The Bus Stop Farce

[Charles Collins]

Was that the "white' jacket found in the car park?

No, that is CE 162. This was found in the TSBD.

[Martin Weidmann]

It would be difficult to mistake a light brown or tan shirt for this jacket. Your assumption isn’t so safe.

Why would that be difficult. Early in the morning, probably just awake with the light of the sun, anything is possible, right?
Isn't it your argument that the color of CE 162 could appear different depending on the conditions it is seen?

And it doesn't even matter if my assumption is safe or not. Even if Oswald did not wear a jacket to work on Friday morning, CE 163 was still found at the TSBD, and Oswald left the TSBD on Friday without wearing a jacket.

So, I ask again, what's your point?

[Bill Chapman]

And tell us what makes you think I'm here to convince anyone of anything.

I never said you were. It's pretty obvious that you are not here to be convinced of anything or to convince anyone of anything because your one liners and "arguments" are too weak to convince even a 5 year old.

Which only begs the question why in fact you are here at all.

This forum is a come-one-come-all discussion platform, not a court of law. It's not even formal debate. Not my bad if you have a problem with why I'm here. Not my problem if you cannot get past me with your ultra-contrarian bluster.

[Martin Weidmann]

This forum is a come-one-come-all discussion platform, not a court of law. It's not even formal debate. Not my bad if you have a problem with why I'm here. Not my problem if you cannot get past me with your ultra-contrarian bluster.

Don't flatter yourself. You are of no significance or relevance to me. Just another clown who joins a forum to not debate the subject matter.

[Charles Collins]

Why would that be difficult. Early in the morning, probably just awake with the light of the sun, anything is possible, right?
Isn't it your argument that the color of CE 162 could appear different depending on the conditions it is seen?

And it doesn't even matter if my assumption is safe or not. Even if Oswald did not wear a jacket to work on Friday morning, CE 163 was still found at the TSBD, and Oswald left the TSBD on Friday without wearing a jacket.

So, I ask again, what's your point?

I made my point. But since you want to pretend that I didn’t, here is another one:

Did anyone else who saw LHO on 11/22 (Frazier’s sister, coworkers, etc) indicate what jacket he was wearing? Same with the evening of 11/21.

And your reply:

Not that I am aware of, but given the fact that CE 163 was later found at the TSBD and Oswald left the building without a jacket, it's a pretty safe bet to assume that he was wearing CE 163 on Friday morning.

Which of course only leaves the grey jacket CE 162 as the one he would have worn to Irving on Thursday.

I'm not sure where you're going with this, but it should be noted that nobody else but Roberts saw Oswald leave the rooming house either.

So, the next time someone asks you a similar question to the one that I asked, you might be able to give them a more accurate answer.

[Martin Weidmann]

I made my point. But since you want to pretend that I didn’t, here is another one:


And your reply:


So, the next time someone asks you a similar question to the one that I asked, you might be able to give them a more accurate answer.

You are making no sense whatsoever. If your quote from Linnie Mae Randle's affidavit is supposed to prove anything (which it doesn't) than come right out and say that instead of talking in riddles.

You asked me if anybody else who saw LHO on 11/22 indicated what jacket he was wearing and I answered; none that I am aware of. What you don't understand about my answer is beyond me. My answer was correct and your quote from Linnie Mae Randle doesn't alter that one bit, because she said nothing about a jacket. All she mentioned was a shirt.

If you read into that statement that Oswald was not wearing a jacket on Friday morning, than that's your own assumption not based on any known fact.

[Charles Collins]

You are making no sense whatsoever. If your quote from Linnie Mae Randle's affidavit is supposed to prove anything (which it doesn't) than come right out and say that.

You asked me if anybody else who saw LHO on 11/22 indicated what jacket he was wearing and I answered; none that I am aware of. What you don't understand about my answer is beyond me. My answer was correct and your quote from Linnie Mae Randle doesn't alter that one bit, because she said nothing about a jacket. All she mentioned was a shirt.

If you read into that statement that Oswald was not wearing a jacket on Friday morning, than that's your own assumption not based on any known fact.

Two persons (Frazier and his sister) who saw what LHO was wearing to work that morning. Neither one of them say anything that would indicate that LHO was wearing CE 163. In fact Frazier says he has never seen it before when it is shown to him.

Yet you insist that is is a safe assumption that LHO was wearing CE 163 to work on Friday 11/22/63. I believe that you are the one not making any sense.

[Martin Weidmann]

Two persons (Frazier and his sister) who saw what LHO was wearing to work that morning. Neither one of them say anything that would indicate that LHO was wearing CE 163. In fact Frazier says he has never seen it before when it is shown to him.

Yet you insist that is is a safe assumption that LHO was wearing CE 163 to work on Friday 11/22/63. I believe that you are the one not making any sense.

BS... The mere fact that Linnie Mae Randle does not say anything about Oswald wearing a jacket does not mean that he didn't wear one. It just means that she didn't mention it.

And as for Frazier himself, he did say that Oswald was wearing a jacket on Friday morning.

Mr. FRAZIER - He got out of the car and he was wearing the jacket that has the big sleeves in them and he put the package that he had, you know, that he told me was curtain rods up under his arm, you know, and so he walked down behind the car and standing over there at the end of the cyclone fence waiting for me to get out of the car, and so quick as I cut the engine off and started out of the car, shut the door just as I was starting out just like getting out of the car, he started walking off and so I followed him in.

And I already pointed out the discrepancy in his testimony;

There are two more things in Frazier's testimony that got my attention.

First of all, they never showed him CE 162, the grey jacket, for identification (one can only wonder why) and, secondly, they did show him CE 163.

Mr. BALL - I have here Commission's 163, a gray blue jacket. Do you recognize this jacket?
Mr. FRAZIER - No, sir; I don't.
Mr. BALL - Did you ever see Lee Oswald wear this jacket?
Mr. FRAZIER - No, sir; I don't believe I have.

Frazier's response is somewhat remarkable as it was jacket CE 163 that Oswald was wearing during the trip to the TSBD on Friday morning, so Frazier must have seen it at least once.

So, we've got Frazier saying Oswald was wearing a jacket to the TSBD on Friday morning and CE 163 was in fact found at the TSBD after the murder. Now, could that possibly mean that CE 163 was the jacket Oswald was wearing that morning?

If not, let's consider the alternative. Marina confirmed that Oswald only had two jackets and no other jacket has ever been found except CE 162 and CE 163. So, if it wasn't CE 163 that Oswald was wearing that morning, it could only be CE 162 (are you with me so far, or have I lost you already?). Except, it couldn't have been CE 162 because according to you that was at the rooming house at Beckley and according to Frazier, Oswald was wearing it during the trip to Irving on Thursday evening.

And even if it was CE 162 that Oswald was wearing on Friday morning, that still wouldn't explain how he was able to put it on at the rooming house after leaving the TSBD without a jacket. In other words; if Oswald was wearing CE 162 on Friday morning, that jacket would have stayed behind at the TSBD.... Still with me?

Based on this information it's pretty damned certain that if Oswald was wearing a jacket at all on Friday morning, it can only have been CE 163. That's why it is a safe assumption to believe that this was indeed the case.

Did I dumb it down enough for you or do you still need help understanding something as basic as this?