A hole in Bledsoe's story?

[Michael Capasse]

The CT's just want to make out that almost every single fact in this case that contributes to Oswald's guilt, is a product of lies. But what would the WC have to do just in this one instance to manufacture a fake Bus journey to nowhere?

1) Locate the lady who rented out a room in early October to Oswald.
2) Or just make it all up with some generic Old Lady who somehow accounts for a week of Oswald's life and hope that the true whereabouts of Oswald in that week isn't exposed.
3) Have the Dallas Police and/or the FBI collaborate with this old lady, so her Oswald on the Bus story in her second day affidavit is convincing.
4) Have Fritz in on the deal as he tells lies about Oswald saying he was on the Bus.
5) Have Bookout in on the deal as he tells lies about Oswald saying he was on the Bus.
6) Having Hosty in on the deal as he tells lies about Oswald saying he was on the Bus.
7) Find a bus that was in traffic at the same time and have the Bus Driver part of the plan.
8] Get the bus driver to lie about giving out a Bus Transfer to a man who only travelled a few blocks.
9) Get the old lady to say that the man only travelled a few blocks.
10) Have the old lady and the bus driver collaborate on some minor details, like the guy coming to the bus door and saying the President has been shot and the lady carrying her luggage going to to the railway station and who received a Bus Transfer and got off at the same time as Oswald, so as to make the bus journey convincing.
11) Have the bus Driver get a bus transfer and punch it with the appropriate time.
12) Have the Police plant the bus transfer on Oswald
12) Or have another Police officer lie about searching Oswald and recovering the bus transfer.
13) Have the bus driver attend a Line-up and tell him not to identify Oswald, because, well, why not?
14) Take out a shirt to the old lady and convince her to say Oswald was wearing that shirt.
15) Cut out a hole in Oswald's shirt sleave because we need some distinctive feature.
16) Have the FBI agents who took the shirt write in their report that the old lady initially didn't think that the shirt was the same shirt but she eventually came around.
17) Accidentally have the old lady recall this incident in her testimony and then forget to erase this uncomfortable fact from the record.
 
Wow eh? For this one inconsequential bus ride we need to go to a lot of trouble and involve an excessive cast of liars.
Now to be an effective liar you need to be convincing and have a good memory so as to make the entire story plausible, and this story needs to be collaborated consistently across an entire group of vastly different individuals, and let's not forget this single story is just one tiny aspect of many of the witnesses testimony!

The CT's rarely think through their allegations and how their accusations would actually play out in the Real World! It's easy to say that this or that is faked but to actually make a believable narrative, as seen above, requires a massive amount of co-ordination.

JohnM

This is why no one can take you seriously.

[Richard Smith]

The CT's just want to make out that almost every single fact in this case that contributes to Oswald's guilt, is a product of lies. But what would the WC have to do just in this one instance to manufacture a fake Bus journey to nowhere?

1) Locate the lady who rented out a room in early October to Oswald.
2) Or just make it all up with some generic Old Lady who somehow accounts for a week of Oswald's life and hope that the true whereabouts of Oswald in that week isn't exposed.
3) Have the Dallas Police and/or the FBI collaborate with this old lady, so her Oswald on the Bus story in her second day affidavit is convincing.
4) Have Fritz in on the deal as he tells lies about Oswald saying he was on the Bus.
5) Have Bookout in on the deal as he tells lies about Oswald saying he was on the Bus.
6) Having Hosty in on the deal as he tells lies about Oswald saying he was on the Bus.
7) Find a bus that was in traffic at the same time and have the Bus Driver part of the plan.
8] Get the bus driver to lie about giving out a Bus Transfer to a man who only travelled a few blocks.
9) Get the old lady to say that the man only travelled a few blocks.
10) Have the old lady and the bus driver collaborate on some minor details, like the guy coming to the bus door and saying the President has been shot and the lady carrying her luggage going to to the railway station and who received a Bus Transfer and got off at the same time as Oswald, so as to make the bus journey convincing.
11) Have the bus Driver get a bus transfer and punch it with the appropriate time.
12) Have the Police plant the bus transfer on Oswald
12) Or have another Police officer lie about searching Oswald and recovering the bus transfer.
13) Have the bus driver attend a Line-up and tell him not to identify Oswald, because, well, why not?
14) Take out a shirt to the old lady and convince her to say Oswald was wearing that shirt.
15) Cut out a hole in Oswald's shirt sleave because we need some distinctive feature.
16) Have the FBI agents who took the shirt write in their report that the old lady initially didn't think that the shirt was the same shirt but she eventually came around.
17) Accidentally have the old lady recall this incident in her testimony and then forget to erase this uncomfortable fact from the record.
 
Wow eh? For this one inconsequential bus ride we need to go to a lot of trouble and involve an excessive cast of liars.
Now to be an effective liar you need to be convincing and have a good memory so as to make the entire story plausible, and this story needs to be collaborated consistently across an entire group of vastly different individuals, and let's not forget this single story is just one tiny aspect of many of the witnesses testimony!

The CT's rarely think through their allegations and how their accusations would actually play out in the Real World! It's easy to say that this or that is faked but to actually make a believable narrative, as seen above, requires a massive amount of co-ordination.

JohnM

I always love a list that goes to 17.  It's laughable that CTers believe all this was faked for such a limited purpose.  It's even internally inconsistent if the CTers believe the conspirators had the willingness and ability to manipulate the evidence to their desired purpose.  But logic is wasted on the contrarian/CTer "mind."  They would not be CTers to begin with if they understood and could apply logic to this case.

[Martin Weidmann]

The CT's just want to make out that almost every single fact in this case that contributes to Oswald's guilt, is a product of lies. But what would the WC have to do just in this one instance to manufacture a fake Bus journey to nowhere?

1) Locate the lady who rented out a room in early October to Oswald.
2) Or just make it all up with some generic Old Lady who somehow accounts for a week of Oswald's life and hope that the true whereabouts of Oswald in that week isn't exposed.
3) Have the Dallas Police and/or the FBI collaborate with this old lady, so her Oswald on the Bus story in her second day affidavit is convincing.
4) Have Fritz in on the deal as he tells lies about Oswald saying he was on the Bus.
5) Have Bookout in on the deal as he tells lies about Oswald saying he was on the Bus.
6) Having Hosty in on the deal as he tells lies about Oswald saying he was on the Bus.
7) Find a bus that was in traffic at the same time and have the Bus Driver part of the plan.
8] Get the bus driver to lie about giving out a Bus Transfer to a man who only travelled a few blocks.
9) Get the old lady to say that the man only travelled a few blocks.
10) Have the old lady and the bus driver collaborate on some minor details, like the guy coming to the bus door and saying the President has been shot and the lady carrying her luggage going to to the railway station and who received a Bus Transfer and got off at the same time as Oswald, so as to make the bus journey convincing.
11) Have the bus Driver get a bus transfer and punch it with the appropriate time.
12) Have the Police plant the bus transfer on Oswald
12) Or have another Police officer lie about searching Oswald and recovering the bus transfer.
13) Have the bus driver attend a Line-up and tell him not to identify Oswald, because, well, why not?
14) Take out a shirt to the old lady and convince her to say Oswald was wearing that shirt.
15) Cut out a hole in Oswald's shirt sleave because we need some distinctive feature.
16) Have the FBI agents who took the shirt write in their report that the old lady initially didn't think that the shirt was the same shirt but she eventually came around.
17) Accidentally have the old lady recall this incident in her testimony and then forget to erase this uncomfortable fact from the record.
 
Wow eh? For this one inconsequential bus ride we need to go to a lot of trouble and involve an excessive cast of liars.
Now to be an effective liar you need to be convincing and have a good memory so as to make the entire story plausible, and this story needs to be collaborated consistently across an entire group of vastly different individuals, and let's not forget this single story is just one tiny aspect of many of the witnesses testimony!

The CT's rarely think through their allegations and how their accusations would actually play out in the Real World! It's easy to say that this or that is faked but to actually make a believable narrative, as seen above, requires a massive amount of co-ordination.

JohnM

how their accusations would actually play out in the Real World!

You are confusing your own little fairytale land with the real world!

Your "reasoning" is so superficial that it would be pointless to try and educate you, so I'll just leave you with your silly strawman narrative.

But let me try to make this as simple as I can make it. If you don't make up that ridiculous story and stay as close to the truth as possible all your 17 points are gone.... Can you figure out why?

[Sean Kneringer]

Does anyone think his guilt hinges on a fleeting glance at his elbow?

[Martin Weidmann]

This is why no one can take you seriously.

Indeed 

[Charles Collins]

"..already questioned by the FBI..."

You left out: “conduct its own investigation, and take the testimony of witnesses in Washington.”

Regarding the witnesses already questioned, there are some important distinctions that I think a lot of people are fully aware of.

From “History Will Prove Us Right” by Howard Willens, Page 70:

The process of taking testimony under oath necessarily meant that we went back over ground that had been covered through interviews by the FBI or another federal agency. But these [FBI] agents were not authorized to take testimony under oath recorded by an independent court reporter. The important difference is that only sworn testimony is subject to a perjury charge if the witness lied. We planned to take sworn testimony in two ways: at hearings attended by the members and governed by its procedures and the powers granted by Congress; and in depositions by our lawyers under generally applicable court rules. In both instances, the testimony would be recorded verbatim by an authorized court reporter.


Plus the Warren Commission’s independent investigation provided additional clarifications from the witnesses due to the additional questions asked by the WC. All of this is more evidence that the Warren Commission did not rubber stamp the FBI’s reports but conducted its own investigation.

[Zeon Mason]

Wonder why they did not ask Bledsoe if Oswald was wearing a jacket?
McWatters  says the guy he saw was wearing a jacket.
McWatters did not say anything about the jacket sleeves being  pushed up high enough to expose a shirt sleeve with hole in it.
Question is whether Bledsoe could have had such disdain for Oswald as to lie outright
about recognizing him?
IDK. Maybe she saw a guy who looked similar , and latter, after seeing the news, she decided in error that she that the guy was Oswald.

This is why it is difficult to decide what the truth is when Bledsoe and McWatters ( almost) are placing Oswald on a bus about 12:40-42, while 2 other witness, Burroughs and Davis have Oswald in the theatre at 1:15 and 1:20.

Bill Browns thread on Burroughs shows some doubt about Burroughs 1:07 and 1:15 time and the Gary  Mack interview with Jack Davis demonstrates that Davis himself isn’t certain the time was 1:20.  McWatters is not certain the man was Oswald , and Bledsoe saw  a hole in a shirt that Oswald was not yet wearing yet and and she did not confirm  Oswald was wearing a jacket as McWatters saw.

Therefore it comes down to basically the transfer ticket being the only piece of evidence to place Oswald on the bus.

Was the ticket planted after Oswald’s arrest?

It seems a unnecessary thing to do since they can use Whaleys taxi variable range manifest to say that Oswald went straight to the taxi at 12:40 which would have made it very easy to reconcile Markam and Bowley times of 1;07 and 1:10, and not have be playing around with editing documents and suggesting the hospital clock was 10 minutes slow or introducing a document that changes the DOA from 1:15 to1:25.

And if the reason was to plant a ticket post arrest of Oswald to make impossible that Burroughs and Davis saw Oswald from1:15 and 1:20,  would it not have been easier just to examine Burroughs and Davis and establish that they were uncertain  just as Gary Mack found Davis was? Why mess up an easier timeline establishing Oswald directly going to Whaleys Taxi, boarding at 12:40 which also reinforces the theory that Oswald was in a hurry to return to his boarding house?

Given all the other sloppy communication and handling of evidence, it could be that because of the Hoover directive to make sure no conspiracy there was an overzealous idea  to plant a ticket to place Oswald on the bus to reinforce Bledsoes affidavit, and to negate the conflict with Burroughs and Davis which if believed by the public would make it impossible that Oswald was the Tippit shooter.

Placing Oswald on the bus in the range of 12:40-12:43 although making it a little  more difficult to reconcile with Markam and Bowleys 1:07/1:10 times, none less allow Oswald to have some probability of having shot Tippit by 1:15 while it making it impossible for Oswald to be seen by Burroughs and Davis from 1:15 -1:20.

So if I’m correct that the ticket was an error of overzealous “embellishment” then Oswald was never on the bus and he could have made it to 10th/Patton easily by 1:07 and since Burroughs is in doubt from his WC testimony and Davis appears uncertain in the Mack interview, then it is possible that the time was 1:35-1:40 when Davis saw Oswald, not 1:20.

Which means  that it is not so improbable that Oswald was the man seen by witness Markam shooting Tippit about 1:08 and fleeing the scene by 1:09, and Oswald arrived to Brewers store at 1:30 , wearing only the brown shirt.

But feel free to tear this  constructed alternative to shreds as I’m not a dedicated LN nor a CT but just an ordinary person still confused by all the contradictions. 😳