The Bus Stop Farce

[Martin Weidmann]

Keep in mind that Martin/Roger is not a conspiracy theorist.  Or so he keeps telling us.  All this skullduggery that he claims happened in every instance when it points to Oswald's guilt is apparently just the product of sugar plum fairies.  There is no explanation for who or why this is all being done to frame Oswald if there is not a conspiracy.  It is just so.

Why do you insist to keep on displaying your gullibility and complete lack of thinking skills?

One does not have to advocate a conspiracy (before the fact) to conclude that there was a cover up after the fact.
The WC had a narritive they wanted to sell to the public, but they clearly lacked the evidence to present a compelling case.

For instance, they had no real evidence to place Oswald on the 6th floor with a rifle in his hand at 12.30 on 11/22/63, so they did the next best thing; they created a set of circumstances that would allow a superficial person to conclude Oswald was indeed the killer, regardless if he actually was or not.

For this purpose, the bag Frazier saw Oswald carry had to become big enough to conceal a broken down rifle, Dorothy Garner was ignored as a witness to allow Oswald a way to leave the 6th floor and Oswald had to be seen in the shirt of which similar fibers were allegedly found on the rifle. Bledsoe provided the perfect way to do the latter. That's the only plausible and logical explanantion for which the arrest shirt was brought to Bledsoe's house prior to her testimony.

But I'm sure that's all way above lyin' Richard's head.

[Walt Cakebread]

Why do you insist to keep on displaying your gullibility and complete lack of thinking skills?

One does not have to advocate a conspiracy (before the fact) to conclude that there was a cover up after the fact.
The WC had a narritive they wanted to sell to the public, but they clearly lacked the evidence to present a compelling case.

For instance, they had no real evidence to place Oswald on the 6th floor with a rifle in his hand at 12.30 on 11/22/63, so they did the next best thing; they created a set of circumstances that would allow a superficial person to conclude Oswald was indeed the killer, regardless if he actually was or not.

For this purpose, the bag Frazier saw Oswald carry had to become big enough to conceal a broken down rifle, Dorothy Garner was ignored as a witness to allow Oswald a way to leave the 6th floor and Oswald had to be seen in the shirt of which similar fibers were allegedly found on the rifle. Bledsoe provided the perfect way to do the latter. That's the only plausible and logical explanantion for which the arrest shirt was brought to Bledsoe's house prior to her testimony.

But I'm sure that's all way above lyin' Richard's head.

You've presented an excellent summation. Martin.... And you're right on target.... However The "Warren Commission" could never have created the superficial case if two of the key conspirators weren't holding the reins....LBJ and J. Edgar hoover. Those two bastards were not only key conspirators, they created the "Select Blue Ribbon Committee" of" venerated and honorable men" to pull the wool of a grieving and gullible public's eyes.   

[Richard Smith]

Why do you insist to keep on displaying your gullibility and complete lack of thinking skills?

One does not have to advocate a conspiracy (before the fact) to conclude that there was a cover up after the fact.
The WC had a narritive they wanted to sell to the public, but they clearly lacked the evidence to present a compelling case.

For instance, they had no real evidence to place Oswald on the 6th floor with a rifle in his hand at 12.30 on 11/22/63, so they did the next best thing; they created a set of circumstances that would allow a superficial person to conclude Oswald was indeed the killer, regardless if he actually was or not.

For this purpose, the bag Frazier saw Oswald carry had to become big enough to conceal a broken down rifle, Dorothy Garner was ignored as a witness to allow Oswald a way to leave the 6th floor and Oswald had to be seen in the shirt of which similar fibers were allegedly found on the rifle. Bledsoe provided the perfect way to do the latter. That's the only plausible and logical explanantion for which the arrest shirt was brought to Bledsoe's house prior to her testimony.

But I'm sure that's all way above lyin' Richard's head.

Why did all these people have it in for Oswald?  A nobody.  It is completely nutty to suggest that so many people "after the fact" (i.e. as in within minutes or hours) including random citizens just decided to pin all the blame on him.  And presumably let the guilty person go free.  That is laughable.  I can understand why you refuse to acknowledge that you are a CTer because the facts and evidence all point to Oswald and that would require taking a position instead of being a lazy contrarian who can simply claim all the evidence is suspect without offering any explanation or support.  You are a CTer even if you are too cowardly to admit it when you make these baseless claims about a massive frame up of Oswald.

[Walt Cakebread]

Why did all these people have it in for Oswald?  A nobody.  It is completely nutty to suggest that so many people "after the fact" (i.e. as in within minutes or hours) including random citizens just decided to pin all the blame on him.  And presumably let the guilty person go free.  That is laughable.  I can understand why you refuse to acknowledge that you are a CTer because the facts and evidence all point to Oswald and that would require taking a position instead of being a lazy contrarian who can simply claim all the evidence is suspect without offering any explanation or support.  You are a CTer even if you are too cowardly to admit it when you make these baseless claims about a massive frame up of Oswald.

Why did all these people have it in for Oswald? ..... A nobody. 

Thank you, Mr "Smith". You clearly reveal your blind gullibility in the above..... "These people" didn't "have it in" for Lee Oswald....But they clearly recognized that the true could rip the national fabric beyond repair.  ( And put many of them in prison)    Only a real simpleton would have been unable to see that the murder of JFK was nothing less than an old fashion coup d e'tat and the cretins behind the murder were the very same people who now were at the helm of the national ship of state.

They desperately needed to place the blame on a dead and defenseless man .....  The fact that you refer to Lee Oswald as a "nobody"  reveals that you think you are one of the elite "somebodies" who were behind the murder of John Kennedy.   

[Martin Weidmann]

Why did all these people have it in for Oswald?  A nobody.  It is completely nutty to suggest that so many people "after the fact" (i.e. as in within minutes or hours) including random citizens just decided to pin all the blame on him.  And presumably let the guilty person go free.  That is laughable.  I can understand why you refuse to acknowledge that you are a CTer because the facts and evidence all point to Oswald and that would require taking a position instead of being a lazy contrarian who can simply claim all the evidence is suspect without offering any explanation or support.  You are a CTer even if you are too cowardly to admit it when you make these baseless claims about a massive frame up of Oswald.

Why did all these people have it in for Oswald?  A nobody.  It is completely nutty to suggest that so many people "after the fact" (i.e. as in within minutes or hours) including random citizens just decided to pin all the blame on him.  And presumably let the guilty person go free.  That is laughable.

No, what is laughable is your stupidity. It is one thing to predetermine that Oswald was the killer, it's another the prove it with evidence. Nobody wanted to know about a possible conspiracy. It had to be a lone nut and as Oswald was dead before the WC was formed they had the perfect guy to pin it on, regardless if he did it or not.

I can understand why you refuse to acknowledge that you are a CTer because the facts and evidence all point to Oswald and that would require taking a position instead of being a lazy contrarian who can simply claim all the evidence is suspect without offering any explanation or support.

All the evidence pointing to Oswald is exactly what the WC set out to achieve, and where there was no evidence they simply created it. I'm not claiming that all the evidence is suspect, it's the evidence itself which is exposed as questionable, when even the simplest of questions about it can not be answered by any WC defender. And as for providing explanations to support what I am saying; I have provided more explanantions than any LN (and most certainly you) ever has.

Now, give me a plausible explanation for the investigators taking Oswald's arrest shirt to Bledsoe's house prior to her testimony, when she had not mentioned seeing Oswald's shirt of the damage to a sleeve in her affidavit? Either defend the WC's actions or shut the f*** up!

[Bill Chapman]

Why did all these people have it in for Oswald?  A nobody.  It is completely nutty to suggest that so many people "after the fact" (i.e. as in within minutes or hours) including random citizens just decided to pin all the blame on him.  And presumably let the guilty person go free.  That is laughable.  I can understand why you refuse to acknowledge that you are a CTer because the facts and evidence all point to Oswald and that would require taking a position instead of being a lazy contrarian who can simply claim all the evidence is suspect without offering any explanation or support.  You are a CTer even if you are too cowardly to admit it when you make these baseless claims about a massive frame up of Oswald.

Bottom line: To conspiracy buffs, every tiny bit of minutia in this assassination is sinister and larded with nothing but evil intent.

The little nobody shot Tippit and probably shot the somebody.
Result: Oswald apologists have wasted their lives love'n on a nobody.

[Martin Weidmann]

Bottom line: To conspiracy buffs, every tiny bit of minutia in this assassination is sinister and larded with nothing but evil intent.

The little nobody shot Tippit and probably shot the somebody.
Result: Oswald apologists have wasted their lives love'n on a nobody.

I take it this means you can't answer my question. Got it!

[Bill Chapman]

'Irrelevant'
>>> No it isn't when my point—which I've made several times in this thread— is that affidavits are not meant to be full testimonies given that they are not Q&A. And how was she to know—at the time of her affidavit—that the shirt would eventually become so important?

'You are not making sense. If you mean by "shorthand version" her affidavit, she had indeed not mentioned it. So, what reason did they have to assume that the shirt, and nothing else, could refresh her recollection?'
>>> I cannot vouch for any of that, since I wasn't in on The Plot.

And yes, materials used to refresh recollection are admissible at trial, in some cases, but witness manipulation or influencing prior to testimony is a criminal offence.
>>> I'll take being influenced & manipulated over being fitted for a cement overcoat (in a swimming-with-the-fishes sense) any day 

'So, let's try it again, but in a perhaps easier way for you to understand; if I don't tell you about seeing a shirt, what reason would you have to come to my house to show me a shirt and ask me if I recognize it?'
>>> There was a shirt on the loose? If I were you, I wouldn't talk to some stranger who comes to the door with a shirt that has a hole in it