I'm not making any assumptions regarding the timing. My beliefs are based on physical evidence that places Oswald in the sniper's nest when JFK was shot and at 10th and Patton when Tippit was shot. It is the conspiracy theorists who try to make the argument that it would have been impossible for Oswald to be at 10th and Patton when Tippit was shot. To make that argument, they treat every time estimate as if it is an established fact. That makes no sense. Without ACCURATE time stamps, such calculations are an exercise in futility.
The shells found in the sniper's nest could only have been fired by the rifle found on the 6th floor to the exclusion of all other weapons in the world and for which there is ample evidence Oswald owned and used the rifle. The shells found at the scene of the Tippit murder could only have been fired by the revolver Oswald had in his possession when arrested to the exclusion of all other weapons in the world. That argument does not depend either on the accuracy of the Hertz clock or of the DPD log.
I'm not making any assumptions regarding the timing. Of course you are. You wrote;
We know he shot JFK at 12:30 because that is the time showing on the Hertz clock above the TSBD. The next accurate time stamp was when a citizen used Tippit's radio to report the shooting of Tippit.
What conclusive evidence do you have that the Hertz clock was absolutely correct and that the verbal time stamps on the DPD recordings provide actual real time, when James Bowles, the man in charge of the dispatchers, clearly states that (and I paraphraze) there were discrepancies and the time stamps called out did not reflect real time?
Bill quoted Larry Sturdivan;
The reality is that, like the spring-driven clocks in most people's houses in 1963, what would have been the crucial clocks and watches probably varied in the time they showed by several minutes."
I would agree with Larry, but my question for you is; do you consider what Bowles said to be incorrect?
My beliefs are based on physical evidence that places Oswald in the sniper's nest when JFK was shot and at 10th and Patton when Tippit was shot. Your beliefs are not facts. There is no conclusive physical evidence that places Oswald on either location. You are using your imagination and pure circular reasoning!
It is the conspiracy theorists who try to make the argument that it would have been impossible for Oswald to be at 10th and Patton when Tippit was shot. I don't know if he was there or not, but I do have a problem with the argument that he was there when evidence that he might not have been and that Tippit was actually shot earlier is simply ignored or dismissed.
To make that argument, they treat every time estimate as if it is an established fact. Just like you do when you seem to accept the estimate that Tippit was shot between 1.14 and 1.15 when there is no conclusive evidence for that time at all!
Now, let me be clear; if Tippit was indeed shot between 1.14 and 1.15, Oswald most certainly could have been at 10th and Patton, if he left the rooming house at just after 1 PM.
But if Tippit was shot earlier, between - let's say 1.06 and 1.08 - there is no way he could physically have been there (if he walked or even ran), which would mean that the witnesses who identified him at the questionable line ups were wrong.
Now, before you dismiss the latter possibility, have you considered the evidence that supports the finding of an earlier time for Tippit's shooting?
The shells found in the sniper's nest could only have been fired by the rifle found on the 6th floor to the exclusion of all other weapons in the world and for which there is ample evidence Oswald owned and used the rifle. The shells found at the scene of the Tippit murder could only have been fired by the revolver Oswald had in his possession when arrested to the exclusion of all other weapons in the world. That argument does not depend either on the accuracy of the Hertz clock or of the DPD log.True, it does not depend on that. Instead it depends completely on an absolute willingness to believe anything you want to believe and not looking more closely and critically at the actual evidence and the way it was handled.
