Lee Oswald The Cop Killer

[Charles Collins]

The transcripts were made from tapes, not from the original dictabelt discs.  The fact that the transcripts say "tape splice" in several spots means that the tapes were edited in some fashion.

So what Bowles is saying here is that it's meaningless that the dispatcher said "1:16" shortly before the citizen reported the shooting of the police officer.

The transcripts were made from tapes, not from the original dictabelt discs.  The fact that the transcripts say "tape splice" in several spots means that the tapes were edited in some fashion.

That's not how I interpret the following words from him:

..."I just made a recording of it with a nice reel to reel tape recorder which the FBI furnished to me and then set about from the original tapes and the original Gray audiograph disks to transcribe the tapes using the originals because, according to the law, that’s the best evidence. The tapes were in as good a condition as you would expect considering the fact that the FBI had tried to transcribe them using a single stylus"...

"On channel 1 we used a two phase dictaphone voice recording. I stress voice recording because it was not a precision quality; it was a stenographic type recording. You had a comparatively dull stylus making a simple impression on a thin celluloid belt." (Apparently he uses tape interchangeably with belt.)

So what Bowles is saying here is that it's meaningless that the dispatcher said "1:16" shortly before the citizen reported the shooting of the police officer.

No, not meaningless, just inexact.  "A good close proximity is the best I could do—no one can do better."

[Martin Weidmann]

The transcripts were made from tapes, not from the original dictabelt discs.  The fact that the transcripts say "tape splice" in several spots means that the tapes were edited in some fashion.

That's not how I interpret the following words from him:

..."I just made a recording of it with a nice reel to reel tape recorder which the FBI furnished to me and then set about from the original tapes and the original Gray audiograph disks to transcribe the tapes using the originals because, according to the law, that’s the best evidence. The tapes were in as good a condition as you would expect considering the fact that the FBI had tried to transcribe them using a single stylus"...

"On channel 1 we used a two phase dictaphone voice recording. I stress voice recording because it was not a precision quality; it was a stenographic type recording. You had a comparatively dull stylus making a simple impression on a thin celluloid belt." (Apparently he uses tape interchangeably with belt.)

He's talking about "original Gray audiograph disks" and "dictaphone voice recording" 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gray_Audograph

The machines that actually recorded the radio transmissions were a, voice activated, Gray audiograph which produces disks and a dictaphone. All reel to reel tapes were recorded later from those disks.

How do you interpret it?

So what Bowles is saying here is that it's meaningless that the dispatcher said "1:16" shortly before the citizen reported the shooting of the police officer.

No, not meaningless, just inexact.  "A good close proximity is the best I could do—no one can do better."

If something is inexact, how can it not be meaningless for an investigation?

[Walt Cakebread]

Yes you are.  If that card was sent with the other evidence on 11/22, then Day and Drain both lied about Drain not getting it that night, and Latona lied about not receiving it until 11/29.  The question is, why would they deny that the card was with the other evidence when it would serve no purpose to do so?

You still haven't demonstrated how you even know that it's a 3x5 card...

if that card was sent with the other evidence on 11/22, then Day and Drain both lied about Drain not getting it that night,

Is that so preposterous?....  Do you doubt that Day was a bare faced liar?   I know that you've seen many examples of Day's prevarications.

[Charles Collins]

The tapes are very simple and self explanatory if you accept them for what they’re worth...

This alone should tell you enough about the evidentary value of the tapes.

There was no way in the world that some six clocks in the telephone room and the two clocks in the dispatching room were synchronized. They  could be as much as a minute or two apart.

Oops... so how does one determine the exact time?

There was one clock in the office that had a generally reliable time. It was on the back wall of the telephone room. The only trouble was that it was way back in the corner which you could hardly see, and nobody ever looked at it.

And still they maintain that the times on the transcripts are acurate. Go figure!

So, under no circumstance could you put any stock in the real world time or any continuity on time references by the belt because there were no time references on the belt; they were only spoken times, and those spoken times had no faithful validity...

Which basically destroys the claim that the transcript times are acurate....

Oops... so how does one determine the exact time?

The most accurate time pieces (even by today's standards) are not exact. There are tolerances involved. Generally, the more expensive ones have closer tolerances. Given what Bowles says in the interview, the tolerances involved with the voice time stamps on the recordings would be plus or minus a minute or two. (Not the ten minutes or so that some people try to attribute to the Tippit murder.)

Which basically destroys the claim that the transcript times are acurate....

It clarifies what the tolerances are. Accurate within a minute or two.

[Martin Weidmann]

Oops... so how does one determine the exact time?

The most accurate time pieces (even by today's standards) are not exact. There are tolerances involved. Generally, the more expensive ones have closer tolerances. Given what Bowles says in the interview, the tolerances involved with the voice time stamps on the recordings would be plus or minus a minute or two. (Not the ten minutes or so that some people try to attribute to the Tippit murder.)

Which basically destroys the claim that the transcript times are acurate....

It clarifies what the tolerances are. Accurate within a minute or two.

It seems you are saying that the transcripts and the recordings may not be 100% reliable, but the spoken time stamps are still reliable enough to be used as evidence.

Oh well, what part of the following quote don't you (want to) understand?

So, under no circumstance could you put any stock in the real world time references by the belt because there were no time references on the belt; they were only spoken times, and those spoken times had no faithful validity...

If James C. Bowles, who was the Communications Supervisor of the Dallas Police Department says this, who are you and what is it you know better than him, to disagree with that opinion?

[Charles Collins]

What part of the following quote don't you (want to) understand?

He explains what he means by that. I previously pointed it out to you. What  part don’t you (want to) understand?

[Martin Weidmann]

He explains what he means by that. I previously pointed it out to you. What  part don’t you (want to) understand?

Twist and turn all you want, but he did indeed explain it alright and it was pretty clear;

So, under no circumstance could you put any stock in the real world time references by the belt because there were no time references on the belt; they were only spoken times, and those spoken times had no faithful validity... - James C. Bowles, Communications Supervisor of the Dallas Police Department.