You misrepresent what Bowles wrote. He spews out a load of speculation as to what could happen or might happen or may happen, but he never substantiates a single scenario. That is, his whole missive is built out of unsubstantiated speculation.
No, you misrepresent what Bowles said. He said the dispatcher time checks can not be relied on to reflect actual time. And he explained why.
To begin with, I've never claimed that the time checks "reflect real time," though I'm assuming that by "actual time" you mean Central Standard Time. Once again, you misrepresent what I've said, and it's getting to be a suspicious habit of yours. What I claim is that the various time announcements you hear after 12:30 are the result of one guy reading the (then) current time off of a clock in front of him. As such, the set of time announcements on each channel are internally consistent. Bowles advances a number of hypothetical reasons why one or another of these announcements might be off, but never stoops to the level of identifying a single instance of any of them happening. That is, all he can provide is unsubstantiated speculation.
what I've said is that the Hertz clock, agrees with Kellerman's watch, Sorrels' watch, Powers' watch, and the channel two dispatchers clock in putting the assassination at 12:30. The odds of this happening from random happenstance are very small.
You have no evidence of what somebody’s watch said other than his say-so. And in Kellerman’s case it’s not even his say-so. And Sorrels said “about 12:30”, whatever that means.
Those men simply said that at a certain point, their watch read a certain time. How dare I beleive that?! HOW DARE I?! Where does this madness end?! Next thing you know, people will be bringing up Bowley's account of looking at his watch. Can't do that. Mr Iacoletti might hear, and he would raise total H E double toothpicks if someone brought it up. Iacoletti would be all over the guy --TOTALLY all over the guy-- who brought Bowley up.
Oh, and Sorrels said "just about 12:30." The extra adjective makes a large difference in the specificity of the phrase. I'm sure it was a simple oversight on your part.
Funny how Bowles’ say-so about the dispatcher clocks is “unsubstantiated speculation” but Powers’ say-so about his watch is unassailable fact.
Powers said that that a certain point in the motorcade, he looked at his watch and it read a certain time. Bowles claimed that there were
certain situations where the announced time on the DPD radio channels
might not be the time on the clocks read by the dispatchers. But Bowles couldn't point to a single instance of any of these hypothetical scenarios actually happening within the recordings. The difference is that Powers reports the actuality of what he saw, but Bowles trades in speculation about what
might have occurred. You're bright enough to see the difference, so why are you making such a clatter about it?
Besides, unless you have some basis for calculating odds, your “very small” claim is meaningless rhetoric. Incidentally, nobody said it was random happenstance.
As to odds, let's see....
To begin with, let's go back to the idea that in the early 60's, most clocks in common use could only be expected to be within about 5 minutes of correct time. If we quantize down to the minute, that gives us eleven values: [-5, 4, 3, 2, 1, 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5]. We have Sorrel's watch, Powers' watch, Kellerman's watch, the Hertz sign, and the DPD channel two dispatcher's clock.... five in all. So, how likely is it that all five would be within the same minute, if we arrange the time on each clock randomly within the given set? The simplest way is to use one clock as a reference, and see how like it would be for the others to be in the same minute. IOW, the likelihood that all five clocks would be in the same minute is 1/(11^(5-1)) or 1/(11^4) or 1/14641 or 0.007%.
Let's say you don't like the +/-5 minute interval. Ok, we can tighten it down to within three minutes rather than five. That gives us seven possible values (-3, -2,...0,...,2,3). The likelihood that all five are on the same minute is 1/(7^4), or 1/2401 or 0.04%.
But maybe you don't like within three minutes. Okay. We can try two. That gives us five possible values from -2 to 0 to 2. And the resulting probability is 1/(5^4) or 1/625 or 0.16%.
And, maybe we could bring it down to plus or minus one minute, which would create a set of three possible values. That leads to a probability of 1/(3^4) or 1/81 or 1.23%. That's still pretty improbable.
BTW, one of the delicious aspects of this particular kerfluffle is watching you and Martin repeatedly pleading, "trust us, you gotta believe the cop! You gotta believe the cop!"
Alternatively, since we can relate these clocks directly to the assassination, we might as well set the assassination to 12:30 and use that datum as a reference for all subsequent events as if it were the "correct" time.
Sure, and that’s what Bowles does in the rest of his treatise. Unfortunately that’s purely arbitrary and tells us nothing about what time it was when Tippit was shot.
That's what an awful lot of researchers do. Why look a gift Hertz clock in the mouth? Especially when all those other clocks agree with it. Is this arbitrary? No more so than using any other clock, including using the NBS ones. The trick is to figure out the offset between them if you can.
What Powers said was direct and unequivocal, and there is nothing with which to question his statements.
Of course there is. Human memory is notoriously unreliable.
I want you to go back to the first post in the "Lame LN Excuses" post, and preface every line in that post with what you just wrote, giving yourself generous credit each time. Should be fun!
As such, the burden of proof falls on whomever wants to object to Powers affidavit. That is to say, the burden falls on you.
No. You’re the one using his statement as the basis for an argument. It’s your burden to demonstrate that it’s actually true.
In order to use his statement as an argument, all I have to do is quote Powers and show that he said it. It is not my job to disprove each and every hypothetical objection that anyone could possibly dream up. Therefore, any objection to the result is completely up to you. You need to avail yourself of that opportunity. Otherwise you're just whizzin' into the wind.
The simulcasts have been well-known for decades. You simply have no idea what you're talking about.
Sorry. Asserting that something is “well-known” does not constitute supporting evidence.
I do not have to "prove" that the simulcasts exist anymore than I have to prove that the world is round. It's well enough known, and has been known long enough that there is no further need to explain.
I pointed out that the recording system was designed so that the recorders' auto shutoff had a four second runoff delay at the end of a transmission. This was commonly done to reduce wear and tear on the recorder mechanicals. Therefore, before the recorder shuts off, it will record four seconds of dead air. So if there isn't a four-second spot of silence, then the recorder was running continuously.
That’s irrelevant when the recordings can be edited. And they have been.
There are a couple of splices in the known recordings. However, the existence of these does not prove, demonstrate, or imply that there are any other overdubs, splices, or edits on the recording. Just because it rained Tuesday doesn't mean it rained all week, or that it will rain tomorrow. If you want to argue an edit is in there somewhere which affects what I've written, you need to show that the edit is actually there. Otherwise, you're just hoping that one might be there, and hope is never a good plan. It's also never a good argument. Again, the burden in on you.
