New Article by Dale Myers on Tippit

[Sandy Larsen]

On 7/21/2022 at 12:23 PM, Karl Kinaski said:

@Sandy Larsen

There is a DPD "supplemtary offense report", to big a size to post it here, which states, quote: " At 1.15 pm. Dr Richard Liquori (of the Methodist Hospital) pronounced him(Tippit) dead. You can see the document here, (by scrolling halfway down)thx to Gil Jesus.

Obviously Myers is not aware of that report.

 

 

Thanks Karl.

I was aware of the document, but didn't realize how well the wording helps my case.

 

[Sandy Larsen]

I just replied to Dale Myer's response to my post on his blog.

However, it appears that I am being blocked. Because after sending my first post (which DID appear), I'm pretty sure I got a confirmation message saying the the blogger (Myers) had to approve the message before it would appears in the comments. Well this time when I sent my post, the web page merely refreshed and what I'd written disappeared. I had saved a copy of what I'd written, and so I tried a couple more times. No success.

If Myers IS blocking me, this means that he just wanted to make his false claims against me in reply to my first post and then not let me correct him.

 

[Sandy Larsen]

3 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

If Myers IS blocking me, this means that he just wanted to make his false claims against me in reply to my first post and then not let me correct him.

 

Here is what I attempted to post on Dale Myers blog:

YOU SAID:
"You have been unable or unwilling to provide support for your position other than to charge, again without support, that you know what I assume and what I trust."

I RESPOND:
Do I really need to provide support for the (my alleged) fact that you assume the Dictabelt recordings have not been altered in a coverup, and that you therefore trust them to be true recordings of the police communications?

The proof of this is that you use the Dictabelt recordings to draw up your timeline. Sheesh.

I, on the other hand don't necessarily trust them because, after all, there WAS a government cover up. Instead, I use the eyewitness testimonies. And while it is true that I provide minimal detail for my timeline on the EF thread under discussion, that is because I and others provided the details on another thread years ago when I developed the timeline.

YOU SAID:
"You base your entire timeline on a presumed start time of 1:15 p.m. (which you falsely claim as the time Tippit was pronounced DOA at Methodist Hospital) and then work backwards based solely (your own words) on eyewitness testimony."

I RESPOND:
First, I did not work backward beginning with Tippit's 1:15 PM DOA time. I began with the eyewitnesses' testimonies, most of which point to a shooting before 1:10 PM. Later I became aware of the 1:15 DOA time at the hospital, which is in support of the eyewitness statements. Contradictions popped up only afterward, when I began to study the police Dictabelt recordings.

Second, what I said about Tippit being pronounced dead at 1:15 at Methodist Hospital after resuscitation efforts is absolutely true. In a DPD Supplementary Offense Report written by officers R.A. Davenport and W.R. Bardin, they stated that they observed the medical staff at the hospital attempt to resuscitate Tippit. The resuscitation failed, at which time, according to the officers, "At 1:15 pm Dr. Richard Liquori pronounced him dead." This is a direct quote from the document.

I don't think that the death certificate is available, but in the Authorized Permit for Autopsy for Tippit it lists the place of death as DOA Methodist Hospital and the time of death as 1:15 PM.

So clearly Tippit was pronounced DOA at Methodist Hospital at 1:15 PM. Which contradicts the police Dictabelt recording, as that indicates that the ambulance was dispatched to pick up the body three minutes LATER (1:18 PM), after Tippit was already at the hospital!

These are the reasons I believe that the police Dictabelt recordings have been altered. Because either they were altered, or nearly all the other evidence is wrong. And there is a lot of other evidence and it is self-consistent.

If I and others are right about this, then it would have been impossible for Oswald to have shot Tippit.

Which is not a big surprise given that an overwhelming amount of evidence shows that Oswald didn't shoot Kennedy either. He likely was standing outside with his boss Shelley during the shooting, which we know now was his real alibi. (Which was also covered up, but uncovered recently.)

 

Edited July 23, 2022 by Sandy Larsen

[Sandy Larsen]

On 7/20/2022 at 9:41 PM, Tom Gram said:

Was Myers thus being (gasp) deceptive in his article by stating that the transmissions were made in real time, and that there is no question as to their down-to-the-second accuracy?

 

Tom,

Dale Myers is apparently backing down from his claimed down-to-the-second accuracy. Here is what he wrote about our exchange regarding this:

I obtained the best copy of the Dictabelts I could get from a primary source and did a linear regression analysis to see if there are any anomalies in the time sequence as announced by DPD dispatchers. I found that the time sequence was in fact accurate, to within one-minute, and that Channel 1 did in fact record continuously during high traffic sequences – which occurred in and around the time of the Tippit shooting, my primary focus.

The times announced by the dispatchers (“broadcast time”) could not of course be connected to “real time” (i.e., what we would call today, atomic time) with anymore precision than within that one-minute margin previously stated. How do I know it’s accurate to within that margin? Because there are several “anchors” where the announced time matches times that were documented elsewhere. For example, it is documented in many places that the DPD received the citizen call from T.F. Bowley at 1:18 p.m. This matches my own linear regression analysis within the margin I described.

Many other factors were looked at to determine the accuracy of the timeline I came up with – drive times between locations, photographs, films, testimony, interviews, etc. Bottom line: The timeline I produced, based on my own linear regression analysis of the DPD Channel 1 Dictabelts, is, I believe, within one-one minute of real-time.

 

BTW, "linear regression analysis" is a statistics term that refers to fitting data points to a line. For example:

 

 

In Myer's case, the blue line would represent the time of day and the red dots would each represent the time given by the evidence.  Each timestamp on the police recording should appear as a red dot that is within a minute of the blue timeline.

If we plotted the times given by the witnesses, each with a red dot, they would appear far away from the timeline. A good example would be Bowley's 1:10 call. The police recording timestamp shows that this occurred at 1:18, and so there would be a red dot for that at 1:18, and this dot would be close (within a minute) of the blue timeline. However, the red dot for Bowley's self-reported time of 1:10 would be far away from the blue line.

 

[James DiEugenio]

So linear regression analysis is simply using extant data to fit into an existing time frame?

There is nothing forensic about it?  And really not much that is analytical.

Nothig like, if this message went out, why did one guy do this, and the other did not?

[Tom Gram]

58 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

So linear regression analysis is simply using extant data to fit into an existing time frame?

There is nothing forensic about it?  And really not much that is analytical.

Nothig like, if this message went out, why did one guy do this, and the other did not?

That's exactly why I asked about this in the first place. I may be wrong, but I'm assuming that Myers did the regression based on the fact that the dictabelt only recorded while receiving a signal. So if you have two called-out timestamps 30 "real" minutes apart, but only 29 minutes of audio measured with a stopwatch, you could estimate real time with a linear regression - but the error margin would always be about 2 minutes (based on the inherent imprecision of each timestamp) plus the difference in real time to recorded audio. 

In this scenario an example of a regression would be real time = 30/29 * measured time. The problem is you don't know where the gaps are, so if there were 29 1-minute transmissions and one 1-minute gap, the regression would either over or underestimate real time of any particular transmission. It distributes the 1-minute gap over the entire 30 minutes, so your total error margin ends up being plus or minus 3 minutes or so. A proper error calculation could get a lot more complicated, but that's the basic gist. 

This is why I'm assuming Myers is emphasizing that the recording around the Tippit shooting was "nearly continuous", since that would minimize the error bracket in his calculations. The problem is that I'm almost positive that he is calculating his error margins incorrectly, and it seems like he knows it: 

How do I know it’s accurate to within that margin? Because there are several “anchors” where the announced time matches times that were documented elsewhere. For example, it is documented in many places that the DPD received the citizen call from T.F. Bowley at 1:18 p.m. This matches my own linear regression analysis within the margin I described.

He's using this "anchors" method to get around the inherent error in the called-out timestamps on the recordings, without taking into account the error in the times that are "documented elsewhere". There's nothing scientific about it, and that's why I think Myers should describe exactly how he calculated each time so that his work can be "peer reviewed".

It's good that Myers backtracked on his ridiculous claim in his article that his calculations actually represent real time down to the second, but I suspect that his claim of accuracy down to the minute is equally dubious. Again I could be wrong, but all I'm saying is that it might be worth it to review and try to replicate his work. 

[Bill Brown]

The second-by-second times in my timeline represent the timing between events that I obtained from my stopwatch review of the Dictabelts. These times are within one-minute, I believe, of “real-time”. -- Dale Myers

 

Myers explained in the foreword of With Malice how he verified the accuracy of the dictabelt recordings.  No backtracking or backing down.

 

 

 

Edited July 23, 2022 by Bill Brown

[Tom Gram]

10 hours ago, Bill Brown said:

The second-by-second times in my timeline represent the timing between events that I obtained from my stopwatch review of the Dictabelts. These times are within one-minute, I believe, of “real-time”. -- Dale Myers

 

Myers explained in the foreword of With Malice how he verified the accuracy of the dictabelt recordings.  No backtracking or backing down.

 

 

 

That’s the point Bill. He originally claimed in this article that his calculations were not actually calculations but transmissions made in real time that were accurate down to the second. He contradicted his own book. 

Edited July 24, 2022 by Tom Gram

[Sandy Larsen]

On 7/23/2022 at 1:10 PM, Bill Brown said:

The second-by-second times in my timeline represent the timing between events that I obtained from my stopwatch review of the Dictabelts. These times are within one-minute, I believe, of “real-time”. -- Dale Myers

Myers explained in the foreword of With Malice how he verified the accuracy of the dictabelt recordings.  No backtracking or backing down.

 

In Myers response to my comment to his blog article, he went over his timing method again, but never mentions that "second-by-second" timing that he used in his book. It sure looks like he's backed down from that.

(BTW, Myers blocked me from replying again after our first exchange, and has since deleted our exchange. So now he has only positive feedback from his LNer buddies.)

 

[Bill Brown]

21 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

(BTW, Myers blocked me from replying again after our first exchange, and has since deleted our exchange. So now he has only positive feedback from his LNer buddies.)

 

Simply not true.

[David Von Pein]

1 hour ago, Sandy Larsen said:

(BTW, Myers blocked me from replying again after our first exchange, and has since deleted our exchange. So now he has only positive feedback from his LNer buddies.)

I can still see your exchange with Myers, Sandy.

http://jfkfiles.blogspot.com/2022/07/lies-and-deception-in-tippit-murder.html

[Sandy Larsen]

1 hour ago, Bill Brown said:

2 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

(BTW, Myers blocked me from replying again after our first exchange, and has since deleted our exchange.

Simply not true.

 

Yes, it IS true! Don't ever call me a li@r again!

Though I see that Myers has put our exchange back up. Plus he put up my reply to his, the one that appeared to be blocked. (Because his website gave no indication that I submitted it and merely reloaded the page. Unlike with my first submission.)

 

Edited July 25, 2022 by Sandy Larsen

[Sandy Larsen]

3 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

In Myers response to my comment to his blog article, he went over his timing method again, but never mentions that "second-by-second" timing that he used in his book. It sure looks like he's backed down from that.

 

BTW, Myers mentioned his timing method again and says that he hasn't backed down on the second-by-second timing.

As I said earlier, one-second accuracy is possible when it comes to  the  timing of one event relative to another. So maybe that is what he's talking about. (Though that only works if the tape runs continuously).

On the other hand, I recall seeing him use his one-second-accuracy times for absolute times. Which of course shouldn't be done.

 

[Tom Gram]

1 hour ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

BTW, Myers mentioned his timing method again and says that he hasn't backed down on the second-by-second timing.

As I said earlier, one-second accuracy is possible when it comes to  the  timing of one event relative to another. So maybe that is what he's talking about. (Though that only works if the tape runs continuously).

On the other hand, I recall seeing him use his one-second-accuracy times for absolute times. Which of course shouldn't be done.

 

See my previous comment. I’m not even sure that one second accuracy is possible for relative measurements. The dictabelt only recorded upon receiving a signal, so the only way to determine if recording was truly continuous within a particular span would be to compare expected time with recorded time between two timestamps.

Let’s say that 1:00 and 1:15 are called out by officers on the tape, and there are exactly 15 minutes of recorded audio between those two timestamps. Each timestamp is only precise to the minute, so the actual time between the stamps could range from about 12:59:30 to 1:15:30, or 1:00:30 to 1:14:30, so 14-16 minutes. Thus even with exactly 15 minutes of recorded audio, you’d  still have a 1-minute error margin for any stopwatch measurement of events between the 1:00 and 1:15 timestamps.

Disclaimer: I might be wrong here, so if I’m interpreting this incorrectly let me know. 

Also, you are correct about what Myers claimed. I don’t know if he updated the article, but his initial wording was that his calculated times actually represented real times broadcast on the tape. I’m pretty sure I quoted it in an earlier comment. 

Edited July 25, 2022 by Tom Gram

[Sandy Larsen]

1 minute ago, Tom Gram said:

See my previous comment. I’m not even sure that one second accuracy is possible for relative measurements.

 

Yeah, that's the reason I wrote this in my post: "(Though that only works if the tape runs continuously.)"

 

1 minute ago, Tom Gram said:

The dictabelt only recorded upon receiving a signal, ...

 

Are you sure of that?

I did read and understood what you said about Myer's comment about the communication continually running right after the Tippit shooting. Makes sense.