Yeah, that's why it specifically lists ONE call as INCOMING (because they're all the same and no designation is needed....yeah right). They just specified that one in particular to confuse people. Enough with you.
There isn't a phone number next to the call marked "incoming?" Weird. Maybe I'm missing something. Let me enlarge it. Boy, it's a little fuzzy but I swear I see a phone number there. I put some nice big red boxes around the relevant information to help you find it.
Maybe you could present the WHOLE document, rather than focusing on the red boxed area that you're trying to substitute and misrepresent, and let people judge for themselves? Geez...my cell phone bill (surprisingly Verizon even, imagine that?) ALWAYS specifies INCOMING calls, and the rest of the calls are calls that I made OUT. Just like that one! Wow! What a coincidence. Calls made refers to OUTGOING unless specified otherwise, just like the Beamer phone! Holy schnikees Batman! That's just what the document says as well! It's just like my Verizon statement!!! Maybe I should check my bill and claim I never made any outgoing calls, based on this new information. Maybe I can claim they were all incoming, and I only pay for incoming. Hey, it's worth a try, since it's so awful vague huh?
Still having trouble seeing that phone number listed as incoming? Might I recommend a good eye doctor?
You apparently need one. I'd check your cell statement if I were you as you've been misreading it (apparently).
The document isn't a cell phone bill. It's a log of calls incoming and outgoing NOT to Beamer's phone, but to and from the Verizon hubs. Hence incoming from Beamer's phone and outgoing to Beamer's phone. Note the places and time stamps.
I haven't misread anything. We're not talking about my phone bill. We're talking about the document released by FOIA which references Todd's activity. On it I see a call marked "incoming" from a phone number that's the same number as the number on the phone. Do you see that too?
Why the need to specify one as incoming then? Gimme a break man. You suckered me in again, and now I'm done. Lead the way and enjoy your reign cap'n. - - - Updated - - - One call specified as INCOMING. Yup! Now tell me your story.
Because the call was incoming from Beamer's phone to the hub. (As I said in my first post.) According to the time stamps, he placed this call before the plane (which was delayed) took off. The other calls are calls being routed to Beamer's phone from the hubs. (Look at the timestamps and the places.) Presented with the facts, 'Fraud runs away. Again.
Reconfiguring the obvious to achieve the agenda. Telling everybody that what they see isn't actually what they see. That takes special talent, and a concerted effort. You're very good at it. So, boss, I return full control of the thread to you and the other 3 or 4 usual minions. You call it running. I call it not wasting my time. Bye boss.
My argument is that only ONE call is specified as INCOMING. Why specify one in particular, if they're all incoming, as you apparently are advocating?
Well, when you're willfully oblivious what seems obvious is certainly suspect. What seems obvious to me is that you're running away because you can't make the argument that the line item marked incoming was a call from 908-202-4940 to 908-202-4940 for 21 minutes.
What's obvious to me is your inability to explain why ONE call is specified as incoming, and the others are not. Calling voicemail would be one explanation of one phone calling the same phone though huh? That's beside the point really though, and you know it.
Because as Hannibal so clearly pointed out, this record is not Todd's phone bill. It's Verizon's log of calls. Incoming on this log can not mean incoming to Todd's phone because the number listed as incoming is clearly Todd's number; the same number as the number ON the phone. - - - Updated - - - Explain how your understanding of incoming matches the document. How did Todd's cell phone get an incoming call from Todd's cell phone?
So you're saying that Todd called his voicemail for 21 minutes? but didn't you also say this: Wow you were so emphatic that a voicemail call lists on your bill as a call to voicemail that you had to capitalize every letter in the word. Why, if this was Todd's phone bill, didn't the log indicate this this was a call to VOICEMAIL? Also, if this is Todd's phone bill where's the..you know...bill?
Not only is he wrong, but he's entirely too ignorant to realize that he's completely incorrect. It's like a train wreck, I can't look away!
Translation: 'Since you are obviously unable to read a phone record the way that I want you to read it because that suits my agenda, you obviously must be pushing your own agenda. Telling everybody what is plainly obvious and easily interpretable takes some special talent, and requires lots of people to use common sense, and is therefore a conspiracy. You are very good at pointing out the obvious, rather than making it up as you go. Since I obviously cannot make you believe what I want you to believe because my arguments comes from disinformation and an inability to see the plainly obvious, I'm going to leave now and pretend that I have the high ground rather than admit that I have no idea what I am talking about and that my arguments are making me look stupid'.
Prove to me that they're all incoming calls, if you would please. I see no such indications. Oh...you can't? I should just take your word for it and dismiss what is in black and white. Gotcha bro. How about you post the ENTIRE document, versus highlighting the parts you want to try and impeach?
2001 and that's how they listed it then? What WAS clearly indicated was ONE incoming call (specified as such), and zero indications any other calls were incoming with the same specificity. Please indicate, in the document I'm referring to,what part of it says "all incoming calls" are listed here, cause I only see ONE SUCH LISTED CALL.
Show me where it says, "all calls listed are incoming" and I'll be happy to concede the point. I'll wait.
