Lee Oswald The Cop Killer

[John Iacoletti]

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

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

The suggestion that Day was less than honest is not that preposterous.  The suggestion that Day, Drain, and Latona all lied about something that served no purpose whatsoever (and in fact was counter-productive to their narrative) is definitely preposterous.

[Charles Collins]

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

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

Paraphrasing: He explains that the reason that they had no faithful validity is because the dispatcher might have been looking at one of two clocks. That the two clocks were not necessarily synchronized. And that if one got more than one or two minutes off, it was adjusted accordingly.

That means that the tolerances for being off were one or two minutes. However, it doesn’t preclude the possibility that they were more accurate than that.

[Martin Weidmann]

Paraphrasing: He explains that the reason that they had no faithful validity is because the dispatcher might have been looking at one of two clocks. That the two clocks were not necessarily synchronized. And that if one got more than one or two minutes off, it was adjusted accordingly.

That means that the tolerances for being off were one or two minutes. However, it doesn’t preclude the possibility that they were more accurate than that.

Nope.. no need to paraphrase and muddy the water. We don't need your version of what he said, when Bowles's own words are perfectly clear;

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

I ask again, who are you and what do you know that Bowles doesn't to disagree with this clear cut statement?

Btw you seem to ignore the fact that the original recordings were made by voice activated equipment, reducing the evidentary value of the recordings/transcripts even further.

[John Iacoletti]

Arguments for an earlier Tippit shooting:

- Markham's washateria clock
- Bowley's watch
- Higgins' clock
- Hospital DOA time on autopsy permit
- Time "pronounced dead" on Davenport's supplementary offense report
- Apparent alteration of "pronounced dead" time on Commission Document 5

Arguments for a later Tippit shooting:

- Dispatcher spoken timestamp from transcripts of spliced tape copies of Dictabelt/Audograph recordings, timestamping a civilian police radio transmission from a civilian who said he "set there for just a few minutes" before getting out of his truck.

[Charles Collins]

Nope.. no need to paraphrase and muddy the water. We don't need your version of what he said, when Bowley's own words are perfectly clear;

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

I ask again, who are you and what do you know that Bowles doesn't to disagree with this clear cut statement?

Btw you seem to ignore the fact that the original recordings were made by voice activated equipment, reducing the evidentary value of the recordings/transcripts even further.

Why do you think that I am disagreeing with what he said? I am only pointing out that he does explain what he meant by that statement. You want to ignore his explanation? Then go ahead and be an ignoramus.

[Martin Weidmann]

Why do you think that I am disagreeing with what he said? I am only pointing out that he does explain what he meant by that statement. You want to ignore his explanation? Then go ahead and be an ignoramus.

You are disagreeing with what he said when you argue that his explanation somehow only means "that the tolerances for being off were one or two minutes" when in fact the man himself said unambiguously that under no circumstance could you put any stock in the real world time references

Calling me names isn't going to alter that one bit and only shows the weakness of your argument.

[Charles Collins]

You are disagreeing with what he said when you argue that his explanation somehow only means "that the tolerances for being off were one or two minutes" when in fact the man himself said unambiguously that under no circumstance could you put any stock in the real world time references

Calling me names isn't going to alter that one bit and only shows the weakness of your argument.

How the hell do you reason that that statement precludes what his own explanation of it says it means? I am not name calling. If you choose to be ignorant of the facts. Then the definition fits.