd like to be sure we're both on the same page when using it.
Now, first things first...
Apparently, I have to repeat myself:
I have never argued, claimed, or impled that any of the DPD dispatcher clock were running on standard time. I presume standard time is what you refer to when you say 'real time'. I have no idea how you came up with the notion that I've ever claimed otherwise. And by "one single iota of evidence that any of the dispatcher clocks were off that day," I was referring to the clocks being off any further than the within-a-minute standard as stated by Bowles and Cason.
What I have argued here for the past couple of years, is this:
It can be determined that the clocks used by the channel one and channel two radio operators were running within one minute of each other. This can be done by inspecting the simulcasts broadcast shortly after the assassination, and comparting the timestamps on those transmissions to the timestamps on the surrounding radio traffic. This can also be done by looking the instances of crosstalk between channel two and channel one during the open mic interval. BBN (and others) used regression analysis of the time announcements on both channels to show the same thing.
Further, the '12:30 KKB364' announcement between Curry's "approaching triple underpass" and "Go to the hospital" transmissions align with the Hertz clock in the McIntire photo as well as the observed time noted by various members of the White House party indicate that channel two is within one minute of standard time. Thus, channel one announced time is within two minutes of standard time.
This state of affairs is predicted by statements from Bowles and Cason to the effect that the clocks in the dispatch center were normally kept within a minute of each other. While Bowles presents a number of hypothetical reasons why the time announcements
might be off of this spec, he can point to no example of any of them either in the record. Considering that Bowles was in charge of the dispatchers and was responsible for the first transcripts of the channel one and channel two radio traffic, his inability to proffer any example of his hypothetical scenarios is quite significant. Further, the various analyses (in particular, the regression analyses) leave precious little room for any of Bowles' 'maybe' scenarios. There simply is no reason to think that the clocks were apart any more than the within-a-minute spec presented by Bowles and Cason.
