The Initials Of FBI Agent Elmer Todd Are On CE399 (Hi-Def Photo Proof)

[Martin Weidmann]

Bowles said that the dispatcher sometimes didn’t even read what was displayed on his clock.

“However, radio operators did not interrupt radio traffic in progress just to give a station check. Accordingly, an operator might give, say, the 10:30 check as 10:30 when it was actually 10:29 or perhaps 10:31 or later.”

Todd isn't interested in what Bowles said. In fact he will twist and turn as much as he can to justify the conclusion that the DPD timestamps are somehow correct. He never achieves that, of course, but he will keep on trying. Which combines nicely with his nasty habit of arguing for argument's sake, as he has done again in the post above yours.

[Mitch Todd]

Bowles said that the dispatcher sometimes didn’t even read what was displayed on his clock.

“However, radio operators did not interrupt radio traffic in progress just to give a station check. Accordingly, an operator might give, say, the 10:30 check as 10:30 when it was actually 10:29 or perhaps 10:31 or later.”

The station checks are where the announcer states the stations call sign. That's supposed to happen something like every 30 minutes on public safety channels, but there is no requirement that it happens at any specific minute. Those aren't the timestamps we're talking about here.

Station ID happens twice in the hour or so after the assassination. First, the "KKB364 12:30" broadcast on channel two. That one doesn't fit Bowles hypothetical scenario because traffic the traffic before the station check is too sparse. There is another at the tail end of the 12:45 simulcast announced by the channel two dispatcher. However, this is preceded by two 12:43 and one 12:44 timestamps and followed by a 12:46 timestamp --just as would be expected if "12:45" was correct, at least as far as the ch 2 clock is concerned. And not at all like what we'd see if your pet Bowles worst-case-scenario was in play. 

[Mitch Todd]

Todd isn't interested in what Bowles said. In fact he will twist and turn as much as he can to justify the conclusion that the DPD timestamps are somehow correct. He never achieves that, of course, but he will keep on trying. Which combines nicely with his nasty habit of arguing for argument's sake, as he has done again in the post above yours.

I have said --repeatedly-- are that the DPD timestamps are correct, as far as the clocks used by the dispatchers are concerned. I have also maintained, from the beginning, is that channel 1 time is within one minute of channel 2 time, and that channel 2 time is within one minute of what you call "real time."

[John Iacoletti]

Yes, you’ve said it repeatedly. But you haven’t demonstrated that either claim is actually true.

[Mitch Todd]

Yes, you’ve said it repeatedly. But you haven’t demonstrated that either claim is actually true.

I have already laid out my arguments for this in at least one other thread. You are welcome to examine and challenge them as well as you are able. Otherwise, your "you haven't actually proved this" shtick is just a load of childish whining.

[Martin Weidmann]

Yes, you’ve said it repeatedly. But you haven’t demonstrated that either claim is actually true.

And, despite his claims to the contrary, he never will. It's made up out of thin air.

[Martin Weidmann]

To get back to David von Pein's blatant misrepresentation on his blog of the conversation in this thread.

Not only is it dishonest, but it is also an admission of the weakness of his own case. If the official narrative was strong enough to withstand scrutiny, David would not only would have stood his ground in the discussion here, instead of bailing out of the conversation, but he also would have no need to misrepresent the conversation on his blog, by editing posts and even ignoring posts that he doesn't like and hasn't got a credible rebuttal for.

[John Iacoletti]

I have already laid out my arguments for this in at least one other thread. You are welcome to examine and challenge them as well as you are able.

And I have done that repeatedly. Your arguments rely on unsubstantiated assumptions.