Oak Cliff Time Trials

[Michael Kalin]

3 hours ago, Matt Cloud said:

Tippit meanwhile sits like grandma's ersatz china on the cupboard's top shelf -- precious and worthless both.  It is rarely be taken down and used, much less examined.  A stiff breeze through an open window threatens always to shatter.

Ha! You give no quarter to anyone when it comes to turning a phrase. I'm hoping a stiff breeze blows through this thread soon. It's like waiting for Godot.

[Greg Doudna]

8 minutes ago, Michael Kalin said:

Ha! You give no quarter to anyone when it comes to turning a phrase. I'm hoping a stiff breeze blows through this thread soon. It's like waiting for Godot.

And also devoid of much actual content, as distinguished from sounding very profound.

On the matter of the question of the calibration of Bill's walk-through timings data to the ca. 1:18 pm radio call timing as opposed to moving that calibration benchmark earlier by some minutes for reasons otherwise argued elsewhere, obviously Bill as he explicitly makes clear is arguing from the 1:18 pm basis. If that premise can be shown wrong, that will affect the interpretation part of his analysis, but does not affect the data reporting itself. Why not at least thank him for the data production and reporting. Here it has been 60 years of tons of argument and debate and this is the first time someone made a serious attempt at measurements, of obtaining of primary data, on the matters Bill did. And you just come on with sneers and literary flourishes. (I agree with Matt Cloud on one point, you are good with language as Matt is too. But I'm looking underneath admiration of wordsmithing and artistry to substance of argument.)

You call names of the work of others who have published serious, years-long labors of their research. Where is your data production or single-article published analysis or argument? You have a scattering of Education Forum posts, none comprehensive and not consistent with one another--why not prepare a single, edited article with your own voice and your own argument in one piece, to be put out there for debate as others have done? If you think Bill's time-counts are inaccurate or flawed data (as distinguished from disagreement over interpretation), why not somebody do a controlled replication of the same walk-throughs as Bill's with timings and publish their data too?

 

[Matt Cloud]

2 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:

And also devoid of much actual content, as distinguished from sounding very profound.

On the matter of the question of the calibration of Bill's walk-through timings data to the ca. 1:18 pm radio call timing as opposed to moving that calibration benchmark earlier by some minutes for reasons otherwise argued elsewhere, obviously Bill as he explicitly makes clear is arguing from the 1:18 pm basis. If that premise can be shown wrong, that will affect the interpretation part of his analysis, but does not affect the data reporting itself. Why not at least thank him for the data production and reporting. Here it has been 60 years of tons of argument and debate and this is the first time someone made a serious attempt at measurements, of obtaining of primary data, on the matters Bill did. And you just come on with sneers and literary flourishes. (I agree with Matt Cloud on one point, you are good with language as Matt is too. But I'm looking underneath admiration of wordsmithing and artistry to substance of argument.)

You call names of the work of others who have published serious, years-long labors of their research. Where is your data production or single-article published analysis or argument? You have a scattering of Education Forum posts, none comprehensive and not consistent with one another--why not prepare a single, edited article with your own voice and your own argument in one piece, to be put out there for debate as others have done? If you think Bill's time-counts are inaccurate or flawed data (as distinguished from disagreement over interpretation), why not somebody do a controlled replication of the same walk-throughs as Bill's with timings and publish their data too?

 

As I am only parenthetically and indirectly referenced, I will only parenthetically and indirectly reply.  (I find Tippit to be more a phantom than Oswald, and why the "anonymous call to the J.D. Tippits of Connecticut" is so fatal -- or vital -- to establishing either's existence in the first place.  No quarrel by me with alleged time-stamps and the like, necessarily, only with primary assumptions.)

 

 

Edited June 15 by Matt Cloud

[Michael Kalin]

1 hour ago, Greg Doudna said:

And also devoid of much actual content, as distinguished from sounding very profound.

On the matter of the question of the calibration of Bill's walk-through timings data to the ca. 1:18 pm radio call timing as opposed to moving that calibration benchmark earlier by some minutes for reasons otherwise argued elsewhere, obviously Bill as he explicitly makes clear is arguing from the 1:18 pm basis. If that premise can be shown wrong, that will affect the interpretation part of his analysis, but does not affect the data reporting itself. Why not at least thank him for the data production and reporting. Here it has been 60 years of tons of argument and debate and this is the first time someone made a serious attempt at measurements, of obtaining of primary data, on the matters Bill did. And you just come on with sneers and literary flourishes. (I agree with Matt Cloud on one point, you are good with language as Matt is too. But I'm looking underneath admiration of wordsmithing and artistry to substance of argument.)

You call names of the work of others who have published serious, years-long labors of their research. Where is your data production or single-article published analysis or argument? You have a scattering of Education Forum posts, none comprehensive and not consistent with one another--why not prepare a single, edited article with your own voice and your own argument in one piece, to be put out there for debate as others have done? If you think Bill's time-counts are inaccurate or flawed data (as distinguished from disagreement over interpretation), why not somebody do a controlled replication of the same walk-throughs as Bill's with timings and publish their data too?

 

I will not discuss matters in the subjunctive. Oswald's arrival "at Tenth and Patton (from the rooming house on his way to the bus stop at Marsalis and Jefferson) at 1:11," five minutes after the murder occurred, invalidates the entire chronology.

[Greg Doudna]

On 6/15/2024 at 12:46 PM, Michael Kalin said:

 

I will not discuss matters in the subjunctive. Oswald's arrival "at Tenth and Patton (from the rooming house on his way to the bus stop at Marsalis and Jefferson) at 1:11," five minutes after the murder occurred, invalidates the entire chronology.

Could you say what you regard as hard evidence Tippit was killed at ca 1:06 (and not ca 1:14-15)? 

I’m familiar with Bowley’s 1:10 on his watch but I understand that claim is first attested from Bowley Saturday morning Nov 23 making an error in memory (not on the setting of his watch) possible. And I am familiar with Helen Markham’s time of leaving her apartment which would suggest an earlier time of the Tippit killing EXCEPT for the recent lengthy article of Gavan McMahon in Garrison magazine which says a lot of things but he reports from Markham family members a claim that Helen had been asked to be there by her son or his gang as a witness of something. (Her son was the leader of a gang of which Jimmy Burt was a member, I think, whose car may have been there when Tippit pulled up.) According to this, Helen Markham had for that reason purposely got there earlier, such that Markhams time of arrival to Tenth and Patton might not necessarily have been when Tippit was killed, but may have preceded it by an unknown number of minutes.

I am not taking a position on these things other than to suggest neither Bowley nor Markham may be unequivocal foundations for an earlier timing. 

There has also been an argument published (posted on this site and on his website in article form) by Gil Jesus arguing for tampering in a police radio 1:18 time-check tied to a Bowley or Callaway transmission. Do you regard that argument of Gil Jesus, or alternatively some other published article making a police radio alteration case, as hard evidence removing the 1:18 time-check as a fact in the Tippit timeline? If so, which published, on-the-shelf argument do you believe best makes that argument? 

Then there is a 1:15 time of death of Tippit written at Methodist Hospital on a death certificate, where Tippit was taken by the ambulance a few minutes after he was killed. Is that hard evidence Tippit was killed earlier than 1:14 or 1:15? (I don’t know.) 

I have just named four possible arguments and there are surely others, but my question is what are you considering hard evidence for the earlier time of death of Tippit? 

To me, I think it comes down to whether that 1:18 police radio time check is valid on the police tape. I believe those were Bowley’s and then Callaway’s voices on the police tape and I believe that those transmissions occurred within a couple minutes, not much more, of the shots. I agree there might be a motive to doctor the police radio tape timing to allow time for Oswald to have walked there. But what can be known on the basis of hard, as opposed to equivocal, evidence is the question. 

Edited June 17 by Greg Doudna

[Michael Kalin]

See the link provided in my first comment.

Per CE1974 there are grave difficulties with the timestamps. One factor verges on hilarious: the dispatchers' heights! An assertion of a deduced accuracy to a second is subject to Hitchens Razor: It states "what can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence". Consider it dismissed.

News to me that James Markham's career as gang leader rose again -- shades of the Bonnie & Clyde theory featuring the master thief who got busted for stealing cigarettes from a blind news vendor. Do you have a link to the Garrison article?

[Greg Doudna]

2 hours ago, Michael Kalin said:

See the link provided in my first comment.

Per CE1974 there are grave difficulties with the timestamps. One factor verges on hilarious: the dispatchers' heights! An assertion of a deduced accuracy to a second is subject to Hitchens Razor: It states "what can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence". Consider it dismissed.

News to me that James Markham's career as gang leader rose again -- shades of the Bonnie & Clyde theory featuring the master thief who got busted for stealing cigarettes from a blind news vendor. Do you have a link to the Garrison article?

Not responsive to the specific request to defend your claim that Bill’s timeline calibrated to a time of ca 1:15 for the Tippit killing is positively excluded or falsified. That is a different claim than what you are now saying that the 1:15 is not proven or established (your present point of Hitchens’ Razor: the burden of proof is on the one who makes an assertion). I hope you can realize the difference. Your first claim was of positive proof for a ca 1:06 time of Tippits death. You asserted it, you must prove it (not just say the 1:15 isn’t proven), or else Bill’s reconstruction isn’t falsified (which was your claim). The issue of whether 1:06 is proven and certain (your claim to which I responded) matters because if so Oswald is exonerated from both walking there and being the Tippit killer (for timeline reason). Showing the ca 1:15 time isn’t proven (if so) is necessary but not sufficient to accomplish the assertion of proof of the ca 1:06 time. 

Following your cryptic allusions and leads (I tried) is like boxing air. It’s not that there is not necessarily anything there, it’s just not straightforward and too frustrating. You throw out allusions as if giving clues to a Mystery Theatre enjoying the riddle and expect the reader to reconstruct the argument and arrive at the solution for themselves. Is it not possible for you to prepare a single coherent article or link to one? Maybe not. As for your question on the McMahan article on the Tippit case, it is in Garrison issue 15, fall 2023, you can find at Lulu.com (no link to a free access online for that article that I know of). I disagree with nearly all of the analysis of the article but the reporting of hearsay from the Markham family has some items of interest underneath the interpretations given in the article. 

[Matt Cloud]

Hitchen's Razor brings to mind a well-lubricated evening in 2003, as the War Against Islamo-Fascism raged, where the Eponym confessed a desire to break Pat Buchanan's arm, a newly-developed admiration for Pat Moynihan -- the East Timor slaughter withal -- being aligned with Chomsky on 9/11, and that Oswald was shooting only for the Texas Governor.  

[Michael Kalin]

8 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:

Not responsive to the specific request to defend your claim that Bill’s timeline calibrated to a time of ca 1:15 for the Tippit killing is positively excluded or falsified. That is a different claim than what you are now saying that the 1:15 is not proven or established (your present point of Hitchens’ Razor: the burden of proof is on the one who makes an assertion). I hope you can realize the difference. Your first claim was of positive proof for a ca 1:06 time of Tippits death. You asserted it, you must prove it (not just say the 1:15 isn’t proven), or else Bill’s reconstruction isn’t falsified (which was your claim). The issue of whether 1:06 is proven and certain (your claim to which I responded) matters because if so Oswald is exonerated from both walking there and being the Tippit killer (for timeline reason). Showing the ca 1:15 time isn’t proven (if so) is necessary but not sufficient to accomplish the assertion of proof of the ca 1:06 time. 

OP must backup his claims with evidence. Unless this happens they are subject to dismissal out of hand, imposing no burden of falsification on anyone.

The reason for "60 years of tons of argument" is the interminable succession of bogus overlays, submerging the event under an ocean of red herrings. It started with Leavelle's framing of LHO. If progress is ever to be made the mise en scene must be drained of the dreck that pollutes it.

Do you have a link to the Garrison article by Gavan McMahon?

Edited June 16 by Michael Kalin

[Greg Doudna]

5 hours ago, Michael Kalin said:

OP must backup his claims with evidence. Unless this happens they are subject to dismissal out of hand, imposing no burden of falsification on anyone.

Which would be a fair observation, and no you don't have a burden of falsification--except you claimed the OP was falsified (impossible, you claimed, due to a proven 1:06 timing). If that isn't what you meant, thanks for clarifying. I wasted my time responding to your claim that Bill's timing was proven impossible, asking you your basis for that claim of falsification, when (I think) you are saying now that isn't what you mean (now). OK.

5 hours ago, Michael Kalin said:

The reason for "60 years of tons of argument" is the interminable succession of bogus overlays, submerging the event under an ocean of red herrings. It started with Leavelle's framing of LHO. If progress is ever to be made the mise en scene must be drained of the dreck that pollutes it.

Do you have a link to the Garrison article by Gavan McMahon?

 I thought I did give the link, at www.lulu.com, why are you asking a second time? Here is a more direct link at that site: https://www.lulu.com/shop/midnight-writer-news-publications/garrison-the-journal-of-history-deep-politics-issue-015/paperback/product-5776wvr.html?q=garrison&page=1&pageSize=4 . No there is no link to the article itself apart from inside the e-book of the journal issue where the article is found.

Edited June 17 by Greg Doudna

[Michael Kalin]

5 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:

 I thought I did give the link, at www.lulu.com, why are you asking a second time? Here is a more direct link at that site: https://www.lulu.com/shop/midnight-writer-news-publications/garrison-the-journal-of-history-deep-politics-issue-015/paperback/product-5776wvr.html?q=garrison&page=1&pageSize=4 . No there is no link to the article itself apart from inside the e-book of the journal issue where the article is found.

You did provide the link in a previous comment. Sorry, my oversight, but no joy. The pay wall is detrimental.

I'm waiting for OP to support his thesis by addressing the issues. He gets to the brink of critical review, draws his brakes, makes derisive comments and vanishes from the scene. The behavior is reminiscent of earlier generations of parking lot attendants, the kind that crunched the gears while riding the clutch, then growled at the owner. It's not my intention to give you the bum's rush, but this thread belongs to someone else.

While I still have your attention here's an explanation of an item you brought up previously:

Quote

You have a scattering of Education Forum posts, none comprehensive and not consistent with one another...

I joined this forum mainly to discuss issues related to the Tippit murder that were obviously borked repeatedly for many decades (i.e. did not conform to the factual reality as difficult as that may be to ascertain). I'm no high-level guy, instead try to plant my feet firmly on the ground, failing that at least keep my head out of the clouds. Only discussions with Donald Willis (for example, concerning Benavides) zeroed in on the nuts-and-bolts details, resulting in a change of opinion. What else is the purpose of discussion?

[Michael Kalin]

A lull gave me a chance to pursue a hunch that the timestamp issue was vented within recent memory. Sure enough, Tom Gram in the "New Article by Dale Myers on Tippit" thread questioned the validity of Myers' timings derived from the timestamps. Upshot was an admission by Myers relayed from his weblog that the "time sequence was in fact accurate, to within one-minute." So shitcan the seconds. Better yet OP participated in this thread but evidently didn't get the message.

Best of all the claim of one minute accuracy is nonsense. It does not take into account the lack of synchronicity with a known time source. The clocks were certainly not synchronized with each other, and there is also the observer's height relativity problem. Does anyone know Jackson's height, and how to adjust his timestamps accordingly?

The result is attempting to achieve absolute timing accuracy by stopwatch based on the timestamps is a silly waste of time. I'm guessing by dint of intense jawboning the range of accuracy might be talked down to plus or minus three minutes.

Greg, you participated in this discussion extolling Myers' book far beyond its ever diminishing worth. You should know better. The man's an intellectual disgrace.

Reading the rest of the thread is highly recommended.

The cross-posting at JFK Assassination Forum has an interesting comment by Dan O'meara concerning LHO's time of arrival at Beckley. The site is usually open to the public at large but sometimes a member login id is required. Beware -- it has a poor S/N ratio.

[Greg Doudna]

Michael that link you give to Dan O’Meara is very interesting and new to me. Assuming his analysis is right, there is some new information on the table there not entered into previous discussions: that the time Earlene turned on her TV and was fiddling with it when Oswald burst in in a hurry was some time AFTER 12:48 (can be no earlier than) but NOT LATER THAN 1:00. 

That is, an arrival of Oswald at say 1:03 or 1:05 is excluded. It was sometime between 12:48 and 1:00.

It’s difficult for me to believe your trash talking of Myers’ Tippit book is based on firsthand familiarity with it. My copy is dogeared and extensively annotated. The book has just about all of the primary data there in one volume, it’s written clearly and well edited, it’s got great photos, a ton of original research and analysis, lots of firsthand interviews. One of the better minds in the CT camp, Alaric Rosman, praised Myers’ Tippit book prior to saying where he disagreed with Myers conclusions on specific key points (and gave his reasons and said why). That’s a better response than yours. When you can edit together a concise voice and argument of your own on some point and present a specific clear argument with reasons and conclusions in one set of connected paragraphs then that’s worth discussing. I have heard people trash Myers’ Tippit book based on Myers advocacy of the Single Bullet Theory when that has nothing to do with and no relevance to the Tippit book or specifics re the Tippit case… sigh (illogical). 

Edited June 19 by Greg Doudna

[Michael Kalin]

2 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:

I have heard people trash Myers’ Tippit book based on Myers advocacy of the Single Bullet Theory when that has nothing to do with and no relevance to the Tippit book or specifics re the Tippit case… sigh (illogical). 

The SBT's got nothing to do with my contempt for WM. The book's gross dishonesty is the problem. A few logical examples follow.

1) A sham timestamp analysis (discussed this thread).

2) Delaying Markham's stated time of departure from her house for the sole reason that his scenario required it. ("Reliable evidence, which is discussed later in this chapter, pins the shooting time to about 1:14:30 p.m. -- which means that Markham probably didn't leave the washateria before 1:11 p.m.")  Hint: the radio tape does not have mike keying sounds at the alleged time which is bogus anyway.

3) Injecting false content into the Tatum interview for the sake of promoting the red herring Galaxie jockey into an eyewitness of a coup de grace that never occurred ("shot him again -- in the head"). This is followed by a sham forensic analysis, too tedious to type out. It's the next paragraph.

McBride's Into the Nightmare is a much better book, certainly far more honest. I'm sorry to hear it may be out of print.

 

[Greg Doudna]

33 minutes ago, Michael Kalin said:

The SBT's got nothing to do with my contempt for WM. The book's gross dishonesty is the problem. A few logical examples follow.

1) A sham timestamp analysis (discussed this thread).

2) Delaying Markham's stated time of departure from her house for the sole reason that his scenario required it. ("Reliable evidence, which is discussed later in this chapter, pins the shooting time to about 1:14:30 p.m. -- which means that Markham probably didn't leave the washateria before 1:11 p.m.")  Hint: the radio tape does not have mike keying sounds at the alleged time which is bogus anyway.

3) Injecting false content into the Tatum interview for the sake of promoting the red herring Galaxie jockey into an eyewitness of a coup de grace that never occurred ("shot him again -- in the head"). This is followed by a sham forensic analysis, too tedious to type out. It's the next paragraph.

McBride's Into the Nightmare is a much better book, certainly far more honest. I'm sorry to hear it may be out of print.

The 1:18 benchmark isn't sham, its the published time, if its not been doctored. Tom Gram may have a point that fixing the times of transmissions in between the time-checks could have more float to it than Myers states by an unknown number of minutes, I don't know, nothing is stopping you from researching and publishing an alternative interpretation of the data and proposed timings if you think you can do better.

On Markham, that's called a difference in interpretation or judgment, not dishonesty. You're not charging him with not quoting or disclosing Helen Markham's testimony accurately, but for not believing a witness on a particular detail. What a crime! To pick and choose testimony from an admittedly somewhat dicey witness on the basis of what one thinks is other evidence! That's a difference in interpretation, not grounds for calling Myers a liar ("gross dishonesty"). And its not as if you believe every jot and tittle of every witness that you seem to consider grounds for condemnation of Myers. 

On the Tatum interview, I doubt Myers intentionally altered a quotation on purpose wilfully. If there were an accumulation of several such instances that might tilt perception the other way, but in a massive tome like Myers' with ten million details with what fairly must be characterized as general consistently high level of accuracy in quotations from documents and reporting of data otherwise, I don't know how Myers made that particular mistake but I would give the benefit of the doubt to Myers' explanation as essentially a typo in genre in its origin, especially on a one-off instance.