?

[Alan J. Ford]

Still awaiting an honest, objective response from Mr. Mytton...in his defense, it's not easy to convince critical-thinkers how material of  higher quality (like those torn off buttons) on the wrongly accused's tattered shirt sustained considerable damage, while in contrast that mere paper bus-transfer--in spite of the same intense physical altercation with five highly adrenaline pumped officers is void of tearing/ripping...a small, but important detail overlooked amid a hastily contrived script to Frame an innocent party.  Unlike the plain simple truth deception requires revision(s), do-overs, etc.

For those of you who have the time, please read the Warren Commission testimony of the bus-driver, Mr. McWatters (Cecil) in its entirety. For the record, please note--during a police lineup later that evening he does not recognize the wrongly accused as the individual who got on his bus that fateful afternoon.

There's a reason for that...the wrongly accused did not get on a bus that afternoon. There's also major timing issues within Mr. McWatters' testimony--even IF the wrongly accused was in fact on his bus. Also amid your reading pay close attention to the following three characters ---->

*The man who steps out of his car snarled in traffic, and climbs aboard Mr. McWatter's bus (sitting behind him in traffic) to announce that the president has been shot.

*The lady with a suitcase who asks for and receives a bus-transfer from Mr. McWatters (following that announcement)

*The man who climbs aboard Mr. McWatter's bus only to ride it for two blocks, who follows the lead of the lady w/the suitcase, asking for a bus-transfer as well immediately after she does.

Strange shenanigans afoot...

Representative FORD - What happened?
Mr. McWATTERS - She got off and by the time when she was talking to me that is when he got up, this gentleman here in the seat got up, at seat "M" got off. In other words, the door was never closed of the bus from the time the gentleman stepped up in the door of that there, in other words, when he said what he did, and got on back in his car, in other words, the lady got off, and the man got off, too, both at the same stop.
In other words, the bus hadn't moved at that stop.

An intelligence cut out operation?
A pre-determined signal to take a course of action?

More important than the code-speak to secure those bus-transfers for later doctoring & planting to Frame an innocent party, here's what the actual bus driver had to say upon actually seeing the wrongly accused in a line-up ---->

Mr. BALL - Anyway, you were not able to identify any man in the lineup as the passenger?
Mr. McWATTERS - No, sir.
Mr. BALL - As the passenger who had gotten on?
Mr. McWATTERS - No, sir.

There's a reason for that...the wrongly accused was nowhere near Mr. McWatter's bus, let alone a passenger on it....At the time the false-narrative amid a hastily contrived script places him on Mr. McWatter's bus, the wrongly-accused had just finished coming to the aid of Inspector Sawyer (12:34PM) inside the TSBD near the small storage room and passenger elevator on the first floor; then minutes later crossing-paths at the front-entrance of the TSBD with a rookie news reporter (12:37PM), asking where he could find use of a phone; and, of course, after pointing out a phone in the lobby to the news reporter, the wrongly accused ventures down the front steps, walks over to his supervisor to now stand outside with him for 5-10 minutes (12:42/47PM +/- 5 minutes),

essentially, nowhere near 10th & Patton...





 

 

[John Mytton]

Still awaiting an honest, objective response from Mr. Mytton...in his defense, it's not easy to convince critical-thinkers how material of  higher quality (like those torn off buttons) on the wrongly accused's tattered shirt sustained considerable damage, while in contrast that mere paper bus-transfer--in spite of the same intense physical altercation with five highly adrenaline pumped officers is void of tearing/ripping...a small, but important detail overlooked amid a hastily contrived script to Frame an innocent party.  Unlike the plain simple truth deception requires revision(s), do-overs, etc.

For those of you who have the time, please read the Warren Commission testimony of the bus-driver, Mr. McWatters (Cecil) in its entirety. For the record, please note--during a police lineup later that evening he does not recognize the wrongly accused as the individual who got on his bus that fateful afternoon.

There's a reason for that...the wrongly accused did not get on a bus that afternoon. There's also major timing issues within Mr. McWatters' testimony--even IF the wrongly accused was in fact on his bus. Also amid your reading pay close attention to the following three characters ---->

*The man who steps out of his car snarled in traffic, and climbs aboard Mr. McWatter's bus (sitting behind him in traffic) to announce that the president has been shot.

*The lady with a suitcase who asks for and receives a bus-transfer from Mr. McWatters (following that announcement)

*The man who climbs aboard Mr. McWatter's bus only to ride it for two blocks, who follows the lead of the lady w/the suitcase, asking for a bus-transfer as well immediately after she does.

Strange shenanigans afoot...

Representative FORD - What happened?
Mr. McWATTERS - She got off and by the time when she was talking to me that is when he got up, this gentleman here in the seat got up, at seat "M" got off. In other words, the door was never closed of the bus from the time the gentleman stepped up in the door of that there, in other words, when he said what he did, and got on back in his car, in other words, the lady got off, and the man got off, too, both at the same stop.
In other words, the bus hadn't moved at that stop.

An intelligence cut out operation?
A pre-determined signal to take a course of action?

More important than the code-speak to secure those bus-transfers for later doctoring & planting to Frame an innocent party, here's what the actual bus driver had to say upon actually seeing the wrongly accused in a line-up ---->

Mr. BALL - Anyway, you were not able to identify any man in the lineup as the passenger?
Mr. McWATTERS - No, sir.
Mr. BALL - As the passenger who had gotten on?
Mr. McWATTERS - No, sir.

There's a reason for that...the wrongly accused was nowhere near Mr. McWatter's bus, let alone a passenger on it....At the time the false-narrative amid a hastily contrived script places him on Mr. McWatter's bus, the wrongly-accused had just finished coming to the aid of Inspector Sawyer (12:34PM) inside the TSBD near the small storage room and passenger elevator on the first floor; then minutes later crossing-paths at the front-entrance of the TSBD with a rookie news reporter (12:37PM), asking where he could find use of a phone; and, of course, after pointing out a phone in the lobby to the news reporter, the wrongly accused ventures down the front steps, walks over to his supervisor to now stand outside with him for 5-10 minutes (12:42/47PM +/- 5 minutes),

essentially, nowhere near 10th & Patton...

C'mon Alan, you ​first you claim the bus transfer is "pristine" clearly implying that there was evidence manipulation, but after I showed evidence to the contrary you never acknowledge your error and instead shift the goalposts, why is it Alan, if you honestly believe "The wrongly accused did not shoot anybody. Anybody." then why the continual efforts of shielding yourself from the truth?

Now let's be completely neutral and examine the actual evidence and see where that goes, the genuinely PRISTINE pockets on the front of Oswald's shirt are not torn and in fact show no signs of destruction, wouldn't you expect 5 testosterone infused man beasts to thoroughly destroy that part of the shirt, that is if they actually manhandled Oswald in that precise area?




JohnM

[Martin Weidmann]

C'mon Alan, you ​first you claim the bus transfer is "pristine" clearly implying that there was evidence manipulation, but after I showed evidence to the contrary you never acknowledge your error and instead shift the goalposts, why is it Alan, if you honestly believe "The wrongly accused did not shoot anybody. Anybody." then why the continual efforts of shielding yourself from the truth?

Now let's be completely neutral and examine the actual evidence and see where that goes, the genuinely PRISTINE pockets on the front of Oswald's shirt are not torn or in fact show no signs of destruction, wouldn't you expect 5 testosterone infused man beasts to thoroughly destroy that part of the shirt, that is if they actually manhandled Oswald in that precise area?




JohnM

Now let's be completely neutral and examine the actual evidence

Did you really just say this? I mean, really   

[Bill Chapman]

The wrongly accused did not shoot anybody. Anybody.

That's right: He didn't shoot just anybody: He shot a somebody. And remains a nobody. Who shot himself in the foot as soon as he buggered off from work. And sealed the deal when he was observed shooting the poor dumb cop. And doubled-down, really nailed it, at the movies where he tried to shoot more cops.

The little prick would fry.

[Bill Chapman]

Now let's be completely neutral and examine the actual evidence

Did you really just say this? I mean, really   

Are you saying the shirt pocket + area was torn/beaten up like Ice- Model-T is claiming..

[Alan J. Ford]

You haven't explained, Mr. Mytton, how the higher quality of material (the buttons upon the shirt worn that afternoon by the wrongly accused) were literally torn & ripped off his shirt during that intense physical altercation, while mere paper IF it genuinely was in his shirt pocket during that intense struggle is void of tearing, bending, etc.

We understand why it's much easier to attempt to ignore that glaring impossibility away as oppose to genuinely trying to account for the only way the mere paper is void of tearing, bending, etc. is it was planted hours after that intense struggle without considering the authentic condition mere paper would have been in as result of his manhandling. Major oops!

Now, once again, please take this opportunity to account for why those buttons on the shirt of wrongly accused sustained considerable wear and tear amid that intense struggle in the Texas Theatre, while that mere paper bus-transfer doesn't...

I fully understand, and would venture those reading along, fully understand if you cannot account for that. There's a reason for that. Tell us, Mr. Mytton, Why do you suppose the buttons of the shit worn by the wrongly accused sustained considerable damage, while mere paper didn't?  It' a simple question. Please spare us any notion that that mere paper bus-transfer was from the same family-tree as the so-called magic-bullet.

The plain simple truth doesn't require magic. The plain simple truth doesn't require planted "evidence"...

Any particular reason you avoided this ---->

Mr. BALL - Anyway, you were not able to identify any man in the lineup as the passenger?
Mr. McWATTERS - No, sir.
Mr. BALL - As the passenger who had gotten on?
Mr. McWATTERS - No, sir.

There's a reason for that. The wrongly accused was nowhere near Mr. McWatters' bus, let alone a passenger on it. So much for the horse manure around 10th & Patton. The wrongly accused did Not shoot anybody. Anybody.

[Alan J. Ford]

Now let's be completely neutral and examine the actual evidence

Did you really just say this? I mean, really   

Yes, he went there, Mr. Weidmann...

initially thought my eyes were deceiving me, but upon realising they weren't a sense of respect for Mr. Mytton's choice of words came over me. Hope he lives up to them like the smart, objective researcher he is more than capable of being.