The Bus Stop Farce

[Martin Weidmann]

I asked a freaking question and you attack me. Typical nonsense (ignore it).

It is obvious why you asked those questions. You simply can not deal with being wrong.

Calling it "typical nonsense" and an "attack" is just part of that.

During our conversation I have actually tried to help you by saying that Roberts couldn't have been on the couch, because she couldn't see the bus stop from there, but you were so determined to find a way where Roberts could have had a better look at Oswald, than from where the television was, that you refused to accept what I was telling you.

[Charles Collins]

It is obvious why you asked those questions. You simply can not deal with being wrong.

Calling it "typical nonsense" and an "attack" is just part of that.

I asked it in order to attempt to put Aynesworth’s words in the proper category. I already admitted to jumping to a wrong conclusion earlier in this thread. And I have done so before. I most certainly do not have a problem “dealing with being wrong.”

I asked the question to someone who I believe will give me a straight answer (that wasn’t you). Some of us are interested in learning the truth. It appears to me that you are more interested in getting on people’s nerves to get a reaction than anything else. Some people seem to enjoy doing just that.   

[Bill Chapman]

Really? But if that was the case, why not simply hop on a bus out of town, either from the city center or, after his stop at the boarding house, down on Jefferson?

Why run to a go nowhere street in the middle of a residential area where he would stand out like a sore tumb?

It doesn't make sense...

He wouldn't stand out if he was smart enough to slow his pace upon seeing somebody approaching.

[Martin Weidmann]

I asked it in order to attempt to put Aynesworth’s words in the proper category. I already admitted to jumping to a wrong conclusion earlier in this thread. And I have done so before. I most certainly do not have a problem “dealing with being wrong.”

I asked the question to someone who I believe will give me a straight answer (that wasn’t you). Some of us are interested in learning the truth. It appears to me that you are more interested in getting on people’s nerves to get a reaction than anything else. Some people seem to enjoy doing just that.   

I asked the question to someone who I believe will give me a straight answer (that wasn’t you).

And that's your first mistake. You trust Bill Brown to give you a straight answer for one reason only; he is an LN and you don't trust anything a skeptic of the WC narrative says. I, on the other hand, have discussions with LNs to find out things I did not know and perhaps learn something I have overlooked. That's why I keep asking for answers to questions that may shed another light on some of the evidence.

Here's the difference between you and me. Let's take Roberts and the jacket as an example;

Roberts is the only person who said Oswald left the rooming house zipping up a jacket. You need to keep that in play, because as soon as you leave open the possibility that Oswald did not leave the rooming house wearing a jacket, the WC narrative falls apart and dominos start to fall, as Tippit's killer was wearing a jacket, a jacket was found under a car park and Oswald was arrested without a jacket. You have no room to move or discuss anything honestly and openly.

I, on the other hand, have the freedom to ask the question how a grey jacket could have been in Beckley on Friday morning for Oswald to put on, when we have Buell Frazier saying that he was wearing a grey jacket to Irving on Thursday and we know he returned to the TSBD on Friday wearing the blue/grey jacket that was later found there. Marina said he only had two jackets and no other jacket was ever found at Ruth Paine's house or his room at Beckley, so how did the grey jacket to the rooming house?

Obviously, you will ignore and never answer my question because the answer will never fit with the narrative that you defend.

Some of us are interested in learning the truth.

Some of us, probably, but not you. All you do is preach the gospel of the WC

It appears to me that you are more interested in getting on people’s nerves

If my questions and comments are getting on your nerves, it's probably because they confront you with something you don't want to know or accept.

[Martin Weidmann]

He wouldn't stand out if he was smart enough to slow his pace upon seeing somebody approaching.

You've never been there, right?

It's the kind of street where anybody who walks there but doesn't live there stands out, regardless of how fast or slow he was walking.

[Charles Collins]

I asked the question to someone who I believe will give me a straight answer (that wasn’t you).

And that's your first mistake. You trust Bill Brown to give you a straight answer for one reason only; he is an LN and you don't trust anything a skeptic of the WC narrative says. I, on the other hand, have discussions with LNs to find out things I did not know and perhaps learn something I have overlooked. That's why I keep asking for answers to questions that may shed another light on some of the evidence.

Here's the difference between you and me. Let's take Roberts and the jacket as an example;

Roberts is the only person who said Oswald left the rooming house zipping up a jacket. You need to keep that in play, because as soon as you leave open the possibility that Oswald did not leave the rooming house wearing a jacket, the WC narrative falls apart and dominos start to fall, as Tippit's killer was wearing a jacket, a jacket was found under a car park and Oswald was arrested without a jacket. You have no room to move or discuss anything honestly and openly.

I, on the other hand, have the freedom to ask the question how a grey jacket could have been in Beckley on Friday morning for Oswald to put on, when we have Buell Frazier saying that he was wearing a grey jacket to Irving on Thursday and we know he returned to the TSBD on Friday wearing the blue/grey jacket that was later found there. Marina said he only had two jackets and no other jacket was ever found at Ruth Paine's house or his room at Beckley, so how did the grey jacket to the rooming house?

Obviously, you will ignore and never answer my question because the answer will never fit with the narrative that you defend.

Some of us are interested in learning the truth.

Some of us, probably, but not you. All you do is preach the gospel of the WC

It appears to me that you are more interested in getting on people’s nerves

If my questions and comments are getting on your nerves, it's probably because they confront you with something you don't want to know or accept.

You are jumping to conclusions about me that are just not true. Readers typically want to  learn something about the assassination. Not your unfounded opinions about what you think about me.

Do you have any corroboration for Buell Frazier’s account regarding the jacket on Thursday evening?

[Martin Weidmann]

You are jumping to conclusions about me that are just not true. Readers typically want to  learn something about the assassination. Not your unfounded opinions about what you think about me.

Do you have any corroboration for Buell Frazier’s account regarding the jacket on Thursday evening?

Do you have any corroboration for Buell Frazier’s account regarding the jacket on Thursday evening?

Depends on what you consider to be corroboration. First of all there is the testimony of Buell Frazier;

Mr. BALL - On Thursday afternoon when you went home, drove on home, did he carry any package with him?
Mr. FRAZIER - No, sir; he didn't
Mr. BALL - Did he have a jacket or coat on him?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL - What kind of a jacket or coat did he have?
Mr. FRAZIER - That, you know, like I say gray jacket.
Mr. BALL - That same gray jacket?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir. Now, I can be frank with you, I had seen him wear that jacket several times, because it is cool type like when you keep a jacket on all day, if you are working on outside or something like that, you wouldn't go outside with just a plain shirt on.

and then there is Marina confirming that Oswald only owned two jackets. Both jackets were recovered and no others were found at Ruth Paine's house or the rooming house.

The blue/grey jacket (CE 163) was later found at the TSBD, which means that's the jacket Oswald was wearing on Friday morning. This only leaves the grey jacket, that Frazier said, Oswald was wearing to Irving on Thursday afternoon.

There are two more things in Frazier's testimony that got my attention.

First of all, they never showed him CE 162, the grey jacket, for identification (one can only wonder why) and, secondly, they did show him CE 163.

Mr. BALL - I have here Commission's 163, a gray blue jacket. Do you recognize this jacket?
Mr. FRAZIER - No, sir; I don't.
Mr. BALL - Did you ever see Lee Oswald wear this jacket?
Mr. FRAZIER - No, sir; I don't believe I have.

Frazier's response is somewhat remarkable as it was jacket CE 163 that Oswald was wearing during the trip to the TSBD on Friday morning, so Frazier must have seen it at least once.

Could Frazier have been mistaken about the grey jacket? Sure, he could, but so could - and that's the point I am making - be Earlene Roberts.