JFK Assassination Forum

You simply don't get it.  I posted an image of both affidavits, with no commentary; just the images, nothing more.  YOU then challenged their authenticity.  Then we went from there.  Perhaps you should scroll back and have a look.

As for the documents being fake, as you claim... I completely disagree.  Like I told you before, the simple fact that the affidavits say "Erwin" (instead of Irving) should tell you that someone was transcribing as they were listening to Frazier speak with that unmistakable accent of his (as opposed to someone simply typing in the word "Erwin" for some other reason which makes no sense).  You don't display the ability to think logically.  That's your biggest problem.

Some things never change.

Perhaps you should scroll back and have a look.

I did. That's why I know there was no reason to bring up eating pizza with Frazier. Oh wait, perhaps a completely failed appeal to authority?

As for the documents being fake, as you claim... I completely disagree.

Of course you do. A LN will always accept anything that supports his narrative regardless if it is authentic evidence or not.

Like I told you before, the simple fact that the affidavits say "Erwin" (instead of Irving) should tell you that someone was transcribing as they were listening to Frazier speak

No. You just made that up. There isn't a notary that would accept such a mistake.

You don't display the ability to think logically.  That's your biggest problem.

Let me guess, you consider it to be completely logical to use documents from, off all places, Ridley's. Not to mention that they don't have the usual form of an affidavit (you have seen enough real ones to know this) and not to mention that Frazier's signature is completely different.

I think my biggest problem is that I am talking to a dumbass who thinks he is thinking logically!

I'm not trying to avoid any discussion on Earlene Roberts.  Unlike you, I do not wish to argue over things just for the sake of arguing.  We've discussed Roberts a million times.  Maybe a week from now I'll want to argue with you some more.  Right now?  No interest.  I've made my points.

I was asking you why Roberts was so damned special. I did not ask you to argue about it.

But no worries, Bill... It's not the first time you've run away from a simple question. 

I didn't say they were of by six minutes. Based on what Bowles said they could have been. But I actually do not believe they were six minutes off.
They give Bowley's radio call at 1:17. If the timestamp was off by six minutes, Bowley would have made the call at 1:11, which is not possible because the drive from the school took 13 minutes. I believe it's likely that Bowley really made his call at around 1:14 (real time), which would make the timestamps off by roughly 3 minutes,

And still no answer about Roberts..... Why am I not surpirsed?

I'm not trying to avoid any discussion on Earlene Roberts.  Unlike you, I do not wish to argue over things just for the sake of arguing.  We've discussed Roberts a million times.  Maybe a week from now I'll want to argue with you some more.  Right now?  No interest.  I've made my points.

So two minutes for "this" clock, plus two minutes for "that" clock, plus two minutes for the "other" clock means the timestamps are off by six minutes.  Got it.
 

I didn't say they were of by six minutes. Based on what Bowles said they could have been. But I actually do not believe they were six minutes off.
They give Bowley's radio call at 1:17. If the timestamp was off by six minutes, Bowley would have made the call at 1:11, which is not possible because the drive from the school took 13 minutes. I believe it's likely that Bowley really made his call at around 1:14 (real time), which would make the timestamps off by roughly 3 minutes,

And still no answer about Roberts..... Why am I not surpirsed?

"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." -- J.C. Bowles

For some unknown reason (wait, I do know the reason after all), you keep wanting to stretch this "minute or so apart" to mean six or seven minutes.

No, for some reason you are unwilling to accept that between the City Hall clock's "official" time and the timestamps there are three different clocks involved which all could easily be two minutes off compared to eachother.

Now, let's get back to Roberts. Are you going to tell me why she is such a special witness?