DPD Tapes and a 6 Minute Discrepancy

[Bill Brown]

Quotation marks are used to denote that something was actually said and/or written.  The Nashes wouldn't have used them unless it was something that they'd actually been told or had read. The real tipoff is the use of proper case in “Time Called.” Folks don't talk in proper case, so if the Nashes used it, then they had seen it written or printed that way. Of course, the HSCA/Butler interview page that Bill B posted ices the cake. You may not wan to believe that, but there it is.

[Mitch Todd]

Agreed.  So what?

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."

[Mitch Todd]

[MT :Has there really been a murder case in the modern world that was cracked by detailed examination of funeral home ambulance records?]
So what if there hasn't?

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.

Your argument is entirely moot but shows well how confused you are about evidence.

So, you're saying that FBI should have sequestered any items as evidence even if they wouldn't have known at the time that it would become significant at some later date. That's an awful lot of sequestering. I mean, Raiders-of-the-Lost-Ark-Warehouse level an awful lot. And a pretty dumb idea to boot, if you bother to think about it.
   

[Mitch Todd]

Nope.  You have no way of determining what "correct time" was.

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

[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.