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


Users Currently Browsing This Topic:
0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Author Topic: The Initials Of FBI Agent Elmer Todd Are On CE399 (Hi-Def Photo Proof)  (Read 8687 times)

Online Mitch Todd

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 687
Re: The Initials Of FBI Agent Elmer Todd Are On CE399 (Hi-Def Photo Proof)
« Reply #232 on: June 28, 2022, 05:04:03 AM »
You misrepresent what Bowles wrote. He spews out a load of speculation as to what could happen or might happen or may happen, but he never substantiates a single scenario. That is, his whole missive is built out of unsubstantiated speculation.

What a load of BS. Bowles has first hand experience of what happens in the dispatcher room on a daily basis. If there is one person in the world who would know, it is him. He's not speculating and doesn't need to substantiate any scenario. He is just telling us what actually happens with the system.

You call it "unsubstantiated speculation" simply because you don't like what he is telling us. When it comes to the DPD radio dispatchers, I'll take Bowles' word over your theorizing and argumentative crap a thousand times.

You continue to misrepresent what Bowles wrote. He can only say that this one thing 'could have happened' a certain way or something else 'might have happened this way' or someone 'may have done something in this way.' Or, 'well, maybe it went like this'. If it begins with "might have" or "maybe" or "coulda" or "may have," it speculation, pretty much by definition. And he doesn't provide us with any specific examples of any of his hypothetical scenarios. Not from the channel recordings, the transcripts, or from any other source or time. That makes his speculation unsubstantiated, also by definition. So "unsubstantiated speculation" is a perfect description of Bowles' words.


The mere fact that you think you can say that John is talking about a subject he knows little about, shows just how arrogant you really are. And yes, you are wasting everybody’s time with your holier-than-thou BS.

And btw, in all your ramblings you have ignored completely that there is a massive gap in the recordings, due to a sliced tape at 1:12:15. Also, the tape has clearly been manipulated as it contains a part of a conversation that doesn't show up in any transcript. And, also there were no timestamps called between 1:16 and 1:19, so starting at the point where Bowley starts making his radio call is pathetically meaningless, simply because there is no way of knowing for sure when that call actually started.
John is pounding the table with his shoe, demanding that I present evidence of something that is already well known, and has been for decades. He might as well demand that I prove that the sky is blue on a cloudless summer day. If you think that I'm the one who's being arrogant here then you're in need of a proper dictionary.

And yes, there is a splice at about 1:12. But you've yet to explain how this affects anything that I've already written.
« Last Edit: June 28, 2022, 08:08:27 AM by Mitch Todd »

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: The Initials Of FBI Agent Elmer Todd Are On CE399 (Hi-Def Photo Proof)
« Reply #232 on: June 28, 2022, 05:04:03 AM »


Online Mitch Todd

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 687
Re: The Initials Of FBI Agent Elmer Todd Are On CE399 (Hi-Def Photo Proof)
« Reply #233 on: June 28, 2022, 08:00:47 AM »
You misrepresent what Bowles wrote. He spews out a load of speculation as to what could happen or might happen or may happen, but he never substantiates a single scenario. That is, his whole missive is built out of unsubstantiated speculation.

No, you misrepresent what Bowles said. He said the dispatcher time checks can not be relied on to reflect actual time. And he explained why.
To begin with, I've never claimed that the time checks "reflect real time," though I'm assuming that by "actual time" you mean Central Standard Time. Once again, you misrepresent what I've said, and it's getting to be a suspicious habit of yours. What I claim is that the various time announcements you hear after 12:30 are the result of one guy reading the (then) current time off of a clock in front of him. As such, the set of time announcements on each channel are internally consistent. Bowles advances a number of hypothetical reasons why one or another of these announcements might be off, but never stoops to the level of identifying a single instance of any of them happening. That is, all he can provide is unsubstantiated speculation.

   
what I've said is that the Hertz clock, agrees with Kellerman's watch, Sorrels' watch, Powers' watch, and the channel two dispatchers clock in putting the assassination at 12:30. The odds of this happening from random happenstance are very small.

You have no evidence of what somebody’s watch said other than his say-so. And in Kellerman’s case it’s not even his say-so. And Sorrels said “about 12:30”, whatever that means.
Those men simply said that at a certain point, their watch read a certain time. How dare I beleive that?! HOW DARE I?! Where does this madness end?! Next thing you know, people will be bringing up Bowley's account of looking at his watch. Can't do that. Mr Iacoletti might hear, and he would raise total H E double toothpicks if someone brought it up. Iacoletti would be all over the guy --TOTALLY all over the guy-- who brought Bowley up.

Oh, and Sorrels said "just about 12:30." The extra adjective makes a large difference in the specificity of the phrase. I'm sure it was a simple oversight on your part.


Funny how Bowles’ say-so about the dispatcher clocks is “unsubstantiated speculation” but Powers’ say-so about his watch is unassailable fact.
Powers said that that a certain point in the motorcade, he looked at his watch and it read a certain time. Bowles claimed  that there were certain situations where the announced time on the DPD radio channels might not be the time on the clocks read by the dispatchers. But Bowles couldn't point to a single instance of any of these hypothetical scenarios actually happening within the recordings. The difference is that Powers reports the actuality of what he saw, but Bowles trades in speculation about what might have occurred. You're bright enough to see the difference, so why are you making such a clatter about it?


Besides, unless you have some basis for calculating odds, your “very small” claim is meaningless rhetoric. Incidentally, nobody said it was random happenstance.
As to odds, let's see....

To begin with, let's go back to the idea that in the early 60's, most clocks in common use could only be expected to be within about 5 minutes of correct time. If we quantize down to the minute, that gives us eleven values: [-5, 4, 3, 2, 1, 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5]. We have Sorrel's watch, Powers' watch, Kellerman's watch, the Hertz sign, and the DPD channel two dispatcher's clock.... five in all. So, how likely is it that all five would be within the same minute, if we arrange the time on each clock randomly within the given set? The simplest way is to use one clock as a reference, and see how like it would be for the others to be in the same minute. IOW, the likelihood that all five clocks would be in the same minute is 1/(11^(5-1)) or 1/(11^4) or 1/14641 or 0.007%.

Let's say you don't like the +/-5 minute interval. Ok, we can tighten it down to within three minutes rather than five. That gives us seven possible values (-3, -2,...0,...,2,3). The likelihood that all five are on the same minute is 1/(7^4), or 1/2401 or 0.04%.

But maybe you don't like within three minutes. Okay. We can try two. That gives us five possible values from -2 to 0 to 2. And the resulting probability is  1/(5^4) or 1/625 or 0.16%.

And, maybe we could bring it down to plus or minus one minute, which would create a set of three possible values. That leads to a probability of 1/(3^4) or 1/81 or 1.23%. That's still pretty improbable.

BTW, one of the delicious aspects of this particular kerfluffle is watching you and Martin repeatedly pleading, "trust us, you gotta believe the cop! You gotta believe the cop!"

Alternatively, since we can relate these clocks directly to the assassination, we might as well set the assassination to 12:30 and use that datum as a reference for all subsequent events as if it were the "correct" time.

Sure, and that’s what Bowles does in the rest of his treatise. Unfortunately that’s purely arbitrary and tells us nothing about what time it was when Tippit was shot.
That's what an awful lot of researchers do. Why look a gift Hertz clock in the mouth? Especially when all those other clocks agree with it. Is this arbitrary? No more so than using any other clock, including using the NBS ones. The trick is to figure out the offset between them if you can.


What Powers said was direct and unequivocal, and there is nothing with which to question his statements.

Of course there is. Human memory is notoriously unreliable.
I want you to go back to the first post in the "Lame LN Excuses" post, and preface every line in that post with what you just wrote, giving yourself generous credit each time. Should be fun!


As such, the burden of proof falls on whomever wants to object to Powers affidavit. That is to say, the burden falls on you.

No. You’re the one using his statement as the basis for an argument. It’s your burden to demonstrate that it’s actually true.
In order to use his statement as an argument, all I have to do is quote Powers and show that he said it. It is not my job to disprove each and every hypothetical objection that anyone could possibly dream up. Therefore, any objection to the result is completely up to you. You need to avail yourself of that opportunity. Otherwise you're just whizzin' into the wind.


The simulcasts have been well-known for decades. You simply have no idea what you're talking about.

Sorry. Asserting that something is “well-known” does not constitute supporting evidence.
I do not have to "prove" that the simulcasts exist anymore than I have to prove that the world is round. It's well enough known, and has been known long enough that there is no further need to explain.

I pointed out that the recording system was designed so that the recorders' auto shutoff had a four second runoff delay at the end of a transmission. This was commonly done to reduce wear and tear on the recorder mechanicals.  Therefore, before the recorder shuts off, it will record four seconds of dead air. So if there isn't a four-second spot of silence, then the recorder was running continuously.

That’s irrelevant when the recordings can be edited. And they have been.
There are a couple of splices in the known recordings. However, the existence of these does not prove, demonstrate, or imply that there are any other overdubs, splices, or edits on the recording. Just because it rained Tuesday doesn't mean it rained all week, or that it will rain tomorrow. If you want to argue an edit is in there somewhere which affects what I've written, you need to show that the edit is actually there. Otherwise, you're just hoping that one might be there, and hope is never a good plan. It's also never a good argument. Again, the burden in on you.
« Last Edit: June 28, 2022, 08:07:14 AM by Mitch Todd »

Online John Iacoletti

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9926
Re: The Initials Of FBI Agent Elmer Todd Are On CE399 (Hi-Def Photo Proof)
« Reply #234 on: June 28, 2022, 03:52:39 PM »
What I claim is that the various time announcements you hear after 12:30 are the result of one guy reading the (then) current time off of a clock in front of him. As such, the set of time announcements on each channel are internally consistent.

Actually it's two guys reading their own clocks, and then not always even that (as in the case of station ID).  As such, the two clocks can be out of sync.

Quote
Bowles advances a number of hypothetical reasons why one or another of these announcements might be off, but never stoops to the level of identifying a single instance of any of them happening. That is, all he can provide is unsubstantiated speculation.

There's nothing "speculative" about it.  If the clocks never got out of sync with each other and with "city time" then he wouldn't say that they do.

Quote
Those men simply said that at a certain point, their watch read a certain time. How dare I beleive that?! HOW DARE I?! Where does this madness end?!

Sarcasm isn't evidence either.  Believe what you like, but don't pretend that it proves anything.

Quote
Oh, and Sorrels said "just about 12:30." The extra adjective makes a large difference in the specificity of the phrase.

Only because you want it to.

Quote
If we quantize down to the minute, that gives us eleven values: [-5, 4, 3, 2, 1, 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5]. We have Sorrel's watch, Powers' watch, Kellerman's watch, the Hertz sign, and the DPD channel two dispatcher's clock.... five in all. So, how likely is it that all five would be within the same minute, if we arrange the time on each clock randomly within the given set? The simplest way is to use one clock as a reference, and see how like it would be for the others to be in the same minute. IOW, the likelihood that all five clocks would be in the same minute is 1/(11^(5-1)) or 1/(11^4) or 1/14641 or 0.007%.

What is this, "How to lie with statistics 101"? We don't have 5 clocks all saying 12:30.  Powers said "almost".  Sorrels said "about".  Both allow for them to be off in either direction.  Kellerman is hearsay.  But by all means, be consistent and apply this same contrived analysis to Markham, Bowley, Higgins, and Methodist Hospital and then there is no need to quibble about the dispatcher clocks.

Quote
Why look a gift Hertz clock in the mouth? Especially when all those other clocks agree with it.

Because, as I've pointed out repeatedly, the channel 2 dispatcher makes no time announcements near the time Tippit's shooting is being reported.

Quote
Is this arbitrary? No more so than using any other clock, including using the NBS ones. The trick is to figure out the offset between them if you can.

You can't.

Quote
I want you to go back to the first post in the "Lame LN Excuses" post, and preface every line in that post with what you just wrote, giving yourself generous credit each time. Should be fun!

Well, you missed the entire point of that thread, which is that the WC-faithful only use the "mistaken/lying" gambit for witnesses that contradict the preferred narrative.  Otherwise, witness statements are golden.  Kind of like what you do with Powers.

Quote
In order to use his statement as an argument, all I have to do is quote Powers and show that he said it.  It is not my job to disprove each and every hypothetical objection that anyone could possibly dream up. Therefore, any objection to the result is completely up to you. You need to avail yourself of that opportunity. Otherwise you're just whizzin' into the wind.

No, because all I'm saying is that the timepieces are of unknown accuracy.  Since you are claiming a particular range of accuracy, then the burden is on you to substantiate it.  Not just believe what somebody said unless it's proven wrong.

Quote
I do not have to "prove" that the simulcasts exist anymore than I have to prove that the world is round. It's well enough known, and has been known long enough that there is no further need to explain.

If it's so "well-known", then it should be easily substantiated.  The fact that you are using this cop-out tells me that you cannot.  "Mitch said so" is even less compelling than the "Bowles said so" that you reject out of hand.

Quote
There are a couple of splices in the known recordings. However, the existence of these does not prove, demonstrate, or imply that there are any other overdubs, splices, or edits on the recording. Just because it rained Tuesday doesn't mean it rained all week, or that it will rain tomorrow. If you want to argue an edit is in there somewhere which affects what I've written, you need to show that the edit is actually there. Otherwise, you're just hoping that one might be there, and hope is never a good plan. It's also never a good argument. Again, the burden in on you.

No, you are shifting the burden again.  If you want to claim that a portion of an edited recording is continuous then you need to actually show that it is continuous, not just assume it is until proven otherwise.

To sum up, you have failed to show that the channel 2 dispatcher announcements are within a minute of real time, and you have failed to show that the channel 1 dispatcher announcements are within a minute of the channel 2 dispatcher announcements.  What you have done is a lot of grandstanding, handwaving, and burden-shifting.

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: The Initials Of FBI Agent Elmer Todd Are On CE399 (Hi-Def Photo Proof)
« Reply #234 on: June 28, 2022, 03:52:39 PM »


Offline Dan O'meara

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2282
Re: Markham's Bus
« Reply #235 on: June 28, 2022, 08:21:14 PM »
There are several clocks involves. There is a channel one DPD clock, and channel two DPD clock, the Hertz sign, Powers' watch, Kellerman's watch, Sorrels' watch, Bowley's watch, the funeral home clock, whatever Markham was using, and the Methodist clock. I guess we can include what Martin calls "real time" as well. Each is running with an offset to every other timepiece in this collection. The trick is to figure how far off they are, or at least to come up with a consistent narrative as to reconcile them as best as can be done.

Agreed to a large extent but we can forget about what Martin calls "real time".
He never defines what he means by this and neither does Bowles.
John I. defines it as the time set by the USNO master clock but it makes no difference what the standard is - there is no way of knowing if any of the watches/clocks in question are in synch with this standard.
All that matters is:

Are the two dispatchers clocks in synch with each other [Police Time]
Are the dispatchers clocks in synch with events in Dealey Plaza [Dealey Time]
Are the dispatchers clocks in synch with events around 10th and Patton [Patton Time]

The evidence isn't definitive on any of these points but there is enough evidence to present strong arguments for the second point, that Channel 2 is in synch with Dealey Time from 12:30 to 12:39pm.

There is a good argument that both channels were in synch until Bowley's call.
From the testimonies of Cason and Henslee we know that both Henslee and Murray were sat at the same radio board and, more importantly, Henslee was overseeing calls for both channels. This supports the view both men were communicating with each other, which appears to be confirmed by a number of instances in the DP tape transcripts where the timestamps are in synch with various calls coming in.

It is much harder to confirm that Police Time was in synch with Patton time and it is Martin's argument that around the time of the Tippit shooting Channel 1 was about 5 minutes out of synch with events on 10th and Patton.
Overall, I find the argument that the Channel 1 dispatcher's clock drifted out by 5 minutes unnoticed quite weak but what is much harder to determine is whether there was a deliberate falsification of the tapes.
In this respect, there is one curious detail - between 1:11 - 1:12pm on Channel 1, Sawyer makes this call:

"On the 3rd floor of this book company down here, we found empty rifle hulls and it looked like the man had been here for some time. We are checking it out now."

I believe this call was a result of information given to Sawyer by Hill. In his testimony Hill gives the distinct impression he is there"only a minute" before Bowley's call comes through but, according to the tape transcripts, there is a least a five minute gap between Sawyer's call and Bowley's. Also, on Channel 1 there is a five to six minute gap between 1:12pm and 1:18pm timestamps, around the same time (1:12pm) there is a splice in the tape on Channel 1.
If there is any deliberate falsification of the tapes I suspect it would be around this point.




« Last Edit: June 28, 2022, 09:42:51 PM by Dan O'meara »

Online Martin Weidmann

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5891
Re: The Initials Of FBI Agent Elmer Todd Are On CE399 (Hi-Def Photo Proof)
« Reply #236 on: June 29, 2022, 12:08:41 AM »
Let's speculate a bit..

Tippit was declared D.O.A. at Methodist Hospital at 1:15. It says so on the authorisation for autopsy as well in two seperate documents signed by DPD officer Davenport, who had followed the ambulance and was present at the hospital when it happened.

I know of no other case where concern was expressed about the D.O.A. of a victim. Why would there be, right? Somebody shoots a guy and a few minutes later he's declared D.O.A.. Why would anybody even assume ore that the D.O.A. time could be wrong by a few minutes? What's the big deal?

With that in mind, I keep asking myself the same question over and over again. Why did the FBI pester Methodist Hospital's staff members, not once but on multiple occassions, with questions about the accuracy of the D.O.A. time? They didn't do it with Kennedy, but in Tippit's case, where the jurisdiction clearly lies with the DPD, their all over it.

What was so important about Tippit's D.O.A. time that the FBI took it upon itself to make enquiries?

 

Mobile View