The Bus Stop Farce

[John Iacoletti]

You then challenged Richard by "correcting" him, informing him that Oswald had only one brand of bullets taken from his person while in custody downtown.

Where did I say that Oswald had only one brand of bullets taken from him while in custody.

It’s a fact though. The bullets “found” in Oswald’s pocket hours after he was detained were all Winchesters.

[John Iacoletti]

No amount of word smorgasbord-ery is going to alter the abundantly-obvious truth that Oswald killed Tippit and probably shot Kennedy.

It’s “abundantly obvious” to Bill Chapman of “the other Frazier” fame. How compelling.

[John Iacoletti]

What else but nonsensical things do you expect from Chapman?

LNers everywhere must cringe every time Chapman attempts to argue their side...

[Richard Smith]

So many words.

Something you can't deal with, right? You need small portions to be able to understand.

In a nutshell, you suggest a vast conspiracy to frame Oswald for some unspecified reason

No, that's your nutshell, with the emphasis on the three first letters in the word.

then dispute that the planted evidence links him to the crime.

Planted or not, if you are talking about the rifle, let's say that he did buy it (which although possible is by no means certain) and was photographed with it in April 1963. That doesn't mean that he was the shooter in November 1963.

some unnamed entity for some unknown reason attempted to framed Oswald via his shirt fibers but then you reject the shirt fibers as linking him to the crime. 

It wasn't an "unnamed entity"... It was the Warren Commission and Hoover's boys, who only had one task; to "prove" to the people that Oswald (who was already dead) had been the sole gunman. Remember the Katzenbach memo? Who was it again who said; we need to wrap this thing around Oswald as tight was we can.

John Adams said "facts are stubborn things" and he was right.

Fact: Oswald's arrest shirt was sent to the FBI lab, on Friday night, together with the rifle
Fact: No other shirt was ever sent to the FBI
Fact: On none of the photos taken of Oswald in which he was wearing that shirt, before it went to Washington, damage to a sleeve can be seen
Fact: After Oswald's death, the FBI found some fibers on the rifle which were similar to those of the shirt they had received.
Fact: When detectives took the arrest shirt to Bledsoe's house, in December 1963, it suddenly had a hole in it's sleeve.
Fact: Bledsoe had not said anything about the shirt or the hole in the sleeve in her Affidavit
Fact: Bledsoe told the WC in her testimony that she recognized the shirt because he [Oswald] was wearing it before he was shot. Despite the notes she brough with he, she does not mention anywhere in her testimony that she saw Oswald wear the shirt on the bus....

I'll leave it to you to do the math.... but you won't, because law enforcement officers never ever create evidence against a suspect they "know" is guilty when they lack the evidence to prove it, right?

It is an Alice in Wonderland narrative.

I wouldn't know. You're the expert on Alice in Wonderland...

I'm going to try to dumb this down once more so perhaps even you can understand.  You suggest a risky charade to frame Oswald involving the shirt fibers that requires a random citizen witness to lie and others to facilitate that lie.  But then you dispute that the fibers link Oswald to the crime citing the findings of the very same folks who you claim facilitated this frame up.  Can you understand the logical disconnect in your line of "reasoning"? 

[Bill Chapman]

It’s “abundantly obvious” to Bill Chapman of “the other Frazier” fame. How compelling.

I'm not arguing anyone's side but my own

And again: Are you sure I don't know who Fritz is?

Here, let me catch you up: Since June 2019, there
are a total of 29 separate references related to my
interactions regarding Fritz

. 

[Martin Weidmann]

I'm going to try to dumb this down once more so perhaps even you can understand.  You suggest a risky charade to frame Oswald involving the shirt fibers that requires a random citizen witness to lie and others to facilitate that lie.  But then you dispute that the fibers link Oswald to the crime citing the findings of the very same folks who you claim facilitated this frame up.  Can you understand the logical disconnect in your line of "reasoning"?

You suggest a risky charade to frame Oswald involving the shirt fibers that requires a random citizen witness to lie and others to facilitate that lie.

First of all, there was nothing risky about it, as Oswald was already dead and there wasn't going to be a trial. Secondly, there was no need for a random citizen to lie. Bledsoe's testimony, if you read it careful, never makes the link between the shirt and Oswald wearing it on the bus. It's the power of suggestion at work. Bledsoe did not mention the shirt in her affidavit at all and in her testimony she recognized the shirt from the time they brought it out to her house and classified it as the shirt he was wearing "before he was shot". 

But then you dispute that the fibers link Oswald to the crime citing the findings of the very same folks who you claim facilitated this frame up. 

I have disputed that fibers can be linked to a particular shirt. Stombaugh agrees, as would any other fiber expert.

Can you understand the logical disconnect in your line of "reasoning"?

There is no logical disconnect. I don't cite "the very same folks who facilitated the frame up", but instead cite the opinion of a fiber expert who may not have been part of the frame up at all. You seem to believe, rather foolishly, that everybody who made a statement in this case must have been knowingly part of the cover up, when in fact there is no need for that at all. Stombaugh, for instance, could very well have received the shirt with a hole in the sleeve and the rifle with fibers on it and just conducted an examination.

If there is a logical disconnect, it is on your side. You are the one who, mistakenly, believes or wants to believe that a cover up of this nature would involve massive numbers of people, when in fact it could all be done by a few people at the right place to manipulate the evidence.

[Richard Smith]

You suggest a risky charade to frame Oswald involving the shirt fibers that requires a random citizen witness to lie and others to facilitate that lie.

First of all, there was nothing risky about it, as Oswald was already dead and there wasn't going to be a trial. Secondly, there was no need for a random citizen to lie. Bledsoe's testimony, if you read it careful, never makes the link between the shirt and Oswald wearing it on the bus. It's the power of suggestion at work. Bledsoe did not mention the shirt in her affidavit at all and in her testimony she recognized the shirt from the time they brought it out to her house and classified it as the shirt he was wearing "before he was shot". 

But then you dispute that the fibers link Oswald to the crime citing the findings of the very same folks who you claim facilitated this frame up. 

I have disputed that fibers can be linked to a particular shirt. Stombaugh agrees, as would any other fiber expert.

Can you understand the logical disconnect in your line of "reasoning"?

There is no logical disconnect. I don't cite "the very same folks who facilitated the frame up", but instead cite the opinion of a fiber expert who may not have been part of the frame up at all. You seem to believe, rather foolishly, that everybody who made a statement in this case must have been knowingly part of the cover up, when in fact there is no need for that at all. Stombaugh, for instance, could very well have received the shirt with a hole in the sleeve and the rifle with fibers on it and just conducted an examination.

If there is a logical disconnect, it is on your side. You are the one who, mistakenly, believes or wants to believe that a cover up of this nature would involve massive numbers of people, when in fact it could all be done by a few people at the right place to manipulate the evidence.

In which we learn that there is nothing risky involved in framing someone for the assassination of the President with fake evidence!  And when a witness says that she saw a hole in Oswald's shirt, she is not lying if she didn't see a hole in Oswald's shirt due to the "power of suggestion"!  LOL  And there is no logical disconnect in faking certain evidence for the purpose of linking someone to a crime but then claiming the evidence that was faked doesn't link them to the crime.  And on and on.  Hopeless.