I did not take a partial sentence at all, at least not purposely. But it seems indeed that some words that were in the original sentence were somehow lost in my later quote. It was unintentional and I can't really explain how that happened. Not that it matters much, but I have now rectified the problem and included the missing words.
The fact remains that Bowles clearly states that the recordings/transcripts can not be relied on to provide accurate times.
The fact remains that Bowles clearly states that the recordings/transcripts can not be relied on to provide accurate times.The key word (that you finally used) is: “accurate.”
The main thrust of the interview is explaining why the acoustics experts’ report to the HSCA was invalid. The acoustics experts tried to show that the timing on the recordings could be accurate enough to indicate exactly who was where at very specific exacting times. Bowles was explaining why they are not THAT accurate.
Bowles’ explanation does indicate how accurate they could be relied upon to be (one to two minute tolerances). He certainly doesn’t say that they are useless (as your spin tries to suggest). Only that they couldn’t be as accurate as the acoustics experts wanted them to be.
