Gil says generated a thread about an "anomaly" in the dictabelt. Thread is here

https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/29702-video-was-the-dallas-police-dictabelt-altered/

Gil's not getting much help over there.

For what it's worth, Gil:

I'm assuming that the anomaly that you're talking about is the repeating sequence of "Didja get that, 45?" that occurs just after the 1:12 timestamp.
That's no really an anomaly. It's the read stylus of the dictabelt machine reaching the end it's travel, so it starts to play the circumference worth of groove repeatedly. DPD ran their dictabelts at about 20 rpm, and the ~3 second period between repeats
is a dead giveaway.

Also, I get the 1:12 timestamp at 4:48 and the 1:15 timestamp at 6:57 on your video. That puts the two timestamps 2:09 apart. The "didjagetthat" sequence is 16 seconds long, and 13 of those seconds are repeats which shouldn't count. So, there is 1:56
worth of recording time between the timestamps.

The problem is, we don't know where in 1:12 the 1:12 transmission occurs, nor do we know where in 1:15 the 1:15 transmission occurs. They could be at 1:12:00 and 1:15:59, or they could be at 1:12:59 and 1:15:00. That is, they could represent a timespan
ranging from two to four minutes. This is compounded by the fact that the DPD radio recording system only began recording when it sensed a carrier signal be transmitted by a remote radio and stopped three seconds after the carrier signal stopped being
broadcast.

The upshot is that there is no good way to tell if any of the radio traffic was lost just by looking at the timestamps. If we assume the longest possible interval between 1:12 and 1:15, then two minutes may be gone, but that simply could be because the
Dictabelt was not set up to record continuously.
And if we assume the shortest possible interval, then there are only a few seconds that would need to be accounted for.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Thursday, October 5, 2023 at 8:05:17 PM UTC-4, recip...@gmail.com wrote:

Gil says generated a thread about an "anomaly" in the dictabelt. Thread is here

https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/29702-video-was-the-dallas-police-dictabelt-altered/

Gil's not getting much help over there.

For what it's worth, Gil:

I'm assuming that the anomaly that you're talking about is the repeating sequence of "Didja get that, 45?" that occurs just after the 1:12 timestamp.
That's no really an anomaly. It's the read stylus of the dictabelt machine reaching the end it's travel, so it starts to play the circumference worth of groove repeatedly. DPD ran their dictabelts at about 20 rpm, and the ~3 second period between

repeats is a dead giveaway.

Also, I get the 1:12 timestamp at 4:48 and the 1:15 timestamp at 6:57 on your video. That puts the two timestamps 2:09 apart. The "didjagetthat" sequence is 16 seconds long, and 13 of those seconds are repeats which shouldn't count. So, there is 1:56

worth of recording time between the timestamps.

The problem is, we don't know where in 1:12 the 1:12 transmission occurs, nor do we know where in 1:15 the 1:15 transmission occurs. They could be at 1:12:00 and 1:15:59, or they could be at 1:12:59 and 1:15:00. That is, they could represent a timespan

ranging from two to four minutes. This is compounded by the fact that the DPD radio recording system only began recording when it sensed a carrier signal be transmitted by a remote radio and stopped three seconds after the carrier signal stopped being
broadcast.

The upshot is that there is no good way to tell if any of the radio traffic was lost just by looking at the timestamps. If we assume the longest possible interval between 1:12 and 1:15, then two minutes may be gone, but that simply could be because the

Dictabelt was not set up to record continuously.

And if we assume the shortest possible interval, then there are only a few seconds that would need to be accounted for.

Apparently, this occurred at the end of one belt. The next belt started recording before the previous belt ended, as was the normal procedure, and we can hear this part of the conversation repeated without the skip on the next belt. No alteration here.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

I'm sure it's just a coincidence that the dictabelt screwed up during the timeframe which J.D. Tippit was being killed.

I'm also sure that it's just a coincidence that the Bowley broadcast is 39.83 seconds long and the anomaly just happens to be long enough to cover it at 48.13 seconds. I timed both on my Movie Maker.

But they're just coincidences, I'm sure.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Friday, October 6, 2023 at 5:42:44 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:

I'm sure it's just a coincidence that the dictabelt screwed up during the timeframe which J.D. Tippit was being killed.

I'm also sure that it's just a coincidence that the Bowley broadcast is 39.83 seconds long and the anomaly just happens to be long enough to cover it at 48.13 seconds. I timed both on my Movie Maker.

But they're just coincidences, I'm sure.

I wouldn't be surprised if you are right, but I think this one probably is coincidence.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Friday, October 6, 2023 at 5:42:44 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:

I'm sure it's just a coincidence that the dictabelt screwed up during the timeframe which J.D. Tippit was being killed.

I'm also sure that it's just a coincidence that the Bowley broadcast is 39.83 seconds long and the anomaly just happens to be long enough to cover it at 48.13 seconds. I timed both on my Movie Maker.

But they're just coincidences, I'm sure.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_incredulity#

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Fri, 6 Oct 2023 15:24:09 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirslick@fast.net>
wrote:


So, according to Bugliosi, it was this "oval" shape that was
"virtually conclusive evidence" of an SBT?

Chickenshit is TERRIFIED of this simple honest question. He knows
that Bugliosi was a moron if he truly thought this... yet you can't
get Chickenshit to publicly acknowledge that Bugliosi said this.

It's a simple "Yes" or "No" question, and Chickenshit cannot cite
where he has EVER answered it. (Without immediately denying it.)

So it's going to keep getting asked until Chickenshit answers it.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)