?

[Richard Smith]

"He merely states that he could not identify Oswald as the man on his bus.  Not that he wasn't on the bus." -- Mr. Smith

 Oh, dear



At least You got the first part right, quote, he could not identify Oswald as the man on his bus.Okay, now show those of us reading along where Mr. McWatters states anywhere within his sworn testimony that the wrongly-accused was on the bus. Cannot do it, Can you? There's a reason for that.

Have to go folks. Semper Fi baby Semper Fi (Always Faithful to God, Country, and Corps) <---- The wrongly-accused did Not shoot anybody. Anybody.

Wow.  You cite testimony in which McWatters indicates that Oswald was consistent in appearance with the man he remembers getting on the bus but that he just can't conclusively confirm it was him.  From this you somehow believe it proves Oswald was not on the bus!  It does no such thing.  And Oswald's presence on the bus was conclusively proven by another witness who actually knew him along with his possession of the bus transfer.  In addition, Oswald's presence on the bus to nowhere does absolutely nothing to advance any objective from the conspirators' perspective.  They would have had no possible reason to fabricate this story which would have entailed enormous risk to them as you unintentionally point out with your misrepresentation of McWatters testimony.  What if, for example, McWatters and other random witness on the bus swore that Oswald never got on the bus?  Why take that risk for no purpose?  How did they even know which bus would be in the vicinity?  Didn't they have enough on their plate assassinating the president, framing an innocent person, covering up the escape of the actual assassin etc.?  They also needed to stage a bus ride that takes Oswald nowhere necessitating a fake cab ride.  Silly.

[Richard Smith]

Wow.  You cite testimony in which McWatters indicates that Oswald was consistent in appearance with the man he remembers getting on the bus but that he just can't conclusively confirm it was him.  From this you somehow believe it proves Oswald was not on the bus!  It does no such thing.

Well, at least less than convincing.

And Oswald's presence on the bus was conclusively proven by another witness who actually knew him

Assuming you mean Bledsoe (with her prefab answers), the WC provided ZERO evidence to support she knew Oswald.

along with his possession of the bus transfer.

Not so fast. If Bledsoe was ever on that bus, according to McWatters, she entered on Marsalis when Oswald (allegedly) had already left the bus carrying the transfer.

BUMMER.

You can't have it both ways. Either the transfer is not Oswald's or Bledsoe is FOS. Or both.

In addition, Oswald's presence on the bus to nowhere does absolutely nothing to advance any objective from the conspirators' perspective.

It took care of Roger Craig's sighting reported to Fritz.

They would have had no possible reason to fabricate this story

Wrong, see above (and possibly others you have no clue about.)

which would have entailed enormous risk to them

Not with Henry Wade on board. You (also) have no clue how they would access risk.

as you unintentionally point out with your misrepresentation of McWatters testimony.

Um?

What if, for example, McWatters and other random witness on the bus swore that Oswald never got on the bus? 

Look up Milton Jones. Didn't deter the WC from kooking up a false timeline. You just proved yourself wrong.

Why take that risk for no purpose?

False premise, rookie mistake.

How did they even know which bus would be in the vicinity? Didn't they have enough on their plate assassinating the president, framing an innocent person, covering up the escape of the actual assassins etc.?

False premise, relying on preplanned bus ride.

They also needed to stage a bus ride that takes Oswald nowhere necessitating a fake cab ride. Silly.

Indeed, what a stupid mistake initially running along with Blesoe.

So needy for my attention.  If your fantasy conspirators required a cover story for "Roger Craig's sighting" (cue sinister Oliver Stone music) then the cab story would suffice.  Obviously, there would be no need to contrive a fake bus ride that takes Oswald nowhere with all the risk that entails including convincing a bus load of random bus passengers not to blow the cover story.  And those conspirators sure were smart to know beforehand that someone would see Oswald getting a ride and know they needed to figure out which bus would be in the area.  Also it was very helpful of them to give a lift to the very guy they wanted to take the fall for the assassination!  And thereby risk exposing themselves by being seen giving him a lift as you suggest they did here.  Thus, highlighting the astounding stupidity of your entire baseless premise without apparently even realizing it.   Comedy gold.  HA HA HA.  But logic was never a strong point to a CTer yarn.   

[Martin Weidmann]

So needy for my attention.  If your fantasy conspirators required a cover story for "Roger Craig's sighting" (cue sinister Oliver Stone music) then the cab story would suffice.  Obviously, there would be no need to contrive a fake bus ride that takes Oswald nowhere with all the risk that entails including convincing a bus load of random bus passengers not to blow the cover story.  And those conspirators sure were smart to know beforehand that someone would see Oswald getting a ride and know they needed to figure out which bus would be in the area.  Also it was very helpful of them to give a lift to the very guy they wanted to take the fall for the assassination!  And thereby risk exposing themselves by being seen giving him a lift as you suggest they did here.  Thus, highlighting the astounding stupidity of your entire baseless premise without apparently even realizing it.   Comedy gold.  HA HA HA.  But logic was never a strong point to a CTer yarn.

So needy for my attention.

Says the entitled one, who does not understand that a reply to his own simplicity is nothing to do with seeking his attention.

[Richard Smith]

So needy for my attention.

Says the entitled one, who does not understand that a reply to his own simplicity is nothing to do with seeking his attention.

Who would suspect that you have Daddy issues?   Did he not show up at your "European" school on parent's day?

[Bill Chapman]

      Beck: Otto-matic clown
      Wait, no names?
      What, too soon?


      billchapman_hunter of trolls_you_are_next

[Martin Weidmann]

Who would suspect that you have Daddy issues?   Did he not show up at your "European" school on parent's day?

Trying a new, pathetic, line of attack by immature comments one would expect from a spoiled brat throwing a hissy fit?

And, I bet, at the same time, you're still whining about you being personally attacked by commentary as well, right, entitled one?

Btw what makes you think I went to a European school?

[Richard Smith]

Trying a new, pathetic, line of attack by immature comments one would expect from a spoiled brat throwing a hissy fit?

And, I bet, at the same time, you're still whining about you being personally attacked by commentary as well, right, entitled one?

Btw what makes you think I went to a European school?

So much commentary.  Martin/Roger/Otto are desperately trying to take us down the rabbit hole yet again.  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 while requiring them to figure out which bus was in the area and incorporate an entire bus load of random passengers into the PLOT at great risk to themselves).  HA HA HA.  Poor Otto is particularly confused.  He has resorted to his typical personal insults.  Like a child who has been told by his Daddy that there is no Santa Claus. 

[Alan J. Ford]

Exemplary researchers @ Mr. Beck & Mr. Weidmann, thank goodness they are on the side of light, truth and justice in this case.

For those of us reading along we can always count on them to delineate facts from fiction. Something tells me their penchant for setting forth compelling evidence with accuracy and in detail is beyond the scope of comprehension for some still desperately clinging to a hastily contrived script mired in the stench of horse manure.

Brb gents