The Bus Stop Farce

[Richard Smith]

Again, the crux of my argument has gone completely over your head. Just like you cherry pick other pieces of evidence and jump to highly speculative and often incorrect conclusions, instead of looking at the entire evidence, you are concentrating on one comment which could have two meanings.

When John returns you can take up this sideshow with him. I am still waiting on the evidence that shows that the revolver (now in evidence as CE 143) that was brought into the police station some two hours after Oswald was brought in is in fact the revolver Oswald carried when he was arrested at the Texas Theater.

Wow.  You called another poster out here for noting that Dishonest John I. had claimed that Oswald did not have a pistol when arrested.  You then repeatedly insisted that he confirm this claim.  When I posted the clear and unambiguous quote from Dishonest John that confirms he made that claim, you suddenly don't want to discuss or admit that he has done so!  LOL.

What two meanings do you derive from his quote (and how is using a quotation "cherry picking"): "Except he wasn't carrying a gun when he was arrested."  What two meanings can there be from "he wasn't carrying a gun when he was arrested"?  Again, if Dishonest John made other inconsistent claims regarding Oswald's possession of a pistol when arrested it does not negate the fact that he has claimed that Oswald did not have a gun when arrested.  You don't seem to be able to process his contrarian tactic of making inconsistent claims.  Even though you and he are birds of a feather.

[Martin Weidmann]

Wow.  You called another poster out here for noting that Dishonest John I. had claimed that Oswald did not have a pistol when arrested.  You then repeatedly insisted that he confirm this claim.  When I posted the clear and unambiguous quote from Dishonest John that confirms he made that claim, you suddenly don't want to discuss or admit that he has done so!  LOL.

What two meanings do you derive from his quote (and how is using a quotation "cherry picking"): "Except he wasn't carrying a gun when he was arrested."  What two meanings can there be from "he wasn't carrying a gun when he was arrested"?  Again, if Dishonest John made other inconsistent claims regarding Oswald's possession of a pistol when arrested it does not negate the fact that he has claimed that Oswald did not have a gun when arrested.  You don't seem to be able to process his contrarian tactic of making inconsistent claims.  Even though you and he are birds of a feather.

What two meanings can there be from "he wasn't carrying a gun when he was arrested"?

I'll gladly let you figure that out by yourself.

You don't seem to be able to process his contrarian tactic of making inconsistent claims.  Even though you and he are birds of a feather.

Does this mean I'm not a contrarian after all?  Or could it simply be that you are unable to comprehend what two "birds of a feather" find easy to understand?

[Richard Smith]

What two meanings can there be from "he wasn't carrying a gun when he was arrested"?

I'll gladly let you figure that out by yourself.

You don't seem to be able to process his contrarian tactic of making inconsistent claims.  Even though you and he are birds of a feather.

Does this mean I'm not a contrarian after all?  Or could it simply be that you are unable to comprehend what two "birds of a feather" find easy to understand?

"Except he wasn't carrying a gun when he was arrested."

[Bill Chapman]

Fool, she only concluded that he was wearing a jacket because she thought she saw him zipping up a zipper.
The desperation of nuts like you to keep Roberts in play as a "reliable" witness is truly pathetic. Had this case gone to trial, she would have been destroyed in a minute by the defense.

Check her testimony and you will find out what she had to say about Roberts

Were you there when he talked to the police? No, so stop pretending you know.

Your entire argument is contrived. You've got a witness who, by her own admission is blind in one eye, who wasn't paying attention because she was concentrating on the TV (which means she had her back to the living room), who couldn't tell what kind of shirt Oswald was wearing when he came in and who the LNs consider unreliable when she claims to have seen a police car in front of the house and to have seen Oswald standing at the bus stop.

That same witness claims to have seen a dark colored jacket and failed to identify the grey jacket CE 162 when it was shown to her during her testimony. Yet, somehow, for you she is an ironclad witness, despite the fact that she only could have seen Oswald for one or two seconds as he passed by her going out the door. Pathetic.

Which only tells me that you did see reply # 184 and ignored it, just like you are ignoring it now and are doing a silly song and dance to avoid honestly answering the question.

And that you are unable, or perhaps rather unwilling, the answer the question honestly doesn't need any more proof than that you didn't answer it in your post.

‘Fool, she only concluded that he was wearing a jacket because she thought she saw him zipping up a zipper’
>>> HAHAHAHA! Look at this mockup, blurred to mimic somewhat bad eyesight, and tell us one could not see a jacket. Go ahead.. squint, close one eye & blur the image as much as you as you want.


Earlene's approximate eyesight capability

‘The desperation of nuts like you to keep Roberts in play as a "reliable" witness is truly pathetic. Had this case gone to trial, she would have been destroyed in a minute by the defense’
>>> Johnson is sounding more & more like a busybody every time you open your mouth. Again, how would Johnson know what went on in that room if she wasn’t there?

‘Were you there when he talked to the police? No, so stop pretending you know’
>>> There were witnesses present. Was Earlene’s employer in the room with Earlene and Oswald? I think not.

‘Your entire argument is contrived. You've got a witness who, by her own admission is blind in one eye, who wasn't paying attention because she was concentrating on the TV (which means she had her back to the living room), who couldn't tell what kind of shirt Oswald was wearing when he came in and who the LNs consider unreliable when she claims to have seen a police car in front of the house and to have seen Oswald standing at the bus stop.’
 ‘That same witness claims to have seen a dark colored jacket and failed to identify the grey jacket CE 162 when it was shown to her during her testimony. Yet, somehow, for you she is an ironclad witness, despite the fact that she only could have seen Oswald for one or two seconds as he passed by her going out the door. Pathetic’
>>> Where did I say she was an iron-clad witness? Where did I say Earlene was lying?

‘Which only tells me that you did see reply # 184 and ignored it, just like you are ignoring it now and are doing a silly song and dance to avoid honestly answering the question. And that you are unable, or perhaps rather unwilling, the answer the question honestly doesn't need any more proof than that you didn't answer it in your post.
>>> Again: I do not have email alerts enabled and was not aware of post #184 until you mentioned it. And are you sure that LNers feel that all CT posts are worth taking the time to answer?

[Martin Weidmann]

‘Fool, she only concluded that he was wearing a jacket because she thought she saw him zipping up a zipper’
>>> HAHAHAHA! Look at this mockup, blurred to mimic somewhat bad eyesight, and tell us one could not see a jacket. Go ahead.. squint, close one eye & blur the image as much as you as you want.

Add not paying attention in the mix and only seeing Oswald for a second or two while concentrating on the TV and get back to me

And btw, all your blurred picture illustrates is the color of the jacket can hardly be missed, yet Roberts said it was dark colored and failed to indentify CE 162 during her testimony. Go figure...

‘The desperation of nuts like you to keep Roberts in play as a "reliable" witness is truly pathetic. Had this case gone to trial, she would have been destroyed in a minute by the defense’
>>> Johnson is sounding more & more like a busybody every time you open your mouth. Again, how would Johnson know what went on in that room if she wasn’t there?

Attacking Johnson to keep Roberts in play... Desperation in action   

‘Were you there when he talked to the police? No, so stop pretending you know’
>>> There were witnesses present. Was Earlene’s employer in the room with Earlene and Oswald? I think not.

Witnesses who, a week later, wrote reports in the knowledge that Oswald was already dead and there would be no trial. Those kind of witnesses? At least we have now established that you were not there, so you have no idea what was really said.

‘Your entire argument is contrived. You've got a witness who, by her own admission is blind in one eye, who wasn't paying attention because she was concentrating on the TV (which means she had her back to the living room), who couldn't tell what kind of shirt Oswald was wearing when he came in and who the LNs consider unreliable when she claims to have seen a police car in front of the house and to have seen Oswald standing at the bus stop.’
 
‘That same witness claims to have seen a dark colored jacket and failed to identify the grey jacket CE 162 when it was shown to her during her testimony. Yet, somehow, for you she is an ironclad witness, despite the fact that she only could have seen Oswald for one or two seconds as he passed by her going out the door. Pathetic’
>>> Where did I say she was an iron-clad witness? Where did I say Earlene was lying?

So, the only witness who claimed Oswald left the rooming house might not be reliable after all? Good to know

‘Which only tells me that you did see reply # 184 and ignored it, just like you are ignoring it now and are doing a silly song and dance to avoid honestly answering the question. And that you are unable, or perhaps rather unwilling, the answer the question honestly doesn't need any more proof than that you didn't answer it in your post.
>>> Again: I do not have email alerts enabled and was not aware of post #184 until you mentioned it. And are you sure that LNers feel that all CT posts are worth taking the time to answer?

Again, now you are aware of the post and you had another opportunity to provide an answer but you didn't. Says it all, really...

And btw, I am sure that LNs will only answer posts that do not get them out of their comfort zone, which is exactly why you refuse to answer my question.

[Jerry Freeman]

Tippits wife says J.D. voted for Kennedy. Not sure where you are getting that the DPD hated Kennedy?

So she says....So what?--Has nothing to do with the post.
   Not only the Dallas police but the Sheriff [Decker] made a special point to tell his dept to not provide any protection for JFK ...the authorities [mayor.. DA] doubtfully gave Kennedy their vote. Dallas was a really big time Republican city and you should just read the newspapers of that time.
I still have them. Have you ever seen the "Welcome to Dallas Mr Kennedy" ad?
Not even referring to him as Mr President---insult enough.
Imagine a major city paper that would have run an ad...Welcome to [our city] Mr Obama....then slamming him as a communist. 

[Walt Cakebread]

So she says....So what?--Has nothing to do with the post.
   Not only the Dallas police but the Sheriff [Decker] made a special point to tell his dept to not provide any protection for JFK ...the authorities [mayor.. DA] doubtfully gave Kennedy their vote. Dallas was a really big time Republican city and you should just read the newspapers of that time.
I still have them. Have you ever seen the "Welcome to Dallas Mr Kennedy" ad?
Not even referring to him as Mr President---insult enough.
Imagine a major city paper that would have run an ad...Welcome to [our city] Mr Obama....then slamming him as a communist.

Do you know of a good accurate record of JD Tippit's movements after 12:30 that day.   ??     I'm looking for actual sighting of Tippit, not radio reports of his location....( He could report that he was at location "X" while actually being at location "A")

David Monahan wrote:

What do the Lone nuts think of Tippit's behaviour in the hour before he was beat to the punch? Wild eyed , frantic calls and randomly pulling over cars coming from the direction of the plaza? Dirty cop or innocently on high alert hoping he becomes a hero wishfully thinking the assassin would remarkably come by his way?

How can the reports be verified??