How Could LHO Walk Seven Blocks Shortly After The Assassination & Not Be Seen?

[Richard Smith]

First of all, they're not my fantasy conspirators as you falsely state. There were conspirators because there was a conspiracy based on the evidence.

To answer your very long question simply  -- that ridiculous scenario was better than admitting that LHO received a ride since that would show that he had people working with him.

Caprio has repeatedly claimed there was a conspiracy and the purpose of faking Oswald's presence on the bus was to cover up Oswald having gotten a ride from someone else.  He apparently now realizes that makes no sense because a fake bus ride does not explain how Oswald got to his boardinghouse because the bus took him nowhere and the "fake" cab ride would have sufficed for that purpose.  Now he is running away. Dishonest John apparently knows this as well.  Here are the options:

1) Oswald was on the bus and received the transfer as the WC indicated.
2) Oswald was not on the bus and the bus transfer was planted on him by either a conspirator or the police to make it appear that he had been on the bus. 

If you reject option 1 (as Caprio clearly does), then option 2 is by implication what is being suggesting.  And that brings me to the question that I have repeated multiple times without a sensible response.  Why would a conspirator or the authorities fake Oswald's presence on a bus that takes him nowhere?  It advances no apparent purpose for the conspirators or police and entails considerable risk.  So why claim he was on the bus and plant evidence to support this claim?  Again, if the bus ride was to explain how Oswald reached his boarding house and cover up assistance from someone else, the bus ride does not do that.  It serves no purpose because it took Oswald nowhere and the cab ride would suffice for that purpose.  As a result, a faked bus ride makes no sense as part of any plan to frame Oswald or cover up a conspiracy.

[Rob Caprio]

Caprio has repeatedly claimed there was a conspiracy and the purpose of faking Oswald's presence on the bus was to cover up Oswald having gotten a ride from someone else.  He apparently now realizes that makes no sense because a fake bus ride does not explain how Oswald got to his boardinghouse because the bus took him nowhere and the "fake" cab ride would have sufficed for that purpose.  Now he is running away. Dishonest John apparently knows this as well.  Here are the options:

1) Oswald was on the bus and received the transfer as the WC indicated.
2) Oswald was not on the bus and the bus transfer was planted on him by either a conspirator or the police to make it appear that he had been on the bus. 

If you reject option 1 (as Caprio clearly does), then option 2 is by implication what is being suggesting.  And that brings me to the question that I have repeated multiple times without a sensible response.  Why would a conspirator or the authorities fake Oswald's presence on a bus that takes him nowhere?  It advances no apparent purpose for the conspirators or police and entails considerable risk.  So why claim he was on the bus and plant evidence to support this claim?  Again, if the bus ride was to explain how Oswald reached his boarding house and cover up assistance from someone else, the bus ride does not do that.  It serves no purpose because it took Oswald nowhere and the cab ride would suffice for that purpose.  As a result, a faked bus ride makes no sense as part of any plan to frame Oswald or cover up a conspiracy.

Then quote me doing so. The main point is that you CANNOT support the WC's claim so you are trying to divert attention from that by making it about me. The question in the OP was pretty basic  but you can't answer it with supporting evidence.

This is all hot air and distraction. Thanks for proving that the WC wasn't able to support their claims/guesses.

[John Iacoletti]

He apparently now realizes that makes no sense because a fake bus ride does not explain how Oswald got to his boardinghouse because the bus took him nowhere and the "fake" cab ride would have sufficed for that purpose.  Now he is running away. Dishonest John apparently knows this as well.

Once again, Lyin' "Richard":

Nobody is claiming that McWatters' bus trip was "faked" by anyone.  The question at hand is what is your evidence that Oswald was on that bus?  You're doing what you always do -- making up a strawman because of your inability to justify your case.

  Here are the options:

1) Oswald was on the bus and received the transfer as the WC indicated.
2) Oswald was not on the bus and the bus transfer was planted on him by either a conspirator or the police to make it appear that he had been on the bus.

What makes you think that bus transfer was ever on him?

The bus trip serves a couple of purposes:

- It lends support to Oswald leaving the TSBD within minutes, which for some strange reason the LN brigade considers evidence of murder.  And also (via McWatters) that Oswald was in a hurry to get on the bus since he knocked on the door to get on mid-block.  Which the LN brigade also considers evidence of murder.

- It lends support (via Bledsoe's claims) that Oswald did not change his shirt before he was arrested.  Without that, the fiber "analysis" that tries to link the shirt with the parking lot jacket and with the rifle are worthless.

[Rob Caprio]

The OP question has NOT been answered by the WC defenders, and they have failed to provide any supporting evidence for the WC's claim.

This was a false claim by the WC, but there are those in this thread trying to support it. Why?

[Richard Smith]

Again, dishonest John is not getting it.  He claims that no one has suggested that the bus trip was "faked" but without pause suggests the bus transfer was planted on Oswald!  Why would anyone plant a bus transfer on Oswald and falsely claim he admitted to being on the bus unless they were trying to "fake" his presence on the bus?  Dishonest John tries to have it both ways.  Suggesting the facts are suspect as a product of lies and fakery but then denying he is claiming any conspiracy that would necessitate some proof or least an explanation for the fakery.  It's the height of intellectual dishonesty.  The dishonest tactic of a defense attorney trying to conjure arguments to defend a guilty client.   And his possible explanations for the fake bus ride (the one nobody here is suggesting is fake LOL) are laughable. 

There is no need to fake Oswald's presence on the bus to demonstrate that he left the TSBD as John suggests.  The cab ride would do that.  And then he is seen at his boardinghouse.  That is an absurd explanation for the bus ride story.  Even Dishonest John should be embarrassed by that one.   His second attempt is slightly better but that is not saying much.  The purpose of the fake bus ride with all the risk that entailed - including convincing a random bus load of passengers not to blow the story - is to support the contention that Oswald didn't change shirts!  LOL.   This is evidence John otherwise says is meaningless because the authorities only said the fibers were consistent with the shirt.  If they went through this elaborate and risky charade just to link Oswald to the shirt, then they certainly would have found that the fibers were a match.   It's laughable.  According to dishonest John, the authorities faked and planted evidence but then they failed to confirm their own fake evidence.  Good grief.  You should be ashamed to peddle that nonsense.

[Richard Smith]

Are really dense or just dishonest? I told you that I was not involved in planning of the conspiracy so I have no idea what was planned or done, but you just ignore this.

You are taking claims that we have NO idea about in regards to them being honest or not and stating them as being facts. That is dishonest.

You cannot provide any supporting evidence for the WC's claims. NONE. For the 10th time, the bus transfer is NOT evidence of anything.

Why not answer this question? I have asked it many times and you 🏃‍♂️ from answering it everytime. Why do you choose to support a theory that has NO supporting evidence behind it?

Why do you keep repeating the same nonsense like an automated device that is stuck?  Evidence of Oswald's presence on the bus is the bus transfer, his own admission, and the confirmation of a witness.  Do you believe that the bus transfer is genuine and that Oswald obtained it from the bus?  Do you accept Oswald's admission that he was on the bus?  The answer is no.  That means by implication that you are alleging this evidence was faked by someone.  If someone faked that evidence, the only conclusion that can be drawn is that the purpose was to place Oswald on the bus.  This is not complicated even for you.  Particularly since it is your claim.  That is the direct implication that you are making by suggesting the evidence is false whether you like it or not.  I understand your reluctance to own this claim because you can't articulate a single plausible reason to fake Oswald's presence on the bus.   Just going round in circles with your silly canned responses.

[Rob Caprio]

Why do you keep repeating the same nonsense like an automated device that is stuck?  Evidence of Oswald's presence on the bus is the bus transfer, his own admission, and the confirmation of a witness.  Do you believe that the bus transfer is genuine and that Oswald obtained it from the bus?  Do you accept Oswald's admission that he was on the bus?  The answer is no.  That means by implication that you are alleging this evidence was faked by someone.  If someone faked that evidence, the only conclusion that can be drawn is that the purpose was to place Oswald on the bus.  This is not complicated even for you.  Particularly since it is your claim.  That is the direct implication that you are making by suggesting the evidence is false whether you like it or not.  I understand your reluctance to own this claim because you can't articulate a single plausible reason to fake Oswald's presence on the bus.   Just going round in circles with your silly canned responses.

Says the guy who repeats the same nonsense over and over again in one long paragraph.

You have NO supporting evidence. You simply regurgitate the WC's unsupported claims over and over again. You refuse to tell us why you support a theory that has NO supporting evidence (i.e. it's a made up theory). How come?

[John Iacoletti]

Again, dishonest John is not getting it.  He claims that no one has suggested that the bus trip was "faked" but without pause suggests the bus transfer was planted on Oswald!

The usual "Richard Smith" lying BS.  Make something up and claim that the other person "suggested" it.

  Why would anyone plant a bus transfer on Oswald

You ignored the question the first time.  Let's try again:  what makes you think that bus transfer was ever "on Oswald"?

and falsely claim he admitted to being on the bus unless they were trying to "fake" his presence on the bus?

So first the whole bus trip was faked and then that changes to just Oswald's presence being faked.  Squirming, lying, "Richard".

The purpose of the fake bus ride with all the risk that entailed - including convincing a random bus load of passengers not to blow the story

So now Lying "Richard" thinks that there was a "bus load of passengers" that place Oswald on "Richard's" fake bus.  You're the one who should be embarrassed.  Your strawmen get more absurd by the hour.