The Bus Stop Farce

[Martin Weidmann]

If you had presented your "timeline" in a court of law, they would be laughing even harder.

But this isn't a court of law. If LHO had survived to go to trial, and this became part of the evidence, the witnesses would be there and questions would be answered.

If you had presented your "timeline" in a court of law, they would be laughing even harder.

Which only tells me that you are clueless about what goes on in a court room. And isn't it a pity that you have been totally unable to discredit the time line in it's entirety and never got any further than questioning parts of it based on highly dubious claims, misrepresentations and warped logic.


But this isn't a court of law. If LHO had survived to go to trial, and this became part of the evidence, the witnesses would be there and questions would be answered.

Indeed, and the WC case against Oswald would collapse before the prosecutor's eyes.

The defense would have called Dorothy Garner who would testify that she saw nobody going the down the stairs between the time Victoria Adams went down and Baker & Truly came up. They would establish which shirt Oswald was wearing on Friday morning and what jacket he was wearing to Irving on Thursday evening. They would question where the hole in Oswald's came from, as it does not show in any of the photos taken after Oswald's arrest and they would determine that Bledsoe could not have seen Oswald wear the arrest shirt on the bus. They would destroy Earlene Roberts and establish that Oswald did not leave the rooming house wearing a jacket and they would have a forensic investigation done in the DPD clocks, recordings and transcripts as well as have Bowles on the stand to explain why "official time" is not the same as "real time". Then they would put Bowley on the stand and have him confirm exactly what he did that day and that his watch said 1.10 when he arrived at 10th Street. Next they would put Westbrook on and have him explain how a white jacket became a grey jacket, two hours later, and they would establish the complete lack of a chain of custody for (1) the revolver, (2) the wallet and (3) the jacket. And that would only be the beginning.....

But none of this has anything to do with the fact that you, by using a double hearsay comment by Scoggins, tried to pass off 1.23 as the moment the ambulance arrived and as somehow prove that Bowley's watch was slow. So much for wanting to find the truth, Mr. Collins

[Bill Chapman]

And an if-not guilty Oswald would not be asking - for lack of knowledge - for a jacket, if he had left the rooming house without a jacket and had never been at the Tippit scene. Duh.

He was seen wearing a jacket @Tippit
An innocent Oswald would still have it with him.

[EDIT: 1:37pm EST)

[Martin Weidmann]

He was seen wearing a jacket @Tippit
An innocent Oswald wouldn't have to ask for his jacket.
He would still have it with him.

There is the circular logic again.

Circular reasoning is a logical fallacy in which the reasoner begins with what they are trying to end with. The components of a circular argument are often logically valid because if the premises are true, the conclusion must be true. Circular reasoning is not a formal logical fallacy but a pragmatic defect in an argument whereby the premises are just as much in need of proof or evidence as the conclusion, and as a consequence the argument fails to persuade.

An innocent Oswald who left the rooming house without a jacket would have no need to ask for a jacket.

[Charles Collins]

If you had presented your "timeline" in a court of law, they would be laughing even harder.

Which only tells me that you are clueless about what goes on in a court room. And isn't it a pity that you have been totally unable to discredit the time line in it's entirety and never got any further than questioning parts of it based on highly dubious claims, misrepresentations and warped logic.


But this isn't a court of law. If LHO had survived to go to trial, and this became part of the evidence, the witnesses would be there and questions would be answered.

Indeed, and the WC case against Oswald would collapse before the prosecutor's eyes.

The defense would have called Dorothy Garner who would testify that she saw nobody going the down the stairs between the time Victoria Adams went down and Baker & Truly came up. They would establish which shirt Oswald was wearing on Friday morning and what jacket he was wearing to Irving on Thursday evening. They would question where the hole in Oswald's came from, as it does not show in any of the photos taken after Oswald's arrest and they would determine that Bledsoe could not have seen Oswald wear the arrest shirt on the bus. They would destroy Earlene Roberts and establish that Oswald did not leave the rooming house wearing a jacket and they would have a forensic investigation done in the DPD clocks, recordings and transcripts as well as have Bowles on the stand to explain why "official time" is not the same as "real time". Then they would put Bowley on the stand and have him confirm exactly what he did that day and that his watch said 1.10 when he arrived at 10th Street. Next they would put Westbrook on and have him explain how a white jacket became a grey jacket, two hours later, and they would establish the complete lack of a chain of custody for (1) the revolver, (2) the wallet and (3) the jacket. And that would only be the beginning.....

But none of this has anything to do with the fact that you, by using a double hearsay comment by Scoggins, tried to pass off 1.23 as the moment the ambulance arrived and as somehow prove that Bowley's watch was slow. So much for wanting to find the truth, Mr. Collins

This is Martin’s game (Martin is aka Paul):

[Martin Weidmann]

This is Martin’s game (Martin is aka Paul):

It never fails... Typical LN come back. When you can't win the argument with evidence and sound logic, just use ridicule....

And, as to be expected, Charles can not even name one "fact" that doesn't matter to me.

I, on the other hand, can write a book about all the facts that Charles ignores, doesn't want to know about, can't explain and/or dismisses out of hand.

[Bill Chapman]

This is Martin’s game (Martin is aka Paul):

Seems you've had a couple of face-to-facers with CTers as have I. They tend to yell very loudly, along with demonstrating the body-english of a cage fighter.

[Martin Weidmann]

Seems you've had a couple of face-to-facers with CTers as have I. They tend to yell very loudly, along with demonstrating the body-english of a cage fighter.

Oh look.. the LN "mini-me" joins in, again.... What a surprise... Not!

No CTr yells, but it's certainly possible that what they say comes trough loud and clear enough to shatter the LN fantasy.

You sound like a f*cking Republican, accusing others of what they are doing themselves and then whine that people are nasty when their fake crap get destroyed!

It's kinda sad and ironic, because if you guys (before you ask; the LNs) had an easily defendable and persuasive case you wouldn't need this pathetic behavior.

[Bill Chapman]

There is the circular logic again.

Circular reasoning is a logical fallacy in which the reasoner begins with what they are trying to end with. The components of a circular argument are often logically valid because if the premises are true, the conclusion must be true. Circular reasoning is not a formal logical fallacy but a pragmatic defect in an argument whereby the premises are just as much in need of proof or evidence as the conclusion, and as a consequence the argument fails to persuade.

An innocent Oswald who left the rooming house without a jacket would have no need to ask for a jacket.

Oswald was seen wearing a jacket @Tippit. And point out where I claim that Oswald didn't have a jacket when he left the rooming house.