The Bus Stop Farce

[John Iacoletti]

What else but nonsensical things do you expect from Chapman?

LNers everywhere must cringe every time Chapman attempts to argue their side...

[Richard Smith]

So many words.

Something you can't deal with, right? You need small portions to be able to understand.

In a nutshell, you suggest a vast conspiracy to frame Oswald for some unspecified reason

No, that's your nutshell, with the emphasis on the three first letters in the word.

then dispute that the planted evidence links him to the crime.

Planted or not, if you are talking about the rifle, let's say that he did buy it (which although possible is by no means certain) and was photographed with it in April 1963. That doesn't mean that he was the shooter in November 1963.

some unnamed entity for some unknown reason attempted to framed Oswald via his shirt fibers but then you reject the shirt fibers as linking him to the crime. 

It wasn't an "unnamed entity"... It was the Warren Commission and Hoover's boys, who only had one task; to "prove" to the people that Oswald (who was already dead) had been the sole gunman. Remember the Katzenbach memo? Who was it again who said; we need to wrap this thing around Oswald as tight was we can.

John Adams said "facts are stubborn things" and he was right.

Fact: Oswald's arrest shirt was sent to the FBI lab, on Friday night, together with the rifle
Fact: No other shirt was ever sent to the FBI
Fact: On none of the photos taken of Oswald in which he was wearing that shirt, before it went to Washington, damage to a sleeve can be seen
Fact: After Oswald's death, the FBI found some fibers on the rifle which were similar to those of the shirt they had received.
Fact: When detectives took the arrest shirt to Bledsoe's house, in December 1963, it suddenly had a hole in it's sleeve.
Fact: Bledsoe had not said anything about the shirt or the hole in the sleeve in her Affidavit
Fact: Bledsoe told the WC in her testimony that she recognized the shirt because he [Oswald] was wearing it before he was shot. Despite the notes she brough with he, she does not mention anywhere in her testimony that she saw Oswald wear the shirt on the bus....

I'll leave it to you to do the math.... but you won't, because law enforcement officers never ever create evidence against a suspect they "know" is guilty when they lack the evidence to prove it, right?

It is an Alice in Wonderland narrative.

I wouldn't know. You're the expert on Alice in Wonderland...

I'm going to try to dumb this down once more so perhaps even you can understand.  You suggest a risky charade to frame Oswald involving the shirt fibers that requires a random citizen witness to lie and others to facilitate that lie.  But then you dispute that the fibers link Oswald to the crime citing the findings of the very same folks who you claim facilitated this frame up.  Can you understand the logical disconnect in your line of "reasoning"? 

[Bill Chapman]

It’s “abundantly obvious” to Bill Chapman of “the other Frazier” fame. How compelling.

I'm not arguing anyone's side but my own

And again: Are you sure I don't know who Fritz is?

Here, let me catch you up: Since June 2019, there
are a total of 29 separate references related to my
interactions regarding Fritz

. 

[Martin Weidmann]

I'm going to try to dumb this down once more so perhaps even you can understand.  You suggest a risky charade to frame Oswald involving the shirt fibers that requires a random citizen witness to lie and others to facilitate that lie.  But then you dispute that the fibers link Oswald to the crime citing the findings of the very same folks who you claim facilitated this frame up.  Can you understand the logical disconnect in your line of "reasoning"?

You suggest a risky charade to frame Oswald involving the shirt fibers that requires a random citizen witness to lie and others to facilitate that lie.

First of all, there was nothing risky about it, as Oswald was already dead and there wasn't going to be a trial. Secondly, there was no need for a random citizen to lie. Bledsoe's testimony, if you read it careful, never makes the link between the shirt and Oswald wearing it on the bus. It's the power of suggestion at work. Bledsoe did not mention the shirt in her affidavit at all and in her testimony she recognized the shirt from the time they brought it out to her house and classified it as the shirt he was wearing "before he was shot". 

But then you dispute that the fibers link Oswald to the crime citing the findings of the very same folks who you claim facilitated this frame up. 

I have disputed that fibers can be linked to a particular shirt. Stombaugh agrees, as would any other fiber expert.

Can you understand the logical disconnect in your line of "reasoning"?

There is no logical disconnect. I don't cite "the very same folks who facilitated the frame up", but instead cite the opinion of a fiber expert who may not have been part of the frame up at all. You seem to believe, rather foolishly, that everybody who made a statement in this case must have been knowingly part of the cover up, when in fact there is no need for that at all. Stombaugh, for instance, could very well have received the shirt with a hole in the sleeve and the rifle with fibers on it and just conducted an examination.

If there is a logical disconnect, it is on your side. You are the one who, mistakenly, believes or wants to believe that a cover up of this nature would involve massive numbers of people, when in fact it could all be done by a few people at the right place to manipulate the evidence.

[Richard Smith]

You suggest a risky charade to frame Oswald involving the shirt fibers that requires a random citizen witness to lie and others to facilitate that lie.

First of all, there was nothing risky about it, as Oswald was already dead and there wasn't going to be a trial. Secondly, there was no need for a random citizen to lie. Bledsoe's testimony, if you read it careful, never makes the link between the shirt and Oswald wearing it on the bus. It's the power of suggestion at work. Bledsoe did not mention the shirt in her affidavit at all and in her testimony she recognized the shirt from the time they brought it out to her house and classified it as the shirt he was wearing "before he was shot". 

But then you dispute that the fibers link Oswald to the crime citing the findings of the very same folks who you claim facilitated this frame up. 

I have disputed that fibers can be linked to a particular shirt. Stombaugh agrees, as would any other fiber expert.

Can you understand the logical disconnect in your line of "reasoning"?

There is no logical disconnect. I don't cite "the very same folks who facilitated the frame up", but instead cite the opinion of a fiber expert who may not have been part of the frame up at all. You seem to believe, rather foolishly, that everybody who made a statement in this case must have been knowingly part of the cover up, when in fact there is no need for that at all. Stombaugh, for instance, could very well have received the shirt with a hole in the sleeve and the rifle with fibers on it and just conducted an examination.

If there is a logical disconnect, it is on your side. You are the one who, mistakenly, believes or wants to believe that a cover up of this nature would involve massive numbers of people, when in fact it could all be done by a few people at the right place to manipulate the evidence.

In which we learn that there is nothing risky involved in framing someone for the assassination of the President with fake evidence!  And when a witness says that she saw a hole in Oswald's shirt, she is not lying if she didn't see a hole in Oswald's shirt due to the "power of suggestion"!  LOL  And there is no logical disconnect in faking certain evidence for the purpose of linking someone to a crime but then claiming the evidence that was faked doesn't link them to the crime.  And on and on.  Hopeless.

[Charles Collins]

Total BS. You are completely misrepresenting what Bowles told the HSCA.

More BS.... Bowles was in charge of the DPD dispatchers and he confirmed that the time stamps basically only served the purpose of documenting a sequence of events rather than represent actual time. In fact, he explained in great detail how the time stamps called out by the dispatchers had nothing to do with actual time at all.

And as for the cab company; Whaley testified he marked his trips to the nearest 15 minutes.

Mr. WHALEY. I thought maybe you might need it. You look down there it says Greyhound, 500 North Beckley, I think it is marked 12:30 to 12:45. Now that could have been 10 minutes off in each direction because I didn't use a watch, I just guess, in other words, all my trips are marked about 15 minutes each.

What kind of an argument is this? You don't know if they did or not, but you are going to throw your own opinion, which isn't worth much, out there anyway. Really?

As far as the motorcade was concerned, police was already deploying along the route well ahead of the arrival of the motorcade. They didn't need any times passed on by the dispatcher. The motorcade itself communicated where they were and how far they were still out from their destination. That's the only thing the officers deployed along the route needed to know.

Sure, they needed to call the nearest cab if somebody wanted to be picked up from some location. Whenever I go to the airport I always take a cab. They never specify an 100% correct time of arrival for the cab but instead just make sure there is one on time to get me to the airport on time. It's not rocket science!

Like hell, you are "not assuming this". All you are doing is making assumptions. You are not arguing facts or evidence. You are arguing hypotheticals. And your question about clocks and watches being better calibrated that the DPD's and cab company's clock is a bogus one. I have already demonstrated beyond a shadow of a doubt that the time given by Scoggins doesn't even match any of the times on the DPD transcripts, which means that from the two only one can be right, if any of the two is right at all.

I have also demonstrated, time after time again, that the man in charge of the DPD dispatchers himself disputes that the DPD clocks were calibrated at all, going so far as to tell the HSCA that the DPD times can not be relied up to reflect actual time.

You keep on ignoring that, evidence based, information and instead make up nothing but hypothetical go nowhere claims you can't even support with any kind of evidence yourself. So much for being interested in the truth!

I can take Bowles’ words out of context also.


From Bowles’ report:

By noting the stated times and the duration of messages in the minutes preceding the incident of the open microphone, I have, for practical purposes, fixed the time for the start of the five-minute open mike episode at 12:29:10 p.m. (Channel 1 time). Time statements broadcast later confirm this as a rational assumption. (See PART II, CHAPTER FIVE for technical details demonstrating this confirmation.) Since it is important to have a zero-base from which one might project future time points, a decision was necessary. In using the start of the five-minute interval, and 12:29:10 (Channel 1) as the zero-base, with subsequent time factored thereon, "time" would at least be constant if not absolutely accurate. If not absolutely accurate, time statements cannot be more than a second or two off. The reader is encouraged to reach an independent decision based on the transcriptions of the radio transmissions contained in the Appendix

But I don’t claim that that sentence means all of the time statements, on both channels, all day long. It is way too complicated to argue this stuff on this forum. What you seem to fail to comprehend is that Bowles’ report is in rebuttal to the acoustics report. Here is an example of the type of stuff that he is trying to explain cannot be done using the recordings:


A considerable number of references to exact times, even to tenths of seconds, exist in the Committee's Report....

No where does Bowles indicate that the time could be 6 or 7 minutes off, period. And that is what one would have to assume if one believes that Bowley’s watch was accurate and he arrived on the scene at 1:10. So you are the one grossly misrepresenting what Bowles’ report says.


And as for the cab company; Whaley testified he marked his trips to the nearest 15 minutes

There is a difference in expectations for the times on the individual time sheets kept by the cab drivers and the ones kept by the dispatchers. In the late seventies I ran a radio dispatched service truck and kept track of the times I spent on each call for billing purposes. These were also rounded off to the nearest quarter-hour. The times recorded by the dispatcher didn’t need to match exactly but were kept as a record of when the call was received, dispatched, and completed. Travel times varied but were accounted for in this way. You are trying to compare apples to oranges (so to speak).

[Bill Chapman]

LNers everywhere must cringe every time Chapman attempts to argue their side...

Are you sure I didn't do a good deal of cringing myself when, after a good night's sleep, I noticed an unforced error on my part, which by now seems to have morphed into an earth-shattering, CT life-confirming-reason-to-live revelation.

Again, are you sure I don't know who Fritz is?
Run, Johnny... RUN!

[Martin Weidmann]

In which we learn that there is nothing risky involved in framing someone for the assassination of the President with fake evidence!  And when a witness says that she saw a hole in Oswald's shirt, she is not lying if she didn't see a hole in Oswald's shirt due to the "power of suggestion"!  LOL  And there is no logical disconnect in faking certain evidence for the purpose of linking someone to a crime but then claiming the evidence that was faked doesn't link them to the crime.  And on and on.  Hopeless.

Hopeless.

That would be the word to describe you.

And when a witness says that she saw a hole in Oswald's shirt, she is not lying if she didn't see a hole in Oswald's shirt due to the "power of suggestion"!

You can't be this dumb..... And what in the world are you rambling about?

Nobody has said that Bledsoe didn't see a hole in Oswald's shirt. Of course she did, but - and even my dog understand this - she saw the hole when they brought the shirt to her house, prior to her testimony, and not on the bus, as the power of suggestion made her believe. What's going to be next? Are you going to claim that power of suggestion isn't real and that it doesn't work on people?

And there is no logical disconnect in faking certain evidence for the purpose of linking someone to a crime but then claiming the evidence that was faked doesn't link them to the crime.

Just how idiotic can you be? They were using CE 150 (the arrest shirt) to link Oswald to the rifle and Bledsoe's bus ride. It would have worked if everyone believed that CE 150 was the shirt Oswald was wearing on Friday morning. It fooled you, didn't it?

But it didn't fool everybody and it ultimately did not work because you can not link a fiber to a particular source and Bledsoe was so confused that she didn't get her story straight, despite having brought notes along to remind her.

Mr. BALL - But, before you go into that, I notice you have been reading from some notes before you.
Mrs. BLEDSOE - Well, because I forget what I have to say.
Mr. BALL - When did you make those notes?
Mrs. BLEDSOE - What day did I make them?
Miss DOUTHIT - When Mr. Sorrels and I were talking about her going to Washington, he made the suggestion that she put all the things down on paper because she might forget something, and I said, "Mary, you put everything on a piece of paper so that you can remember it and you won't forget anything, you know, what happened," and that's when she started making notes.

What really destroyed their case is the evidence (as presented by Pat Speer on his website) that has since surfaced that shows that Oswald was in fact wearing CE 151 on Friday morning.