Et tu, Bonnie?

[Richard Smith]

Mr. Smith,

Lest you forget you have been on the clock now since April 7th to produce an actual photo image of the lying rooftop tandem standing atop that otherwise locked roof from the inside. We all understand if you cannot produce that kind of irrefutable evidence...there's a reason for that (they outright lied amid a hastily contrived script to frame the wrongly accused).

Now, as we continue to await your irrefutable proof that clearly shows the lying rooftop tandem atop that otherwise locked roof from the inside, let's take into consideration the manufactured/planted bus transfer. Just a simple question: Why is it in such pristine condition?

Before you answer, lest you forget there's plenty of evidence of an intense struggle with the wrongly accused inside the Texas Theatre that afternoon, so don't offer up the excuse of magic was evident to avoid the planted bus-transfer from natural, normal tearing, wrinkling, etc. There's been way too much magic in this case already (a magic bullet, the magical exploits of the lying rooftop tandem magically gaining access to an otherwise locked roof from the inside, while at the same time magically locking themselves out of the building from the otherside)...you cannot make this stuff up but considering it's all a hastily contrived script mired in the stench of horse manure, well anything magical is possible. The issue here is they had to frame an innocent party in a short period of time... not exactly enough time though to thoroughly vett their lies.

Lest you forget, you are still on the clock to produce irrefutable proof of the lying rooftop tandem standing atop that otherwise locked roof from the inside. We all understand if you continue to avoid the challenge. There's a reason for that. Only the absolute truth can stand the test of time--no phony hastily contrived revision(s), do-overs, etc.

What are you babbling about here?  A different topic.  Are you really suggesting there is doubt of Truly's and Baker's trip to the roof because there is no picture of them on the roof?  Who would take such a picture since no one else was up there?  And your bizarre basis for this entire claim is that the door to the roof was latched on the inside.  HA HA HA.  As though Truly who was the building superintendent and had worked for the TSBD for 30 years - much less anyone else - couldn't just flip the latch to access the roof.  What you apparently are too dense to understand is that if the door was latched on the inside, the only thing that proves is that none of your fantasy conspirators could have gotten back down into the building from the roof.  Your subjective opinion as to the condition of a bus transfer in Oswald's pocket following his arrest does not rebut the fact that the bus transfer was in his pocket.  It proves he was on the bus.  There is no explanation to plant such a bus transfer since the bus took him nowhere.  It did not advance any possible objective in your fantasy conspiracy.  Why bother faking his presence on a bus that goes nowhere and having to convince a whole bus load of people to confirm or at least not deny he was on the bus?   How would they even know which bus was in the vicinity at that moment to plant an bus transfer on him just a short time later. 

[Alan J. Ford]

What are you babbling about here?  A different topic.  Are you really suggesting there is doubt of Truly's and Baker's trip to the roof because there is no picture of them on the roof?  Who would take such a picture since no one else was up there?  And your bizarre basis for this entire claim is that the door to the roof was latched on the inside.  HA HA HA.  As though Truly who was the building superintendent and had worked for the TSBD for 30 years - much less anyone else - couldn't just flip the latch to access the roof.  What you apparently are too dense to understand is that if the door was latched on the inside, the only thing that proves is that none of your fantasy conspirators could have gotten back down into the building from the roof.  Your subjective opinion as to the condition of a bus transfer in Oswald's pocket following his arrest does not rebut the fact that the bus transfer was in his pocket.  It proves he was on the bus.  There is no explanation to plant such a bus transfer since the bus took him nowhere.  It did not advance any possible objective in your fantasy conspiracy.  Why bother faking a his presence on a bus that goes nowhere?

Still cannot provide any irrefutable proof eh...there's a reason for that.

Now, in response to just who would take such a picture, lest you forget Mr. Smith Dealey Plaza was flooded with newsmen, a high percentage of them with cameras in tow. They didn't have to be atop the roof to snap an image of the lying rooftop tandem IF they were really up there, because according to their own testimonies--their words, not mine--they put themselves in a specific position atop that roof that would have garnered more than a few stares from the general public and cameramen alike.

There's one particular photo, taking in the same time sequence as the position they placed themselves in in testimony--their words, not mine, where their presence would have been noted for all to see IF they were telling the truth instead of steering attention away from where Roy Truly's genuine whereabouts and actions were...

Mr. BELIN. When did you get over to the southeast corner of the sixth floor?
Mr. TRULY. That I can't answer. I don't remember when I went over there. It was sometime before I learned that they had found either the rifle or the spent shell cases.

Lest you forget Mr. Smith no one--you read that right--no one saw the lying rooftop tandem together on those backstairs, no one. I'll save you the trouble for even attempting to rely upon Mr. Piper's testimony, because lest you forget he does put someone with Roy Truly at the backstairs on the first floor a few minutes after the last shot--his words, not mine--but it wasn't with a highly recognizable white helmeted motorcycle officer in loooong black boots.

Again, no one puts the lying rooftop tandem together on those backstairs, no one.

[Martin Weidmann]

Uh no.  Obviously, another explanation is that he lied.  If the rifle was owned by Oswald, he could have admitted ownership and conjured up some explanation for his rifle being there like he planned to go hunting that weekend or that the rifle had been stolen etc.  He has ample opportunity to provide an explanation for his rifle's presence in the building which is the point you took issue with (i.e. he was not directly asked).  Instead he decides to deny ownership or any knowledge of how the rifle came to be there despite a mountain of evidence from a variety of different sources that link him to that rifle including his palm print on it.

Obviously, another explanation is that he lied.

Indeed. That's another explanation. Now all you need to do is to prove that he lied. Not assume he did, but prove it.

If the rifle was owned by Oswald, he could have admitted ownership and conjured up some explanation for his rifle being there like he planned to go hunting that weekend or that the rifle had been stolen etc.

And if he didn't own the rifle, he would have no need to conjure up any story, which is exactly what happened.

Instead he decides to deny ownership or any knowledge of how the rifle came to be there despite a mountain of evidence from a variety of different sources that link him to that rifle including his palm print on it.

A mountain of evidence? HAHAHAHAHA

A photocopy of an order form, taken from a now missing microfilm, and the opinion of a FBI questioned documents specialist and three photos showing him holding a rifle in late March 1963. That's it. The FBI found no prints on the rifle and the palm print didn't myseriously turn up on an evidence card until a week after the events.

That's a mountain of evidence to you? 

[Alan J. Ford]

Obviously, another explanation is that he lied.

Indeed. That's another explanation. Now all you need to do is to prove that he lied. Not assume he did, but prove it.

If the rifle was owned by Oswald, he could have admitted ownership and conjured up some explanation for his rifle being there like he planned to go hunting that weekend or that the rifle had been stolen etc.

And if he didn't own the rifle, he would have no need to conjure up any story, which is exactly what happened.

Instead he decides to deny ownership or any knowledge of how the rifle came to be there despite a mountain of evidence from a variety of different sources that link him to that rifle including his palm print on it.

A mountain of evidence? HAHAHAHAHA

A photocopy of an order form, taken from a now missing microfilm, and the opinion of a FBI questioned documents specialist and three photos showing him holding a rifle in late March 1963. That's it. The FBI found no prints on the rifle and the palm print didn't myseriously turn up on an evidence card until a week after the events.

That's a mountain of evidence to you? 

Well said, Mr. Weidmann

Irrefutable proof seems to be something not at Mr. Smith's disposal at the moment.

[Alan J. Ford]

Brief follow-up on demonstrating once again that no one put the lying rooftop tandem together on those backstairs, No one ---->

The following men--in the same space & time as the lying rooftop-tandem exposes the hastily contrived script for what it is...

Mr. WILLIAMS. Well, at the time I was up there I saw a motorcycle policeman. He came up. And the only thing I saw of him was his white helmet.
Mr. BALL. Did you see anybody with him?
Mr. WILLIAMS. I did not

and now his entourage...

Mr. BALL. Or did you see Mr. Truly come up?
Mr. NORMAN. No, sir; I didn't.

and for further confirmation that the lying rooftop-tandem were nowhere near those backstairs in the hastily contrived scripted time-interval they wish to make fact...

Mr. BALL - Do you remember seeing Mr. Truly?
Mr. JARMAN - No, sir.
Mr. BALL - Or did you see a motorcycle officer come up?
Mr. JARMAN - No, sir.

None of the trio above were deaf, blind and/or dumb. So, IF they would have actually seen the lying rooftop-tandem together on those backstairs they would have confirmed their presence there.

[Alan J. Ford]

Mr. BELIN. When did you get over to the southeast corner of the sixth floor?
Mr. TRULY. That I can't answer. I don't remember when I went over there. It was sometime before I learned that they had found either the rifle or the spent shell cases.

Cat got your tongue, Roy Truly?! Cannot answer or Won't answer?! Pleading the 5th?

[Dan O'meara]

'Frazier consistently describes the package being about this long'
Frazier consistently repeats that he wasn't paying attention to the bag.
That fact does not require speculation.

I agree, Frazier emphasises that he doesn't pay that much attention to the bag and there's no reason why he should, Oswald has already explained what it is and Frazier has no reason to doubt him.
However, he does see the bag and provides the following description from what he can remember:

"It must have been about 2' long, and the top of the sack was sort of folded up, and the rest of the sack had been kind of folded under."

I did an analysis of the construction of CE 142 and concluded that it was specifically designed and constructed to carry something 27" or less. What I found interesting was that Frazier's description of what he saw is a perfect description of what CE 142 would look like when being used.
The point is - CE 142, being used the way Frazier describes, could not carry a rifle even if it was disassembled (I don't buy that the assassin would bring a disassembled rifle for one second).
This doesn't mean Oswald didn't bring a rifle with him that morning. Elsewhere I've argued that Frazier deliberately underestimated the length of the bag because people wouldn't believe he didn't recognise it as a rifle in a bag. If that's the case CE 142 was not the bag Oswald used that day.

[Bill Chapman]

I agree, Frazier emphasises that he doesn't pay that much attention to the bag and there's no reason why he should, Oswald has already explained what it is and Frazier has no reason to doubt him.
However, he does see the bag and provides the following description from what he can remember:

"It must have been about 2' long, and the top of the sack was sort of folded up, and the rest of the sack had been kind of folded under."

I did an analysis of the construction of CE 142 and concluded that it was specifically designed and constructed to carry something 27" or less. What I found interesting was that Frazier's description of what he saw is a perfect description of what CE 142 would look like when being used.
The point is - CE 142, being used the way Frazier describes, could not carry a rifle even if it was disassembled (I don't buy that the assassin would bring a disassembled rifle for one second).
This doesn't mean Oswald didn't bring a rifle with him that morning. Elsewhere I've argued that Frazier deliberately underestimated the length of the bag because people wouldn't believe he didn't recognise it as a rifle in a bag. If that's the case CE 142 was not the bag Oswald used that day.

CE 1304 This measures 38"* as seen by way of the ruler
See larger size at https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh22/pdf/WH22_CE_1304.pdf


*A broken-down Carcano (34.8") would go into a 38" bag real good.. real damn good