The Initials Of FBI Agent Elmer Todd Are On CE399 (Hi-Def Photo Proof)

[John Iacoletti]

David does the same thing in every conversation he copies over to his website. It’s highly dishonest and it’s part of the reason he was kicked off the education forum.

[Mitch Todd]

This is why there is no point in having a discussion with you. You argue for argument's sake.

You ask me: What do you mean by ""current time"?"

When you are the guy who actually brought up the term first;

Don't even bother replying. I'm done with wasting my time with you and it will give you more time to try and put square pegs in round holes.

Let's go back to what you wrote:

Oh very well. Yes it is one guy reading the current time from a clock right in front of him, except there is no guarantee that the clock is showing the "current time" and we know from Bowles that the timestamps were not always called correctly.

You start off by directly quoting me ("it is one guy reading the current time from a clock right in front of him") but then go on to say "no guarantee that the clock is showing the 'current time'." But putting the second "current time" in quotes, you differentiated it from my use of the term. So I asked you to clarify what you'd meant by that.

Your response was to throw a hissy fit and stomp off. Go figure.

[John Iacoletti]

Bowles said that the dispatcher sometimes didn’t even read what was displayed on his clock.

“However, radio operators did not interrupt radio traffic in progress just to give a station check. Accordingly, an operator might give, say, the 10:30 check as 10:30 when it was actually 10:29 or perhaps 10:31 or later.”

[Martin Weidmann]

Bowles said that the dispatcher sometimes didn’t even read what was displayed on his clock.

“However, radio operators did not interrupt radio traffic in progress just to give a station check. Accordingly, an operator might give, say, the 10:30 check as 10:30 when it was actually 10:29 or perhaps 10:31 or later.”

Todd isn't interested in what Bowles said. In fact he will twist and turn as much as he can to justify the conclusion that the DPD timestamps are somehow correct. He never achieves that, of course, but he will keep on trying. Which combines nicely with his nasty habit of arguing for argument's sake, as he has done again in the post above yours.

[Mitch Todd]

Bowles said that the dispatcher sometimes didn’t even read what was displayed on his clock.

“However, radio operators did not interrupt radio traffic in progress just to give a station check. Accordingly, an operator might give, say, the 10:30 check as 10:30 when it was actually 10:29 or perhaps 10:31 or later.”

The station checks are where the announcer states the stations call sign. That's supposed to happen something like every 30 minutes on public safety channels, but there is no requirement that it happens at any specific minute. Those aren't the timestamps we're talking about here.

Station ID happens twice in the hour or so after the assassination. First, the "KKB364 12:30" broadcast on channel two. That one doesn't fit Bowles hypothetical scenario because traffic the traffic before the station check is too sparse. There is another at the tail end of the 12:45 simulcast announced by the channel two dispatcher. However, this is preceded by two 12:43 and one 12:44 timestamps and followed by a 12:46 timestamp --just as would be expected if "12:45" was correct, at least as far as the ch 2 clock is concerned. And not at all like what we'd see if your pet Bowles worst-case-scenario was in play. 

[Mitch Todd]

Todd isn't interested in what Bowles said. In fact he will twist and turn as much as he can to justify the conclusion that the DPD timestamps are somehow correct. He never achieves that, of course, but he will keep on trying. Which combines nicely with his nasty habit of arguing for argument's sake, as he has done again in the post above yours.

I have said --repeatedly-- are that the DPD timestamps are correct, as far as the clocks used by the dispatchers are concerned. I have also maintained, from the beginning, is that channel 1 time is within one minute of channel 2 time, and that channel 2 time is within one minute of what you call "real time."

[John Iacoletti]

Yes, you’ve said it repeatedly. But you haven’t demonstrated that either claim is actually true.