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

[David Von Pein]

Don't use the words of others on your blog (without their consent) or post all of it. What you do is dishonest, a misrepresentation of the facts, and btw an admission of the weakness of your own arguments. Ever thought about that, have you?

Absolutely not. As far as the JFK and J.D. Tippit murder cases are concerned, I do not think (and never have thought) that any of my arguments are "weak". Just the opposite. The case against Oswald couldn't be much stronger. (Regardless of what portions of a particular discussion I choose to post at my own website.)

It's the "Conspiracy" and "Cover-Up" and "Oswald Was Framed" arguments that are pathetically weak when put up against the vast amount of Oswald-Did-It evidence. And that includes your recent "Callaway/Markham/Bowley Timeline" argument. That, too, is a very weak argument when placed alongside the virtual PROOF of Oswald's guilt in the Tippit murder which exists in the "Eyewitnesses & Bullet Shells" combination of evidence.

CTers will forever tell me that that combination of "Witnesses & The Bullet Shells" is just worthless and "proves" nothing. But those CTers are just talking through their hats, and even they probably know it.

When a CTer has to practically ignore (or gloss over) all of Lee Oswald's very own incriminating and unusual Nov. 22 actions, plus the PHYSICAL ballistics evidence and the multiple witnesses who positively IDed LHO as the gun-toting man on 10th Street, with that CTer instead focusing on the much-less-reliable mush such as "Timeline Evidence" of various witnesses....then I say it's time for that CTer to step back and attempt to re-evaluate the things that really matter the most in the Tippit murder case.

IOW---Should the Markham/Bowley/Callaway timeline really trump the fact that Lee Oswald was caught with the Tippit murder weapon in his very own hands on 11/22/63?*

* And, yes, in my opinion (and in the opinion of the two official Government investigations who looked into this matter), it is a FACT that Oswald was carrying the Tippit murder weapon on him when he was arrested in the Texas Theater a mere 35 minutes after J.D. Tippit was killed.

[Martin Weidmann]

Absolutely not. As far as the JFK and J.D. Tippit murder cases are concerned, I do not think (and never have thought) that any of my arguments are "weak". Just the opposite. The case against Oswald couldn't be much stronger. (Regardless of what portions of a particular discussion I choose to post at my own website.)

It's the "Conspiracy" and "Cover-Up" and "Oswald Was Framed" arguments that are pathetically weak when put up against the vast amount of Oswald-Did-It evidence. And that includes your recent "Callaway/Markham/Bowley Timeline" argument. That, too, is a very weak argument when placed alongside the virtual PROOF of Oswald's guilt in the Tippit murder which exists in the "Eyewitnesses & Bullet Shells" combination of evidence.

CTers will forever tell me that that combination of "Witnesses & The Bullet Shells" is just worthless and "proves" nothing. But those CTers are just talking through their hats, and even they probably know it.

When a CTer has to practically ignore (or gloss over) all of Lee Oswald's very own incriminating and unusual Nov. 22 actions, plus the PHYSICAL ballistics evidence and the multiple witnesses who positively IDed LHO as the gun-toting man on 10th Street, with that CTer instead focusing on the much-less-reliable mush such as "Timeline Evidence" of various witnesses....then I say it's time for that CTer to step back and attempt to re-evaluate the things that really matter the most in the Tippit murder case.

IOW---Should the Markham/Bowley/Callaway timeline really trump the fact that Lee Oswald was caught with the Tippit murder weapon in his very own hands on 11/22/63?*

* And, yes, in my opinion (and in the opinion of the two official Government investigations who looked into this matter), it is a FACT that Oswald was carrying the Tippit murder weapon on him when he was arrested in the Texas Theater a mere 35 minutes after J.D. Tippit was killed.

As far as the JFK and J.D. Tippit murder cases are concerned, I do not think (and never have thought) that any of my arguments are "weak". Just the opposite. The case against Oswald couldn't be much stronger. (Regardless of what portions of a particular discussion I choose to post at my own website.)

BS. Of course you're going to say that. What else could you say? But actions speak louder than words and frequently reveal the truth. If your arguments were not weak, you would not feel the need to edit the posts of others on your blog and take out the parts you don't like or simply do not like to deal with. Neither would you bail out of a conversation!

It's the "Conspiracy" and "Cover-Up" and "Oswald Was Framed" arguments that are pathetically weak when put up against the vast amount of Oswald-Did-It evidence. And that includes your recent "Callaway/Markham/Bowley Timeline" argument. That, too, is a very weak argument when placed alongside the virtual PROOF of Oswald's guilt in the Tippit murder which exists in the "Eyewitnesses & Bullet Shells" combination of evidence.

Then why did you bail out of the conversation? There is only one reason; you couldn't refute what I said and you understood that it was a problem for the official narrative.

Btw, we were not talking about Oswald's guilt or innocence. We were talking about when Tippit was really shot and that Dale Myers was wrong when he claimed it was at 1:14:30.

CTers will forever tell me that that combination of "Witnesses & The Bullet Shells" is just worthless and "proves" nothing. But those CTers are just talking through their hats, and even they probably know it.

Nothing to do with me or our conversation.

When a CTer has to practically ignore (or gloss over) all of Lee Oswald's very own incriminating and unusual Nov. 22 actions, plus the PHYSICAL ballistics evidence and the multiple witnesses who positively IDed LHO as the gun-toting man on 10th Street, with that CTer instead focusing on the much-less-reliable mush such as "Timeline Evidence" of various witnesses....then I say it's time for that CTer to step back and attempt to re-evaluate the things that really matter the most in the Tippit murder case.

Nice bit of propaganda rhetoric. Not worthy of a reply. It just shows how fanatical you really are.

IOW---Should the Markham/Bowley/Callaway timeline really trump the fact that Lee Oswald was caught with the Tippit murder weapon in his very own hands on 11/22/63?*

Before you say something as stupid as this, you might at least want to try and prove - instead of assume - that the revolver taken from Oswald at the Texas Theater was in fact the "Tippit murder weapon". Or, do little facts like that don't bother you?

* And, yes, in my opinion (and in the opinion of the two official Government investigations who looked into this matter), it is a FACT that Oswald was carrying the Tippit murder weapon on him when he was arrested in the Texas Theater a mere 35 minutes after J.D. Tippit was killed.
[/quote]

Appeal to authority fallacy. Biased Government enquiries can say and find whatever they want and they clearly did. That doesn't mean it's actually true. You can not use the WC report as proof when it is the narrative put forward by the WC (and propagandists like you) that's being challenged. Besides, the WC report is full of conclusions that are not supported by the evidence they published.

[John Iacoletti]

Too bad you can’t actually demonstrate what the Tippit murder weapon was or what weapon (if any) Oswald was carrying. Anyone can make an accusation.

There isn’t any “vast amount of Oswald-Did-It evidence”. It’s all rhetoric about his “guilty behavior” or misrepresentations like the above. That was the whole point of the “David Von Pein's ‘evidence’ deconstructed” topic.

[Martin Weidmann]

Too bad you can’t actually demonstrate what the Tippit murder weapon was or what weapon (if any) Oswald was carrying. Anyone can make an accusation.

There isn’t any “vast amount of Oswald-Did-It evidence”. It’s all rhetoric about his “guilty behavior” or misrepresentations like the above. That was the whole point of the “David Von Pein's ‘evidence’ deconstructed” topic.

A guy claiming that the evidence is overwhelming doesn't need to misrepresent anything, if it really is overwhelming.

[Mitch Todd]

Mitch, who are you trying to fool?

- you’ve claimed the dispatcher time checks were accurate when Bowles said they were not

- you’ve pretended the Hertz clock is accurate even though there’s no evidence it was.

- you’ve pretended that Dave Powers’ memory of what his watch said must be correct and precise.

- you’ve posited Chanel 1/2 “simulcasts” while providing no supporting evidence.

- you’ve claimed that portions of the extant recordings are continuous without providing any supporting evidence other than vague references to “regression analysis”.

- you’ve pretended that the time of Tippit’s death can somehow be determined from inaccurate time announcements made an unknown amount of time after the fact.

- you’ve wasted everybody’s time with your holier-than-thou arrogance.

you’ve claimed the dispatcher time checks were accurate when Bowles said they were not

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.


you’ve pretended the Hertz clock is accurate even though there’s no evidence it was.

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. And, we expect timepieces to converge on correct time as they regress towards the mean.

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.


you’ve pretended that Dave Powers’ memory of what his watch said must be correct and precise.

What Powers said was direct and unequivocal, and there is nothing with which to question his statements. As such, the burden of proof falls on whomever wants to object to Powers affidavit. That is to say, the burden falls on you.


you’ve posited Chanel 1/2 “simulcasts” while providing no supporting evidence.

The simulcasts have been well-known for decades. You simply have no idea what you're talking about.


you’ve claimed that portions of the extant recordings are continuous without providing any supporting evidence other than vague references to “regression analysis”.

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. In particular, I applied this reasoning to the period between the start of Bowley's call and the 1:19 time stamp, BTW.

I didn't reference the regression analysis towards this end. However, BBN did use regression analysis to claim that channel one was running continuously from a bit before 12:30 to about 12:40 and that channel two was running continuously or nearly so beginning just after the assassination. The former conclusion is almost a gimme. After all, this is where the extended stuck mic episode occurred. 

And, there's those scare quotes again.


you’ve pretended that the time of Tippit’s death can somehow be determined from inaccurate time announcements made an unknown amount of time after the fact.

I've said from the beginning that trying to pinpoint the instant of Tippit's shooting is as fools errand. Once again, you misrepresent what I've said.


you’ve wasted everybody’s time with your holier-than-thou arrogance.

This is a pretty rich statement coming from you. You started off by misrepresenting Bowles. And misrepresented what I've said. And shown that you're proud to be running off your big trap about a subject you know little about. But you think I'm arrogantly wasting people's time.
 

[Mitch Todd]

It's a pity you allowed yourself to be distracted from this point.

Martin and John fail to realise that "real time" is utterly meaningless in this case.
There is no way to corroborate that any watch/clock is synchronised with whatever is to be regarded as the representation of "real time" [the USNO master clock according to John].
No Unassailable Fact or Absolute Truth can be determined from the available evidence regarding the Tme in this case, we are in the subjective realms of Common Sense and Reasonable Doubt.

There are three Times to consider:

Police Time - the timestamps called out by the police radio dispatchers on channels 1 and 2
Dealey Time - the clocks/watches in Dealey Plaza and any witness evidence regarding times
Patton Time - the clocks/watches around Patton and 10th, plus any witness evidence regarding times.

The events in Dealey Plaza are connected to those around Patton and 10th by the police radio. An example would be Bowley's call on the radio in Tippit's car being heard by Hill, Owens, Sawyer and Alexander stood in front of the TSBD building.
Martin's argument is that there is a 5 minute discrepancy between Police Time [channel 1] and Patton Time.
If this is the case there must be a similar 5 minute discrepancy between Police Time [channel 1] and Dealey Time.
However, the available evidence supports the view that no such discrepancy exists.

There are several clocks involves. There is a channel one DPD clock, and channel two DPD clock, the Hertz sign, Powers' watch, Kellerman's watch, Sorrels' watch, Bowley's watch, the funeral home clock, whatever Markham was using, and the Methodist clock. I guess we can include what Martin calls "real time" as well. Each is running with an offset to every other timepiece in this collection. The trick is to figure how far off they are, or at least to come up with a consistent narrative as to reconcile them as best as can be done.

[Martin Weidmann]

you’ve claimed the dispatcher time checks were accurate when Bowles said they were not

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.


you’ve pretended the Hertz clock is accurate even though there’s no evidence it was.

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. And, we expect timepieces to converge on correct time as they regress towards the mean.

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.


you’ve pretended that Dave Powers’ memory of what his watch said must be correct and precise.

What Powers said was direct and unequivocal, and there is nothing with which to question his statements. As such, the burden of proof falls on whomever wants to object to Powers affidavit. That is to say, the burden falls on you.


you’ve posited Chanel 1/2 “simulcasts” while providing no supporting evidence.

The simulcasts have been well-known for decades. You simply have no idea what you're talking about.


you’ve claimed that portions of the extant recordings are continuous without providing any supporting evidence other than vague references to “regression analysis”.

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. In particular, I applied this reasoning to the period between the start of Bowley's call and the 1:19 time stamp, BTW.

I didn't reference the regression analysis towards this end. However, BBN did use regression analysis to claim that channel one was running continuously from a bit before 12:30 to about 12:40 and that channel two was running continuously or nearly so beginning just after the assassination. The former conclusion is almost a gimme. After all, this is where the extended stuck mic episode occurred. 

And, there's those scare quotes again.


you’ve pretended that the time of Tippit’s death can somehow be determined from inaccurate time announcements made an unknown amount of time after the fact.

I've said from the beginning that trying to pinpoint the instant of Tippit's shooting is as fools errand. Once again, you misrepresent what I've said.


you’ve wasted everybody’s time with your holier-than-thou arrogance.

This is a pretty rich statement coming from you. You started off by misrepresenting Bowles. And misrepresented what I've said. And shown that you're proud to be running off your big trap about a subject you know little about. But you think I'm arrogantly wasting people's time.

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.

What a load of BS. Bowles has first hand experience of what happens in the dispatcher room on a daily basis. If there is one person in the world who would know, it is him. He's not speculating and doesn't need to substantiate any scenario. He is just telling us what actually happens with the system.

You call it "unsubstantiated speculation" simply because you don't like what he is telling us. When it comes to the DPD radio dispatchers, I'll take Bowles' word over your theorizing and argumentative crap a thousand times.

you’ve wasted everybody’s time with your holier-than-thou arrogance.

This is a pretty rich statement coming from you. You started off by misrepresenting Bowles. And misrepresented what I've said. And shown that you're proud to be running off your big trap about a subject you know little about. But you think I'm arrogantly wasting people's time.

The mere fact that you think you can say that John is talking about a subject he knows little about, shows just how arrogant you really are. And yes, you are wasting everybody’s time with your holier-than-thou BS.

And btw, in all your ramblings you have ignored completely that there is a massive gap in the recordings, due to a sliced tape at 1:12:15. Also, the tape has clearly been manipulated as it contains a part of a conversation that doesn't show up in any transcript. And, also there were no timestamps called between 1:16 and 1:19, so starting at the point where Bowley starts making his radio call is pathetically meaningless, simply because there is no way of knowing for sure when that call actually started.

[John Iacoletti]

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.

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. Funny how Bowles’ say-so about the dispatcher clocks is “unsubstantiated speculation” but Powers’ say-so about his watch is unassailable fact. Besides, unless you have some basis for calculating odds, your “very small” claim is meaningless rhetoric. Incidentally, nobody said it was random happenstance.

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

I've said from the beginning that trying to pinpoint the instant of Tippit's shooting is as fools errand.

If that’s the case, then why would you even care how close the dispatcher announcements are to real time? Especially enough to quibble about it endlessly.