JFK Assassination Forum
JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion & Debate => JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion And Debate => Topic started by: Joe Elliott on August 03, 2020, 08:25:36 AM
-
Unsung Heroes
There is a list of heroes in the case. Most of them have been known for years.
Officer Tippit. Officer McDonald. Johnny Brewer, Julia Postal. Names of people who at a critical junction, stepped up and did something that resulted in the capture of the assassin of the President with 75 minutes.
But I think there is probably another. Officer E.G. Sabastian reported immediately over the radio that NBC News reported that a police officer had been shot. Johnny Brewer reported hearing two weeks later that he heard an early report of the shooting of a police officer. I think there was such a broadcast. Which means we have another hero. An unknown hero.
Some station news director at the local NBC News station, at WFAA, broadcasting on the NBC station 820 AM got a report that the police radio said that a police officer was murdered in the Oak Cliff area. He made the call, we’re not going to go with another message about what a terrible event this is, we’re not going with another call about what a priest said, we’re not going with another call about we still haven’t heard an official announcement. Instead, he made the call, broadcast, immediately, that a police officer was shot in the Oak Cliff area.
Maybe this didn’t make a difference. Maybe Johnny Brewer was already alerted by the report of the President being shot just 3 miles away just 66 minutes earlier. But who knows, maybe it made the difference. In any case, while all other program directors got locked up with information overload, it appears that one of them didn’t and made the correct call. And scooped the competition. And helped get Oswald captured. To our newest unknown hero, I salute you.
-
Unsung Heroes
There is a list of heroes in the case. Most of them have been known for years.
Officer Tippit. Officer McDonald. Johnny Brewer, Julia Postal. Names of people who at a critical junction, stepped up and did something that resulted in the capture of the assassin of the President with 75 minutes.
But I think there is probably another. Officer E.G. Sabastian reported immediately over the radio that NBC News reported that a police officer had been shot. Johnny Brewer reported hearing two weeks later that he heard an early report of the shooting of a police officer. I think there was such a broadcast. Which means we have another hero. An unknown hero.
Some station news director at the local NBC News station, at WFAA, broadcasting on the NBC station 820 AM got a report that the police radio said that a police officer was murdered in the Oak Cliff area. He made the call, we’re not going to go with another message about what a terrible event this is, we’re not going with another call about what a priest said, we’re not going with another call about we still haven’t heard an official announcement. Instead, he made the call, broadcast, immediately, that a police officer was shot in the Oak Cliff area.
Maybe this didn’t make a difference. Maybe Johnny Brewer was already alerted by the report of the President being shot just 3 miles away just 66 minutes earlier. But who knows, maybe it made the difference. In any case, while all other program directors got locked up with information overload, it appears that one of them didn’t and made the correct call. And scooped the competition. And helped get Oswald captured. To our newest unknown hero, I salute you.
Amazing... You go from (1) "I think there was such a broadcast." to (2) speculating about what "some station news director at the local NBC News station, at WFAA" possibly heard and did, to (3) concluding it did actually happen and declaring a new hero.... all in one post and all without a shred of evidence! WOW
Too bad there is no record whatsoever of any radio broadcast that Brewer could have heard at the time he said he heard it. Had there been one it would have surfaced by now.... but it didn't!
-
The only REAL hero was Secret Service Agent Clinton Hill, who got in the line of fire.
-
Amazing... You go from (1) "I think there was such a broadcast." to (3) speculating about what "some station news director at the local NBC News station, at WFAA" possibly heard and did, to concluding it did actually happen and declaring a new hero.... all in one post and all without a shred of evidence! WOW
Too bad there is no record whatsoever of any radio broadcast that Brewer could have heard at the time he said he heard it. Had there been one it would have surfaced by now.... but it didn't!
Amazing I changed my mind with new information? Not at all. I do that all the time. It’s only certain people who are not affected by the facts, who are not affected by new information, but just keep believing in what they believe. But I’m not one of them. Before learning of what Officer E. G. Sabastian was saying at 1:28 pm, yes, I thought there might or might not have been such a broadcast. But now I think there definitely was and that someone must have decided to put this on the air.
Would such a tape have surfaced by now? No, it wouldn’t. Not if it had been erased, as usually happens to recordings of radio broadcasts. Which generally get recorded over by a future broadcast. It’s gone. Other stations saved at least some of their broadcast but lost part of it.
By your logic, the local NBC News station on 820 AM didn’t make any broadcast that day. Because if it did, a recording of it would have surfaced by now. It did make a broadcast that day and it almost certainly reported before 1:28 pm that a policeman had been shot. We know this because if it didn’t happen, Officer E. G. Sabastian would not have been talking about such an NBC news report at 1:28 pm.
Of the various recordings that have survived:
NBC’s New York TV broadcast didn’t start to record until 3 minutes and 53 seconds after the first news flash, so they started recording audio until 12:45 CST, and video by 12:51 CST.
NBC’s New York Radio starts recording, after 1:00 EST, it is naturally giving us east coast times. This would be after 12:00 noon CST. By 10:33 into this recording, the first bulletin came in, so it must have started recording by 12:35 am, roughly. So, the recording did not start recording a 12:00 noon but more like 12:25 pm or a little later.
A local pop music station LIF does have a pretty complete record from 11:30 am CST to 2:47 pm CST.
Another local pop music station KBOX’s recording didn’t start until they announced that it was now official, President Kennedy is dead. Clearly this recording missed the first hour or more and we don’t have any recording before 1:40, or 1:30.
A local ABC News station records, 570 AM starts recording at 7:00 am CST, but it is clear that there are big gaps, because at 2:55:30 minutes, it announces the time as 11:54 and by 2:55:50, it makes the first announcement about the Dealey Plaza shooting. So, the ABC recording has big gaps in it, at least until 12:35 CST.
All in all, the recordings of the radio broadcasts were a hit or miss affair. Some recordings were saved, some were lost. It appears that some stations saved some tapes but lost others, because the recordings don’t start until an hour after the shooting at Dealey Plaza. It took awhile for people to start realizing that they need to save these tapes and some were lost, and not just at the local NBC radio station.
If a witness recalls a radio report occurring roughly around 1:28 pm, but first makes a statement about this two weeks later, he might be confused. But if a witness recalls a media report occurring roughly around 1:28 pm, and talks about it immediately, he can’t be confused. I can believe Johnny Brewer got confused. But Officer E. G. Sabastian? No way. There was a radio announcement of a policeman’s shooting before 1:30 pm by the local NBC News station.
Question 1:
What if we had a recording of Mr. Brewer’s voice at 1:28 pm saying that he just heard over the radio that a police officer was shot. Would there still be a debate over whether it was possible that he was mistaken on this question?
The only reason there has been a debate on this is because Mr. Brewer did not make an immediate statement on this but instead his first preserved statement came two weeks later. It is reasonable to question a 2-week-old memory. But not an immediate memory, of hearing an NBC broadcast that had not occurred yet.
Question 2:
Why isn’t a recording by Officer E. G. Sabastian considered proof that such an early radio announcement was made?
-
Amazing I changed my mind with new information? Not at all. I do that all the time. It’s only certain people who are not affected by the facts, who are not affected by new information, but just keep believing in what they believe. But I’m not one of them. Before learning of what Officer E. G. Sabastian was saying at 1:28 pm, yes, I thought there might or might not have been such a broadcast. But now I think there definitely was and that someone must have decided to put this on the air.
Nothing wrong or amazing about changing your mind. What is amazing is that you rely on speculation.
First of all, you need to understand that the times given on the DPD recordings are likely not correct, as per J.C. Bowles, the man in charge of the DPD dispatchers;
A master clock on the telephone room wall was connected to the City Hall system. This clock reported "official" time. Within the dispatcher's office there were numerous other time giving and time recording devices, both in the telephone room and in the radio room. Telephone operators and radio operators were furnished "Simplex" clocks. Because the hands often worked loose, they indicated the incorrect time. However, their purpose was to stamp the time, day and date on incoming calls. While they were reliable at this, they were not synchronized as stated in the Committee report. Therefore, it was not uncommon for the time stamped on calls to be a minute to two ahead or behind the "official" time shown on the master clock. Accordingly, at "exactly" 10:10, various clocks could be stamping from 10:08 to 10:12, for example. When clocks were as much as a minute or so out of synchronization it was normal procedure to make the needed adjustments. During busy periods this was not readily done.
In addition to the times stamped on calls by telephone operators, the radio operators stamped the "time" as calls were dispatched, and the "time" that officers completed an assignment and returned to service. Radio operators were also furnished with 12-hour digital clocks to facilitate their time references when they were not using call sheets containing stamped time. These digital clocks were not synchronized with any time standard. Therefore, the time "actual" and time "broadcast" could easily be a minute or so apart.
Would such a tape have surfaced by now? No, it wouldn’t. Not if it had been erased, as usually happens to recordings of radio broadcasts. Which generally get recorded over by a future broadcast. It’s gone. Other stations saved at least some of their broadcast but lost part of it.
I agree with you that tapes used to record station output were indeed recycled, after a period of time, but I seriously doubt they would destroy the tape of the day Kennedy was murdered.
By your logic, the local NBC News station on 820 AM didn’t make any broadcast that day. Because if it did, a recording of it would have surfaced by now. It did make a broadcast that day and it almost certainly reported before 1:28 pm that a policeman had been shot. We know this because if it didn’t happen, Officer E. G. Sabastian would not have been talking about such an NBC news report at 1:28 pm.
The comment "NBC News is reporting DOA." doesn't have to mean that it was broadcast. It could just as easily have been a comment by a NBC News reporter that was overheard by Sabastian. You just suppose there must have been a broadcast.
Question 1:
What if we had a recording of Mr. Brewer’s voice at 1:28 pm saying that he just heard over the radio that a police officer was shot. Would there still be a debate over whether it was possible that he was mistaken on this question?
Moot question that requires speculation.
Question 2:
Why isn’t a recording by Officer E. G. Sabastian considered proof that such an early radio announcement was made?
Because it isn't. Just like Brewer saying he heard it on the radio isn't proof that there actually was a radio broadcast.
.
-
The only REAL hero was Secret Service Agent Clinton Hill, who got in the line of fire.
Thumb1:
-
Unsung Heroes for the Lone Nut Narrative :) :
- Jack Ruby
- J Edgar Hoover
- Allen Dulles
- Gerald Ford
- Arlen Spector
- Dan Rather
-
I agree with you that tapes used to record station output were indeed recycled, after a period of time, but I seriously doubt they would destroy the tape of the day Kennedy was murdered.
I now agree with you. I was perplexed that the recordings would start in mid broadcast, like the old tape ran out and a new one put in. It is now clear to me that in general, the local radio stations were not recording anything when they heard about the assassination, and while concentrating on getting the news and broadcasting it, took up to an hour or more to setup and start recording the broadcast. I now believe, so far as I know, that no tape, once made, was lost. But it is also clear, that in many cases, no recording was made during that first hour.
The comment "NBC News is reporting DOA." doesn't have to mean that it was broadcast. It could just as easily have been a comment by a NBC News reporter that was overheard by Sabastian. You just suppose there must have been a broadcast.
I doubt a police officer would overhear and reporter talking and call dispatch to report that “NBC News is reporting DOA.” The fact that he was using the radio means, to me, that he wasn’t at police headquarters but was patrolling in his vehicle. Officer E. G. Sabastian isn’t going overhear a reporter at headquarters, walk past the dispatch office, go the garage, get in his squad car, get on his radio and report to dispatch that “NBC News is reporting DOA.”
“NBC News is reporting DOA” means hearing a media broadcast, either over TV or radio. And we know it wasn’t TV. And he wouldn’t have been watching TV. And likely based on the voice of an announcer who reported for NBC, or at least often reported for NBC, but sometimes ABC. Like an announcer for either WBAP or WFAA. It would not have been WBAP but it might have been WFAA.
By the way, was E. G. Sabastain assigned to chat up reporters and report back to dispatch what they were talking about?
No.
https://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/dpdtapes/tapes2.htm
1:25
75 (Ptm. E. G. Sabastian) 75 is at Forest and Central
which I interpret as Officer Sabastian is in his patrol car at the intersection of Forest Lane and North Central Expressway, several miles north of Dealey Plaza and police headquarters and not likely to encounter any reporters. And reports from “NBC News” has to be coming in over the radio.
-
Unsung Heroes for the Lone Nut Narrative :) :
- Jack Ruby
- J Edgar Hoover
- Allen Dulles
- Gerald Ford
- Arlen Spector
- Dan Rather
Actually, only Gerald Ford and Arlen Specter make my list as, not heroes, but men who made a positive contribution to this case.
I think the other LNers on the board would agree with who I list and who I don’t.
-
I now agree with you. I was perplexed that the recordings would start in mid broadcast, like the old tape ran out and a new one put in. It is now clear to me that in general, the local radio stations were not recording anything when they heard about the assassination, and while concentrating on getting the news and broadcasting it, took up to an hour or more to setup and start recording the broadcast. I now believe, so far as I know, that no tape, once made, was lost. But it is also clear, that in many cases, no recording was made during that first hour.
It is now clear to me that in general, the local radio stations were not recording anything when they heard about the assassination
Pray tell, just how did that become clear to you?
I was perplexed that the recordings would start in mid broadcast, like the old tape ran out and a new one put in.
Which only tells me that you don't really understand how an output recording system used to work, back then. You seem to be under the impression that somebody had to change tapes ever so often, when in fact the system used a big real tape that was slowed down so it could record a full 24 hour output on one tape. There normally were two machines, with the second one starting a minute or so before the tape on the first machine ran out.
I doubt a police officer would overhear and reporter talking and call dispatch to report that “NBC News is reporting DOA.” The fact that he was using the radio means, to me, that he wasn’t at police headquarters but was patrolling in his vehicle. Officer E. G. Sabastian isn’t going overhear a reporter at headquarters, walk past the dispatch office, go the garage, get in his squad car, get on his radio and report to dispatch that “NBC News is reporting DOA.”
Why would the reporter that Sabsatian possibly overheard be at DPD headquarters? Cops on the street meet people and overhear conversations all the time. Sabastian may well have known the reporter to be a NBC News employee, and when he heard him say the officer was DOA he simply got curious and wanted to get confirmation by calling it in. Since names of people were/are not normally broadcast on police radio, he may well have gotten around that by saying "NBC News is reporting..."
“NBC News is reporting DOA” means hearing a media broadcast, either over TV or radio. And we know it wasn’t TV. And he wouldn’t have been watching TV. And likely based on the voice of an announcer who reported for NBC, or at least often reported for NBC, but sometimes ABC. Like an announcer for either WBAP or WFAA. It would not have been WBAP but it might have been WFAA.
“NBC News is reporting DOA” means hearing a media broadcast, either over TV or radio.
No it doesn't. Not necessarily anyway. Yesterday on CNN I heard a reporter say "tomorrow the New York Times is reporting....."
By the way, was E. G. Sabastain assigned to chat up reporters and report back to dispatch what they were talking about?
No.
So what? Was Victoria Adams a police officer? Yet she still overheard a message on the DPD radio. Regardless of what Sabastian's assignment was, that doesn't preclude that he overheard somebody saying a fellow officer was DOA and wanted to check with the DPD dispatcher if that was true.
https://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/dpdtapes/tapes2.htm
1:25
75 (Ptm. E. G. Sabastian) 75 is at Forest and Central
which I interpret as Officer Sabastian is in his patrol car at the intersection of Forest Lane and North Central Expressway, several miles north of Dealey Plaza and police headquarters and not likely to encounter any reporters. And reports from “NBC News” has to be coming in over the radio.
You can interpret that as much as you like, but it is meaningless. If he had heard a report on the radio he would have known that it was Tippit who was DOA, but he clearly did not know that because he asked the dispatcher "That the officer".
Another point of interest is this. Let's say you're right and Sabastian did hear it on the radio at 1.25 or just before that. According to the official narrative, Tippit was allegedly shot at 1.14/1.15 and picked up by an ambulance at 1.18. The drive to Methodist Hospital from 10th/Patton is about 4 minutes, which puts the arrival of the ambulance at 1.22. There were no reporters with the ambulance, only Davenport's police car which started following the ambulance en route. Back in those days reporters had to call in stories by phone, so for the story to be broadcast at no later than 1.25, there were only three minutes, after the ambulance arrival, available for a reporter to get to Methodist Hospital, talk to a doctor, find a phone and call it in and get the story on the air..... Not very likely...
Now, if Tippit was really shot at around 1.06 or 1.07 it would be a different matter, but I don't think you want to be having that discussion....
-
It is now clear to me that in general, the local radio stations were not recording anything when they heard about the assassination
Pray tell, just how did that become clear to you?
My at least two stations, KBOX and WFAA, starting there recording at some random moment, an hour or so after the news broke about the assassination.
If the radio stations were all recording their broadcasts, why are we missing so much of the first hour with multiple stations?
-
Why would the reporter that Sabsatian possibly overheard be at DPD headquarters? Cops on the street meet people and overhear conversations all the time. Sabastian may well have known the reporter to be a NBC News employee, and when he heard him say the officer was DOA he simply got curious and wanted to get confirmation by calling it in. Since names of people were/are not normally broadcast on police radio, he may well have gotten around that by saying "NBC News is reporting..."
“NBC News is reporting DOA” means hearing a media broadcast, either over TV or radio.
For every person who says something like “NBC News is reporting . . .” and says this because of an NBC reporter that they just happened to talk to, there are thousands who would say this because of what they heard on TV or over the radio. Yes, it’s possible that a reporter wearing a badge saying “NBC News” stopped officer Sabastian in his squad car, miles from Dealey Plaza, and told him, “There is something I need to tell you. A police officer has been reported DOA.” But it is not likely.
-
My at least two stations, KBOX and WFAA, starting there recording at some random moment, an hour or so after the news broke about the assassination.
If the radio stations were all recording their broadcasts, why are we missing so much of the first hour with multiple stations?
My at least two stations, KBOX and WFAA, starting there recording at some random moment, an hour or so after the news broke about the assassination.
This is a mere assumption on your part, based on the fact that you have no earlier recordings. It's does not prove that "the local radio stations were not recording anything when they heard about the assassination"
If the radio stations were all recording their broadcasts, why are we missing so much of the first hour with multiple stations?
That's a good question for which I have no answer. I can only speculate about what could have happened to those tapes. But absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. What I do find somewhat strange is that two stations would start taping about an hour after the news broke. That, to me, is too much of a coincidence. Why, if they weren't taping already, would they wait an entire hour?
-
For every person who says something like “NBC News is reporting . . .” and says this because of an NBC reporter that they just happened to talk to, there are thousands who would say this because of what they heard on TV or over the radio. Yes, it’s possible that a reporter wearing a badge saying “NBC News” stopped officer Sabastian in his squad car, miles from Dealey Plaza, and told him, “There is something I need to tell you. A police officer has been reported DOA.” But it is not likely.
Yes, it’s possible that a reporter wearing a badge saying “NBC News” stopped officer Sabastian in his squad car, miles from Dealey Plaza, and told him, “There is something I need to tell you. A police officer has been reported DOA.”
Here you go again... repeating the same stuff that has already been proven incorrect in the other thread. Perhaps that's why you jumped to this thread again. Sabastian wasn't miles from Dealey Plaza. At around 1.25 he was near 400 Jefferson East in Oak Cliff, which is where the dispatcher told him to go after a jacket was found at a parking lot there.
Nobody stopped Sabastian in his patrol car. That's just BS. Far more likely is that Sabastian arrived at 400 Jefferson East and overheard somebody say that a cop was DOA, and possibly that they heard it on NBC News even though we know that couldn't have been the case, so he quickly asked the dispatcher.
Your desperation to cling to the notion of a radio broadcast about Tippit being shot or killed at 1.25 is getting tiresome. In the other thread it has already been explained to you that, if the official narrative is true, Tippit was declared dead at Methodist Hospital at 1.22. Back in those days there were no live links. All stories had to be called in by phone. There simply is no way that any radio station could have put out a broadcast about Tippit at 1.25. And no such broadcast has ever surfaced.
-
Yes, it’s possible that a reporter wearing a badge saying “NBC News” stopped officer Sabastian in his squad car, miles from Dealey Plaza, and told him, “There is something I need to tell you. A police officer has been reported DOA.”
Here you go again... repeating the same stuff that has already been proven incorrect in the other thread. Perhaps that's why you jumped to this thread again, by Sabastian wasn't miles from Dealey Plaza. At around 1.25 he was near 400 Jefferson East in Oak Cliff, which is where the dispatcher told him to go after a jacket was found at a parking lot there.
I urge any reader to go check the transcript of the Dictabelt which records the what the Police Dispatcher and the other Dallas Police officers were saying over the radio in real time.
https://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/dpdtapes/tapes2.htm (https://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/dpdtapes/tapes2.htm)
https://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/dpdtapes/tapes3.htm (https://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/dpdtapes/tapes3.htm)
First, I don’t think this transcript is totally accurate. It is difficult to tell which officer is talking. I believe that sometimes, when the person wrote the transcript, they guess who is talking, but sometimes guess wrong.
For instance:
At 1:25
75 (Ptm. E. G. Sabastian) 75 is at Forest and Central.
At 1:26
75 (Ptm. E. G. Sabastian) Go ahead.
Dispatcher 400 East Jefferson.
75 We’re almost there.
Now, according to Google maps, by the fastest route, the distance between:
The intersection of Forest Lane and Central Expressway
And:
400 E Jefferson Blvd.
is 13 miles.
So, if we take the transcript at face value, Officer Sabastian travelled 13 miles in one minute.
The logical conclusion? One of these statements is in error. Either the report of Officer Sabastian being at Forest and Central at 1:25, or the report of Officer Sabastian being almost at 400 E. Jefferson Blvd. at 1:26. I would say the 1:25 statement is accurate, the 1:26 statement is not, and was actually made by a different officer who was in the area of 400 East Jefferson.
Why is this logical? Why not consider the 1:25 statement to be the one possibly in error? That it was made by some other officer, not Officer Sabastian? Because the 1:25 statement explicitly identifies him. “75 is at Forest and Central.” No other officer would be saying that. In contrast, the 1:26 transmission, the officer does not identify himself. The transmission just says on the recording “Go ahead . . . We’re almost there.” That could have been made by any officer. By which I logically deduce, was not Officer Sabastian, because he could not have travelled 13 miles in one minute.
So, while the transcript says this statement “We’re almost there.” Was made by Officer Sabastian, there is nothing in the recording that identifies who said it.
Now a few lines later, the Dispatcher orders Officer Sabastian to 400 East Jefferson and Officer Sabastian (I believe) acknowledges:
75 75.
Dispatcher 400 East Jefferson. Report in that vicinity.
75 Code 2.
Dispatcher Yes.
Now, in these statements, 75 (Sabastian) reports in to the Dispatcher. The Dispatcher says to go to 400 East Jefferson and report in when your near there and Officer Sabastian says “Code 2”, that is, I’m on my way now”. Code 2 does not mean “I’m already in the vicinity”. So, we know from the transmission from 1:25, which we know was from Officer Sabastian, that he is still 13 miles away.
So, at 1:28, when Officer Sabastian reports “NBC News is reporting DOA. . . . That the officer?”, he’s not in Dealey Plaza, he’s not at 400 East Jefferson, he is still miles from both locations. So he did not get this message directly from an NBC reporter, he could only have gotten it another way, over the commercial radio.
And as a side note, it should be mentioned that you are not being logically consistent:
1. You say Officer Sabastian was at 400 East Jefferson by 1:28 where he could have learned from an NBC reporter about an officer being killed. And 400 East Jefferson is just a few blocks form the site Officer Tippit was killed at.
2. You also say that the media could not have known about Officer being DOA, “Dead on Arrival”. But if NBC News was in that area that soon, they could have found out where the ambulance was headed and went there themselves and learned that the officer was “DOA”.
So, which is it? Was the media in the vicinity of the Tippit murder scene very early or not? You can’t have it both ways.
-
I urge any reader to go check the transcript of the Dictabelt which records the what the Police Dispatcher and the other Dallas Police officers were saying over the radio in real time.
https://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/dpdtapes/tapes2.htm (https://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/dpdtapes/tapes2.htm)
https://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/dpdtapes/tapes3.htm (https://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/dpdtapes/tapes3.htm)
First, I don’t think this transcript is totally accurate. It is difficult to tell which officer is talking. I believe that sometimes, when the person wrote the transcript, they guess who is talking, but sometimes guess wrong.
For instance:
At 1:25
75 (Ptm. E. G. Sabastian) 75 is at Forest and Central.
At 1:26
75 (Ptm. E. G. Sabastian) Go ahead.
Dispatcher 400 East Jefferson.
75 We’re almost there.
Now, according to Google maps, by the fastest route, the distance between:
The intersection of Forest Lane and Central Expressway
And:
400 E Jefferson Blvd.
is 13 miles.
So, if we take the transcript at face value, Officer Sabastian travelled 13 miles in one minute.
The logical conclusion? One of these statements is in error. Either the report of Officer Sabastian being at Forest and Central at 1:25, or the report of Officer Sabastian being almost at 400 E. Jefferson Blvd. at 1:26. I would say the 1:25 statement is accurate, the 1:26 statement is not, and was actually made by a different officer who was in the area of 400 East Jefferson.
Why is this logical? Why not consider the 1:25 statement to be the one possibly in error? That it was made by some other officer, not Officer Sabastian? Because the 1:25 statement explicitly identifies him. “75 is at Forest and Central.” No other officer would be saying that. In contrast, the 1:26 transmission, the officer does not identify himself. The transmission just says on the recording “Go ahead . . . We’re almost there.” That could have been made by any officer. By which I logically deduce, was not Officer Sabastian, because he could not have travelled 13 miles in one minute.
So, while the transcript says this statement “We’re almost there.” Was made by Officer Sabastian, there is nothing in the recording that identifies who said it.
Now a few lines later, the Dispatcher orders Officer Sabastian to 400 East Jefferson and Officer Sabastian (I believe) acknowledges:
75 75.
Dispatcher 400 East Jefferson. Report in that vicinity.
75 Code 2.
Dispatcher Yes.
Now, in these statements, 75 (Sabastian) reports in to the Dispatcher. The Dispatcher says to go to 400 East Jefferson and report in when your near there and Officer Sabastian says “Code 2”, that is, I’m on my way now”. Code 2 does not mean “I’m already in the vicinity”. So, we know from the transmission from 1:25, which we know was from Officer Sabastian, that he is still 13 miles away.
So, at 1:28, when Officer Sabastian reports “NBC News is reporting DOA. . . . That the officer?”, he’s not in Dealey Plaza, he’s not at 400 East Jefferson, he is still miles from both locations. So he did not get this message directly from an NBC reporter, he could only have gotten it another way, over the commercial radio.
And as a side note, it should be mentioned that you are not being logically consistent:
1. You say Officer Sabastian was at 400 East Jefferson by 1:28 where he could have learned from an NBC reporter about an officer being killed. And 400 East Jefferson is just a few blocks form the site Officer Tippit was killed at.
2. You also say that the media could not have known about Officer being DOA, “Dead on Arrival”. But if NBC News was in that area that soon, they could have found out where the ambulance was headed and went there themselves and learned that the officer was “DOA”.
So, which is it? Was the media in the vicinity of the Tippit murder scene very early or not? You can’t have it both ways.
This is so much self-serving mumbo jumbo that I don't even know where to begin.
So why don't I start with inconsistancy;
When this message comes over the radio;
At 1:26
75 (Ptm. E. G. Sabastian) Go ahead.
Dispatcher 400 East Jefferson.
75 We’re almost there.
the transcript somehow likely isn't correct, because the dispatcher, when he said "400 East Jefferson" could have been talking to anybody except Sabastian, right?
Yet only a few lines later this comes over the radio;
75 75.
Dispatcher 400 East Jefferson. Report in that vicinity.
75 Code 2.
Dispatcher Yes.
and now you claim the dispatcher is telling Sabastian (75) to go to..... wait for it.... the same location he said previously! Go figure!
What is really happening here of course is that the dispatcher told Sabastian the first time to go to 400 Jefferson and in the second call reminded him to report when he's in the vicinity. To argue that the first call isn't correct and the second one is, is simply disingenuous. Sabastian was probably racing down the Central Expressway with sirens blazing. "We're almost there" isn't precise and simply could have been his way of saying "we're en route", but whatever it's meaning, he responded to the dispatcher telling him where to go and that was 400 Jefferson!
This alone also blows completely out of the water your crazy notion that the "we're almost there" message wasn't correct because Sabastian could not have covered 13 miles in 1 minute. Of course he couldn't and didn't. When he said "we’re almost there" he was already on his way and in the second call he basically confirms that he will call in when he gets there, meaning he is still en route at that moment.
And how in the world do you know what "code 2" means? The answer is that you don't. You're just guessing and saying something that fits your narrative.
All this is merely a silly attempt to keep alive the illusion that there was a radio broadcast at 1.25 pm (which has never surfaced and nobody has ever heard) and Sabastian (as well as Brewer, because that's what this is really about) could have heard it.
So, let's talk some more about inconsistancy; in the other thread (about Brewer) you agreed with me that it was unlikely that Sabastian would have a commercial radio station on while in his patrol car racing down to 400 Jefferson. Yet here you argue that he did not get to 400 East Jefferson until well after 1.25, which means he still must have been in his patrol car at 1.25. So, are you now going back to saying that he did have a radio playing in the car after all? If not, you have self-defeated your own argument, because there is no other way for Sabastian that he could have heard a radio report at 1.25 while driving at high speed on the motorway. The problem is of course still the same; there is no evidence of such a broadcast actually having been aired.
And as a side note, it should be mentioned that you are not being logically consistent:
1. You say Officer Sabastian was at 400 East Jefferson by 1:28 where he could have learned from an NBC reporter about an officer being killed. And 400 East Jefferson is just a few blocks form the site Officer Tippit was killed at.
2. You also say that the media could not have known about Officer being DOA, “Dead on Arrival”. But if NBC News was in that area that soon, they could have found out where the ambulance was headed and went there themselves and learned that the officer was “DOA”.
So, which is it? Was the media in the vicinity of the Tippit murder scene very early or not? You can’t have it both ways.
When you are right, you are right! After giving this further consideration I withdraw the argument, simply because when Sabastian arrived at 400 Jefferson he had already asked the dispatcher about the DOA, which means that he must have made that call to the dispatcher while en route from Forest Lane to 400 Jefferson. Which, of course, brings us right back to square one; Sabastian could only have heard it in his car, while on the Expressway, yet you have already argreed that it is unlikely he would have a commercial station on, racing down the highway with his sirens on.
So let's examine the known facts and compare them with your speculation;
If the official narrative is true, Tippit was shot and killed at 1.14 / 1.15 and picked up by an ambulance at 1.18. The drive to Methodist Hospital was about four minutes, and when the ambulance got there, at 1.22, Tippit was declared DOA. Back in those days there were no live links, like we have today. All stories had to be called in by phone. In order to get a story like this on the air at 1.25 a reporter had at most only 3 minutes to arrive at the hospital, talk to the doctors, find a phone and call it in. The message then needed to be transcribed for broadcast. To even consider all this could have happened in less than 3 minutes requires a massive stretch of imagination.
The fact is that no broadcast, on either NBC news or any other station, has ever surfaced and no reporter has ever claimed that he was at Methodist Hospital when Tippit was declared DOA.
We have now established that Sabastian was in his cruiser at 1.25, racing down the motorway, likely with sirens on full blast, towards 400 East Jefferson, where he - given the distance - probably arrived after the dispatcher put out a message on channel 2 about Tippit's DOA at 1.28. We also know that on channel 1, the first mention of a DOA was by Sabastian at around 1.25.
If Sabastian had heard a message on a commercial radio station, he would have known that it was an officer who had been killed. He didn't, because he merely said "NBC News is reporting DOA" and when the dispatcher answered "That's correct" he asked "That the officer?" only to follow it with ".... on the President".
Now I don't know where Sabastian got the "NBC News is reporting DOA" from, but the bottom line is that despite Sabastian's comment, there is not a shred of evidence that there was or even could have been a radio broadcast about Tippit's DOA at 1.25. And no amount of twisting and turning or your part is going to change that.
-
This is so much self-serving mumbo jumbo that I don't even know where to begin.
So why don't I start with inconsistancy;
When this message comes over the radio;
At 1:26
75 (Ptm. E. G. Sabastian) Go ahead.
Dispatcher 400 East Jefferson.
75 We’re almost there.
the transcript somehow likely isn't correct, because the dispatcher, when he said "400 East Jefferson" could have been talking to anybody except Sabastian, right?
Yet only a few lines later this comes over the radio;
75 75.
Dispatcher 400 East Jefferson. Report in that vicinity.
75 Code 2.
Dispatcher Yes.
and now you claim the dispatcher is telling Sabastian (75) to go to..... wait for it.... the same location he said previously! Go figure!
What is really happening here of course is that the dispatcher told Sabastian the first time to go to 400 Jefferson and in the second call reminded him to report when he's in the vicinity. To argue that the first call isn't correct and the second one is, is simply disingenuous. Sabastian was probably racing down the Central Expressway with sirens blazing. "We're almost there" isn't precise and simply could have been his way of saying "we're en route", but whatever it's meaning, he responded to the dispatcher telling him where to go and that was 400 Jefferson!
No. My interpretation is correct. Let’s ignore the 13-mile distance, and “We are almost there” meaning the same as “I’m still 13 miles away”. Let me re-word these two conversations between the Dispatcher and Officer Sabastian, or the two conversations, first with an unknown officer and the second with Officer Sabastian. I’ll reword it your way, with both conversations with Officer Sabastian, And I am rewording it with standard English, without the special codes, like “Code 2”, or “75” being code for Officer Sabastian, to make the meaning clearer:
Officer Sabastian: Reporting in for instructions.
Dispatcher: Proceed to 400 East Jefferson. Report when in that vicinity.
Officer Sabastian: We are almost there.
[ 30 seconds later ]
Officer Sabastian: Officer Sabastian here, reporting in for instructions.
Dispatcher: Proceed to 400 East Jefferson. Report when in that vicinity.
Officer Sabastian: I will head out there immediately without my sirens.
Dispatcher: Yes, please do that.
In your version, Officer Sabastian seems to be a pretty befuddled fellow. He has to be reminded every minute or so on what his instructions are and where he is to proceed. Thirty seconds after receiving his clear instructions he calls in again asking for instructions. Clearly this is a conversation with two different officers, both being asked to drive to 400 East Jefferson.
So, let's talk some more about inconsistancy; in the other thread (about Brewer) you agreed with me that it was unlikely that Sabastian would have a commercial radio station on while in his patrol car racing down to 400 Jefferson. Yet here you argue that he did not get to 400 East Jefferson until well after 1.25, which means he still must have been in his patrol car at 1.25. So, are you now going back to saying that he did have a radio playing in the car after all? If not, you have self-defeated your own argument, because there is no other way for Sabastian that he could have heard a radio report at 1.25 while driving at high speed on the motorway. The problem is of course still the same; there is no evidence of such a broadcast actually having been aired.
When you are right, you are right! After giving this further consideration I withdraw the argument, simply because when Sabastian arrived at 400 Jefferson he had already asked the dispatcher about the DOA, which means that he must have made that call to the dispatcher while en route from Forest Lane to 400 Jefferson. Which, of course, brings us right back to square one; Sabastian could only have heard it in his car, while on the Expressway, yet you have already argreed that it is unlikely he would have a commercial station on, racing down the highway with his sirens on.
Officer Sabastian indicated he was heading to 400 East Jefferson with his sirens on and his lights flashing? Let’s see what “Code 2” means:
http://qcode.us/codes/stockton/view.php?topic=5-5_96-ii-5_96_060#:~:text=%E2%80%9CCode%201%E2%80%9D%20means%20routine%20or,(non%2Demergency)%20treatment.&text=%E2%80%9CCode%203%E2%80%9D%20means%20an%20emergency,with%20red%20light%20and%20siren (http://qcode.us/codes/stockton/view.php?topic=5-5_96-ii-5_96_060#:~:text=%E2%80%9CCode%201%E2%80%9D%20means%20routine%20or,(non%2Demergency)%20treatment.&text=%E2%80%9CCode%203%E2%80%9D%20means%20an%20emergency,with%20red%20light%20and%20siren)
These are the standard radio codes, used both for ambulance drivers and by the police, by any vehicle authorized to be equipped with sirens and flashing lights.
“Code 1” means routine or scheduled transportation of patients between facilities or to a facility for normal (non-emergency) treatment.
“Code 2” means an emergency where time is critical, requiring immediate response by the ambulance provider, without red light and siren.
“Code 3” means an emergency where time is critical, requiring immediate response with red light and siren.
Code 1 is the lowest priority, where safe speeds can be used. Code 3 is the highest priority, where all means must be used to get somewhere as soon as possible. Speeding, using the siren, using the flashing lights. And, I believe, going through red lights, if that can be done safely.
Code 2 means the responder will hurry to the destination, but without flashing lights and sirens.
So, at 1:28 Officer Sabastian was on his way to 400 East Jefferson, but without sirens. And we don’t know if he was speeding down the expressway yet. Perhaps he was, or perhaps he was still on Forest Lane, having to do a U-Turn and waiting at traffic lights, before getting on the expressway. So, he could have heard such a commercial radio broadcast, either from his radio or another vehicle, while waiting at a light. Somehow, he did hear such a broadcast. Hence, his report:
“NBC News is reporting DOA. . . . That the officer?”
Wanting confirmation from the Dispatcher of the bad news he just heard over the commercial radio.
-
No. My interpretation is correct. Let’s ignore the 13-mile distance, and “We are almost there” meaning the same as “I’m still 13 miles away”. Let me re-word these two conversations between the Dispatcher and Officer Sabastian, or the two conversations, first with an unknown officer and the second with Officer Sabastian. I’ll reword it your way, with both conversations with Officer Sabastian, And I am rewording it with standard English, without the special codes, like “Code 2”, or “75” being code for Officer Sabastian, to make the meaning clearer:
Officer Sabastian: Reporting in for instructions.
Dispatcher: Proceed to 400 East Jefferson. Report when in that vicinity.
Officer Sabastian: We are almost there.
[ 30 seconds later ]
Officer Sabastian: Officer Sabastian here, reporting in for instructions.
Dispatcher: Proceed to 400 East Jefferson. Report when in that vicinity.
Officer Sabastian: I will head out there immediately without my sirens.
Dispatcher: Yes, please do that.
No. My interpretation is correct.
Of course... What else would you be able to say when you let your opinion be immune to any kind of reasonable push back.
All you're doing is twisting and turning some more... attaching meaning to a few spoken words without actually having a clue what was meant by those words to begin with.
In your version, Officer Sabastian seems to be a pretty befuddled fellow. He has to be reminded every minute or so on what his instructions are and where he is to proceed. Thirty seconds after receiving his clear instructions he calls in again asking for instructions. Clearly this is a conversation with two different officers, both being asked to drive to 400 East Jefferson.
He has to be reminded every minute or so on what his instructions are and where he is to proceed. Thirty seconds after receiving his clear instructions he calls in again asking for instructions.
There you go again.... making stuff up to fit your narrative. First of all, where you do get the notion that he had clear instructions. Have you even heard the sound clip of the second conversation, made available on McAdams site? The sound quality is very poor indeed. And secondly, Sabastian didn't call in again to ask for instructions. All he said was "Go ahead". The dispatcher who had just spoken to Owens (19), Arglin (79) and CID (412) then simply repeated "400 East Jefferson". He may not even have said that to Sabastian, who nevertheless responded with "We're almost there"
This is the entire sequence;
19 (Sgt. C.B. Owens) 19.
Dispatcher 19.
19 One of the men here at the service station that saw him seems to think he's in this block, the 400 block of East Jefferson behind this service station. Would you give me some more squads over here?
79 (Ptm. B.N. Arglin) 79 en route.
. . . 19/90/car 2.
412 (CID) 412 en route.
. . . 400 East Jefferson.
Dispatcher 10-4, 412.
75 (Ptm. E.G. Sabastian) Go ahead.
Dispatcher 400 East Jefferson.
75 We're almost there.
So much for your "suggestion" that Sabastian called in for a second time to ask for instructions.
Officer Sabastian indicated he was heading to 400 East Jefferson with his sirens on and his lights flashing? Let’s see what “Code 2” means:
http://qcode.us/codes/stockton/view.php?topic=5-5_96-ii-5_96_060#:~:text=%E2%80%9CCode%201%E2%80%9D%20means%20routine%20or,(non%2Demergency)%20treatment.&text=%E2%80%9CCode%203%E2%80%9D%20means%20an%20emergency,with%20red%20light%20and%20siren (http://qcode.us/codes/stockton/view.php?topic=5-5_96-ii-5_96_060#:~:text=%E2%80%9CCode%201%E2%80%9D%20means%20routine%20or,(non%2Demergency)%20treatment.&text=%E2%80%9CCode%203%E2%80%9D%20means%20an%20emergency,with%20red%20light%20and%20siren)
These are the standard radio codes, used both for ambulance drivers and by the police, by any vehicle authorized to be equipped with sirens and flashing lights.
“Code 1” means routine or scheduled transportation of patients between facilities or to a facility for normal (non-emergency) treatment.
“Code 2” means an emergency where time is critical, requiring immediate response by the ambulance provider, without red light and siren.
“Code 3” means an emergency where time is critical, requiring immediate response with red light and siren.
Code 1 is the lowest priority, where safe speeds can be used. Code 3 is the highest priority, where all means must be used to get somewhere as soon as possible. Speeding, using the siren, using the flashing lights. And, I believe, going through red lights, if that can be done safely.
Code 2 means the responder will hurry to the destination, but without flashing lights and sirens.
Officer Sabastian indicated he was heading to 400 East Jefferson with his sirens on and his lights flashing?
No Sabastian did not indicate that at all. It was a reasonable assumption on my part that when multiple officers are rushing to a crime scene to catch the bad guy, they do so with sirens and lights to enable them to move as fast as they can.
The second part of this quote is completely hilarious. You find a website for ambulance codes in Stockton and you conveniently say that the same codes apply throughout the country and all the different services. Are you freakin' kidding me?
In Dallas the communication code 2 means: Urgent Response
https://wiki.radioreference.com/index.php/Dallas_County_(TX)#Communication_Codes
Code 1 is: Normal Response (no lights or sirens)
Code 3 is: Emergency Lights & Sirens
under code 2 there is no indication of an obligation to use lights and sirens, nor does it not premit it. In other words; it's left to the officer's discretion.
By responding to the dispatcher with "code 2" Sabastian is communicating that he is urgently responding. Does that sound to you that he was driving to 400 Jefferson with haste of just leisurely driving there?
So, at 1:28 Officer Sabastian was on his way to 400 East Jefferson, but without sirens. And we don’t know if he was speeding down the expressway yet. Perhaps he was, or perhaps he was still on Forest Lane, having to do a U-Turn and waiting at traffic lights, before getting on the expressway.
Yeah sure... and perhaps he even stopped for coffee at a local diner, went to visit his wife and did some shopping.
He had just told his dispatcher that he was heading to 400 Jefferson on a code 2 (Urgent Response) and you have him stopping for a traffic light.... :D
One more comment; at 1.32 on the transcripts the dispatcher says that the suspect is running in an alley between Jefferson and 10th and one of the officers that acknowledges receipt of the call is Sabastian (75). Why would he do that if he, as you suggest, was no way near that location at that time?
So, he could have heard such a commercial radio broadcast, either from his radio or another vehicle, while waiting at a light. Somehow, he did hear such a broadcast. Hence, his report:
“NBC News is reporting DOA. . . . That the officer?”
Wanting confirmation from the Dispatcher of the bad news he just heard over the commercial radio.
Except there still is not a shred of evidence that such a broadcast ever took place.
Actually, when you listen to the sound clip for this conversation, it's not even clear that it was Sabastian who said "That the officer?" and on the transcript itself there is a question mark behind 75 for this comment. No such question mark appears behind 75 for the later question "...... on the President".
So the actual question that Sabastian could well have been asking is "NBC News is reporting DOA..... on the President?"
As Kennedy was declared dead at 1 pm, nearly a half hour earlier, that could have been what Sabastian heard on the radio, but I am all but sure you will of course disagree...
-
No. My interpretation is correct.
Of course... What else would you be able to say when you let your opinion be immune to any kind of reasonable push back.
All you're doing is twisting and turning some more... attaching meaning to a few spoken words without actually having a clue what was meant by those words to begin with.
He has to be reminded every minute or so on what his instructions are and where he is to proceed. Thirty seconds after receiving his clear instructions he calls in again asking for instructions.
There you go again.... making stuff up to fit your narrative. First of all, where you do get the notion that he had clear instructions. Have you even heard the sound clip of the second conversation, made available on McAdams site? The sound quality is very poor indeed. And secondly, Sabastian didn't call in again to ask for instructions. All he said was "Go ahead". The dispatcher who had just spoken to Owens (19), Arglin (79) and CID (412) then simply repeated "400 East Jefferson". He may not even have said that to Sabastian, who nevertheless responded with "We're almost there"
This is the entire sequence;
19 (Sgt. C.B. Owens) 19.
Dispatcher 19.
19 One of the men here at the service station that saw him seems to think he's in this block, the 400 block of East Jefferson behind this service station. Would you give me some more squads over here?
79 (Ptm. B.N. Arglin) 79 en route.
. . . 19/90/car 2.
412 (CID) 412 en route.
. . . 400 East Jefferson.
Dispatcher 10-4, 412.
75 (Ptm. E.G. Sabastian) Go ahead.
Dispatcher 400 East Jefferson.
75 We're almost there.
So much for your "suggestion" that Sabastian called in for a second time to ask for instructions.
No, let’s list the entire conversation that you claim that the Dispatcher had with Officer Sabastian:
Sabastian (?): Go ahead.
Dispatcher: 400 East Jefferson.
Sabastian(?): We’re almost there.
[30 second later]
Sabastian: 75.
Dispatcher: 400 East Jefferson. Report in that vicinity.
Sabastian(?): Code 2
The only statement that positively identifies Officer Sabastian is “75”. But “Code 2: is almost certainly him as well because it occurs so soon after “75”.
Your assertion, that both conversations are with Officer Sabastian is unsupported. He is not going to report that he is “almost there” when he is actually more than 13 miles away. He is not going to ask for, receive, and acknowledge instructions from Dispatch twice in the same minute.
Clearly the Dispatcher knew who he was talking to, at least in most cases. It was the person who wrote this transcript he was confused and guessed that both brief conversations were with Officer Sabastian when only the second one was.
Officer Sabastian indicated he was heading to 400 East Jefferson with his sirens on and his lights flashing?
No Sabastian did not indicate that at all. It was a reasonable assumption on my part that when multiple officers are rushing to a crime scene to catch the bad guy, they do so with sirens and lights to enable them to move as fast as they can.
The second part of this quote is completely hilarious. You find a website for ambulance codes in Stockton and you conveniently say that the same codes apply throughout the country and all the different services. Are you freakin' kidding me?
In Dallas the communication code 2 means: Urgent Response
https://wiki.radioreference.com/index.php/Dallas_County_(TX)#Communication_Codes
Code 1 is: Normal Response (no lights or sirens)
Code 3 is: Emergency Lights & Sirens
under code 2 there is no indication of an obligation to use lights and sirens, nor does it not premit it. In other words; it's left to the officer's discretion.
By responding to the dispatcher with "code 2" Sabastian is communicating that he is urgently responding. Does that sound to you that he was driving to 400 Jefferson with haste of just leisurely driving there?
The Dallas codes and the Stockton codes mean the same thing:
https://wiki.radioreference.com/index.php/Dallas_County_(TX)#Communication_Codes (https://wiki.radioreference.com/index.php/Dallas_County_(TX)#Communication_Codes)
Code 2 is an urgent response. It does not mean an urgent response, using emergency lights and sirens. If Officer Sabastian had decided to use emergency lights and sirens, he would have said “Code 3”, not “Code 2”. By saying “Code 2” he was telling the Dispatcher that he was proceeding quickly but safely and not using his sirens. If the Dispatcher wanted to overrule this decision, he would have told him to proceed at Code 3. But these instructions were never made.
Why would Officer Sabastian decide to proceed without sirens, on an urgent mission? Because he was 13 miles away. Even with sirens, he will get there late. There are other units who are much closer and can get there sooner. Going with sirens is not a decision to be taken lightly. It is dangerous. Driving with sirens for 2 minutes is dangerous. It may cause an accident. But may be done in an emergency and if there is a fair chance it may make a difference. But driving for 10 minutes with sirens is 5 times as dangerous, and not likely to make a difference. It is a judgement call. It is evident that Officer Sabastian elected to go without sirens, informed the Dispatcher of this, and was not overruled by the Dispatcher. Officer Sabastian has no reason to deceive the Dispatcher into thinking he is responding without sirens when he is actually using them. Your speculation that Officer Sabastian decided to use sirens and misinformed the Dispatcher about this is unsupported.
Yes, I use speculation as well. But my speculation is reasonable. Like Officer Sabastian won’t ask for instructions, and acknowledge he has received those instructions, twice in the same minute. He is not going to report that he is “almost there” when he is actually 13 miles away. And is not going to indicate that he is going without sirens when he actually is.
Getting there a few minutes later than he could have done so dangerously might still be useful, if more reports come in 20 minutes later. At least he will now be in the general area, not 13 miles away.
-
A final point I should make, could “Code 2” mean Officer Sabastian was using sirens? Yes, it could. Either he could be using sirens or he wasn’t. Although I think he would have made himself clearer by saying “Code 3”. But we know he couldn’t have been. If he was using sirens, he probably could not have gotten a message from “NBC News”, either by a reporter in person, the theory you seem to favor, or over commercial radio, the theory that I favor, if he had elected to use sirens.
And even if he was speeding down the expressway, with sirens on, it is still more likely he got this message “Officer DOA” over his squad car’s commercial radio than from an NBC reporter pulling up besides him while both are travelling at high speed with sirens and shout with a megaphone “A Dallas police officer is DOA”. Speculation? Yes, but reasonable speculation.
-
A final point I should make, could “Code 2” mean Officer Sabastian was using sirens? Yes, it could. Either he could be using sirens or he wasn’t. Although I think he would have made himself clearer by saying “Code 3”. But we know he couldn’t have been. If he was using sirens, he probably could not have gotten a message from “NBC News”, either by a reporter in person, the theory you seem to favor, or over commercial radio, the theory that I favor, if he had elected to use sirens.
And even if he was speeding down the expressway, with sirens on, it is still more likely he got this message “Officer DOA” over his squad car’s commercial radio than from an NBC reporter pulling up besides him while both are travelling at high speed with sirens and shout with a megaphone “A Dallas police officer is DOA”. Speculation? Yes, but reasonable speculation.
Reasonable speculation.
" Just the facts, ma'am", as Joe Friday said.
-
No, let’s list the entire conversation that you claim that the Dispatcher had with Officer Sabastian:
Sabastian (?): Go ahead.
Dispatcher: 400 East Jefferson.
Sabastian(?): We’re almost there.
[30 second later]
Sabastian: 75.
Dispatcher: 400 East Jefferson. Report in that vicinity.
Sabastian(?): Code 2
The only statement that positively identifies Officer Sabastian is “75”. But “Code 2: is almost certainly him as well because it occurs so soon after “75”.
Your assertion, that both conversations are with Officer Sabastian is unsupported. He is not going to report that he is “almost there” when he is actually more than 13 miles away. He is not going to ask for, receive, and acknowledge instructions from Dispatch twice in the same minute.
Your assertion, that both conversations are with Officer Sabastian is unsupported.
What's wrong with you? Of course both calls were with Sabastian. The transcripts shows us they are and his voice can be heard on both sound clips. What is unsupported is your blatant assumption that Sabastian was actually more than 13 miles away. And Sabastian didn't ask for instructions twice. He merely said "Go ahead" thus giving the dispatcher the possibility to speak. He then said " 400 East Jefferson. Report in that vicinity" to which Sabastian replied with code 2.
Clearly the Dispatcher knew who he was talking to, at least in most cases. It was the person who wrote this transcript he was confused and guessed that both brief conversations were with Officer Sabastian when only the second one was.
Says the guy who has been guessing and making assumptions all the time..... How convenient it must be to just pick and choose the parts of the transcripts you like and disregard the rest as the result of some sort of confusion.
The Dallas codes and the Stockton codes mean the same thing:
https://wiki.radioreference.com/index.php/Dallas_County_(TX)#Communication_Codes (https://wiki.radioreference.com/index.php/Dallas_County_(TX)#Communication_Codes)
Code 2 is an urgent response. It does not mean an urgent response, using emergency lights and sirens. If Officer Sabastian had decided to use emergency lights and sirens, he would have said “Code 3”, not “Code 2”. By saying “Code 2” he was telling the Dispatcher that he was proceeding quickly but safely and not using his sirens. If the Dispatcher wanted to overrule this decision, he would have told him to proceed at Code 3. But these instructions were never made.
It does not mean an urgent response, using emergency lights and sirens.
Nobody said it did... but as code 1 is no sirens and lights and code 3 is sirens and lights, it's pretty obvious that code 2 leaves it to the officers discretion,
If Officer Sabastian had decided to use emergency lights and sirens, he would have said “Code 3”, not “Code 2”.
I'm sorry but this is simply getting beyond pathetic. None of the officers who responded to the call for units to be sent 400 East Jefferson gave any code. Are we to believe that they would respond to the killing of a fellow officer by taking a leisurely drive to Oak Cliff. Really?
Why would Officer Sabastian decide to proceed without sirens, on an urgent mission? Because he was 13 miles away. Even with sirens, he will get there late. There are other units who are much closer and can get there sooner. Going with sirens is not a decision to be taken lightly. It is dangerous. Driving with sirens for 2 minutes is dangerous. It may cause an accident. But may be done in an emergency and if there is a fair chance it may make a difference. But driving for 10 minutes with sirens is 5 times as dangerous, and not likely to make a difference. It is a judgement call. It is evident that Officer Sabastian elected to go without sirens, informed the Dispatcher of this, and was not overruled by the Dispatcher. Officer Sabastian has no reason to deceive the Dispatcher into thinking he is responding without sirens when he is actually using them. Your speculation that Officer Sabastian decided to use sirens and misinformed the Dispatcher about this is unsupported.
Why would Officer Sabastian decide to proceed without sirens, on an urgent mission? Because he was 13 miles away.
Don't you understand just how stupid this sounds? The further the officer is away from the scene of a crime the more urgent it becomes he gets there as quick as he can. You keep saying that he was 13 miles away, as if that is a fact, but you have nothing but speculation to support that claim.
Going with sirens is not a decision to be taken lightly. It is dangerous. Driving with sirens for 2 minutes is dangerous. It may cause an accident. But may be done in an emergency and if there is a fair chance it may make a difference. But driving for 10 minutes with sirens is 5 times as dangerous, and not likely to make a difference.
How in the world do you come up with this kind of stuff? Where is the research to back that up? And driving on a highway isn't nearly as dangerous and would only require use of sirens and lights to communicate to cars in front to get out of the way.
It is evident that Officer Sabastian elected to go without sirens, informed the Dispatcher of this, and was not overruled by the Dispatcher.
It's only evident to you, because you want it to be
Yes, I use speculation as well. But my speculation is reasonable. Like Officer Sabastian won’t ask for instructions, and acknowledge he has received those instructions, twice in the same minute. He is not going to report that he is “almost there” when he is actually 13 miles away. And is not going to indicate that he is going without sirens when he actually is.
Getting there a few minutes later than he could have done so dangerously might still be useful, if more reports come in 20 minutes later. At least he will now be in the general area, not 13 miles away.
Yes, I use speculation as well. But my speculation is reasonable.
Hilarious! Have you ever met anybody who speculated about something saying that his speculation is unreasonable? The mere fact that you call your speculation reasonable is evidence of the fact that it isn't reasonable at all. If it were, it would speak for itself and require no such comment from you.
Like Officer Sabastian won’t ask for instructions, and acknowledge he has received those instructions, twice in the same minute.
Except it has already been explained to you that he never asked for instructions twice. You just pretend that he did. So much for being reasonable!
He is not going to report that he is “almost there” when he is actually 13 miles away.
True, and yet he said it, which justifies the conclusion that he wasn't "actually 13 miles away". So much for being reasonable.
And is not going to indicate that he is going without sirens when he actually is.
He didn't indicate anything of the kind. He just said "code 2" and it is you who claims this means without sirens, when there is no proof for that on the Dallas DPD codes website. So much for being reasonable.
Your so-called "reasonable" speculations are getting tiresome.
-
A final point I should make, could “Code 2” mean Officer Sabastian was using sirens? Yes, it could. Either he could be using sirens or he wasn’t. Although I think he would have made himself clearer by saying “Code 3”. But we know he couldn’t have been. If he was using sirens, he probably could not have gotten a message from “NBC News”, either by a reporter in person, the theory you seem to favor, or over commercial radio, the theory that I favor, if he had elected to use sirens.
And even if he was speeding down the expressway, with sirens on, it is still more likely he got this message “Officer DOA” over his squad car’s commercial radio than from an NBC reporter pulling up besides him while both are travelling at high speed with sirens and shout with a megaphone “A Dallas police officer is DOA”. Speculation? Yes, but reasonable speculation.
A final point I should make, could “Code 2” mean Officer Sabastian was using sirens? Yes, it could. Either he could be using sirens or he wasn’t.
Beginning to see the light?
If he was using sirens, he probably could not have gotten a message from “NBC News”, either by a reporter in person, the theory you seem to favor, or over commercial radio, the theory that I favor, if he had elected to use sirens.
I think you need to go back to my previous post. After hearing the sound clips, I have changed my mind in as much as that I have discarded completely the possibility that Sabastian was talking about Tippit when he said to the dispatcher "NBC News is reporting DOA". I now firmly believe he was asking about Kennedy. Here is the relevant part of my previous post;
Actually, when you listen to the sound clip for this conversation, it's not even clear that it was Sabastian who said "That the officer?" and on the transcript itself there is a question mark behind 75 for this comment. No such question mark appears behind 75 for the later question "...... on the President".
So the actual question that Sabastian could well have been asking is "NBC News is reporting DOA..... on the President?"
As Kennedy was declared dead at 1 pm, nearly a half hour earlier, that could have been what Sabastian heard on the radio, but I am all but sure you will of course disagree...
And even if he was speeding down the expressway, with sirens on, it is still more likely he got this message “Officer DOA” over his squad car’s commercial radio than from an NBC reporter pulling up besides him while both are travelling at high speed with sirens and shout with a megaphone “A Dallas police officer is DOA”. Speculation? Yes, but reasonable speculation.
There is that word "reasonable" again..... Do you think it's reasonable to assume that a police officer racing down a highway, likely with sirens and lights on (where necessary), en route to the scene where a fellow officer was shot and killed would have a commercial radio on in his squad car?
I'll say this again. There is no trace of a NBC News radio broadcast about Tippit at 1.25. The time line (according to the official narrative) makes such a broadcast just about impossible for lack of sufficient time. No reporter has ever come forward and confirmed he was the one who was at Methodist Hospital when Tippit was declared DOA at 1.22.
On the other hand, reports about Kennedy being declared dead at Parkland were already on the air for some 20 minutes. Given the fact that Sabastian adds "...... on the President" clearly indicates he was talking about Kennedy. Why else would he have asked that?
-
I'll say this again. There is no trace of a NBC News radio broadcast about Tippit at 1.25. The time line (according to the official narrative) makes such a broadcast just about impossible for lack of sufficient time. No reporter has ever come forward and confirmed he was the one who was at Methodist Hospital when Tippit was declared DOA at 1.22.
We do have a trace of a news broadcast on the death of an officer. The Dictabelt recording.
On the other hand, reports about Kennedy being declared dead at Parkland were already on the air for some 20 minutes. Given the fact that Sabastian adds "...... on the President" clearly indicates he was talking about Kennedy. Why else would he have asked that?
Sabastian adds ". . . on the President?” Let take another look at the transcript of the Dictabelt tape:
https://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/dpdtapes/tapes3.htm (https://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/dpdtapes/tapes3.htm)
19 is the code for Officer C. B. Owens
75 is the code for Officer E. G. Sabastian
87 is the code for Officer R. C. Nelson
Below is the transcript that portion of the DIctabelt recording:
Dispatcher: 19
[19] Owens 19
Dispatcher: Do you have the information?
[19] Owens No. What?
Dispatcher: On 2.
[75] Sabastian: 75
Dispatcher: 75
[75] Sabastian: NBC News is reporting DOA.
Dispatcher: That’s correct.
[75] Sabastian: That the officer?
Dispatcher: Yes.
[87] Nelson: 87.
[75] Sabastian: . . . on the President?
Dispatcher: No, that’s not correct, 19.
[?] unknown: What officer was it?
Dispatcher: J. D. Tippit.
This seems ambiguous. Is Officer Sabastian reporting that NBC said that Officer Tippit is DOA or the President?
However, I have learned not to trust the judgement of the person who typed out this transcript about who was broadcasting what. You, however, seem to be slow of learning.
Let me give you my version of what was said and by who:
Dispatcher: 19
[19] Owens 19
Dispatcher: Do you have the information?
[19] Owens No. What?
Dispatcher: On 2.
[75] Sabastian: 75
Dispatcher: 75
[75] Sabastian: NBC News is reporting DOA.
Dispatcher: That’s correct.
[75] Sabastian: That the officer?
Dispatcher: Yes.
[87] Nelson: 87.
[19] Owens: . . . on the President?
Dispatcher: No, that’s not correct, 19.
[?] unknown: What officer was it?
Dispatcher: J. D. Tippit.
Why do I believe that it is Officer Owens who is asking “. . . on the President?” and not Officer Sabastian? Because the Dispatcher responded with “No, that’s not correct, 19”. 19. That is Officer Owens, not Officer Sabastian. If it had been Officer Sabastian, he would have said “No, that’s not correct, 75.”
The Dispatcher could recognize everyone’s voice. He evidently had been working at this for a while and had developed a knack for it. Officer Sabastian was good at following protocol, and always, or at least usually, identified himself as “75”. But a lot of other officers didn’t. Because they had learned that the Dispatcher could recognize their voice. So, for instance, we find:
Someone speaks and says: Did someone find a jacket?
Dispatcher responds: No 85.
But the person never identified himself. So how did the Dispatcher know it was 85? Because he recognized his voice. I haven’t noticed the Dispatcher mistaken someone’s voice and being corrected. And yes, this is an example where the Dispatcher had not gotten the information yet, or understand it yet, that a jacket had been found. But he knew who he was talking to.
So, it was not Officer Sabastian who was confused about whether NBC News was reporting an officer or the President being DOA. It was a different officer, Officer Owens, who I assume had not heard the news report.
Clearly Officer Sabastian heard a report over the radio saying that an officer was DOA. He checked with the Dispatcher to confirm whether this is true or not. The police are always concerned about their fellow officers.
Officer Owens, not hearing the news report, was hoping the Dispatcher was confused. It was he, “19” who basically asked “You mean the President, don’t you?”
Could the media have gotten the news that he was DOA? Perhaps. Reporters were sent out there very quickly. One of them might have been instructed to confirm that the officer was dead. And in route spotted an ambulance and followed it, thinking that would be the fastest way to find out. Or, since people on the police radio reported that the officer was dead at the scene, it was assumed that he would be DOA. Or maybe an erroneous report, which happen all the time. Like the reporting of the death of a Secret Service agent in Dealey Plaza. In any case, it is clear that the death of a police officer was reported over the radio pretty early, early enough for Mr. Brewer to hear it.
-
We do have a trace of a news broadcast on the death of an officer. The Dictabelt recording.
For the umpteenth time.... No, the dictabelt recording is not proof that there was a radio broadcast on Tippit's DOA.
The words "NBC News is reporting DOA" do not prove anything of the kind.
This is just you, being your usual stubborn self.
Sabastian adds ". . . on the President?” Let take another look at the transcript of the Dictabelt tape:
https://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/dpdtapes/tapes3.htm (https://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/dpdtapes/tapes3.htm)
19 is the code for Officer C. B. Owens
75 is the code for Officer E. G. Sabastian
87 is the code for Officer R. C. Nelson
Below is the transcript that portion of the DIctabelt recording:
Dispatcher: 19
[19] Owens 19
Dispatcher: Do you have the information?
[19] Owens No. What?
Dispatcher: On 2.
[75] Sabastian: 75
Dispatcher: 75
[75] Sabastian: NBC News is reporting DOA.
Dispatcher: That’s correct.
[75] Sabastian: That the officer?
Dispatcher: Yes.
[87] Nelson: 87.
[75] Sabastian: . . . on the President?
Dispatcher: No, that’s not correct, 19.
[?] unknown: What officer was it?
Dispatcher: J. D. Tippit.
This seems ambiguous. Is Officer Sabastian reporting that NBC said that Officer Tippit is DOA or the President?
However, I have learned not to trust the judgement of the person who typed out this transcript about who was broadcasting what. You, however, seem to be slow of learning.
Oh I have learned more than you think. I have in fact learned not to trust your judgement as you will twist and turn every which way you can to arrive at the point where you want to be. Whenever a point you have raised can no longer be sustained, as has happened several times in this discussion, you just move on to the next speculative point. Your latest effort being that somehow the person who typed the transcript was confused.
Let me give you my version of what was said and by who:
Dispatcher: 19
[19] Owens 19
Dispatcher: Do you have the information?
[19] Owens No. What?
Dispatcher: On 2.
[75] Sabastian: 75
Dispatcher: 75
[75] Sabastian: NBC News is reporting DOA.
Dispatcher: That’s correct.
[75] Sabastian: That the officer?
Dispatcher: Yes.
[87] Nelson: 87.
[19] Owens: . . . on the President?
Dispatcher: No, that’s not correct, 19.
[?] unknown: What officer was it?
Dispatcher: J. D. Tippit.
Why do I believe that it is Officer Owens who is asking “. . . on the President?” and not Officer Sabastian? Because the Dispatcher responded with “No, that’s not correct, 19”. 19. That is Officer Owens, not Officer Sabastian. If it had been Officer Sabastian, he would have said “No, that’s not correct, 75.”
The Dispatcher could recognize everyone’s voice. He evidently had been working at this for a while and had developed a knack for it. Officer Sabastian was good at following protocol, and always, or at least usually, identified himself as “75”. But a lot of other officers didn’t. Because they had learned that the Dispatcher could recognize their voice. So, for instance, we find:
Someone speaks and says: Did someone find a jacket?
Dispatcher responds: No 85.
But the person never identified himself. So how did the Dispatcher know it was 85? Because he recognized his voice. I haven’t noticed the Dispatcher mistaken someone’s voice and being corrected. And yes, this is an example where the Dispatcher had not gotten the information yet, or understand it yet, that a jacket had been found. But he knew who he was talking to.
So, it was not Officer Sabastian who was confused about whether NBC News was reporting an officer or the President being DOA. It was a different officer, Officer Owens, who I assume had not heard the news report.
Clearly Officer Sabastian heard a report over the radio saying that an officer was DOA. He checked with the Dispatcher to confirm whether this is true or not. The police are always concerned about their fellow officers.
Officer Owens, not hearing the news report, was hoping the Dispatcher was confused. It was he, “19” who basically asked “You mean the President, don’t you?”
Another one of your "reasonable speculations"? :D
Your "version" is nothing more than a string of self serving arguments based on a false premise. You need to listen to the actual broadcast. The dispatcher does not say "nineteen"... he says "nine ten" whatever that means.
Could the media have gotten the news that he was DOA? Perhaps. Reporters were sent out there very quickly. One of them might have been instructed to confirm that the officer was dead. And in route spotted an ambulance and followed it, thinking that would be the fastest way to find out. Or, since people on the police radio reported that the officer was dead at the scene, it was assumed that he would be DOA. Or maybe an erroneous report, which happen all the time. Like the reporting of the death of a Secret Service agent in Dealey Plaza.
Again, it has already been shown to you in great detail that there was no way that Tippit being declared DOA (at 1.22) could have been reported on the radio at 1.25. There was no reporter at Methodist Hospital and no reporter has ever come forward to claim he was the one who called it in that Tippit was DOA. All you are doing is speculating about how the information could have gotten on the air so quickly and it only serves one purpose; to keep alive the story that Brewer heard a report on the radio.
In any case, it is clear that the death of a police officer was reported over the radio pretty early, early enough for Mr. Brewer to hear it.
And there it is..... You don't follow the facts, you shape them to arrive at the desired outcome. Our entire conversations serves no purpose. You made up your mind before you even started the thread and despite all the push back you simply stick to your opinion which you defend with whatever lousy argument you can think of. I have better things to do than to continue this pointless conversation which basically was and is nothing more than you looking for confirmation to support your claim that Brewer heard a radio broadcast when he said he did.
Get over it, there was no such broadcast. It hasn't surfaced in 57 years. Nobody, at none of the radio stations, has ever come forward and confirmed he was the person who broadcasted that report. You just keep on living in fantasy land! I'm done
I'll leave you with these wise words written in another thread by Mr. Alan J. Ford
The absolute truth always has a knack for standing all alone on its own, only lies need revisions.
How many times did you change your theory/story again?
-
Oh I have learned more than you think. I have in fact learned not to trust your judgement as you will twist and turn every which way you can to arrive at the point where you want to be. Whenever a point you have raised can no longer be sustained, as has happened several times in this discussion, you just move on to the next speculative point. Your latest effort being that somehow the person who typed the transcript was confused.
Another one of your "reasonable speculations"? :D
Yes. It is. I leave it to the reader to go to
https://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/dpdtapes/ (https://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/dpdtapes/)
To see the transcripts of what was said on the Police Radio.
At the top of the first page, in the third paragraph, you will find the phrase “Real Player downloaded and installed”. Click on that to download the Real Player application that will allow you to listen to parts of the broadcast. It takes around 10 minutes to figure out how to download and install.
And looking at the transcripts and listening to portions of the broadcast, judge for yourself if my premise is correct. And never trust the word of Martin about what is recorded without checking it out for yourself.
What is my premise? That the person who transcribed the recordings did not do a good job of identifying who was talking to the Dispatcher. He may have recorded what was said pretty well, but misidentified the speaker on multiple occasions. What are some of the indicators of a mistake?
1. If the transcript says “Officer A” gives a location where he is at, and two minutes later again gives the location where he is at, which is 13 miles away, then “Officer A” did not make both statements. These are two different statements made by two different officers.
2. If the transcript says that “Officer A” asks for instructions, is given an address to go to, and acknowledges the instructions. And then a minute later “Officer A” appears to suffer a major memory lapse and again asks for instructions, is given the same address to go to, and again acknowledges the instructions, these statements were not all made by “Officer A”. Instead these are instructions given to two different officers telling them to go to the same address.
3. If the transcript says that “Officer A” talks to the Dispatcher, and the Dispatcher responds as if he was talking to “Officer B”, then it was actually “Officer B” who was talking to the Dispatcher.
I will leave it to the reader to judge whether this is a reasonable premise or not.
Your "version" is nothing more than a string of self serving arguments based on a false premise. You need to listen to the actual broadcast. The dispatcher does not say "nineteen"... he says "nine ten" whatever that means.
No. I listened to the recording. The Dispatcher says “10” pause “19”. Clearly the Dispatcher is about to say a common phrase, like “10-4”. But then corrects himself and says “19”, indicating that he is talking to Officer Owens, not Officer Sabastian. He is definitely not saying “9-10”, which Martin can’t even come up with a theory about what that would be code for.
Again, I urge the reader not to take Martin’s word for it, not to take my word for it, but to download the Real Player application, which I gave some instructions on earlier, so they can listen to the recording and judge for themselves.
-
According to CE1974, "code 2" means "Urgent - siren and red lights as needed".
I agree with Martin. "reporting DOA" refers to the president. He doesn't literally mean "on arrival at Parkland", he means they are reporting that the president has died. This was before the official flash from Kilduff, but I just discovered a Wikipedia article that says that ABC radio reported an unconfirmed report at 1:25 CST that the president had died.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_John_F._Kennedy_assassination#ABC (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_John_F._Kennedy_assassination#ABC)
You can hear the audio of that here at 44:59:
If you think they wouldn't use "DOA" in this fashion, consider the following exchange on police channel 2 at 1:30 (dispatcher time):
15 (Captain C.E. Talbert) Did you say he was DOA at Methodist?
Dispatcher Yes.
15 Have they released any condition on the President?
Dispatcher We understand he is DOA, too.
-
According to CE1974, "code 2" means "Urgent - siren and red lights as needed".
I agree with Martin. "reporting DOA" refers to the president. He doesn't literally mean "on arrival at Parkland", he means they are reporting that the president has died. This was before the official flash from Kilduff, but I just discovered a Wikipedia article that says that ABC radio reported an unconfirmed report at 1:25 CST that the president had died.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_John_F._Kennedy_assassination#ABC (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_John_F._Kennedy_assassination#ABC)
If you think they wouldn't use "DOA" in this fashion, consider the following exchange on police channel 2 at 1:30 (dispatcher time):
15 (Captain C.E. Talbert) Did you say he was DOA at Methodist?
Dispatcher Yes.
15 Have they released any condition on the President?
Dispatcher We understand he is DOA, too.
According to CE1974, "code 2" means "Urgent - siren and red lights as needed".
Thanks John. I wasn't aware it was in the evidence.
The most interesting part of your post is that the first broadcast of the President having died was at 1.25, some 25 minutes after the doctors at Parkland had declared him dead.
Compare that to Tippit, who - if the official narrative and timeline are correct - was declared DOA at Methodist Hospital at 1.22, yet Joe Elliott would have us believe that no more than 3 minutes later Tippit's death was being broadcast on the radio, for Brewer (and Sabastian) to hear.
If Joe Elliott's theory is correct some unknown reporter (who has never been identified or come forward) was at Methodist to hear about Tippit's death, call it in to his station and get it on the air in under 3 minutes, where it took busloads of reporters present at Parkland 25 minutes to get the report about the President's death on the air.
Elliott can argue all he wants about Sabastian waiting for traffic lights under a code 2, being 13 miles away from 400 Jefferson when he said on the radio that he was almost there and having a commercial radio station on in his cruiser while racing down the highway with sirens and light and/or even the person who transcribed the dictabelt recordings being confused, but the simple comparision above says it all....
The only broadcast there was, was at 1.25 and it was about Kennedy and that's what Sabastian somehow heard and asked the dispatcher about!
-
How many threads do we need on Johnny Brewer?
He is one of the "unsung heroes " (sic) who are not to be believed.
His compatriots are legion:
Ruth Paine.
Michael Paine.
Captain Westbrook.
Harry Holmes.
Will Fritz.
Agent Hosty.
Jack Ruby.
Wesley Frazier.
Agent Gerberling.
Patricia McMillan.
By no means am I saying those above were involved in the assassination. They were just willing participants in fingering Oswald, and helping push the official story.
-
According to CE1974, "code 2" means "Urgent - siren and red lights as needed".
Correct. So, Officer Sabastian might have the siren on, or not. At times, sirens can be heard on the Dictabelt recording. But not when Officer Sabastian was speaking. So, it appears that officer Sabastian elected to not use the sirens and so could have easily heard a news report over the radio, as he said.
I agree with Martin. "reporting DOA" refers to the president. He doesn't literally mean "on arrival at Parkland", he means they are reporting that the president has died. This was before the official flash from Kilduff, but I just discovered a Wikipedia article that says that ABC radio reported an unconfirmed report at 1:25 CST that the president had died.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_John_F._Kennedy_assassination#ABC (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_John_F._Kennedy_assassination#ABC)
You can hear the audio of that here at 44:59:
I know the media was reporting that the president may have died long before 1:25 CST. There were reports of quoting a Secret Service agent (no doubt, Clint Hill) that the President was dead. But it was always stressed that these were unconfirmed reports and that no official announcement had been made.
In any case, we know Officer Sabastian mentioned the officer. And might possibility (but probably not, probably Officer Owens) also mentioned the President. Why should this be considered only talking about the death of the President. Wouldn’t it be more reasonable to say that Officer Sabastian was only talking about the death of a police officer. Or at most the death of both a police officer and the President?
If you think they wouldn't use "DOA" in this fashion, consider the following exchange on police channel 2 at 1:30 (dispatcher time):
15 (Captain C.E. Talbert) Did you say he was DOA at Methodist?
Dispatcher Yes.
15 Have they released any condition on the President?
Dispatcher We understand he is DOA, too.
Yes. But this torpedoes one of Martin’s main points, that the report “NBC is reporting DOA. . . . That the officer?” could not be referring to Officer Tippit, because it was impossible, or at least unlikely, that they could have gotten that report from Methodist Hospital so soon. Someone, maybe a reporter, maybe a radio announcer, maybe Officer Sabastian himself, may have changed “dead” to “DOA”. Just as was done with President Kennedy.
A slightly garbled report, that the President was DOA, should not cause one to conclude that this could not possibility be referring to the death of President. Any more than a slightly garbled report, that a police officer was DOA, should not cause one to conclude that this could not possibility be referring to the death of a police officer.
-
According to CE1974, "code 2" means "Urgent - siren and red lights as needed".
Thanks John. I wasn't aware it was in the evidence.
The most interesting part of your post is that the first broadcast of the President having died was at 1.25, some 25 minutes after the doctors at Parkland had declared him dead.
Compare that to Tippit, who - if the official narrative and timeline are correct - was declared DOA at Methodist Hospital at 1.22, yet Joe Elliott would have us believe that no more than 3 minutes later Tippit's death was being broadcast on the radio, for Brewer (and Sabastian) to hear.
Yes. But as John Iacoletti pointed out, the police also talked about the President being DOA, even though he wasn’t.
Question 1:
If a report of the death of the President could be garbled into “the President was DOA”, why couldn’t something similar have happened regarding the report of a police officer being DOA?
I expect you will dodge this question.
Why would the media be so slow in reporting the death of the President but so fast in reporting the death of a police officer? Because it’s one thing to report a police officer was killed, and later be proven wrong. It’s another to report the death of the President, and later be proven wrong. That’s the sort of mistake that would define a career. If Dan Rather had made such a mistake, he would never have replaced Walter Cronkite.
We had very early reports on the death of a Secret Service agent at Dealey Plaza. Even though this had not been officially confirmed yet. Or had even happened. So, it is possible that there may have been early reports on the death of a police officer, based on nothing more than the police radio broadcasts which the media monitored. With those broadcasts alone, the media would have a lot more solid evidence about the death of a police officer then they did on the death of a Secret Service agent. And could be reporting this within minutes of the death of Officer Tippit.
If Joe Elliott's theory is correct some unknown reporter (who has never been identified or come forward) was at Methodist to hear about Tippit's death, call it in to his station and get it on the air in under 3 minutes, where it took busloads of reporters present at Parkland 25 minutes to get the report about the President's death on the air.
Elliott can argue all he wants about Sabastian waiting for traffic lights under a code 2, being 13 miles away from 400 Jefferson when he said on the radio that he was almost there and having a commercial radio station on in his cruiser while racing down the highway with sirens and light and/or even the person who transcribed the dictabelt recordings being confused, but the simple comparision above says it all....
The only broadcast there was, was at 1.25 and it was about Kennedy and that's what Sabastian somehow heard and asked the dispatcher about!
My theory about a reporter following an ambulance to Methodist Hospital was only mentioned as a possibility. An unlikely possibility, but a possibility. But this theory is not needed to explain the report of the death of a police officer being morphed into the report of a police officer being DOA. Since we know something similar happened with President Kennedy, false reports of him being DOA when he actually was never declared dead on arrival.
Question 2:
Do you deny that people sometimes referred to the death of the President as the President being DOA, even though this was technically false?
Question 3:
If not, why do you think something similar could not have happen in a report of the death of a police officer?
-
Correct. So, Officer Sabastian might have the siren on, or not. At times, sirens can be heard on the Dictabelt recording. But not when Officer Sabastian was speaking. So, it appears that officer Sabastian elected to not use the sirens and so could have easily heard a news report over the radio, as he said.
I know the media was reporting that the president may have died long before 1:25 CST. There were reports of quoting a Secret Service agent (no doubt, Clint Hill) that the President was dead. But it was always stressed that these were unconfirmed reports and that no official announcement had been made.
In any case, we know Officer Sabastian mentioned the officer. And might possibility (but probably not, probably Officer Owens) also mentioned the President. Why should this be considered only talking about the death of the President. Wouldn’t it be more reasonable to say that Officer Sabastian was only talking about the death of a police officer. Or at most the death of both a police officer and the President?
Yes. But this torpedoes one of Martin’s main points, that the report “NBC is reporting DOA. . . . That the officer?” could not be referring to Officer Tippit, because it was impossible, or at least unlikely, that they could have gotten that report from Methodist Hospital so soon. Someone, maybe a reporter, maybe a radio announcer, maybe Officer Sabastian himself, may have changed “dead” to “DOA”. Just as was done with President Kennedy.
A slightly garbled report, that the President was DOA, should not cause one to conclude that this could not possibility be referring to the death of President. Any more than a slightly garbled report, that a police officer was DOA, should not cause one to conclude that this could not possibility be referring to the death of a police officer.
I said earlier that you would continue to twist and turn the facts as much as possible to keep your own theory (which you always consider to be correct) alive. And you have just proven me to be right. If it isn't the transcriber of the DPD radio dictabelt calls being "confused", then it is that Sabastian could have used his sirens and lights under code 2, but as no siren can be heard on the dictabelt, you say, he didn't, completely ignoring the fact that a police cruiser racing down a highway only needs to use his siren occasionally to alert cars in front of him....
You claim to know that "the media was reporting that the president may have died long before 1:25 CST" but you fail to provide any evidence in support of that "knowledge". And you falsely claim that "we know Officer Sabastian mentioned the officer" when in fact he did not mention the officer and we know no such thing. All we have is your claim that he asked "That the officer" when in fact the transcript has a questionmark behind his callsign 75.
You are just trying to win your argument by exhausting the people you talk to, by constantly throwing out new "possibillities", no matter how unlikely, instead of looking honestly at the available information.
The facts are simple. There was no radio broadcast about Tippit being DOA at 1.25. No such recording has ever surfaced, no reporter has ever come forward to take credit for it. It doesn't matter if something was garbled or not, because it never made it on air.
The claim that a broadcast about Tippit could have taken place based on "nothing more than the police radio broadcasts which the media monitored" fails simply because there were no such police radio broadcasts prior to Sabastian asking the dispatcher about the DOA reported by NBC News.
Your unwillingness to accept the reality that's staring you in the face makes it superfluous for anybody to confront you with the actual facts.
If you desperately want to believe that Johnny Brewer heard a report on the radio about an officer being shot before he started following the man to the Texas Theater, then have at it.... believe it as much as you like, but don't pretend there is any evidence for it because there clearly isn't and your Sabastian quote "NBC News is reporting DOA" doesn't alter that one bit.
-
In any case, we know Officer Sabastian mentioned the officer.
No, "we" don't know that. For one thing, it says "75(?)". For another, it sounds like "that the office" or "at the office" to me. But if Sebastian actually heard that Tippit was DOA, then why would he be asking "that the officer?" in the first place?
And might possibility (but probably not, probably Officer Owens) also mentioned the President.
To my ear, it sounds like:
A3 (or 83) on the president
No, that's not correct. Stand by, 19.
Why should this be considered only talking about the death of the President. Wouldn’t it be more reasonable to say that Officer Sabastian was only talking about the death of a police officer. Or at most the death of both a police officer and the President?
No, because there is no evidence of any radio report of a dead policeman at that time. There is evidence of a radio report of JFK's death at that time.
A slightly garbled report, that the President was DOA, should not cause one to conclude that this could not possibility be referring to the death of President. Any more than a slightly garbled report, that a police officer was DOA, should not cause one to conclude that this could not possibility be referring to the death of a police officer.
But there is no "slightly garbled report that a police officer was DOA". That's just the spin you're trying to put on it.
-
How many threads do we need on Johnny Brewer?
He is one of the "unsung heroes " (sic) who are not to be believed.
His compatriots are legion:
Ruth Paine.
Michael Paine.
Captain Westbrook.
Harry Holmes.
Will Fritz.
Agent Hosty.
Jack Ruby.
Wesley Frazier.
Agent Gerberling.
Patricia McMillan.
By no means am I saying those above were involved in the assassination. They were just willing participants in fingering Oswald, and helping push the official story.
Don't forget Marina Oswald. Without her, the Warren Report would not have been as effective in silencing the issue, in the beginning at least.
-
Unsung Heroes
There is a list of heroes in the case. Most of them have been known for years.
Officer Tippit. Officer McDonald. Johnny Brewer, Julia Postal. Names of people who at a critical junction, stepped up and did something that resulted in the capture of the assassin of the President with 75 minutes.
But I think there is probably another. Officer E.G. Sabastian reported immediately over the radio that NBC News reported that a police officer had been shot. Johnny Brewer reported hearing two weeks later that he heard an early report of the shooting of a police officer. I think there was such a broadcast. Which means we have another hero. An unknown hero.
Some station news director at the local NBC News station, at WFAA, broadcasting on the NBC station 820 AM got a report that the police radio said that a police officer was murdered in the Oak Cliff area. He made the call, we’re not going to go with another message about what a terrible event this is, we’re not going with another call about what a priest said, we’re not going with another call about we still haven’t heard an official announcement. Instead, he made the call, broadcast, immediately, that a police officer was shot in the Oak Cliff area.
Maybe this didn’t make a difference. Maybe Johnny Brewer was already alerted by the report of the President being shot just 3 miles away just 66 minutes earlier. But who knows, maybe it made the difference. In any case, while all other program directors got locked up with information overload, it appears that one of them didn’t and made the correct call. And scooped the competition. And helped get Oswald captured. To our newest unknown hero, I salute you.
And the myths go on and on and on.