Brown/Weidmann, Mini-Debate?

[Martin Weidmann]

Stop dodging

Still don't understand what you read? Oh well... Not really a surprise.

[Bill Chapman]

Still don't understand what you read? Oh well... Not really a surprise.

What I read from you is nothing more than attempts to distance yourself from previous claims

[Martin Weidmann]

What I read from you is nothing more than attempts to distance yourself from previous claims

Which only tells me that you are clueless.

Here's a clue; instead of trying to make this this about me, as per usual, why don't you try to look at the evidence honestly for once?

Oh wait....

[Bill Chapman]

Which only tells me that you are clueless.

Here's a clue; instead of trying to make this this about me, as per usual, why don't you try to look at the evidence honestly for once?

Oh wait....

Get over yourself. You're nothing special: You're just another Oswald arse-kisser to slap around.

[Mitch Todd]

You don't understand the words you quote, do you? To wit: "When clocks were as much as a minute or so out of synchronization it was normal procedure to make the needed adjustments." To spell it out for you, that sentence is Bowles' own admission that they kept the dispatcher's clocks within a minute of each other. Just like I said.

Cherry pick much?

Rather hypocritically, on the one hand you talk about a "string of weaselly qualifiers that Bowles relies on", yet on the other hand, when he says something you like, you instantly accept it at face value and misrepresent it by leaving out what he said next.

Bowles also said;

When clocks were as much as a minute or so out of synchronization it was normal procedure to make the needed adjustments. During busy periods this was not readily done.

Just one of those inconvenient bits you prefer to ignore. I wonder why.... wait, no I don't. It's pretty obvious.


Which means what, exactly? Really, it's just an assertion by Bowles. That's all you have.

Typical LN behavior; playing down evidence you don't like. You can try to discredit Bowles as much as you like, but the information he provided still stands. The mere fact that you prefer to dismiss it out of hand doesn't do much for your own credibility.

"There is no way to connect "police time" with "real time."" - J.C. Bowles

To any honest person it's self explanatory what this means.

Your desperate attempt to present a 1:16 or 1:19 time stamp as being the actual time is pathetic.

Bowles was both the supervisor of the dispatch center and the person responsible for the first transcript of the channel one and channel two recordings.

Indeed, and when he basically says that the clocks used by the dispatcher do not match real time, I'll take his word over your BS any day.

When the man in charge of the dispatchers clearly states that the clocks can not be relied on to show "real time" (actual time) you just don't get to assume that he was wrong. It's up to you to show that he was wrong and that the dispatcher's clocks were in fact running exactly on time. Good luck with that.

MT: You don't understand the words you quote, do you? To wit: "When clocks were as much as a minute or so out of synchronization it was normal procedure to make the needed adjustments." To spell it out for you, that sentence is Bowles' own admission that they kept the dispatcher's clocks within a minute of each other. Just like I said.

Cherry pick much?

Rather hypocritically, on the one hand you talk about a "string of weaselly qualifiers that Bowles relies on", yet on the other hand, when he says something you like, you instantly accept it at face value and misrepresent it by leaving out what he said next.

Bowles also said;

When clocks were as much as a minute or so out of synchronization it was normal procedure to make the needed adjustments. During busy periods this was not readily done.

Just one of those inconvenient bits you prefer to ignore. I wonder why.... wait, no I don't. It's pretty obvious.

When Bowles writes "When clocks were as much as a minute or so out of synchronization it was normal procedure to make the needed adjustments," he sets the standard by which the DPD dispatch office set it's clocks. By doing so, Bowles sets the normal behavior of the DPD time system. And this state of affairs is borne out by analysis of the transcripts themselves, and by more than one regression analysis beginning with BBNs from the HSCA.

The Bowles statements that you want to rely on are his suggestions that something coulda happened a certain way, or mighta happened a certain way, or maybe happened a certain way. But that's nothing more than a big steaming pile of conjecture and whatiffery. Conjectures that Bowles can't substantiate with a single instance in the recordings or transcripts. And neither have you.

Which brings me to the sentence you so desperately want to make something of: "during busy periods this was not readily done." This sentence has relevance only if one of the clocks was out of spec that afternoon. However, you haven't presented one single iota of evidence that any of the dispatcher clocks were off that day. Neither has Bowles. So that sentence is utterly meaningless in the current context. You're just barking into the wind and hoping that something sticks.


MW: There is no way to connect "police time" with "real time." - J.C. Bowles

MT: Which means what, exactly? Really, it's just an assertion by Bowles. That's all you have.[\b]

Typical LN behavior; playing down evidence you don't like. You can try to discredit Bowles as much as you like, but the information he provided still stands. The mere fact that you prefer to dismiss it out of hand doesn't do much for your own credibility.

"There is no way to connect "police time" with "real time."" - J.C. Bowles

To any honest person it's self explanatory what this means.

Then you should have no problem whatsoever explaining specifically what Bowles meant by that statement. Unless, of course, you aren't an honest person.


Your desperate attempt to present a 1:16 or 1:19 time stamp as being the actual time is pathetic.

I've never argued that any timestamp on the DPD radio recordings reflect actual time. What I've argued is that channel one time is within one minute of channel two time, and channel two time is within one minute of standard time.

[Martin Weidmann]

When Bowles writes "When clocks were as much as a minute or so out of synchronization it was normal procedure to make the needed adjustments," he sets the standard by which the DPD dispatch office set it's clocks. By doing so, Bowles sets the normal behavior of the DPD time system. And this state of affairs is borne out by analysis of the transcripts themselves, and by more than one regression analysis beginning with BBNs from the HSCA.

He sets the standard? Really? Based on the clocks being out of synch by "as much as a minute or so"? That's some standard, if it were true. In fact it is just something you made up and it is BS.

But even if it were true, Bowles himself tells you that this so-called "standard" was not adhered to when it was busy.

The Bowles statements that you want to rely on are his suggestions that something coulda happened a certain way, or mighta happened a certain way, or maybe happened a certain way. But that's nothing more than a big steaming pile of conjecture and whatiffery. Conjectures that Bowles can't substantiate with a single instance in the recordings or transcripts. And neither have you.

I don't rely on anything. I merely state factual information. It's not my problem that you don't like it. When the man in charge of the DPD dispatchers tells you that the entire system does not work on real time, then that's good enough for me. Bowles knows what he is talking about. You, on the other hand, not so much.

Here's a quote from Bowles that might help you to overcome your feigned ignorance;

There is no way to connect "police time" with "real time." The Committee Report stated that the Dallas Police Communications system was recorded by continuously operating recorders. That statement is incorrect. Channel 1 was recorded on a Dictaphone A2TC, Model 5, belt or loop recorder. Channel 2 was recorded on a Gray "Audograph" flat disk recorder. Both were duplex units with one recording and one on standby for when the other unit contained a full recording. Both units were sound activated. It is important to note "sound" rather than "voice" because either sound or noise from any source, received through the transmission line, would activate the recorders. Once activated, the recorders remained "on" for the duration of the activating sound plus 4 seconds. The four second delay permitted brief pauses or answers to questions without the relay mechanism being overworked. On occasion, the recorders would operate almost continuously because rapid radio traffic kept them operating. On November 22, 1963, the Channel 1 recorders became, for practical purposes, continuous recorders for just over five minutes starting at approximately 12:29 pm (Channel 1 time) because the microphone on a police motorcycle stuck in the "on" position. The resulting continuous transmission kept the Channel 1 recorders operating for just over five minutes thus giving us a real-time recording for that period. The only problem was determining a basis for an accurate time reference during that period.

and he continues;

It is, however, important to remember that

1. No exact record of "time" exists;

2. The several clocks were not synchronized;

3. The radio operators were not exact with regard to "time statements" on either radio;

4. The recordings were continuous only on Channel 1, and only while the mike was stuck open;

The big take away from everything Bowles said is that you can not rely on the DPD time stamps to reflect real actual time, period! If you want to make a case that those time stamps can be relied on and do reflect real time, then it's up to you to prove it.

Which brings me to the sentence you so desperately want to make something of: "during busy periods this was not readily done." This sentence has relevance only if one of the clocks was out of spec that afternoon. However, you haven't presented one single iota of evidence that any of the dispatcher clocks were off that day. Neither has Bowles. So that sentence is utterly meaningless in the current context. You're just barking into the wind and hoping that something sticks.

More BS. Of course the sentence has relevance at any given time, because it was something that clearly happened frequently when DPD radio was busy. I don't need to prove that the dispatcher clocks were off that day, because Bowles has already told us that they were. They always were, that's the point that is going way over your head. If the dispatcher clocks were in synch with real time, Bowles would have said so and there wouldn't have been any need for his explanation about them not being in synch.

Again, if you want to prove Bowles wrong, go ahead, but as long as you don't/can't I'll take his word over yours anytime.

MW: There is no way to connect "police time" with "real time." - J.C. Bowles

MT: Which means what, exactly? Really, it's just an assertion by Bowles. That's all you have.[\b]

Typical LN behavior; playing down evidence you don't like. You can try to discredit Bowles as much as you like, but the information he provided still stands. The mere fact that you prefer to dismiss it out of hand doesn't do much for your own credibility.

"There is no way to connect "police time" with "real time."" - J.C. Bowles

To any honest person it's self explanatory what this means.

Then you should have no problem whatsoever explaining specifically what Bowles meant by that statement. Unless, of course, you aren't an honest person.

To me it's self explanatory. By your reasoning that makes me an honest man. If you want to argue for argument's sake that you can't figure out something so obvious and simple, what does that make you?

Your desperate attempt to present a 1:16 or 1:19 time stamp as being the actual time is pathetic.

I've never argued that any timestamp on the DPD radio recordings reflect actual time. What I've argued is that channel one time is within one minute of channel two time, and channel two time is within one minute of standard time.

What is standard time?

What I've argued is that channel one time is within one minute of channel two time, and channel two time is within one minute of standard time.

So you accept that the clocks were not in synch with eachother, just like Bowles said?

You do understand that you admitting that the clocks were not in synch, makes your asinine demand for "one single iota of evidence that any of the dispatcher clocks were off that day" utterly superfluous and completely disingenuous, don't you?

[John Iacoletti]

I've never argued that any timestamp on the DPD radio recordings reflect actual time. What I've argued is that channel one time is within one minute of channel two time, and channel two time is within one minute of standard time.

You haven’t presented one single iota of evidence that either of these things is true.

[Richard Smith]

Have you got anything of value to say or is this diatribe all you've got?

You are trying to pinpoint events from nearly sixty years ago down to the nanosecond 

I am not trying to do anything of the kind. I am actually doing it, using the actual audio recording. Too bad that you don't like me using actual evidence.

As a result, your timeline is not relevant to that issue.

Indeed, the timeline I have presented, so far, is only relevant to determine whether Callaway helped load Tippit into the ambulance before or after his radio call.

Everything else is only in your paranoid mind, putting your anxiety about the possible consequences for your "Oswald did it" fairytale on full display. It's pathetic and sad at the same time.

An honest person would not be afraid of evidence being examined, so why are you so concerned about it?

So you are not trying to suggest that the timeline casts doubt on Oswald's guilt?  You are just focused obsessively on one pedantic issue for no apparent reason?  What is next?  An analysis of whether Oswald wore boxers or briefs that day?  Of course you are trying to suggest that the timeline casts doubt on Oswald's ability to be present at the time of the crime.  Why you won't be honest and just admit that (much like that you are a CTer) is mystifying but humorous.   Here is something to ponder.  If the totality of evidence places Oswald at the crime scene, do you believe that the timeline analysis is still relevant as to whether he could have been there?