Thoughts on a bus trip

[Drew Phipps]

It's been my experience that a piece of paper can survive unscathed in a shirt pocket far better than in a folding wallet or pants pocket. I wouldn't expect a piece of paper in a shirt pocket to be affected by whatever was going on around it, unless there was water, or sweat, or damage to Oswald's body in that area of his chest, or the shirt pocket itself was damaged. If the official story was that Oswald put this bus ticket in his folding wallet, and then it was recovered in pristine condition, that would be more convincing evidence of forgery.

Love that zinger, Alan, I've added it to my signature.

[David Josephs]

- How does it survive unscathed if the man was never on the bus in the first place?



Mr. McWATTERS - No, sir; they (the line-up participants) were different ages, different sizes and different heights. And they asked me if I could identify any man in particular there, and I told them that I couldn't identify any man in particular, but there was one man there that was about the size of the man. Now, I was referring back, after they done showed me this transfer at that time and I knew which trip, that I went through town on at that time, in other words, on the Lakewood trip and just like I recalled, I only put out two transfers and I told them that there was one man in the lineup was about the size and the height and complexion of a man that got on my bus, but as far as positively identifying the man I could not do it.


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.

Mr. BALL - You didn't--as I understand it, when you were at the police lineup, you told us that you didn't--weren't able to identify this man in the lineup as the man who got off, that you gave the transfer to.
Mr. McWATTERS - I told them to the best of my knowledge, I said the man that I picked out was the same height, about the same height, weight and description. But as far as actually saying that is the man I couldn't--
Mr. BALL - You couldn't do it?
Mr. McWATTERS - I wouldn't do it and I wouldn't do it now.

[Alan Ford]

It's been my experience that a piece of paper can survive unscathed in a shirt pocket far better than in a folding wallet or pants pocket. I wouldn't expect a piece of paper in a shirt pocket to be affected by whatever was going on around it, unless there was water, or sweat, or damage to Oswald's body in that area of his chest, or the shirt pocket itself was damaged. If the official story was that Oswald put this bus ticket in his folding wallet, and then it was recovered in pristine condition, that would be more convincing evidence of forgery.

Love that zinger, Alan, I've added it to my signature.

To each his/her own, Mr. Phipps, in respect to the pristine condition of the planted, err found bus transfer.

The zinger takes me back to the day I asked my father to explain why some people thought the world was flat, even though it turns out it's round after all. Without even missing a beat, he said, "Son, people can think what they want, but it doesn't make it so', adding for good measure, "remember everyone thought Goliath was invincible. They even thought he'd crush David. Some people thought Dewey beat Truman. Now, enough of these foolish questions, we've got work to do son".

Just curious?, Mr. Phipps, judging from the following picture just outside the Texas Theatre as the wrongfully accused is being lead away towards the awaiting cruiser, with his shirt tossed here there and everywhere, literally torn open, bearing his white t-shirt beneath --->



Do you really believe the image of the bus transfer Mr. Prudhomme was kind enough to share would have remained in such undisturbed condition? (note Detective Bentley's left hand position and also his shoulder placement as well, yet we are to believe the planted, err found bus transfer escapes any deformity at all/right!)

[Michael Cross]

- How does it survive unscathed if the man was never on the bus in the first place?



Mr. McWATTERS - No, sir; they (the line-up participants) were different ages, different sizes and different heights. And they asked me if I could identify any man in particular there, and I told them that I couldn't identify any man in particular, but there was one man there that was about the size of the man. Now, I was referring back, after they done showed me this transfer at that time and I knew which trip, that I went through town on at that time, in other words, on the Lakewood trip and just like I recalled, I only put out two transfers and I told them that there was one man in the lineup was about the size and the height and complexion of a man that got on my bus, but as far as positively identifying the man I could not do it.


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.

Mr. BALL - You didn't--as I understand it, when you were at the police lineup, you told us that you didn't--weren't able to identify this man in the lineup as the man who got off, that you gave the transfer to.
Mr. McWATTERS - I told them to the best of my knowledge, I said the man that I picked out was the same height, about the same height, weight and description. But as far as actually saying that is the man I couldn't--
Mr. BALL - You couldn't do it?
Mr. McWATTERS - I wouldn't do it and I wouldn't do it now.

This. This renders the transfer, or the condition of the transfer, or both, MOOT.

[David Josephs]

You can count on one hand the number of times the FBI recorded a change to what was "first said" to be in favor of Oswald.


Here is a perfect illustration of this concept in action... From the Exec Session we have a triple hit...

1) There is no such statement in the Autopsy report in Evidence
2) "what they first said" as found in the FBI report of Sibert/O'Neil needed to be forgotton and contradicted with a thru and thru shot begetting CE399
3) the location on the back is higher than the location on the front - "so that how it could turn...."


April 27, 1964 Norman Redlich to Rankin in a memo related to the Eisenberg examinations of the Zfilm. On Jan 20 the FBI delivered WCD298 http://www.ctka.net/2016/JosephsFBIZ313.pdf which placed 3 shots and the relative position of the key motorcade cars on a 3d model. By April 27 and this memo the conclusions of that model were totally incorrect based on the evidence developed as I try to show.

If this paragraph does not convince anyone of the preconceived nature of this "investigation" as understood by the lawyers tasked with compiling and creating the final report - I know of few other things that can. The follow-up to this declaration is 3 shots become 2 shots and a miss... now all that was needed was the evidence to substantiate the hypothesis...

:hock::
We have not yet examined the assassination scene to determine
whether the assassin in fact could have shot the President prior to
frame 190. We could locate the position on the ground which
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 establish the point with complete accuracy,
but merely to substantiate the hypothesis which underlies the conclusions that Oswald was the sole assassin.




Mr. Rankin:
Then theres a great range of material in regards to the wound and theautopsy and this point of exit or entrance of the bullet in the front of theneck, and that all has to be developed much more than we have at the presenttime.

We have an explanation there in the autopsy that probably a fragment came out the front of the neck, but with the elevation the shot must have come from, and the angle, it seems quite apparent, since we have the picture ofwhere the bullet entered in the back, that the bullet entered below the shoulder blade to the right of the backbone, which is below the place where thepicture shows the bullet came out in the neckband of the shirt in front, and the bullet, according to the autopsy didn't strike any bone at all, thatparticular bullet, and go through.

So that how it could turn, and --

Rep. Boggs. I thought I read that bullet just went in a finger's length.

Mr. Rankin. That is what they first said

[Alan Ford]

- How does it survive unscathed if the man was never on the bus in the first place?



Mr. McWATTERS - No, sir; they (the line-up participants) were different ages, different sizes and different heights. And they asked me if I could identify any man in particular there, and I told them that I couldn't identify any man in particular, but there was one man there that was about the size of the man. Now, I was referring back, after they done showed me this transfer at that time and I knew which trip, that I went through town on at that time, in other words, on the Lakewood trip and just like I recalled, I only put out two transfers and I told them that there was one man in the lineup was about the size and the height and complexion of a man that got on my bus, but as far as positively identifying the man I could not do it.


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.

Mr. BALL - You didn't--as I understand it, when you were at the police lineup, you told us that you didn't--weren't able to identify this man in the lineup as the man who got off, that you gave the transfer to.
Mr. McWATTERS - I told them to the best of my knowledge, I said the man that I picked out was the same height, about the same height, weight and description. But as far as actually saying that is the man I couldn't--
Mr. BALL - You couldn't do it?
Mr. McWATTERS - I wouldn't do it and I wouldn't do it now.

This. This renders the transfer, or the condition of the transfer, or both, MOOT.

Yes, you are absolutely right here, Mr. Cross.

[Alan Ford]

You can count on one hand the number of times the FBI recorded a change to what was "first said" to be in favor of Oswald.


Here is a perfect illustration of this concept in action... From the Exec Session we have a triple hit...

1) There is no such statement in the Autopsy report in Evidence
2) "what they first said" as found in the FBI report of Sibert/O'Neil needed to be forgotton and contradicted with a thru and thru shot begetting CE399
3) the location on the back is higher than the location on the front - "so that how it could turn...."


April 27, 1964 Norman Redlich to Rankin in a memo related to the Eisenberg examinations of the Zfilm. On Jan 20 the FBI delivered WCD298 http://www.ctka.net/2016/JosephsFBIZ313.pdf which placed 3 shots and the relative position of the key motorcade cars on a 3d model. By April 27 and this memo the conclusions of that model were totally incorrect based on the evidence developed as I try to show.

If this paragraph does not convince anyone of the preconceived nature of this "investigation" as understood by the lawyers tasked with compiling and creating the final report - I know of few other things that can. The follow-up to this declaration is 3 shots become 2 shots and a miss... now all that was needed was the evidence to substantiate the hypothesis...

:hock::
We have not yet examined the assassination scene todetermine
whether the assassin in fact could have shot the Presidentprior to
frame 190. We couldlocate the position on the ground which
corresponds to this frame and it would then be our intent toestablish
by photography that the assassin would have fired the firstshot at the
President prior to this point. Our intention is not to establish the point with completeaccuracy,
but merely to substantiate the hypothesis which underlies theconclusions that Oswald was the sole assassin.




Mr. Rankin:
Then theres a great range of material in regards to the wound and theautopsy and this point of exit or entrance of the bullet in the front of theneck, and that all has to be developed much more than we have at the presenttime.

We have an explanation there in the autopsy that probably a fragmentcame out the front of the neck, but with the elevation the shot must have comefrom, and the angle, it seems quite apparent, since we have the picture ofwhere the bullet entered in the back, that the bullet entered below theshoulder blade to the right of the backbone, which is below the place where thepicture shows the bullet came out in the neckband of the shirt in front, andthe bullet, according to the autopsy didn't strike any bone at all, thatparticular bullet, and go through.

So that how it could turn, and --

Rep. Boggs. I thought I read that bullet just went in a finger's length.

Mr. Rankin. That is what they first said

:: a rousing standing O, Mr. Joseph.

Also, what a very telling choice of words ---> Our intention is not to establish the point with completeaccuracy,
but merely to substantiate the hypothesis which underlies theconclusions that Oswald was the sole assassin.

Translation, we are here to rubber stamp the whitewash, rather than actually evaluate actual evidence to the contrary....

underLIES[SUB][/SUB]

[David Josephs]

:: a rousing standing O, Mr. Joseph.

Also, what a very telling choice of words ---> Our intention is not to establish the point with completeaccuracy,
but merely to substantiate the hypothesis which underlies theconclusions that Oswald was the sole assassin.

Translation, we are here to rubber stamp the whitewash, rather than actually evaluate actual evidence to the contrary....

underLIES

And I left out what may be the most interesting of the statements.

"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 a completely misleading picture."

So Alan, at this point in time, April 1964, what do you suppose "the completely misleading picture" which was presented by the FBI and SS, was and what needed correction - the actual evidence or the story desired to be told?

The SBT was just being formulated based on the neck wound being accepted as an exit wound. Tague shows up in June/July.


It was after this letter, in May 1964 that the FBI got the surveyor Robert West to change his drawings to only show 2 shots....
https://deeppoliticsforum.com/forums/sho...t-not-Z313 is a thread here where we've been discussing this.


I don't mean to mix threads - I only use this as illustration of the extent of deception employed and my incredulity at those who want to argue that specific items related to Oswald's guilt are genuine and authentic items of evidence rather than planted junk which the WC, FBI and CIA believed would never be examined by anyone.


DJ

[Jim Hargrove]

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.

You can see two folds in a good reproduction of the back side of the transfer, as here:



Note that, as viewed from behind, the fold toward the top has the corner at the right side also folded over.

[Jim Hargrove]