A) The James White presentation is extremely unreliable since he does not even discuss the markers that the tape was significantly shorter than the event. The direct report given, the minor markers like the choppiness, and most especially what we do hear :
"we'll pick it up there when he gets his voice"
"we'll pick it up right there" - (words heard on the extant tape)
Playing the tape and then glossing over, not even mentioning, such a direct indicator of shortening makes his presentation conclusions suspect. And the fact that James White himself commented to his neighbor about the providential concern is (despite the harumphs here) a strong marker that the timing was longer and the event quite unusual.
B) James White sort of makes a claim that the tape could not have been rolled back during the session (this could be researched with an audio-visual expert). (Overall, the difference between a stop and a stop and rollback is small.)
C) Sam Gipp errs in using the term liar (insinuation or direct) with James White on this, since White was showing what is left of the main event on tape, and Gipp implies otherwise. All three aspects probably happened within a few minutes.
1) Prepping about the questions, including the voice aspect (conjectured and likely)
2) The first question about Riplinger and the Wilkins frog in response.
3) The voice question with Wilkin's unusual response (after the Wilkins and Farsted responses) of nervous laughter and the room laughter, when, in response to a general historical question, Wilkin's answers first, strangely, to his own difficulties that had just occurred.
"No, I've obviously not lost my voice. .. no, everybody I know is just fine."
Laughter sounding like relief that Wilkins is with those in voice, showing that what happened was noticeable to such an extent that not only did White comment to his neighbor about potential perceived providentiality, everybody in the room had noted the event, markedly.
Sam Gipp and calciumboy get demerits for not parsing out the full issue. calciumboy gets a plus mark for showing the later question and laughter, but he should have directly related to the extant tape as well.
And for my wonderful critics who feel that this is to much effort, I want there to be at least one analysis available online for folks to look at that really looks at the extant documentation from all sides.