Thoughts on a bus trip

[David Josephs]

From the evidence offered, Oswald was NOT on that bus.
He never obtained that transfer which he never used.
There is no transfer book in evidence from which that transfer was taken -
There is no record of McWatter's books for that day

The only item of evidence which attempts to authenticate his presence on that bus is a transfer NOT obtained at the time of arrest as all the reports state

That description of the man does not lead to his having been on the bus in the first place though Drew. Like asking about his shooting expertise - since he was NOT at the window, his shooting ability is a moot point.

When I speak of the evidence, I don't mean just some of the evidence. I mean all of it. When you capitalize the letter E at the start of the word, in support of your catchphrase, you are referring to a subset of the evidence, which I take to mean, "evidence fabricated to support the official version of events," because any non-fabricated evidence of Oswald's guilt or involvement by definition couldn't be a byproduct of a conspiracy to frame him, and the evidence that tends to exonerate him wouldn't have any value to such a conspiracy.

The only evidence that Oswald didn't get on the bus is McWatter's recantation (after twice going on the record), and Roger Craig's story of Oswald's escape. An attack on the caliber of the bus evidence, or the credibility of the bus witnesses, is simply an attempt to undermine the official story, not proof of a different story. You may find it convenient to attack such evidence, or necessary, but it doesn't prove a different proposition. See argumentum ad ignorantiam. (Don't take that the wrong way, I'm not attempting to insult. I'm suggesting that this argument tactic is a well-known and time-honored logical fallacy with a Latin name.)

You'll pardon me please if I disagree with this Drew.

Your paraphrase of the evidence I present related to that bus trip and the transfer is woefully inadequate in conveying my point... so maybe you let me make my points and you make yours.
You forget Bledsoe and the coat, Whaley and the coat, Jones and Coat, the changing of clothes, the lack of coroborrating evidence for the transfer, the entire transfer/bullets search process, and the repeated fact that none of the EVIDENCE which you claim puts him on the bus can be authenticated - if you can, please do...

I too am not attempting to insult Drew... J[B]ust offer us some OSWALD WAS GUILTY authenticated evidence.[/B]. putting Ozzie on a bus home, and proving it fraudelent means this accepted trip is covering for some other transportation to his destination... he got to the theater somehow, right? And more than likely with help from the original Phase 1 potters - the Rambler was driven by Cuban looking men... Oswald was to be connected to Cubans and in turn to Castro...
When Castro Conspiracy becomes LONE NUT... the evidence which was placed to show conspiracy is now made to look like Lone Nut...

I have asked a number of forums and their members to offer up ANY evidence which can be authenticated for what it really is. If it implicates Oswald you can be dam sure it cannot be authenticated and you will find corroboration for the item to be a closed-loop of a very small handful of impoosible to authenticate documents... Maybe read some of my work at CTKA to get a flavor for the Evidence I unearth.


McWatters did not go on the record twice identifying Oswald. He explained quite clearly that he was talking about Jones the entire time.
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html...4&tab=page is the FBI page on which Det CHARLIE BROWN provides SA's LOGAN & BRAMBLETT his account of McWatter's identification. This is on Dec 3rd, 2 weeks later and AFTER the following Affidavit had been offered.

Here then is McWatter's affidavit... Please notice WHERE he says this occurs Drew and who he identifies as the #2 man - NOT the man given a transfer and quickly on and off the bus but JONES who looks like Oswald from a physical size standpoint.

If Oswald gets off the bus before it gets to Elm & Houston, and McWatters says this occurs on Marsalis which is at the opposite end of this bus's run... how can the "smiling man" be Ozzie?

The only evidence that Oswald didn't get on the bus is McWatter's recantation (after twice going on the record), and Roger Craig's story of Oswald's escape

&

You may find it convenient to attack such evidence, or necessary, but it doesn't prove a different proposition.

First part, there is much more evidence than that and it's presented here in this thread....

as for part 2, that's an old LNer trick Drew. I don't have to prove what he DID to prove the evidence for what he supposedly did provided by the DPD/FBI/SS/CIA/etc... is inauthentic.

If you would kindly post EVIDENCE which places him on that bus and impeaches McWatters, and Jones as well as overcomes Bledsoe's xray vision - let's see it.
From my POV, the DPD railroaded McWatters into an ID of the shortest, most dishevoled man in the line up as the man who got the transfer on the bus... as you can see, he obviously did not make that ID.
The FBI then writes up a report without McWatters based soley on what the DPD claims and not the affidavit.

Kindly refrain from paraphrasing my work Drew... copy/paste the text you want to discuss so we are not dealing with your impression of what I post, but with what I actually post...

Thanks
DJ

[Alan Ford]

You are an excellent researcher, Mr. Joseph, absolutely admire and appreciate your keen insights.

In respect to the whole bus/cab scenario, I personally don't believe the wrongfully accused was anywhere near a bus or cab that afternoon, in spite of officialdom putting words into a deadman's mouth to the contrary.

I once set out many moons ago to research the phantom bus and cab rides, but upon reading the following Warren Commission testimony from Mrs. Bledsoe, who swore up and down she saw the wrongfully accused on her bus, I caught her in a lie that suggests she is also lying about the phantom bus encounter as well. One lie needs another lie....Here's her outright lie as she describes an early encounter with Oswald on October 7, 1963 when she was showing him a room she had for rent (please note this encounter takes place weeks before the birth of his 2nd infant child, Rachel, later that month ---->

Mr. JENNER - He told you at that time and informed you that he was unemployed?
Mrs. BLEDSOE - Yes.
Mr. JENNER - And he would be seeking work?
Mrs. BLEDSOE - Yes.
Mr. JENNER - And he said that he was going to bring his wife?
Mrs. BLEDSOE - Yes.
Mr. JENNER - And--when and if he obtained employment?
Mrs. BLEDSOE - And so, that give me a lead, something to talk about, and I said, "Well, what kind of work do you do? "Oh, I do electronics," he said, and I said, "Well, there is some good jobs because you are young, and you can get a good job a young man like you."
And then went on. Then something about him being in the Marines, and I said, "Well, that is wonderful. My son was in the Navy." And talking about him, you know, just getting to know him, and--but, "here is a picture of my wife, and picture of the girl, and the baby." And I said, "Oh, she has got a baby, hasn't she?" And he said, "Yes."

Uh oh......

Good catch, BTW.

Appreciate the acknowledgement, Mr. Prudhomme, dips hat.

I'm fairly new at this (2yrs in May, 2016), but having seen you, Mr. Mitcham and a great many other sharp researchers pay attention to the details on more than a few occasions yourselves during that stretch prompts me to follow the good example already set.

One dynamic runs through this case, no matter what area of evidence is being studied, none of the hasty, contrived "evidence" can ever stand alone against the wrongfully accused (officialdom always seems to need a do over here, there and everywhere to modify this or that). One lie breeds another lie...

[David Josephs]

Hey there Alan - did you miss this one on the last page?

https://deeppoliticsforum.com/forums/sho...post106253


I don't actually think she is referring to a photo of two children but of Marina, and Marina with child possibly with Ozzie...

Regards
DJ

[Alan Ford]

You are an excellent researcher, Mr. Joseph, absolutely admire and appreciate your keen insights.

In respect to the whole bus/cab scenario, I personally don't believe the wrongfully accused was anywhere near a bus or cab that afternoon, in spite of officialdom putting words into a deadman's mouth to the contrary.

I once set out many moons ago to research the phantom bus and cab rides, but upon reading the following Warren Commission testimony from Mrs. Bledsoe, who swore up and down she saw the wrongfully accused on her bus, I caught her in a lie that suggests she is also lying about the phantom bus encounter as well. One lie needs another lie....Here's her outright lie as she describes an early encounter with Oswald on October 7, 1963 when she was showing him a room she had for rent (please note this encounter takes place weeks before the birth of his 2nd infant child, Rachel, later that month ---->

Mr. JENNER - He told you at that time and informed you that he was unemployed?
Mrs. BLEDSOE - Yes.
Mr. JENNER - And he would be seeking work?
Mrs. BLEDSOE - Yes.
Mr. JENNER - And he said that he was going to bring his wife?
Mrs. BLEDSOE - Yes.
Mr. JENNER - And--when and if he obtained employment?
Mrs. BLEDSOE - And so, that give me a lead, something to talk about, and I said, "Well, what kind of work do you do? "Oh, I do electronics," he said, and I said, "Well, there is some good jobs because you are young, and you can get a good job a young man like you."
And then went on. Then something about him being in the Marines, and I said, "Well, that is wonderful. My son was in the Navy." And talking about him, you know, just getting to know him, and--but, "here is a picture of my wife, and picture of the girl, and the baby." And I said, "Oh, she has got a baby, hasn't she?" And he said, "Yes."

Thank you so much for the kind words Alan.

Sadly I will have to disagree with your assessment of what was said by Bledsoe. Below is the calendar she speaks of and what could have passed for the images shown given the comments.
I'm just not sure based on what is said and not knowing what was shown that he would be showing any "baby" photos.

I'm fairly sure that it was a 2 part sentence with 2 photos being shown.

1) here is a picture of my wife and
2) picture of the girl (Marina) and the baby (June) - the photo on the right includes Ozzie of course so it may not have been the one shown... I'd have to go dig to see if we can find which images he showed her.

"here is a picture of my wife, and picture of the girl, and the baby"

Yet I could be totally off here and the testimony could have been contrived... I just find that hard to believe given what they knew about when everyone was born by the time she testifies.
That afternoon though, her descrption of the arrest shirt - imo - gives away her complicit nature.

Oh, and McWatters once again said it was not Oswald... why, I wonder, is that not enough for some folk.

DJ

Appreciate the photos, Mr. Joseph, and without taking anything away from them, please note that the conflict with Mrs. Bledsoe is centered upon her testimony per her engagement/interactions with the wrongfully accused on October 7, 1963, where, yes, she could have been shown a picture of Oswald's wife (Marina) and her accompanying their infant (June) in a dated pictured in Russia, but where Mrs. Bledsoe outright lies is when she makes the critical mistake of saying she saw all of the following:

here is a picture of my wife, and picture of the girl, and the baby." Wife equals Marina, "picture of the girl" equals June their oldest child, and, of course, "and the baby" equals Raquel who is yet to be born, let alone captured in a photograph twelve days before her birth during Mrs. Bledsoe's exchange in reference to the date of October 7, 1963.

That lie pales in my opinion compared to the evidence you have presented that clearly shows officialdom having no choice but to put him on that bus, because they had to lie, otherwise, no retrieval of a revolver, nor an engagement by the wrongfully accused with the slain officer at 10th and Patton. Your presentation on Mr. McWatters' testimony alone refutes the phantom bus ride...not to mention, given the intense struggle that ensued in the Texas Theatre that alone wouldn't leave a bus transfer in pristine condition (where have we heard this dynamic before @ pristine)? How magical can all the "evidence" be? We have a ripped shirt, multiple torn buttons, but like magic looky here a smooth, even, untorn bus transfer. Right!

and, of course, that's IF he remembered to move it to the new shirt he put on if one wants to believe their phantom bus ride to change clothes, retrieve revolver, that he somehow forgets to bring to the designated decoy position, err sniper's nest to shoot his way out of the building). Your McWatter's presentation alone refutes officialdom's contrived attempt to place him in the same neighborhood with the slain officer.

*Sidebar, without venturing too far away from Mr. Joseph's brilliant presentation: researcher Bill Drenas (sp) does one remarkable presentation of his own where he puts Officer Tippitt between 12:17PM--12:20PM picking up a female shoplifter from a business establishment, where the owner of the establishment watches him place her into his cruiser...no mention of what becomes of this woman...25 minutes later more than a few eyewitnesses place Tippitt at the Gloco gas station between 12:45PM-12:51PM watching traffic cross the Houston Street viaduct as if he is waiting for someone, before tearing off at a high rate of speed towards his fate.

Now, back on track, as we can see/determine in Mr. Joseph's presentation, McWatter's testimony clearly refutes the wrongfully accused taking his bus. Yes, no doubt, someone taller and heavier than the wrongfully accused, wearing a Blue coat did take McWatter's bus, but not the wrongfully accused.

[David Josephs]

Once again Alan, thank you for the kind words... I do this out of the sheer enjoyment of the search and discovery.

That you can get something useful from this work is great to hear.


Just to complete the circle... Here is the inventory sheet that stops at Item #455 just beofer photos of the clothing found in his dresser is offered.

If you read Roberts' testimony she claims Ozzie walks thru the house in his "shirtsleeves" iow no blue jacket.



Wonder why they didn't take photos of ALL the clothing evidence... ::laughingdog::

[Drew Phipps]

You specifically asked that I point out where I thought you were arguing that the absence of evidence is evidence of absence. I did that. To avoid a Scully-like response, I did not include material that was irrelevant to your specific request.

You ask for evidence. The bus ticket is evidence. You may not find it convincing. That doesn't change its character as evidence. Oswald said he took the bus (according to those witnesses whose credibility you might disagree with). That constitutes evidence, whether you believe the evidence or not is a different question.

I'm not going to argue the lone nut position; I don't believe it. But I have to get a clarification, since you asked for "authenticated evidence," what is that exactly? Evidence that was offered up at the Warren Commission? How about evidence offered up at the HSCA? No? Evidence that you personally find persuasive? Now, that's a great way to start an argument, limit the other side to evidence you agree with!

[Drew Phipps]

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?

[David Josephs]

You specifically asked that I point out where I thought you were arguing that the absence of evidence is evidence of absence. I did that. To avoid a Scully-like response, I did not include material that was irrelevant to your specific request.

You ask for evidence. The bus ticket is evidence. You may not find it convincing. That doesn't change its character as evidence. Oswald said he took the bus (according to those witnesses whose credibility you might disagree with). That constitutes evidence, whether you believe the evidence or not is a different question.

I'm not going to argue the lone nut position; I don't believe it. But I have to get a clarification, since you asked for "authenticated evidence," what is that exactly? Evidence that was offered up at the Warren Commission? How about evidence offered up at the HSCA? No? Evidence that you personally find persuasive? Now, that's a great way to start an argument, limit the other side to evidence you agree with!

Drew - I don't know whose posts you're reading but I never said anything about "the absence of evidence is evidence of absence" - nor do I promote that statement in the least.

You claim the transfer is evidence that Oswald was on that bus. Please include any and every thing material to proving that as fact.... you have not done that in any post so far.
You don't find it suspect that YATES cannot provide proof that McWatters even used that transfer book that day when records of these things are easily available.

In my work on the Rifle Evidence I specifically talk about authentication of evidence:
Authenticatingevidence for a court of law creates what's called "REAL EVIDENCE": Evidence http://corporate.findlaw.com/litigation-...dence.html

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

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

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

It isunderstood that we are not trying this in a court of law yet these is no reasonnot to expect the evidence to reach that standard. If it cannot be authenticated, thatevidence's influence on the reader's conclusions as a judge would instruct should not be considered.


So Drew - with the evidence you claim to have please address these with evidence:

Can you prove that McWatters gave Oswald that transfer when McWatters says that he was never on the bus?
Can you prove the transfer was found on Oswald's person given what we know about the time between his arrest and the finding of this evidence?
Can you prove that McWatters was even issued that book of transfers that day?
Can you prove that Oswald did not change his clothes so that Bledsoe's statement is even possible?
Can you prove the buttons on his shirt were torn BEFORE the Theater scuffle?

What I fail to understand in your rebuttal here Drew is your dismissal of the evidence I present which shows the line-up for what it was and McWatters' evidence for what it says...

If you are going to start talking about BELIEF in Evidence we should stop here. Evidence does not require "belief"... the LNer believers Oswald is guilty based on believing the evidence offered rather than authenticating it.

Even "persuasive" evidence is a crock... I can show you evidence that will persuade you that FBI agent Dolan took the Kleins microfilm. I can also show you persuasive evidence that he did not. Which is REAL?


The job of the prosecutor is to PROVE GUILT, it is not the job of the Defense to prove innocence or offer up some alternative explanation.

Drew - I don't mind having these discussions - you have yet to offer anything in defense of your statement that the bus transfer is evidence that Oswald was on that bus. It is not. It is a piece of paper with information on it that needs to be authenticated and corroborated as REAL. If you want to see the Frontera Bus manifest with Oswald's name on it I have it... that doesn't prove he was on that bus sir... not by a long shot.

When the man who supposedly gave this piece of paper to the accused specifically says over and over that it WAS NOT OSWALD and has no motivation beyond honesty to make such a declaration...

What does this tell you about that slip of paper other than it was never given to Oswald by McWatters, and please back your answer with something convincing.

Thanks....

[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.

[David Josephs]

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.