JI: "...[that] doesn’t mean that the maximum they could ever be off is two minutes."
MT: You are technically correct.
Thank you. That invalidates your entire claim that he said that the dispatcher clocks were kept to within a minute of each other." You omitted “or so” and “normal procedure” in your dishonest summary.
My statement invalidates nothing else I've said. Your logic is simply faulty.
I haven't quite claimed that "the dispatcher clocks were kept to within a minute of each other." I claimed the standard the DPD used was to keep clocks to within a minute of each other. Those aren't really the same things. I've used both Cason's and Bowles' testimony to demonstrate this.
Knowing the standard sets the expected operation. And while accidents happen and things sometimes go cattywhompus, those are
unusual occurrences. The unusual has a higher burden of proof, which is simply the more general (and necessarily milder) case of the old skeptic's saw that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". This is especially true here, where we already have evidence pointing to the clocks being within one minute of each other, and no evidence that they were off by any more.
"Or so" simply means "some small amount in addition to or subtracted from." Since Bowles starts with "a minute," then "or so" means something less than a minute. If Bowles wanted to say "a minute or two," he was perfectly willing to and capable of doing so. You've already provided the evidence of this.
What data? You can’t use the time announcements to validate the time announcements. There is no “data” that tells you how far apart they were that day.
If you don't know by know what the data is, then you need to shut it, pack it up, and go home. Otherwise, all you are doing is wasting everyone's time, including your own. I'm spoon-feeding you everything like you're some little bitty whiny baby kid.
You’ve presented no evidence that they were at most a minute apart that day. Which is your claim.
Yes I have, in previous incarnations of this debate. Again, you don't know what's going on, but that doesn't stop you from arguing about it. Which is just a waste of time.
MT: I'm not sure where you get the idea that the channel one recordings have been "edited" or "dubbed" outside of where consecutive recordings have been spliced together.
Ignoring your “massive spliceapalooza” strawman, a splice IS an edit. And of course they were dubbed. Multiple times. None of us are listening to the original Dictabelt and Audograph. And they had a tendency to skip and repeat sections. Those (at least) were edited as well.
If you go back and reread what you responded to, I specifically accounted for cases "outside of where consecutive recordings have been spliced together." Your response is then redundant, and also another waste of time.
