Brown/Weidmann, Mini-Debate?

[Martin Weidmann]

Bowles himself said that the DPDs standard was to keep the dispatcher clocks to within a minute. Francis Cason said the same thing. I've quoted both saying it. The idea that I've made it all up is nothing more than an invention all your own that you've concocted from thin air, you having long ago run out of substantial rebuttals.

And, you've misrepresented what Bowles said. He didn't say that they stopped adhering to the standard during busy times. He said that clocks would occasionally run out of spec, and that sometimes of these sometimes they would be too busy to adjust the errant timepiece as quickly as they normally did. But the other clocks remained within spec. They didn't just abandon the standard for one clock. It's a subtle difference, but it's an important difference. This might also be a good time to point out that a fraction (ie, the percentage of the time that a clock goes out of spec) multiplied by a fraction (the percentage of the time when a clock is out of spec that the dispatch office is too busy to intervene at normal speed) is an even smaller fraction. That's not much to bet on.

You started off here saying that you rely on nothing. Then, three sentences later, you declare that you rely on Bowles ('...that's good enough for me'). At least, your own highly personalized interpretation of Bowles. Just like I said. You just proved me right trying to prove me wrong. Nice!

It's pretty obvious from your commentary at the end that you've either never understood what I've written about the DPD clocks in the past couple of years, or you maybe you'd never really read it carefully in the first place.



it was something that clearly happened frequently when DPD radio was busy

Bowles didn't say how often this occurred, and definitely didn't say that it happened "frequently." Cason said that "t doesn't happen very often that they get out of time, but sometimes they do." That sure doesn't sound like clocks were "frequently" running out of spec. In reality, "frequently" is simply another invention that you've conjured up out of thin air in order to buttress an otherwise baseless line of argument. 

I don't need to prove that the dispatcher clocks were off that day, because Bowles has already told us that they were.

Bowles doesn't say whether the clocks were actually off that day, whether you mean 'off of standard time', or off of the normal operating parameters that he related. This is just another invention of yours. The best he can do is say that this one thing could have happened, or maybe that thing could have happened. But he doesn't back that up with specific examples, so all he can do is insinuate that something or another might have happened.
It makes me curious as to why, when faced with a question that should have a simple a answer, you continue to avoid answering the question. All at the same time you're patting youself on the back about your honesty.

So what exactly does Bowles means by  "There is no way to connect 'police time' with 'real time'?"

Standard time is the time standard standardized by the National Beureau of Standards. At least, that's the standard answer. Put another way, it is the official US time standard as derived from UT1.

Before I start, what do mean by "synch," precisely? That word has a number of different overlapping meanings, and I'd like to be sure we're both on the same page when using it.

Now, first things first...

Apparently, I have to repeat myself: I have never argued, claimed, or impled that any of the DPD dispatcher clock were running on standard time. I presume standard time is what you refer to when you say 'real time'. I have no idea how you came up with the notion that I've ever claimed otherwise. And by "one single iota of evidence that any of the dispatcher clocks were off that day," I was referring to the clocks being off any further than the within-a-minute standard as stated by Bowles and Cason.

What I have argued here for the past couple of years, is this:

It can be determined that the clocks used by the channel one and channel two radio operators were running within one minute of each other. This can be done by inspecting the simulcasts broadcast shortly after the assassination, and comparting the timestamps on those transmissions to the timestamps on the surrounding radio traffic. This can also be done by looking the instances of crosstalk between channel two and channel one during the open mic interval. BBN (and others) used regression analysis of the time announcements on both channels to show the same thing. 

Further, the '12:30 KKB364' announcement between Curry's "approaching triple underpass" and "Go to the hospital" transmissions align with the Hertz clock in the McIntire photo as well as the observed time noted by various members of the White House party indicate that channel two is within one minute of standard time. Thus, channel one announced time is within two minutes of standard time.   

This state of affairs is predicted by statements from Bowles and Cason to the effect that the clocks in the dispatch center were normally kept within a minute of each other. While Bowles presents a number of hypothetical reasons why the time announcements might be off of this spec, he can point to no example of any of them either in the record. Considering that Bowles was in charge of the dispatchers and was responsible for the first transcripts of the channel one and channel two radio traffic, his inability to proffer any example of his hypothetical scenarios is quite significant. Further, the various analyses (in particular, the regression analyses) leave precious little room for any of Bowles' 'maybe' scenarios. There simply is no reason to think that the clocks were apart any more than the within-a-minute spec presented by Bowles and Cason.

Bowles himself said that the DPDs standard was to keep the dispatcher clocks to within a minute. Francis Cason said the same thing. I've quoted both saying it.

Bowles said a hell of a lot more than that. You can do all the self-serving song and dance you want, it doesn't change the fact that Bowles clearly provided information that the DPD time stamps can not be relied upon.

You started off here saying that you rely on nothing.

Stop misrepresenting what I actually said, which was;

"I don't rely on anything. I merely state factual information. It's not my problem that you don't like it. "

Your argument is with Bowles, not with me. But anybody who needs to misrepresent something like this, isn't worth talking to.

Good luck trying to play down what the chief of the DPD dispatchers (who, in case you don't understand that, is a primary source) said. 

I'm not going to waste my time dealing with your nonsense.

[Bill Brown]

Bowles himself said that the DPDs standard was to keep the dispatcher clocks to within a minute. Francis Cason said the same thing. I've quoted both saying it.

Bowles said a hell of a lot more than that. You can do all the self-serving song and dance you want, it doesn't change the fact that Bowles clearly provided information that the DPD time stamps can not be relied upon.

You started off here saying that you rely on nothing.

Stop misrepresenting what I actually said, which was;

"I don't rely on anything. I merely state factual information. It's not my problem that you don't like it. "

Your argument is with Bowles, not with me. But anybody who needs to misrepresent something like this, isn't worth talking to.

Good luck trying to play down what the chief of the DPD dispatchers (who, in case you don't understand that, is a primary source) said. 

I'm not going to waste my time dealing with your nonsense.

I'm not going to waste my time dealing with your nonsense.

And there it is.

[Martin Weidmann]

And there it is.

I really hurt your feelings by exposing your BS, didn't I?

Grow up and get over it.

Btw, just because Mitch Todd wants to write a book filled with nonsense to discredit Bowles, doesn't mean I have to write one as well. I've got better things to do.

[Bill Brown]

I really hurt your feelings by exposing your BS, didn't I?

Grow up and get over it.

Btw, just because Mitch Todd wants to write a book filled with nonsense to discredit Bowles, doesn't mean I have to write one as well. I've got better things to do.

I don't know.  Looks to me like he pretty much kicked your ass and you won't accept it.  You should be embarrassed.

[Martin Weidmann]

I don't know.  Looks to me like he pretty much kicked your ass and you won't accept it.  You should be embarrassed.

Sure, and if anybody with any credibility would have said that, I would take it seriously.

But, it's only the guy who I kicked his ass and can't get over it, so I won't bother.

Btw, I've already got a couple of dogs. I don't need another frustrated puppy to follow me around.

I don't know.

I agree... you do indeed not know.

Oh yeah, I forgot to ask; did you find the source for Butler's second "602" allegedly being to inform the dispatcher he was leaving the scene already, or is it too soon to ask? I mean, it's only about a month since the question was first asked, right?

[Bill Brown]

Sure, and if anybody with any credibility would have said that, I would take it seriously.

But, it's only the guy who I kicked his ass and can't get over it, so I won't bother.

Btw, I've already got a couple of dogs. I don't need another frustrated puppy to follow me around.

Text book response by one who has been embarrassed.  You're hateful and a complete joke.

[Martin Weidmann]

Text book response by one who has been embarrassed.  You're hateful and a complete joke.

That's all you've got? It might be a text book (your book?) response, but that doesn't make it untrue.

You've been on the war path ever since you went down in flames in the debate. It's comical.