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

[Mitch Todd]

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

I have already laid out my arguments for this in at least one other thread. You are welcome to examine and challenge them as well as you are able. Otherwise, your "you haven't actually proved this" shtick is just a load of childish whining.

[Martin Weidmann]

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

And, despite his claims to the contrary, he never will. It's made up out of thin air.

[Martin Weidmann]

To get back to David von Pein's blatant misrepresentation on his blog of the conversation in this thread.

Not only is it dishonest, but it is also an admission of the weakness of his own case. If the official narrative was strong enough to withstand scrutiny, David would not only would have stood his ground in the discussion here, instead of bailing out of the conversation, but he also would have no need to misrepresent the conversation on his blog, by editing posts and even ignoring posts that he doesn't like and hasn't got a credible rebuttal for.

[John Iacoletti]

I have already laid out my arguments for this in at least one other thread. You are welcome to examine and challenge them as well as you are able.

And I have done that repeatedly. Your arguments rely on unsubstantiated assumptions.

[Mitch Todd]

And I have done that repeatedly. Your arguments rely on unsubstantiated assumptions.

If by "I have done that repeatedly," you mean:

 -- Trying to rely on Bowles' unsubstantiated speculations as some kind of Get Out of Jail Free card
 -- Playing dumb about what I've argued in this particular case
 -- Putting scare quotes around the term regression analysis because you know nothing about the fairly common statistical technique, or how it's been used in the JFK case
 -- lame eye-rolling
 -- making oblique, nebulous, and unexplained references to Francis Cason talking about different clocks that Bowles.

you have definitely managed the feat. And that's about all you've managed. You haven't actually rebutted anything I've argued. Just pretended to. 

[Mitch Todd]

And, despite his claims to the contrary, he never will. It's made up out of thin air.

The best that you can do at this point is to make a completely unsubstantiated claim that I've made it all up. And you do it in this passive-aggressive I-won't-say-it-to-him-but-I'll-say-it-about-him-where-he-can-hear-it way common to sniffy teen-aged girls. Nice

[John Iacoletti]

Mitch, who are you trying to fool?

- you’ve claimed the dispatcher time checks were accurate when Bowles said they were not

- you’ve pretended the Hertz clock is accurate even though there’s no evidence it was.

- you’ve pretended that Dave Powers’ memory of what his watch said must be correct and precise.

- you’ve posited Chanel 1/2 “simulcasts” while providing no supporting evidence.

- you’ve claimed that portions of the extant recordings are continuous without providing any supporting evidence other than vague references to “regression analysis”.

- you’ve pretended that the time of Tippit’s death can somehow be determined from inaccurate time announcements made an unknown amount of time after the fact.

- you’ve wasted everybody’s time with your holier-than-thou arrogance.