So, now that you have been shown to be wrong, you attack the messenger?
Bowles did in fact give an explanation and ended it with a definitive conclusion that; "under no circumstance could you put any stock in the real world time references"
But prior to that, I have posted the same information that you did and high-lighted the relevant quote in previous posts. You were that one "paraphrasing" to spin the argument, not me. It's pathetic.
Here are his words in his complete sentence:
“So, under no circumstance could you put any stock in the real world time or any continuity on time references by the belt because there were no time references on the belt; they were only spoken times, and those spoken times had no faithful validity.”
You take a partial sentence and on top of that you omit some of the words that belong in the partial sentence. You are the one who is pathetic!