The Bus Stop Farce

[Charles Collins]

And it makes absolutely no difference whether or not you believe that it wasn’t arbitrary.

Without any knowledge of how far off the dispatcher clocks were from real time on that day, or how far off the “city hall” clock was from real time, or how precise the dispatchers were in reporting their time checks, then his “derived estimates” are arbitrary too.

And we have.

Without any knowledge of how far off the dispatcher clocks were from real time on that day, or how far off the “city hall” clock was from real time, or how precise the dispatchers were in reporting their time checks, then his “derived estimates” are arbitrary too.

This is the misconception that is at the crux of my disagreement with you two. You simply cannot dismiss his methods of deriving “real” time with that silly statement. Shame on you.

Show us how you believe his methods of deriving “real” time become arbitrary by examining his method and pointing out exactly where you believe that they become arbitrary. You cannot.

[Martin Weidmann]

Without any knowledge of how far off the dispatcher clocks were from real time on that day, or how far off the “city hall” clock was from real time, or how precise the dispatchers were in reporting their time checks, then his “derived estimates” are arbitrary too.

This is the misconception that is at the crux of my disagreement with you two. You simply cannot dismiss his methods of deriving “real” time with that silly statement. Shame on you.

Show us how you believe his methods of deriving “real” time become arbitrary by examining his method and pointing out exactly where you believe that they become arbitrary. You cannot.

I'm not sure who you are talking to here and who "you two" are, but just in case I'm one of the two, I have already given up trying to have a reasonable conversation with you. Trying to explain something to you is a complete waste of time as you will never accept anything anybody says when it is contrary to your own opinion. And yes, I understand that you will probably will start arguing about that as well.

[Charles Collins]

I'm not sure who you are talking to here and who "you two" are, but just in case I'm one of the two, I have already given up trying to have a reasonable conversation with you.

You are the other one. You said (paraphrasing) that his assumption of 12:29:10 was arbitrary and that he could have just as easily chose 12:28 or 12:31. This is essentially the same misconception that John  has.

[Martin Weidmann]

You are the other one. You said (paraphrasing) that his assumption of 12:29:10 was arbitrary and that he could have just as easily chose 12:28 or 12:31. This is essentially the same misconception that John  has.

John has already explained it to you. You just don't get it.

[Charles Collins]

Hi Charles.  It was information overload (in a good way) during the two days I spent up there with Dale Myers (as well as with Todd Vaughan).

I'm sure I can answer your question if you can be more specific.

That must have been a great experience. 

When I read Bowles’ report, he specifically explains how he derived the 12:29:10 time for the start of the open-mike transmission. And he ties it to a specific event (the sighting of the front of the motorcade passing under the triple underpass. In his book, Dale Myers indicates that he used a similar method to Bowles’ method; but he doesn’t tie it to a specific event (unless I missed that). Did he explain his method to you to the extent of what specific event he used (if any)?

Thanks!

[Bill Brown]

The most farcical of all is that Bill Brown seems to believe and defend a theory which says that Callaway, who was less than on block (approx 0.1 mile) away from the shooting needed 5 minutes, after the shots, to get to the scene and call the dispatcher. Says it all, really....

All ya gotta do is read Callaway's own words.  He did not make his way up to the corner until after the killer had reached the corner of Patton and Jefferson.

Callaway was at the scene sooner than five minutes after the shots; he just did not get on the police radio to report it immediately upon arriving at the scene.

You really should read his testimony a little closer.

[John Iacoletti]

You simply cannot dismiss his methods of deriving “real” time

Yes we can. And we do.

Show us how you believe his methods of deriving “real” time become arbitrary by examining his method and pointing out exactly where you believe that they become arbitrary. You cannot.

Already done in spades. His zero-base time is arbitrary, and by his own account, the time-pieces are not accurate or synchronized.