DPD Tapes and a 6 Minute Discrepancy

[Bill Chapman]

Not that would ever satisfy you. But then again, you don't want to be satisfied an any way or to any extent.

---------------------
CT WONDERLAND
BOOK OF OSWALD
---------------------

[EXCERPT]

BOOK I: LUNATIC FRINGE
Nothing is Knowable
Nothing is Provable
Nothing is Believable

[Mitch Todd]

I didn't say "any".

The time stated in several documents related to the shooting of Tippet was altered which shows there was a keen interest by somebody in the timeline. Anything to help establish a timeline would thus be of interest, especially considering the trouble the WC had getting Oswald to 10th & Patton on time!

Thanks for once again confirming you're clueless when it comes to evidence.

No, you didn't actually use the word "any". But look again at what you wrote:

"There's no way the FBI could have known in advance that the time card would not influence or even crack the case; that's why evidence is collected even if it may initially seem insignificant and they evidently had every opportunity to secure this piece of evidence, yet failed to do so."

If this is true for the time card, it's true for any other potential evidence.

[Mitch Todd]

I'm talking in the context of timeline, even you should have been able to figure that out.

I then clarified that to you but still you try to back-peddle.

A time stamped record isn't just any stuff that might turn in to evidence, capisce?

This is the story so far:

1.) you claimed something
2.) I pointed out that following the logic of the claim would lead directly to a ridiculous result...and a very full warehouse.
3.) You took offence to that I used the word "any"
4.) I pointed out that your claim effectively implies the "any"

So now you want to say that you contextualized it, but that doesn't really affect the point I made.

And you also claim I "back-peddle[d]." I hate to tell you this, but my position on this hasn't changed at all.

In reality, the idea that the FBI should have grabbed whatever, whether or not they knew it would be important as evidence, is simply your own invention. You've simply asserted that things work a certain way without supporting the assertion at all.

 

[Mitch Todd]

I didn't take "offence", I simply corrected your mistake.

I the given context, which is a possible timeline discrepancy (as per thread title), the "any" introduced by you solely to win an argument makes no sense.

But why don't you explain why the Nash couple showed any interest in the funeral home in the first place?

I made no mistake here.

Let's go back to what you wrote: "There's no way the FBI could have known in advance that the time card would not influence or even crack the case; that's why evidence is collected even if it may initially seem insignificant and they evidently had every opportunity to secure this piece of evidence, yet failed to do so."
The clause in italics universalizes your assertion. Again, even if you didn't use the word "any," it's clearly implied in that clause. Any appeal to context on your part is nothing more than silly dodge. You've wasted enough of our time, so no more.

[John Iacoletti]

The "so, what" was covered by what I wrote that you didn't quote in your reply:

"And we should not believe the Nashes, then we should not believe Bowley, Davenport, Markham, or your mom. My problem is, you apply this in one direction only, against the Nash article. Had you really believed in the position you now maintain, you wouldn't apply it so one-sidedly."

I don't know what you're talking about.  When did I say that I apply a different standard to anybody else?

[John Iacoletti]

Not that would ever satisfy you. But then again, you don't want to be satisfied an any way or to any extent.

The problem is that it doesn't take a whole lot to satisfy you when it comes to accepting the narrative.

[Mitch Todd]

I don't know what you're talking about.  When did I say that I apply a different standard to anybody else?

Where did I say that you said that you apply a different standard to anybody else? I said that you applied one standard to the Nash article, but don't extend the the same skepticism to, say, Markham, Bowley, Davenport. You've been doing it, whether or not you've admitted it.

At least you're right about one thing: you have no idea what I'm talking about. 

[John Iacoletti]

Where did I say that you said that you apply a different standard to anybody else? I said that you applied one standard to the Nash article, but don't extend the the same skepticism to, say, Markham, Bowley, Davenport. You've been doing it, whether or not you've admitted it.

BS. I’ve never applied a different standard of skepticism to “say, Markham, Bowley, Davenport.”

You just completely made that up.