Thoughts on a bus trip

[David Josephs]

I have a question for Alan: Why is putting Oswald on a bus for a couple of minutes, when he doesn't go anywhere, a prerequisite to proving that Oswald shot Tippet? Conversely, how does proving Oswald didn't get on the bus make him innocent of Tippet's murder?

And here we are at the crux of the matter.

A very good question Drew.... as you mentioned, Craig sees "Oswald" leave by getting into a Rambler with what appears to be Cubans as do a few other witnesses.

Still other witnesses state they see Ruby handing Oswald a pistol outside the TSBD.

If Oswald is said to have left, walked away from the building down Elm to only get on and off a bus we can effectively discount any other sightings of Oswald leaving and more specifically remove from consideration that Oswald had help and was therefore not a Lone anything.

From the time the murder occurs until the finding of this "evidence" Oswald goes from someone involved in a conspiracy to someone not.
He could not have rec'd any help via car rides or any other nefarious connections - which is why it is stated that there was no relationship between Ruby and Oswald or Bannister and Oswald even though we both know there was a very specific relationship going on there.

What irks me most here my friend is your tautological question: "how does proving Oswald didn't get on the bus make him innocent of Tippet's murder?"

One thing has nothing to do with the other except in your question which presupposes the answer within the asking.

Oswald is innocent of the Tippit murder for a whole slew of proveably authentic reasons, none of which having to do with this created bus ride.

The Maraslis bus, McWatters', was delayed in Dealey for some time. Milton Jones says about an hour so it is not possible that Oswald rode that bus to his destination - yet the interrogation reports say he said he took a bus home, he took a bus to the theater - that is until Fritz reminds him about a cab - and the info changes.

The BECKLEY bus, which also travels along Elm and out past the Underpass, stops just outside 1026 Beckley. Whether he was on that bus and it got out of DP before the police shut it down is unknown.
It is simply suggested by the evidence offered.

Drew...

Let's agree on something please... If three black men with bats ran up and killed JFK as the limo stopped on Elm, the EVIDENCE would still show on the surface that Oswald did it. I'm being slightly obtuse but you get my point.

Oswald did not kill JFK or Tippit yet the Evidence we are offered does its best to show he did. When this evidence's surface is scratched in even the most simple way, the evidence is shown for what it is... worthless regarding the event and worth its weight in gold in proving Oswald's guilt... despite it not being true.

On the weekend that Oswald is impersonated in Mexico, he is also at the Sports Drome in Dallas leaving incriminating evidence so witnesses remember a scoped Italilan rifle and a man calling himself Oswald...
This was Sept 28th.

I've been at this too long and have dug into too many different subjects not to see the pattern.... or to ignore some of the most blatant disregards for honesty and justice ever seen.

Believe me Drew, if there was any authentic "Oswald did it" evidence I'd have found it by now.



That we don't understand the reasons why or the consequences of these activities does not change the rule of law or whether an item of evidence is authentic
and it seems you are wrapped up in everything being directly related.... the Autopsy report was changed no less than 3 times and STILL not changed as of January 27, 1964 when at Exec Session Rankin refers to apassage which simply does not exist within the extant report.

You really believe it was beyond this apparatus to fabricate evidence and backstory so that every single action and utterance from Oswald led to his popular opinion guilt?

Why did they fabricate the bus trip? To 1) cover for some other means of Oswald getting home and 2) to help discredit any witnesses like Craig who claim he was involved with others.
That's what I see in the mountains of evidence in this case...

The US intelligence services had been performing assassinations for years... what you;ll find is once they find somethingf that works, they stay with it.

Doubles and Triples, confusion and back story, inside help and evidence manipulation.... Swearingen's book on the FBI, Vince on the SS and Larry's NEXUS are important reads to understand the reality versus the perception.

Whether this memo is to correct the FBI/SS info so it convicts Oswald rather than shows a conspiracy, or proves that Oswald could not have done this when they were tryin to prove he did is unknown...
What is know, or at least apparent to me, is that this following sentence, 5 months after Katzenbach's memo betrays the cover-up.

Our intention is not to establish the point with complete accuracy, but merely to substantiate the hypothesis which underlies the conclusions that Oswald was the sole assassin.

April 27, 1964

MEMORANDUM

TO: J. Lee Rankin

FROM: Norman Redlich


The purpose of this memorandum is to explain the reasons why
certain members of the staff feel that it is important to take certain
on-site photographs in connection with the location of the approximate
points at which the three bullets struck the occupants of the
Presidentiallimousine.

Our report presumably will state that the President was hit by
the first bullet, Governor Connally by the second, and the President
by the third and fatal bullet. The report will also conclude that the
bullets were fired by one person located in the sixth floor southeast
corner window of the TSBD building.

As our investigation now stands,however, we have not shown
that these events could possibly have occurred in the manner suggested
above. All we have is a reasonable hypothesis whichappears to be
supportedby the medical testimony but which has not been checked out
againstthe physical facts at the scene of the assassination.

Our examination of the Zapruder filmsshows that the fatal
third shot struck the President at a point which we can locate with
reasonableaccuracy on the ground. We can do this because we know the
exact frame (no. 313) in the film at which the third shot hit the
President and we know the location of the photographer. By lining up
fixed objects in the movie frame where this shot occurs we feel that
we have determined the approximate location of this shot. This can be
verified by a photo of the same spot from the point where Zapruder was
standing.

We have the testimony of Governor and Mrs. Connally that the
Governor was hit with the second bullet at a point which we probably
cannot fix with precision. We feel we have established, however, with
the help of medical testimony, that the shot which hit the Governor
did not come after frame 240 on the Zapruder film. The governor feels
that it came around 230, which is certainly consistent with our
observations of the film and with the doctor's testimony. Since the
President was shot at frame 313, this would leave a time of at least 4
seconds between the two shots, certainly ample for even an
inexperienced marksman.

Prior to our last viewing of the films with Governor Connally
wehad assumed that the President was hit while he was concealed
behind the sign which occurs between frames 215-225. We have expert
testimony to the effect that a skilled marksman would require a
minimum 2 seconds between shots with this rifle. Since the camera
operates at 18 1/3 frames per second, there would have to be a minimum
of 40 frames between shots. It is apparent,therefore, that if
Governor Connally was even as late as frame 240, the President would
have to have been hit no later than frame 190 and probably even
earlier.

We have not yet examined the assassination scene to determine
whether theassassin in fact could have shot the President prior to
frame 190. We could locate the position on the groundwhich
corresponds to this frame and it would then be our intent to establish
by photography that the assassin would have fired the first shot at the
President prior to this point. Our intention is not to establishthe
point with completeaccuracy, but merely to substantiate the
hypothesis which underlies the conclusionsthatOswald was the sole
assassin.

I had always assumed that our finalreport would be
accompanied by a surveyor's diagram which would indicate the
approximate location of the three shots. We certainly cannot prepare
such a diagram without establishing that we are describing an
occurrence which is physically possible. Our failure to do this will,
in my opinion, place this Report in jeopardy since it is a certainty
that others will examine the Zapruder films and raise the same
questions which have been raised by our examination of the films. If
we do not attempt to answer these observable facts, others may answer
them with facts which challenge our most basic assumptions, or with
fanciful theories based on our unwillingness to test our assumptions
by the investigatory methods available to us.

I should add that the facts which we now have in our
possession,submitted to us in separate reports from the FBI and
Secret Service, are totally incorrect and, if left uncorrected, will
present acompletely misleading picture.

It may well be that this project should be undertaken by the
FBI and Secret Servicewith our assistance instead of being done as a
staff project. The important thing is that the project beundertaken
expeditiously.

[Drew Phipps]

I have neither the time or the patience to teach a class on evidence. In the interests of furthering this discussion, I will briefly discuss.

I can tell you that you are confusing the definition of the word "evidence," with the pre-requisites of its "admissibility" in a proceeding in a court of law. In every case, there is "evidence" which is "admissible" under the applicable rules, and "evidence" which is not.

"Relevant evidence" is something that tends to prove or disprove a fact in issue in a case, i.e., that Oswald was in the downtown Dallas area on 11/22/63. "Material" means the thing to be proven by your evidence is somehow important to the case, as opposed to, say, the price of tea in China on 11/22/63. "Competent" (as you have used the term here) means it's been "authenticated', which under both Federal and Texas law, means simply that someone said, "this thing that you handed me in court is what it seems." The standard then (as I understand it) was whether or not a judge could conclude that a jury might believe that the item was, what its proponent claimed it to be. (Nowadays the standards are even easier, you just need a sponsoring witness.)

Since there wasn't actually a trial, I'm presuming all the tangible evidence seized by Dallas PD, and/or the FBI and/or the SS, had there been a trial, would have been duly "authenticated" by officers/agents of these organizations who wrote either reports, or sworn statements, concerning the recovery of the tangible evidence. (By this last sentence I do not mean to imply that all such testimony would have necessarily been truthful, nor does it mean that the tiny "authentication" hurdle offered by the rules of evidence (then or now) means that the trier of fact will believe that the item in question has, or has not been forged, or otherwise procured by deceit.)

"Chain of custody" for tangible evidence means that law enforcement has made a record of who, when, and how an object was handled from the time it passed into police custody till the time it wound up in court. It has nothing to do with the origins of the item, or whether it is what the government says it is. As I have said repeatedly, much of the evidence, including the bus ticket, gathered in this case, would have been rendered "inadmissible" by the secret transfer en masse to the FBI lab, then back to Dallas, unless the government 'fessed up to the transfer, and then offered a revised chain of custody (of some of the tangible evidence) which included the "Weekend at Hoover's". (BTW, that's an 80's movie reference.)

Arguing that a tangible item is not "admissible evidence" is using the rules requiring relevance, materiality, authentication, and an armful of other issues, but doesn't destroy the characterization of a tangible item as "evidence". When you say "authenticated evidence", none of it has been authenticated in a court of law, so you are left with a choice of a) disregarding everything you've read and seen about the JFK assassination on the basis of this particular technicality, and having nothing left to talk about, or b) you can accept that every tangible item seized by law enforcement would have, in 1963, found a sponsoring witness to hop the tiny hurdle of "authentication" and then move on to the much more interesting substantive questions of stuff like, "Is this for real?"

[Alan Ford]

I have a question for Alan: Why is putting Oswald on a bus for a couple of minutes, when he doesn't go anywhere, a prerequisite to proving that Oswald shot Tippet? Conversely, how does proving Oswald didn't get on the bus make him innocent of Tippet's murder?

Putting him on a bus helps the contrived evidence a couple of ways:

A: It associates him in a negative light as he hastily attempts to flee the scene of the crime by any means necessary (as if he has done anything)

B: Once they realized their timeline wouldn't fit in their contrived events at 10th and Patton due to a stalled bus downtown amid a chaotic scene creating gridlock conditions, they quickly tossed the phantom bus ride aside in its full entirety, quickly added a cab to enhance their timeline, which turned out as bogus as their initial phantom ride on the bus. Two coats, two cab scenarios, etc. Is there ever any evidence against the wrongfully accused that doesn't need modification here, there and everywhere?

On to your next question, "Conversely, how does proving Oswald didn't get on the bus make him innocent of Tippet's murder?"

Because if they lied about that, what else are they capable of lying about?

But let's pretend he did get over to that vicinity of town by other means, even if by a magical bullet, a magical bus transfer, Mr. Scott, etc., and pose these questions:

*What happened to the Blue coat (their lie, so they need to explain its absence when Mrs. Roberts saw him)?

*He's not capable of being in two places at once, so while he is already in the Texas Theatre seeking out a contact, who are the two gunman at the same time ambushing Officer Tippitt?

*Why weren't the observations of Mr. Frank Wright allowed into the public record? (We know why, because it doesn't enhance their idea of truth)

*Why was the wrongfully accused absent of blood splatter on his face, hands, hair, clothing, etc., given their fairytale about unloading four rounds into someone else at close range, one discharge in particular given Dr. Earl Rose's autopsy report?

It's these kind of questions that they cannot answer, because it doesn't fit their hastily contrived script. It's that simple really.

[Drew Phipps]

I guess my question to Alan really means, as I think you understand, the question of whether or not Oswald shot Tippet has nothing whatsoever to do with whether he rode a bus, got a ride with Ruby, or flew on Aladdin's carpet to reach the scene of the Tippet shooting. Or whether or not he killed JFK.

In order for the "lone bus ride" story to be fabricated, out of conspiratorial necessity, to preserve the lone nut theory, you have to have a alternative story to discredit. Oswald was arrested at 1:50. He had the transfer ticket in his pocket at that time (according to Summers, Eddows, Benson, ...) Roger Craig's version of events couldn't have become known to a "cover up team" until after Craig confronts Oswald in the post-arrest interrogation room (if you believe that happened, Fritz called Craig a liar on this point). If you don't believe that Craig confronted Oswald, you have an even later time to deal with, the time Craig wrote his statement and somebody read it.

Are you suggesting that a cover-up team knew that that planting a bus ticket on Oswald would be necessary prior to learning about Craig's story? (I know that there is a second wallet, complete with Oswald/Hidell ID, but that is a different level of prescience entirely.) Or that they somehow knew Oswald was going to claim he rode the bus, and wanted to back him up?

See, to my mind, the lone nut theory doesn't arise until LBJ and Hoover order it. Several days later. Far too late to plant a bus ticket in Oswald's pocket at his arrest.

[David Josephs]

I appreciate you taking the time to respond Drew...

Suffice to say I don't need a lesson in what the process of AUTHENTICATION requires for Evidence or that the items we have never went thru the process in a court of law.

Yes, everything in the possession of the law entities involved may be considered EVIDENCE. Admissability and Authentication are two completely different things...
In most cases the court does little to substantiate the AUTHENTICATION process but takes the word of those presenting the evidence...

That still does not prove the evidence itself is authentic, only that it was admissible. And once again Drew, please stop incorrectly paraphrasing my words.
The word "Admissible" is contained within a discussion/definition of REAL Evidence. If REAL EVIDENCE is neither relevent, material or competent is is NOT admissible...

Authenticating the evidence is where the DPD/FBI/CIA/SS evidence all falls to pieces. A quality Defense Attorney would focus on this authentication to show how 1) the object is NOT unique
2) how it was not made unique by some process and 3) by illuminating the COC.... If these hold up, the evidence is good.

Drew - if a cop puts forth a report which is accepted as evidence of what occurred AND admissible, it still may not be Authentic if a video is shown which contradicts all the evidentiary points in the report. Agree?
The problem we have in most circumstances is the court accepts the evidence as Real without going thru the authentication process - it is simply accepted as such with corroborating evidence provided by the same people offering the inital evidence... (FBI says one thing with authenticating documents when the exact opposite is true. WCD298 says one thing. CE875, CE884 all say something which was accepted as true, when it wasn't. Evidence? yes Admissible? yes
Authentic? Not by a long shot, but unknown at the time)


I am not talking about admissibility as badly as you would like me to be. If you can please stick to the topic - the process of AUTHENTICATION - it would be greatly appreciated.

Since there wasn't actually a trial, I'm presuming all the tangible evidence seized by Dallas PD, and/or the FBI and/or the SS, had there been a trial, would have been duly "authenticated" by officers/agents of these organizations who wrote either reports, or sworn statements, concerning the recovery of the tangible evidence. (By this last sentence I do not mean to imply that all such testimony would have necessarily been truthful, nor does it mean that the tiny "authentication" hurdle offered by the rules of evidence (then or now) means that the trier of fact will believe that the item in question has, or has not been forged, or otherwise procured by deceit.)

I freely admit we are not talking "court of law" here yet it seems to me we MUST proceed with examining and accepting the evidence as if it was a court of law... as that would be the standard to be met.
How many "sworn statements" are shown to be inauthentic after the fact...

How about the WCR transcripts themselves? Authentic? Uh, not so much Drew. Dulles here changes the FBI expert's testimony in the drafts completely changing the meaning of the testimony and evidence involved... The FBI had ALL the evidence in DC that night with more coming back than was taken... The Chain of Custody for every item in evidence cannot be established as the FBI attempted to hide the fact they took all the items and returned more.

So once again Cadigan's testimony is both Evidence and Admissible... it just isn't Authentic.



You referring to authenticating the evidence as some "tiny hurdle" shows me you are somehow mixing your terms.

Real evidence is a thing the existence or characteristics of which are relevant and material. It is usually a thing that was directly involved in some event in the case

To be admissible, real evidence, like all evidence, must be relevant, material, and competent.

Real evidence may be authenticated in three ways1) by identification of a unique object, 2) by identification of an object that has been made unique, and 3) by establishing a chain of custody.

If you so choose to accept the FBI's word that Oswald bought the rifle then the Klein's Order Form is admissible evidence...

But I can prove it inauthentic by using the Corroborating evidence which shows that the Item # refers to a different rifle and the Chain of possession of the Microfilm on which this order was archived and from which the order is printed is in conflict with other evidence this piece of "admissible evidence" is rendered useless and would be removed from consideration when reaching a verdict.


The FBI/DPD/SS established Authenticated Real Evidence by fraudulently meeting 1, 2 and/or 3 of the above criteria. But until someone called them on their Authentication, the evidence stands.

That is what my project and my work after all these years is focused upon.

I know Oswald did not kill JFK or Tippit based on the evidence and learning how it was constructed. I do not try and prove what happened since the evidence for that is not available.
I simply focus on the evidence provided which is designed to corroborate and authenticate the evidence as Real and Admissible.

If I can show it to not meet any of those three criteria, that evidence is no longer Real or Admissible.

In back to back pages - WCD87 p187, 188, 189 are 2 reports about the exact same thing - the Kleins microfilm. In one, three FBI SA's tell us that Waldman keeps the microfilm. In the Next, SA DOLAN alone tells us that he and he alone takes the Microfilm and provides Waldman a receipt and subsequently provides Waldman a copy of his own microfilm back - 2 weeks later.

The Chain of custody for this microfilm is broken and in conflict BASED ON THE EVIDENCE.
The microfilm is missing from its box at the Archives...
We've never seen another Order Blank for a single one of the other 99 rifles in that shipment... The paperwork which attempts to prove Kleins even got that rifle in Feb 1963 is a mess and also renders the item of evidence inauthentic...



Drew - we don't have to pursue this any longer. When and if you can present evidence in support of ANY evidence in this case which incriminates Oswald, you would.

I know you want Bledsoe to be telling the truth - yet how again does she see his torn shirt at the elbow under the jacket?
I know you want the transfer to be authentic...

If that be the case and you can authenticate the transfer... do so. So far all you do is take issue with how I approach the work I am doing which illustrates how each and every item of evidence gathered to prove Oswald did these deeds is a fraud regardless of its importance or significance in the grand scheme of things.

Nothing is left to chance Drew... you can't provide Authentic evidence of a crime someone did not commit - by definition.
And we cannot use evidence which cannot be authenticated to come to any conclusion regarding the assassination other than it was a Conspiracy and the evidence is worthless.


so I'll ask for one last time of you or anyone else... Post an item of evidence which you feel Authentically incriminates Oswald of either crime... and I'll show you how it isn't.

Thanks for the conversation Drew... you obviously know your stuff - just not, it seems, what I am attempting to accomplish with my essays on the Evidence.

DJ

[Drew Phipps]

I am trying to respond to your original request for "authenticated evidence." You obviously don't mean "authenticated" by the Rules of Evidence, if you don't agree that the bus transfer is "authenticated." The affidavit you posted contains McWatter's "authentication" of the bus ticket. Legally, that's "authentication" enough for admissibility.


I guess what you mean is "authentic." Nobody could prove, to a critical enough thinker, that any 50 year old evidence is "authentic." Not even the dug up bones of Oswald in his grave these long years could be proved to be "authentic," nor any Renaissance artwork, nor even video footage of any historical event (i.e. Sandy Hook or 9/11), could be proven, at this stage of computer assisted skullduggery, to be "authentic." There just comes a point where you have to say "I believe it" or "I don't". See my quote below about "facts."

If there is some other standard of authentication you will accept, post it, and I'll hunt up some evidence that matches your standard.

[Alan Ford]

Just making your case even stronger I see, Mr. Joseph.

Officialdom would have the public believe the wrongfully accused not only tossed one coat away that day...but now two?!

They said he discarded a tan/white one near 10th and Patton (right!).

Mrs. Roberts saw him void of a Blue coat, soooo, Where on earth did the Blue coat disappear to? It didn't disappear. The wrongfully accused simply never wore a Blue coat. It's rightful owner, someone much taller and heavier than the wrongfully accused--given Mr. McWatter's testimony, simply wore it.

This person--Blue coat man-- could have been an unwitting participate in a much more elaborate scheme, simply charged with boarding the bus in question, securing a bus transfer and then returning it to a party(ies) unknown, without even realizing the full significance of his adventure (we use to do a lot of this many moons ago, sending parties out to perform a specific segment of an assignment, compartmentalized in essence from the larger picture. For instance, on the surface, we'll say something like the City doesn't trust Employee A down in the Treasurer's Office, so take this amount in cash down to his/her office to pay off this or that. The larger picture, unbeknownst to the assignee, is the bills are marked for later identification by the Treasurer's immediate supervisor, who produced the bills in the first place. It's not frivolous to imagine someone could have been fed the same albeit bogus claim about McWatters, without even knowing the full implications of his activities that day).

Of course, Blue coat man could also have been an active participate in the framing of the wrongfully accused, with a limited/minor role, yet significant enough to help build a bogus case against him.

Mr. McWatter's sworn testimony--as shared by Mr. Joseph--demonstrates someone in a blue coat, much taller and heavier than the wrongfully accused was on his bus, who sought and secured a bus transfer that afternoon.

Thanks to my friend John Armstrong we may speculate that the Blue coated man was LEE at 5'10" 150-165 and impersonating Harvey to add confusion. and Yes, Lee would need to be wearing a LEE bracelet and Marine ring which is not too far a stretch given his name is Lee and he was in the marines.

Does that medium sized light colored zippered jacket look familiar? (I happen to agree with John. There is a proponderance of evidence which illustrates the existence of 2 different people known as Lee Harvey Oswald and that LEE, the taller natural born Southerner was recruited and used within the CIA's fight against Cuba)







Mr. BALL. I have here an exhibit, Commission Exhibit 162, a jacket. Did you ever see this before?
Mrs. MARKHAM. No; I did not.
Mr. BALL. Does it look like, anything like, the jacket the man had on?
Mrs. MARKHAM. It is short, open down the front. But that jacket it is a darker jacket than that, I know it was.
Mr. BALL. You don't think it was as light a jacket as that?
Mrs. MARKHAM. No, it was darker than that, I know it was. At that moment I was so excited


Mr. BALL. I show you Commission Exhibit 162, do you recognize that?
Mr. WESTBROOK. That is exactly the jacket we found.

An interesting possibility, Mr. Joseph, given the use of decoy tactics employed throughout each phase of "evidence" (fire from the Dal-Tex and from behind the picket-fence, but stage the public account/version; add two temple wounds, one in the Plaza, and the other at 10th & Patton, but only share one autopsy for public consumption; add two coffins, a bronze one and a grey one, and, of course, toss in an Oswald who drives fast enough to make Mario Andretti blush, while one Oswald is still learning how to drive under the tutelage of Mrs. Paine (Ruth)...

Your valid points are well taken. It's too bad not one member of the US Congress has even a quarter of your resolve and courage. I dare any of them to prove me wrong, and actually present a House Bill or Senate Bill this year to reopen the case...Courage like that doesn't grow on trees.

Mr. McWatters' testimony alone refutes the lie that the wrongfully accused took a phantom bus ride, and all the pristine bus transfer does is insult the intelligene of the nation and world community at large. Bunch of lying treasonous cowards.

[Alan Ford]

I guess my question to Alan really means, as I think you understand, the question of whether or not Oswald shot Tippet has nothing whatsoever to do with whether he rode a bus, got a ride with Ruby, or flew on Aladdin's carpet to reach the scene of the Tippet shooting. Or whether or not he killed JFK.

In order for the "lone bus ride" story to be fabricated, out of conspiratorial necessity, to preserve the lone nut theory, you have to have a alternative story to discredit. Oswald was arrested at 1:50. He had the transfer ticket in his pocket at that time (according to Summers, Eddows, Benson, ...) Roger Craig's version of events couldn't have become known to a "cover up team" until after Craig confronts Oswald in the post-arrest interrogation room (if you believe that happened, Fritz called Craig a liar on this point). If you don't believe that Craig confronted Oswald, you have an even later time to deal with, the time Craig wrote his statement and somebody read it.

Are you suggesting that a cover-up team knew that that planting a bus ticket on Oswald would be necessary prior to learning about Craig's story? (I know that there is a second wallet, complete with Oswald/Hidell ID, but that is a different level of prescience entirely.) Or that they somehow knew Oswald was going to claim he rode the bus, and wanted to back him up?

See, to my mind, the lone nut theory doesn't arise until LBJ and Hoover order it. Several days later. Far too late to plant a bus ticket in Oswald's pocket at his arrest.

I understand your reluctance to believe the crafty plotters sat around weeks before to engineer their sinister ploy, Mr. Phipps, but just because you believe that doesn't make it so.

*Plan A

Plotter A: It's essential that we create a scenario that our patsy gets away long enough to also be implicated in the demise of the slain officer across town too.

Plotter Z: No problem, we already have an escape route in place with means to implicate him along the way.

Uh, Oh moment: The initial plan of simply taking a bus becomes in jeopardy, because no bus was able to cover the distance to fit their timeline to encounter the slain officer, soooo, like any other creative script...Cut!, take 2

*Plan B

Plotter A: Our timeline via bus is in jeopardy.

Plotter Z: No problem, he merely gets on the bus (we'll confirm this with a bus transfer we'll plant, err find on him later under the guise of searching him again, but we'll now invent a phantom cab ride, take your pick of which driver is credit worthy, yada, yada, yada...but at least our timeline of events remains possible.

Uh, Oh moment: we better retract the story about him changing shirts, because if he really did how did the bus transfer magically pull a Mr. Scott to the shirt he changed into...

*Plan C

Plotter A: we'll simply say he put it in the shirt he changed into

Plotter Z: That's why you make the big bucks.

Uh, Oh moment: an intense struggle ensues in the Texas Theatre, the wrongfully accused has his shirt pulled this way and that way, torn here, there and everywhere amid ripped away buttons, but somehow looky here a pristine bus transfer (where have we heard that word pristine before?)...

*Plan D

Plotter A: never worry about that, the herd, err public will never doubt what our boys in the media tell them to believe.

Plotter Z: so, even amid all of that thrashing about in the Texas Theatre they will believe us?

Plotter A: Lighten up, it's only a bus transfer, no one, and I mean no one will give its condition a 2nd thought.

Uh, Oh Moment: People are much smarter than the plotters have given them credit to be.

Now, getting back to the removal of the bus transfer when the wrongfully accused was searched again hours later after being in custody, How on earth could Detective Sims have reached into his pocket and removed a bus transfer void of even a wrinkle...

[Bob Prudhomme]

I guess my question to Alan really means, as I think you understand, the question of whether or not Oswald shot Tippet has nothing whatsoever to do with whether he rode a bus, got a ride with Ruby, or flew on Aladdin's carpet to reach the scene of the Tippet shooting. Or whether or not he killed JFK.

In order for the "lone bus ride" story to be fabricated, out of conspiratorial necessity, to preserve the lone nut theory, you have to have a alternative story to discredit. Oswald was arrested at 1:50. He had the transfer ticket in his pocket at that time (according to Summers, Eddows, Benson, ...) Roger Craig's version of events couldn't have become known to a "cover up team" until after Craig confronts Oswald in the post-arrest interrogation room (if you believe that happened, Fritz called Craig a liar on this point). If you don't believe that Craig confronted Oswald, you have an even later time to deal with, the time Craig wrote his statement and somebody read it.

Are you suggesting that a cover-up team knew that that planting a bus ticket on Oswald would be necessary prior to learning about Craig's story? (I know that there is a second wallet, complete with Oswald/Hidell ID, but that is a different level of prescience entirely.) Or that they somehow knew Oswald was going to claim he rode the bus, and wanted to back him up?

See, to my mind, the lone nut theory doesn't arise until LBJ and Hoover order it. Several days later. Far too late to plant a bus ticket in Oswald's pocket at his arrest.

I understand your reluctance to believe the crafty plotters sat around weeks before to engineer their sinister ploy, Mr. Phipps, but just because you believe that doesn't make it so.

*Plan A

Plotter A: It's essential that we create a scenario that our patsy gets away long enough to also be implicated in the demise of the slain officer across town too.

Plotter Z: No problem, we already have an escape route in place with means to implicate him along the way.

Uh, Oh moment: The initial plan of simply taking a bus becomes in jeopardy, because no bus was able to cover the distance to fit their timeline to encounter the slain officer, soooo, like any other creative script...Cut!, take 2

*Plan B

Plotter A: Our timeline via bus is in jeopardy.

Plotter Z: No problem, he merely gets on the bus (we'll confirm this with a bus transfer we'll plant, err find on him later under the guise of searching him again, but we'll now invent a phantom cab ride, take your pick of which driver is credit worthy, yada, yada, yada...but at least our timeline of events remains possible.

Uh, Oh moment: we better retract the story about him changing shirts, because if he really did how did the bus transfer magically pull a Mr. Scott to the shirt he changed into...

*Plan C

Plotter A: we'll simply say he put it in the shirt he changed into

Plotter Z: That's why you make the big bucks.

Uh, Oh moment: an intense struggle ensues in the Texas Theatre, the wrongfully accused has his shirt pulled this way and that way, torn here, there and everywhere amid ripped away buttons, but somehow looky here a pristine bus transfer (where have we heard that word pristine before?)...

*Plan D

Plotter A: never worry about that, the people will believe what our boys in the media tell them to believe.

Plotter Z: so, even amid all of that thrashing about in the Texas Theatre they will believe us?

Plotter A: Lighten up, it's only a bus transfer, no one, and I mean no one will give its condition a 2nd thought.

Uh, Oh Moment: People are much smarter than the plotters have given them credit to be.

You would think they would, at the very least, wrinkle it a bit to make it appear to have been in two shirt pockets and a fight at the Texas Theatre.

[Alan Ford]

I guess my question to Alan really means, as I think you understand, the question of whether or not Oswald shot Tippet has nothing whatsoever to do with whether he rode a bus, got a ride with Ruby, or flew on Aladdin's carpet to reach the scene of the Tippet shooting. Or whether or not he killed JFK.

In order for the "lone bus ride" story to be fabricated, out of conspiratorial necessity, to preserve the lone nut theory, you have to have a alternative story to discredit. Oswald was arrested at 1:50. He had the transfer ticket in his pocket at that time (according to Summers, Eddows, Benson, ...) Roger Craig's version of events couldn't have become known to a "cover up team" until after Craig confronts Oswald in the post-arrest interrogation room (if you believe that happened, Fritz called Craig a liar on this point). If you don't believe that Craig confronted Oswald, you have an even later time to deal with, the time Craig wrote his statement and somebody read it.

Are you suggesting that a cover-up team knew that that planting a bus ticket on Oswald would be necessary prior to learning about Craig's story? (I know that there is a second wallet, complete with Oswald/Hidell ID, but that is a different level of prescience entirely.) Or that they somehow knew Oswald was going to claim he rode the bus, and wanted to back him up?

See, to my mind, the lone nut theory doesn't arise until LBJ and Hoover order it. Several days later. Far too late to plant a bus ticket in Oswald's pocket at his arrest.

I understand your reluctance to believe the crafty plotters sat around weeks before to engineer their sinister ploy, Mr. Phipps, but just because you believe that doesn't make it so.

*Plan A

Plotter A: It's essential that we create a scenario that our patsy gets away long enough to also be implicated in the demise of the slain officer across town too.

Plotter Z: No problem, we already have an escape route in place with means to implicate him along the way.

Uh, Oh moment: The initial plan of simply taking a bus becomes in jeopardy, because no bus was able to cover the distance to fit their timeline to encounter the slain officer, soooo, like any other creative script...Cut!, take 2

*Plan B

Plotter A: Our timeline via bus is in jeopardy.

Plotter Z: No problem, he merely gets on the bus (we'll confirm this with a bus transfer we'll plant, err find on him later under the guise of searching him again, but we'll now invent a phantom cab ride, take your pick of which driver is credit worthy, yada, yada, yada...but at least our timeline of events remains possible.

Uh, Oh moment: we better retract the story about him changing shirts, because if he really did how did the bus transfer magically pull a Mr. Scott to the shirt he changed into...

*Plan C

Plotter A: we'll simply say he put it in the shirt he changed into

Plotter Z: That's why you make the big bucks.

Uh, Oh moment: an intense struggle ensues in the Texas Theatre, the wrongfully accused has his shirt pulled this way and that way, torn here, there and everywhere amid ripped away buttons, but somehow looky here a pristine bus transfer (where have we heard that word pristine before?)...

*Plan D

Plotter A: never worry about that, the people will believe what our boys in the media tell them to believe.

Plotter Z: so, even amid all of that thrashing about in the Texas Theatre they will believe us?

Plotter A: Lighten up, it's only a bus transfer, no one, and I mean no one will give its condition a 2nd thought.

Uh, Oh Moment: People are much smarter than the plotters have given them credit to be.

You would think they would, at the very least, wrinkle it a bit to make it appear to have been in two shirt pockets and a fight at the Texas Theatre.

:hock::

An excellent point, Mr. Prudhomme, It's one thing for them to lie to the general public, but to insult their intelligence while doing it suggests a bunch of smirks on some smug faces...

Well, when all else fails they can always fall back on the magic-card...

Bus Driver: Tips hat, good morning, Ma'am, the usual or can I interest you in our magical transfer?

Lady: Can it survive a wash and rinse if thrown into the washer by accident?

Bus Driver: Yes, according to officialdom it can even survive an intense struggle between multiple policemen, no rips, no tears, no wrinkles...it's magical.