?

[Alan J. Ford]

Last post today folks, best wishes to all to remain well, safe, healthy and free of any lingering COVID-19 variants still lurking about. Back next week the Good Lord willing.

Major differences between the actual assailant(s) at 10th & Patton and the wrongly-accused:

https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth339128/m1/145/

The wrongly accused doesn't have wavy hair. He didn't own an automatic pistol. Nor upon his apprehension at the Texas Theatre was he wearing dark pants. Additionally, his shirt wasn't white either. Moreover, the height (inches taller than the wrongly-accused) and weight (a whopping 30+ plus heavier than the wrongly-accused) of the actual assailant are nowhere close to the wrongly-accused's measurements ---->

*He was measured again in 1963, after his first arrest in New Orleans at 5'9" 136lbs. After his second arrest in Dallas, he was measured at 5'9" 131lbs courtesy of the Mary Ferrell site. Nowhere near the wrestling-weight class of one of the actual assailants at 10th & Patton. Though he is taller than his immediate supervisor, Mr. Shelley (standing to his right in the following Mr. Mentesana home movie film between the 0-3 sec mark), the wrongly-accused was much smaller in weight class than the actual assailant at 10th & Patton ---->

Mr. Shelley--here again in his business suit attire on the same day-- wasn't a very tall individual ---->

*self-reminder: read the Dallas Police logs on November 22, 1963 to determine if they pursued the lead on two white males in a white Pontiac station wagon--possibly a 1961 model--drawing suspicion after pulling into a gas service station near 10th & Patton

[Richard Smith]

"Notice no substantive response to the points made (i.e. why would their fantasy conspirators need to fake Oswald's presence on a bus that took him nowhere and advanced any conspiracy objective not one iota" -- Mr. Smith


Now, a response to the italics above. The reason the hastily contrived script mired in the stench of horse manure needed to put the wrongly-accused on that fake bus & cab ride is two fold: (A) to sell the bs about him being at 10th & Patton; and (B) and, to accommodate the bs about how "his" jacket was tossed while "fleeing" the scene at 10th & Patton. Glaring outright lies because he remained in Dealey Plaza beyond 1:02PM (Mr. Warnock's words, not mine), nowhere near 10th & Patton.  Now, what part of creating a bogus bus ride and planting that fake bus transfer don't you understand? Remove both of these pigeon droppings from their "evidence" to Frame the wrongly-accused and now...

all they have left is the "magic-bullet" exited Governor Connally's (RIP) thigh, scooped up the wrongly-accused before zigging and zagging all the way to 10th & Patton before magically returning to its final resting place on a stretcher at Parkland. Now, of the two lies, which would you choose? What would seem more plausible to an unsuspecting general public? In their haste and desperation to Frame the wrongly-accused they simply failed miserably to dot their 'i's" and cross their "t's". 

The wrongly-accused did Not shoot anybody. Anybody.

That explanation makes absolutely no sense, is quite bizarre, and contrary to the testimony of numerous eyewitnesses that put Oswald on the bus, in the cab, at his boardinghouse, and then at the scene of the Tippit shooting as the gunman.  Even if you thought the conspirators needed a reason to put Oswald somewhere else, the cab ride does that without the need to also fake a bus ride that takes Oswald nowhere with all the risk that entails including somehow incorporating a random group of bus passengers into the conspiracy.  It defies explanation why CTers go to such lengths to suggest that Oswald wasn't on this bus which doesn't further any conspiracy objective.  It is simply a random event of the type that occurs in the course of life.  He got on a bus that got stuck in a traffic jam and he got off to take a cab.   Not the kind of thing that would be part of a planned event as part of a conspiracy.

[Bill Chapman]

It's brutal to watch the LN eunuks kick and scream in desparation, 50+ years and counting.

No amount of strawman juggling can undo the evidence that sinks the fake timeline, as it has been demonstrated.

Ironically, the cover-up commission's narrative was destroyed by its own evidence buried in the 26 volumes.

I see you still can't count beyond 50, OttoGr8

LN eunuks
_lol So we're Eskimos
  There's the Gr8 thing again
  Try 'eunuch' next time

[Bill Chapman]

Happy to see the message came across, s-boy!

Low-T says what?

Yeah, the message that you are forever stuck at Gr8 comes across loud & clear every time you open your gob..

[Jerry Freeman]

That explanation makes absolutely no sense, is quite bizarre, and contrary to the testimony of numerous eyewitnesses that put Oswald on the bus, in the cab, at his boardinghouse...

So wrong. The answer to your query ---

why would their fantasy conspirators need to fake Oswald's presence on a bus that took him nowhere?

He was supposedly escaping. It had to be demonstrated that Oswald was running.
There was only one alleged witness on the bus...Bledsoe.

Besides her inclination to become dishonest at times, Mrs. Bledsoe had suffered a stroke ( 6 H 404 ) that apparently affected her memory much to the extent that she had to read from notes she had taken. ( ibid. pg. 407-408 )
She described Oswald getting on the bus: “He looks like a maniac”. I didn’t look at him. I didn’t even want to know I seen him and I just looked off. He looked so bad in his face and his face was so distorted.” ( ibid., pg. 409 )
If his face was so distorted, how did she recognize him ?
More importantly, her testimony indicates that not only was her memory affected by her stroke, but her ability to see and become aware was as well.
Had Oswald been behaving so erratically it is unlikely that she would have been the only one to notice it.

Who else on the bus... the driver?

Mr. BALL. You didn’t–as I understand it, when you were at the police lineup, you told us that you didn’t–weren’t able to identify this man in the lineup as the man who got off, that you gave the transfer to.
Mr. McWATTERS. I told them to the best of my knowledge, I said the man that I picked out was the same height, about the same height, weight and description. But as far as actually saying that is the man I couldn’t–
Mr. BALL. You couldn’t do it?
Mr. McWATTERS. I wouldn’t do it and I wouldn’t do it now.
(2 H 279 )

What other "numerous witnesses" did you have in [what you might call a] mind? ONE cab driver...ONE housekeeper in about the same foggy shape as Bledsoe.
You flunked again.

[Bill Chapman]

So wrong. The answer to your query ---He was supposedly escaping. It had to be demonstrated that Oswald was running.
There was only one alleged witness on the bus...Bledsoe.
Who else on the bus... the driver?What other "numerous witnesses" did you have in [what you might call a] mind? ONE cab driver...ONE housekeeper in about the same foggy shape as Bledsoe.
You flunked again.

You sound like another Grade 8#FAIL

'He was supposedly escaping. It had to be demonstrated that Oswald was running'
_That's stupid. It can only be 'demonstrated' by an observer in Bledsoe's situation that he was on-scene

'There was only one alleged witness on the bus...Bledsoe.'
_It only takes one; especially since she already knew Oswald as a former tenant, short-term or not

[Richard Smith]

So wrong. The answer to your query ---He was supposedly escaping. It had to be demonstrated that Oswald was running.
There was only one alleged witness on the bus...Bledsoe.
Who else on the bus... the driver?What other "numerous witnesses" did you have in [what you might call a] mind? ONE cab driver...ONE housekeeper in about the same foggy shape as Bledsoe.
You flunked again.

Quite bizarre.  Again, the cab ride alone would suffice to prove that Oswald was "running" from the scene (and good of you to acknowledge Oswald was in flight).  There is no need to fake two different means to flee.  That is such a very simple and obvious point that it defies explanation that anyone could suggest that the conspirators would, as part of a planned event, fake Oswald's presence on a bus that takes him nowhere.  Necessitating that they figure out which random bus is in the area and then somehow convince or, as you appear to suggest, actually put a witness on the bus to confirm Oswald's presence.  This is so removed from reality as part of a planned event as to be astounding.  In addition, they would have to convince the other random passengers to at least not confirm Oswald never got on the bus.  Effectively incorporating a random group of bus passengers into the plot on the fly.   And on and on for no purpose. 

[Jerry Freeman]

Quite bizarre.

Not bizarre if you stop believing in Oswald did it alone fairy tales. 

Again, the cab ride alone would suffice to prove that Oswald was "running" from the scene (and good of you to acknowledge Oswald was in flight).

I did no such thing.

There is no need to fake two different means to flee.

Now what? Oswald had to be home at 1:00 right? One cabbie was not enough witnesses and besides...the cops stormed that bus...it's on record---Why did the cops want to search that bus?

On March 30, 1964, the FBI interviewed the teenager on the bus, Roy Milton Jones, to see if he could identify Oswald as the man on the bus. He could not.

But during that interview, Jones told the FBI that “a policeman notified the driver that the President had been shot and he told the driver no one was to leave the bus until police officers had talked to each passenger.”
He went on to say that, “he estimated there were about fifteen people on the bus at this time and two police officers boarded the bus and checked each passenger to see if they were carrying any firearms.”
And finally, that “the bus was held up by the police officers for about one hour.” ( 25 H 900 )

   In addition, they would have to convince the other random passengers to at least not confirm Oswald never got on the bus. 

What other passengers? Only one passenger was used for an ID...the memory challenged Mary Bledsoe.