Which came first, the bus or the Rambler?

[Jeremy Bojczuk]

Jim Hargrove writes:

Quote

Jones did recall, agreeing with McWatters and Oswald himself,  that a blond woman got on the bus at the same time as Oswald.

No, he recalled that a blonde woman got on the bus at the same time as a man. As I've explained to Jim several times, Jones did not identify this man as Oswald. Jones pointed out that he only thought the man might have been Oswald because the driver suggested it to him.

In every important respect, Jones's description of the man did not match Oswald. Jones was a witness against, not for, Oswald having been on the bus.

The fact that Jones agreed on one point with McWatters and the official accounts of what Oswald is supposed to have stated, is meaningless, for reasons I've also given several times.

Jim wants to accept the official accounts of Oswald's interviews, because the lone-gunman narrative is an essential part of the 'Harvey and Lee' narrative. But we know that these official accounts can't be trusted. They misrepresented the most important aspect of Oswald's statements, his alibi.

I don't see any good reason to trust the official accounts of what Oswald is supposed to have said about the bus journey, especially when the only reliable witness we have, Roy Milton Jones, contradicts the lone-gunman narrative.

[John Butler]

18 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:

Oswald in Dallas had a heavier-weight dark-blue jacket (C163) and a lighter-weight medium-gray jacket (no photo known; per argument not the light-gray almost white jacket C162 of the Tippit killer).

It is my opinion that the light, colored Oswald jacket is not the one shown in CE 162.  If you compare the following you will see what I am talking about.

The jacket Oswald is wearing in the hunter photo has a wider collar, a breast pocket, and different cuffs.  CE 162 appears to have a breast pocket, but it looks like a wrinkle. 

The hunter photo may show a light grey jacket or a light tan jacket.  I don't believe it is white.

18 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:

If the photo in the middle is verified Oswald the jacket the jacket he is wearing is not the dark-blue C163 to both left and right above, but could be the first known photo of Oswald's medium-gray jacket that he wore to work Fri morning Nov 22.

I don't see where you get that from.  The center photo is of Oswald in Russia with a friend (who is suspected of being an assassin).  The Jacket Oswald is wearing is identical to photo no. 2 and is a dark blue color rather than a light or medium grey.

WC CE 163 is the jacket Oswald is wearing in the photo taken in Minsk.  It is not a light or medium grey in color.

First off it is not light or medium grey.  Secondly, it is the kind of jacket one would find in a militarized country such as Russia.  Watch K dramas and you will see the same thing in Korea where all young men have to serve in the military.  

The color, the collar, pockets, zipper length, and epaulettes match.  

 

Edited May 8, 2022 by John Butler

[Greg Doudna]

6 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

I don't see any good reason to trust the official accounts of what Oswald is supposed to have said about the bus journey, especially when the only reliable witness we have, Roy Milton Jones, contradicts the lone-gunman narrative.

If I can jump in here (and nothing to do with any doppelgangers), the argument for the bus and cab is a lot more compelling than the witnesses. You accept that Oswald entered his rooming house in Oak Cliff about 1 pm with Earlene Roberts there? Then how else does he get there. If he's in the car (Craig's Rambler) that is his getaway, why have a car drop him off at the rooming house and then he gets to the theatre to either hide or, what, meet another getaway car? Doesn't make sense. It does make sense that he is on his own without a car getting around by bus, cab, and walking.

There is the bus transfer ticket Sims found on Oswald and Oswald telling Fritz about taking both bus and cab. Whaley the cab driver describes a pretty good fit to Oswald and he says it is an identification match to Oswald (a cab driver who has a passenger sitting next to him in his cab is a stronger witness than the witnesses who saw the running Tippit killer, or Roger Craig). And the start and stop points of Whaley's passenger and timing fits perfectly with the 1 pm arrival of Oswald to the rooming house. 

It hangs together and I do not see what the problem is that needs to be solved by rejecting that, when nothing else gives a good explanation of Oswald at the rooming house at 1 pm. 

On the jackets have you seen my piece on the jackets (new topic post on this forum). I think you may see there reason to question the Warren Commission construction, which you seem to assume is correct, that Oswald wore his blue jacket to work that morning from Irving. He wore his gray jacket to work from Irving that morning. That analysis, which I believe is clearly correct (you can read the argument), establishes both that the Oswald bus-and-taxi is correct AND that Oswald was not the killer of Tippit, the one who abandoned jacket C162.

What is your alternative narrative on how Oswald gets to the rooming house at 1 pm and then to the Theatre from there, if not by the bus, taxi, then bus again? 

 

[Steve Thomas]

3 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:

 

What is your alternative narrative on how Oswald gets to the rooming house at 1 pm and then to the Theatre from there, if not by the bus, taxi, then bus again? 

 

Greg,

By any chance have you researched the bus schedules for buses going down Beckley?

Earlene Roberts says Oswald was in a hurry, and the last time she saw him, he was standing by the bus stop.

She didn't say if he was standing by the stop that went south, or by the one going north.

I wonder if that was why he was in a hurry. He didn't want to miss his bus. Catching a bus heading south towards the Theater makes a lot of sense, and would explain why no one ever saw him walking the streets towards the Theater, or to 10th and Patton, for that matter

Steve Thomas

[Greg Doudna]

Steve Thomas--that's exactly what I think happened, he got from the rooming house to the theatre by bus south on Beckley. No I have not checked schedules, I would not know how to find them.

Going south by bus makes sense of the timing, then buying a ticket and entering the main seating area. One witness testimony inside the theatre, usher Burroughs, said Oswald came back out into the lobby and bought popcorn. That sounds like behavior before the movie begins, and Burroughs explicitly (in a later interview) said Oswald was in the theatre before 1:20. The movie began 1:20, and another theatre patron, Jack Davis, said Oswald was there during the opening credits. So that is two inside witnesses to Oswald there before 1:20, significantly before the Tippit killer, now intent on killing Oswald, ducked past Julia Postal who had stepped away from her window toward the street for a moment, entered without paying for a ticket and went up into the balcony, around 1:40 or so. The point being that Oswald was at his rooming house about 1:00 pm, and getting the one mile from there to the theatre on Jefferson practically requires a bus to agree with these timings. If he was on foot and walked directly he would not have made it in time to be seated before 1:20 according to those two witness testimonies.

Yet the bus stop Earlene saw Oswald waiting for a bus, was outside the rooming house and was northbound, the same bus Oswald took in to work weekday mornings. There is no mistake on this, Earlene showed exactly the line of sight from her window (she naturally looked to see what the hurry was about of the tenant rushing in and out). It is clear line of sight from the front window looking north, and there Oswald was standing waiting for a bus, or so it appeared to Earlene. And yet Oswald did not go north, he went south, and the only interpretation I see possible of that is he was intentionally causing Earlene to think he was heading north. Oswald did not want his whereabouts known or to be easily tailed. If anyone asked Earlene she would say he took a bus north, throwing anyone off the trail. I think he stood at the northbound stop long enough so that he knew Earlene would see him, then unknown to Earlene he crossed the street and got the next southbound. 

Oswald's fears of his whereabouts being known or of being tailed--the JFK killers are the obvious ones I believe Oswald would have been trying to escape--were justified. There are all those unusual reports that officer Tippit, who is somehow mixed up in this, may have been looking for him. I believe the reason the Tippit killer, who I think must have been Craford, went to the Theatre after killing Tippit is because Oswald's location at the Theatre at that point now was known by the people Oswald sought to avoid. (I do not know how Oswald's location in the theatre became known to the Tippit killer but it did.) Craford's patron at the Carousel Club where Craford was living killed Oswald two days after the intent of Craford to kill Oswald at the theatre on Friday failed. Police arrived Fri, roughed up Oswald, Oswald was hopping mad (about being roughed up) and had no idea that that arrest saved his life that afternoon. 

I have not seen any record of an FBI interview of a bus driver on that Beckley bus route, particularly the southbound. Since DPD and FBI thought they "knew" Oswald had gone to Tenth Street on foot, was it just not of interest to investigate other possible routes? I do not know why there are no known FBI interview reports of Oak Cliff bus drivers.

A possible objection is that if he took the southbound bus to get to the theatre, there must have been at least the bus driver plus any others on the bus who would have seen him, and with the way Oswald was in all the news that weekend, it would seem someone would have come forward from that bus saying so. I do not have a good answer to that. Perhaps it was simple luck or accident that Oswald got on an empty bus and only the driver saw him, and that driver was one of those kind of persons who thought it best that he "didn't see nutin', don't know nutin'", and never did talk, similar to other witnesses who did not come forward fearful of suspected gangland involvement in the Tippit killing. Since I cannot see any other good explanation for how Oswald got to the theatre timely than by that bus, and since the bus explanation is the obvious explanation, I assume that is what happened whether or not the bus driver that day did or did not talk about it.

[Jeremy Bojczuk]

Greg Doudna writes:

Quote

You accept that Oswald entered his rooming house in Oak Cliff about 1 pm with Earlene Roberts there?

I'm not convinced that's true. The ROKC guys make a plausible case that Oswald may not actually have been living there. See, e.g.:

https://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t2127-the-beckley-bunch

Personally, I wouldn't claim that that scenario is conclusively proved either, but there are reasons to doubt that Oswald lived there, and thus to doubt that he returned there en route to the Texas Theater.

I'm no expert on this aspect of the case, but I get the impression that the whole subject of where Oswald stayed while he was working at the TSBD, and how he got to and from work when Frazier wasn't driving him, weren't properly investigated at the time. Consequently, there are too many holes to allow us to come to any firm conclusions.

It's worth remembering that the placing of Oswald on McWatters' bus was a solution to a specific problem. The authorities needed to get Oswald from the TSBD to Tenth Street in time to shoot Tippit using a gun Oswald hadn't brought to work with him that morning, and they needed to get him there without the involvement of associates such as the driver of the car Roger Craig saw. The authorities may have stumbled upon Oswald's actual movements, but other scenarios are at least as plausible, though equally speculative. Oswald may have been driven away in a car. He may have got another bus, such as the one that was behind McWatters'. He may have got a combination of buses.

Quote

On the jackets have you seen my piece on the jackets (new topic post on this forum). ... He wore his gray jacket to work from Irving that morning.

Yes, it's an interesting analysis. But the contradictory nature of the evidence means that every analysis has weaknesses. There's always something that doesn't make sense, whether one wants to demonstrate that:

• Oswald was escaping from the scene of a crime he'd committed,
• or that he sensed that something was wrong and that he might be implicated,
• or that he had no idea he was implicated and decided to watch a film while waiting to join Marina and Ruth on their planned shopping trip.

Whichever jacket one claims Oswald wore at whichever time that day, it's necessary to claim that one or more witnesses were mistaken about something, usually the colour of the jacket the witness saw Oswald wearing. In Greg's case, it would be the bus witnesses who must have got the colour of the jacket wrong. Milton Jones must have got Oswald's physical description wrong too.

Greg's suggestion is that Oswald picked up the blue jacket in his rooming house, and that this jacket was later found in the Texas Theater and then planted in the TSBD. It's more credible than the Warren Commission-H & L scenario, which requires Oswald to have worn the blue jacket on McWatters' bus. Greg's scenario has the advantage of providing a less implausible reason for the blue jacket's discovery in the TSBD. If we accept that Oswald was actually living at that rooming house, Greg has probably come up with the best account so far.

Nevertheless, the evidence for Oswald's journey from the TSBD to the Texas Theater, and what he was wearing, is too inconclusive for us to say anything for certain except that the Warren Commission's scenario is contradictory and not well supported.

[Pete Mellor]

On 5/9/2022 at 4:24 AM, Greg Doudna said:

Steve Thomas--that's exactly what I think happened, he got from the rooming house to the theatre by bus south on Beckley. 

Agree.  I've never held the view of Oswald walking towards Ruby's apartment & meeting Tippit at 10th & Patton.  What is not mentioned in your post above is the vehicle (cop) pipping horn that Roberts testified to.  (Maybe you've dealt with that on another thread.)

Also, as well as changing dirty work clothes Oswald is supposed to have picked up his gun at Beckley!  To go watch a movie!?!  Did that really happen or do you consider that part of the framing by DPD for the Tippit killing?

I have mentioned previously that I appreciate your logical and thoughtful posts on many aspects of this case.  The discarded snub nose found on Saturday morning I have never read of that previously.  I do sit on the picket fence on many points of the JFK assassination & I'm still vague on Oswald trying to escape the JFK killers....but great food for thought.

[Greg Doudna]

7 hours ago, Pete Mellor said:

Agree.  I've never held the view of Oswald walking towards Ruby's apartment & meeting Tippit at 10th & Patton.  What is not mentioned in your post above is the vehicle (cop) pipping horn that Roberts testified to.  (Maybe you've dealt with that on another thread.)

Also, as well as changing dirty work clothes Oswald is supposed to have picked up his gun at Beckley!  To go watch a movie!?!  Did that really happen or do you consider that part of the framing by DPD for the Tippit killing?

I have mentioned previously that I appreciate your logical and thoughtful posts on many aspects of this case.  The discarded snub nose found on Saturday morning I have never read of that previously.  I do sit on the picket fence on many points of the JFK assassination & I'm still vague on Oswald trying to escape the JFK killers....but great food for thought.

Thanks Pete. On the tipping of the horn spoken of by Earlene, I do not know what to make of that other than her imperfect memory of the numbers and being blind in one eye makes it look like it was Tippit's cruiser and there are the reasons which have been brought out by others suggesting Tippit--for whatever reason--was looking for Oswald in that time frame, just before Tippit himself was shot dead on 10th Street for reasons which remain unclear to this day. If it was Tippit's cruiser that Earlene saw, that means Tippit knew where Oswald lived (a detail not otherwise known). One possibility would be the tip of the horn was not a signal to Oswald inside, he didn't know Oswald was inside (or not), he drove by to check and look, saw nothing, tipped his horn sort of out of desperation to see if there would be a reaction (someone come to a window?), got no reaction, drove on (to 10th St. to be killed). That's the best I can make of that. But I don't know. 

On Oswald and the revolver, I know there has been some attention to if that could have been planted, and Gus Rose in his story over 30 years later in Sneed, No More Silence, claims Oswald claimed to him that the gun had been planted on him. But against the revolver being planted: first and the big one for me, planting would require foreknowledge and advance plan and intent on police to do that at the arrest and that just escalates by orders of magnitude beyond all reason the complexity that must be assumed, the number of people in on the plot, how to have Brewer and Postal make the phone call to bring out the police so then citizen Brewer is now in the plot too, how many of the arresting officers have to be in on the plot ... I just don't go in those directions of "casts of thousands" all choreographed by what must be assumed to be further hidden and unknown controllers and handlers, in order to accomplish event Y, because there are no controls and implausibility. Second, planting a weapon or physical evidence on a suspect seems to be done usually by one officer out of sight and not by an officer in the presence of a half-dozen other officers unless they too are all in on it and can be relied upon never to talk. The notion that planting of the weapon was done by one officer without care that other officers would see and know that was being done makes it difficult to believe. Then there is: Oswald told Fritz he had the revolver; it is in the BYP photos; the holster found in his rooming house; and despite a couple of anomalies the paperwork of the order of the revolver which works well in Oswald being involved in some mail-order sting investigation on mail-order weapons (in which rules might purposely be broken to test companies' compliance with the law). I know some argue for more casts of thousands to give alternative forged and planted explanations for each of these other things in order to have Oswald have no revolver but I don't see it as necessary.

I think the Tippit murder weapon was the revolver found in the paper bag in downtown Dallas by a citizen about 7 am Sat, Nov 23 and if that is correct which I think so, then the revolver found on Oswald in the theatre was not. I think there was police chicanery in matching Oswald's revolver to the shell hulls found at the crime scene, and also what looks like could be a planting of five bullets in Oswald's right front pants pockets reported found by Boyd at about 4 pm. Those however have specific arguments and do not involve casts of thousands.

That Oswald would pick up a revolver at the rooming house if he had one makes sense in light of his evasiveness and changes of clothing that day. Everything about his behavior after leaving the TSBD that day is consistent with Oswald believing he was in physical danger and not wanting to be found. The revolver then becomes part of this, picked up and carried by him for self-defense. That it was a .38 Special the same kind of weapon that fired the bullets which killed Tippit is not an unusual coincidence or proof of guilt, since snub-nosed .38 Special was the most common concealed handgun in America at the time. It is like saying wearing eyeglasses of both a killer and then a suspect is incrimination, it is not because that is so common. It is one of those things that is necessary and compatible with a theory of guilt but not sufficient. And again, the revolver in the paper bag was a different revolver and that WAS the revolver from which Tippit ACTUALLY was murdered (not the one found on Oswald), in what I see as the solution to the case.

The report of the find of the paper bag revolver has received notice before. No one has ever challenged that it existed. However I am the first to connect that revolver to the murder of Tippit, which to me in retrospect seems just the obvious connection to make, so much so that that it can hardly have any other explanation. Early references to that revolver found in the paper bag: https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=217846#relPageId=80 and https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=48693#relPageId=8.

[Pete Mellor]

On 5/10/2022 at 7:40 PM, Greg Doudna said:

Thanks Pete. On the tipping of the horn spoken of by Earlene, I do not know what to make of that other than her imperfect memory of the numbers and being blind in one eye makes it look like it was Tippit's cruiser and there are the reasons which have been brought out by others suggesting Tippit--for whatever reason--was looking for Oswald in that time frame, just before Tippit himself was shot dead on 10th Street for reasons which remain unclear to this day. If it was Tippit's cruiser that Earlene saw, that means Tippit knew where Oswald lived (a detail not otherwise known). One possibility would be the tip of the horn was not a signal to Oswald inside, he didn't know Oswald was inside (or not), he drove by to check and look, saw nothing, tipped his horn sort of out of desperation to see if there would be a reaction (someone come to a window?), got no reaction, drove on (to 10th St. to be killed). That's the best I can make of that. But I don't know. 

On Oswald and the revolver, I know there has been some attention to if that could have been planted, and Gus Rose in his story over 30 years later in Sneed, No More Silence, claims Oswald claimed to him that the gun had been planted on him. But against the revolver being planted: first and the big one for me, planting would require foreknowledge and advance plan and intent on police to do that at the arrest and that just escalates by orders of magnitude beyond all reason the complexity that must be assumed, the number of people in on the plot, how to have Brewer and Postal make the phone call to bring out the police so then citizen Brewer is now in the plot too, how many of the arresting officers have to be in on the plot ... I just don't go in those directions of "casts of thousands" all choreographed by what must be assumed to be further hidden and unknown controllers and handlers, in order to accomplish event Y, because there are no controls and implausibility. Second, planting a weapon or physical evidence on a suspect seems to be done usually by one officer out of sight and not by an officer in the presence of a half-dozen other officers unless they too are all in on it and can be relied upon never to talk. The notion that planting of the weapon was done by one officer without care that other officers would see and know that was being done makes it difficult to believe. Then there is: Oswald told Fritz he had the revolver; it is in the BYP photos; the holster found in his rooming house; and despite a couple of anomalies the paperwork of the order of the revolver which works well in Oswald being involved in some mail-order sting investigation on mail-order weapons (in which rules might purposely be broken to test companies' compliance with the law). I know some argue for more casts of thousands to give alternative forged and planted explanations for each of these other things in order to have Oswald have no revolver but I don't see it as necessary.

I think the Tippit murder weapon was the revolver found in the paper bag in downtown Dallas by a citizen about 7 am Sat, Nov 23 and if that is correct which I think so, then the revolver found on Oswald in the theatre was not. I think there was police chicanery in matching Oswald's revolver to the shell hulls found at the crime scene, and also what looks like could be a planting of five bullets in Oswald's right front pants pockets reported found by Boyd at about 4 pm. Those however have specific arguments and do not involve casts of thousands.

That Oswald would pick up a revolver at the rooming house if he had one makes sense in light of his evasiveness and changes of clothing that day. Everything about his behavior after leaving the TSBD that day is consistent with Oswald believing he was in physical danger and not wanting to be found. The revolver then becomes part of this, picked up and carried by him for self-defense. That it was a .38 Special the same kind of weapon that fired the bullets which killed Tippit is not an unusual coincidence or proof of guilt, since snub-nosed .38 Special was the most common concealed handgun in America at the time. It is like saying wearing eyeglasses of both a killer and then a suspect is incrimination, it is not because that is so common. It is one of those things that is necessary and compatible with a theory of guilt but not sufficient. And again, the revolver in the paper bag was a different revolver and that WAS the revolver from which Tippit ACTUALLY was murdered (not the one found on Oswald), in what I see as the solution to the case.

The report of the find of the paper bag revolver has received notice before. No one has ever challenged that it existed. However I am the first to connect that revolver to the murder of Tippit, which to me in retrospect seems just the obvious connection to make, so much so that that it can hardly have any other explanation. Early references to that revolver found in the paper bag: https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=217846#relPageId=80 and https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=48693#relPageId=8.

Thanks for the detailed reply Greg.  You must wear out many keyboards! 

[Jim Hargrove]

On 5/7/2022 at 3:49 AM, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

Milton Jones's description of the man did not match the real-life, one and only Lee Harvey Oswald.

In CE 2641, Jones described the man as:

• aged 30-35 (Oswald was 24 years old),
• 5' 11" tall (Oswald was 5' 9" tall),
• 150 pounds in weight (Oswald was weighed that very day at 131 pounds),
• and wearing a blue jacket (Oswald's blue jacket was in the book depository).

If Jones's description is accurate, the man on the bus was not Oswald.

Really?  According to his Marine Corps discharge data, Oswald was 5’11” (71”) tall and weighed 150 lbs., EXACTLY matching the estimates by Jones.  Earl Rose’s autopsy report estimated Oswald’s weight at 150 pounds, also EXACTLY matching the estimate by Jones.  (Rose measured Oswald’s height a 5’9”.)

As I’ve already explained, but Mr. B. continues to ignore, bus driver McWatters testified that he gave out only two transfers during his run at the time of the assassination, one to a blond woman and the other to Oswald, who apparently got on at the same time.  Jones also said that a blond woman got on the bus at the same time as the man he described so accurately (missing only the age by six years).

Jones indicated that “A blond woman and a dark haired man [Oswald] boarded the bus approximately six blocks before Houston Street. The man sat in the seat behind him and the woman occupied a seat further to the rear of the bus.” Jones told the FBI the man sitting behind him wore a “light blue jacket and grey khaki trousers.” 

McWatters later told the WC, “Yes, sir; I gave him one [bus transfer] about two blocks from where he got on [at Griffin]... that is the transfer because it had my punch mark on it.... I gave only two transfers going through town on that trip and that was at the one stop of where I gave the lady and the gentlemen that got off the bus, I issued two transfers.…

By the way, since Mr. B. believes that an eyewitness estimate of a man’s height that is off by 2 inches means it must be a different person, no doubt Mr. B. will agree that the LHO who left the Marine Corps measured at 5’11” tall simply cannot be the same LHO who was measured on a slab by Earl Rose at 5’9”.  These are measurements by medical professionals, not estimates by casual eyewitnesses.

I'm sure Mr. B. will agree that the height distinctions indicate there were two different LHOs!

[John Butler]

Jeremy finds facts as inconvenient and "un-nuanced" when they don't agree with his beliefs.  Being an intelligent fellow, he will find the language to refute whatever you say.  The difference between 5'9" and 5'11" would be simply an age difference, or a measurement mistake, or an unreliable witness.  Whatever it takes and I'm sure it will sound reasonable to some.  But, when you look at what he says it is simply assumptions with little evidence to back it up.

On 5/10/2022 at 4:29 AM, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

Quote

You accept that Oswald entered his rooming house in Oak Cliff about 1 pm with Earlene Roberts there?

I'm not convinced that's true. The ROKC guys make a plausible case that Oswald may not actually have been living there. See, e.g.:

In this instance he refers to others for the factual evidence to back up his position.  Nearly everyone I have seen or read, Jeremy excluded, believes Oswald rented a room from Earlene Roberts.

And, when you go to this reference it indicates the opposite of what Jeremy said.  You can tell from the portions of the transcript of the witnesses that Oswald was hiding his address and eventually gave it up.  He never denied living on North Beckley.  This is not in accord with Jeremy's thinking.  

His "plausible case" simply isn't there.

 

Edited May 14, 2022 by John Butler

[John Butler]

On 5/8/2022 at 3:52 AM, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

I don't see any good reason to trust the official accounts of what Oswald is supposed to have said about the bus journey, especially when the only reliable witness we have, Roy Milton Jones, contradicts the lone-gunman narrative.

This is the heart of Jeremy's work.  Denying anything that contradicts the "lone-gunman narrative" which is essentially the Warren Commission conclusions.  If witness statements support evidence for a conspiracy, then this must be countered at all costs.

Even if the WC supports the notion of Oswald's bus ride, it must be countered if it "contradicts the lone-gunman narrative".

 

[Jim Hargrove]

21 hours ago, John Butler said:

Jeremy finds facts as inconvenient and "un-nuanced" when they don't agree with his beliefs.  Being an intelligent fellow, he will find the language to refute whatever you say.  The difference between 5'9" and 5'11" would be simply an age difference, or a measurement mistake, or an unreliable witness.  Whatever it takes and I'm sure it will sound reasonable to some.  But, when you look at what he says it is simply assumptions with little evidence to back it up.

On 5/10/2022 at 4:29 AM, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

Sure, but from the time Oswald left the Marine Corps (late 1959) until he was measured at the 1963 autopsy by Earl Rose, he lost 2 inches in height.  Perhaps someone will post evidence that men in their early 20s lose typically lose a couple of inches in height as they age for four years, but I’ll be surprised to see it.  I think we all will, eh?
 

[John Butler]

21 hours ago, John Butler said:

Even if the WC supports the notion of Oswald's bus ride, it must be countered if it "contradicts the lone-gunman narrative".

The evidence supporting the idea that there were two Oswalds at the TSBD is a nightmare for the lone-gunman narrative.

[John Butler]

1 minute ago, Jim Hargrove said:

Sure, but from the time Oswald left the Marine Corps (late 1959) until he was measured at the 1963 autopsy by Earl Rose, he lost 2 inches in height.  Perhaps someone will post evidence that men in their early 20s lose typically lose a couple of inches in height as they age for four years, but I’ll be surprised to see it.  I think we all will, eh?
 

JIm,

You are exactly right.  The "evidence" I spoke of is that which would confirm the loss of 2 inches in height from a young man during a four-year period.  I don't think anyone will find it.