Just happened to think--what are the odds?

[donald willis]

Population of Dallas c1963: 700,000.

Lee H. Oswald, a loner, doesn't know that many people there

The one time he takes the bus in the middle of the day

One of the few people he knows takes the same bus, at the same time

Sure.

What are the odds?

[Gil Jesus]

And what are the odds that a stroked-out old lady who testified his face was distorted but she never looked at him be considered a positive ID he was on the bus ?
What a joke.

ROFLMAO

[Bud]

On Monday, May 16, 2022 at 3:45:57 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:

After it happens, 100%.

What is the alternative to happenstance?

[Mark Ulrik]

What's wrong with you? She didn't say that she NEVER looked at him.

> What a joke.

> ROFLMAO

[donald willis]

Not having happened at all?

[Bud]

She contacted police immediately upon finding out that it was the Oswald she knew. Oswald was alive and presumably going to trial for murder so she set herself up to go and perjure herself at that trial. Not knowing what anyone else on the bus might say, she decided to interject herself into the affair and start telling lies. This passes for reasonable to you?

[David Healy]

cite what she said...

[Mark Ulrik]

WC 6H400-27

[Sky Throne 19efppp]

Mr. BALL - You didn't look very carefully, did you?
Mrs. BLEDSOE - No; I just glanced at him, and then looked the other way and I hoped he didn't see me.

Just a glance and she noticed the hole in his shirt elbow, and the fact that his shirt was TUCKED IN, inside his ragged trousers waist. . Uh-huh.

[Gil Jesus]

On Monday, May 16, 2022 at 5:05:44 PM UTC-4, Mark Ulrik wrote:

> What's wrong with you? She didn't say that she NEVER looked at him.
>
> > What a joke.
>
> > ROFLMAO

Looks like the joke is on you:

"He looks like a maniac”. I DIDN'T LOOK AT HIM. I didn’t even want to know I seen him and I just looked off. He looked so bad in his face and his face was so distorted.” ( 6 H 409 )

Maybe you should read the testimony.

[Bud]

Some retards here think Chaney could do a lot more under conditions that were a lot worse.

[Bud]

Maybe you should try to be honest and stop cherry picking. Obviously she looked at him.

Her next day affidavit.

https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/testimony/bledsoe1.htm

"The bus traveled West on Elm Street to about Murphy Street and made a stop and that is when I saw Lee Oswald get on the bus."

"...Oswald got off the bus and I didn't see him again."

At the very least she saw him getting on and getting off.

Some idiots think it is plausible she would call the police so she could start telling lies about him being on the bus. For all she would know there could be a hundred witnesses saying they saw him elsewhere. Plus the other people on the bus might contest what she said. Plus she might have to go to trial and repeat these lies under oath. As usual in their desperation to play silly games with the evidence to try to exonerate poor sweet Lee they neglect to notice that their ideas don`t make a lot of sense. By focusing on the wrong things they get to pretend they can steer the patsy through all the indications of his guilt and have him emerge on the other side unscathed.

[Sky Throne 19efppp]

Some retards here for sure! You got that part right.

[Mark Ulrik]

She explained what she meant. She looked away because she didn't want Oswald to know she had seen him. You lied when you said she NEVER looked at him, didn't you?

[Sky Throne 19efppp]

Amusing how both sides here did not want to deal directly with the testimony of Bledsoe. It's almost as if they would rather just argue past each other instead of dealing with the evidence. Quoting Bledose would show Gil to be exaggerating, or "lying," but then it would also show what a weak witness Bledsoe is. Better to just keep arguing and leave the evidence be. Heh heh...

[Scrum Drum]

This sounds like Greg Parker BS...


Bledsoe obviously saw Oswald...


Whether she repeated what DPD told her about the shirt is another story...

[Gil Jesus]

On Tuesday, May 17, 2022 at 7:43:14 AM UTC-4, Mark Ulrik wrote:

>You lied when you said she NEVER looked at him, didn't you?

No I didn't. Didn't look at him, never looked at him, there is no difference.

If she didn't look at him, she NEVER looked at him. It's the same thing.

It's not my fault English isn't your first language.

[Mark Ulrik]

No one is claiming that Bledsoe was a perfect witness, but one "side" is trying to make her a non-witness by deliberately misrepresenting her.

[Sky Throne 19efppp]

I think everybody should understand that Gil was exaggerating, and you could call it lying, but if everybody understands, I think "exaggeration" is a better word. In fact, Bledsoe herself engaged in the very same exaggeration, but we don't call it lying with her because it is understood that she did look, just not very closely, even though she noticed several details, one detail which doesn't even sound like Oswald. Does anybody really believe that Oswald tucked in his shirt before he left the TSBD?

[Bud]

You are merely trying to exploit the use of the words she used to play silly games because you have no interest in the truth.

[Bud]

Idiots are trying to nit pick wording so they can disregard information they don`t like, nothing new here. Basically Bledsoe has Oswald getting on the bus she was on, and getting off the bus she was on, nothing really more than that.

[Bud]

Yes, they make a big deal out of Chaney being the "closest non-limo witness", yet in the video Gil posted the woman hostage would be the closest to the victim, would this make her a good witness? Even if she was facing the guy would that make her a good person to use to determine the facts about the instantaneous head explosion? Yet Chaney is represented as having that ability.

[Sky Throne 19efppp]

Not questioning Chaney, the closet police officer witness to the shooting shows just what a clown show of an investigation it was, not that it would have made any difference. Chaney would have told the necessary lies.

[Bud]

The shooting was filmed, wasn`t it?

[Sky Throne 19efppp]

There you go! That's the Moronic Bud we all know and loathe!

[Bud]

You bet, straight to the point that torpedoes you poor thinking.

[donald willis]

Speaking of poor thinking...,who was it who had an inadequate response to this:

"Lee H. Oswald, a loner, doesn't know that many people in Dallas

[Bud]

https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/B0fm0zedBtY/m/fsUXT1sBAwAJ

And you don`t have to know someone to recognize them on sight. People in the TSBD knew Oswald on sight. He went shopping, people there might know him on sight. He went to the library, people there might know him on sight. Bledsoe had interactions with Oswald, so she knew him on sight. Oswald would be having interactions with people every day, if you want to calculate odds you`d need to nail down this figure.

And this isn`t the pure happenstance of an ordinary day, Oswald wouldn`t be on the bus if he hadn`t been fleeing after killing Kennedy, and Bledsoe wouldn`t have been on the bus if she hadn`t gone downtown to see JFK.

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 19 May 2022 10:23:03 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

> And this isn`t the pure happenstance of an ordinary day, Oswald
> wouldn`t be on the bus if he hadn`t been fleeing after killing Kennedy

Where's Huckster when you need him to point out someone begging the
question.

I took a bus a few weeks back... who did I kill?

[Bud]

On Thursday, May 19, 2022 at 2:00:08 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Thu, 19 May 2022 10:23:03 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
> wrote:
> > And this isn`t the pure happenstance of an ordinary day, Oswald
> > wouldn`t be on the bus if he hadn`t been fleeing after killing Kennedy
> Where's Huckster when you need him to point out someone begging the
> question.

Four major investigations came to that conclusion, can`t be begging the question.

> I took a bus a few weeks back... who did I kill?

I get it, you think I was saying that being on the bus made him a murderer. It was actually the murder he committed that did that.

[donald willis]

Boy, you're really reaching now!

He went to the library, people there might know him on sight. Bledsoe had interactions with Oswald, so she knew him on sight.

You just sabotaged your own argument.

Oswald would be having interactions with people every day, if you want to calculate odds you`d need to nail down this figure.
>

"interactions" and "on sight" are two different things. Which one would you like to pursue?

> And this isn`t the pure happenstance of an ordinary day, Oswald wouldn`t be on the bus if he hadn`t been fleeing after killing Kennedy, and Bledsoe wouldn`t have been on the bus if she hadn`t gone downtown to see JFK.

Still, what are the odds?

[donald willis]

On Thursday, May 19, 2022 at 11:11:01 AM UTC-7, Bud wrote:
> On Thursday, May 19, 2022 at 2:00:08 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > On Thu, 19 May 2022 10:23:03 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
> > wrote:
> > > And this isn`t the pure happenstance of an ordinary day, Oswald
> > > wouldn`t be on the bus if he hadn`t been fleeing after killing Kennedy
> > Where's Huckster when you need him to point out someone begging the
> > question.
> Four major investigations came to that conclusion

And I bet that all four used the original DPD "facts"....

[Bud]

That is the information you need if you want to calculate odds.

> He went to the library, people there might know him on sight. Bledsoe had interactions with Oswald, so she knew him on sight.
> You just sabotaged your own argument.

How so?

> Oswald would be having interactions with people every day, if you want to calculate odds you`d need to nail down this figure.
> >
> "interactions" and "on sight" are two different things. Which one would you like to pursue?

How many people looked at the pictures of Oswald after his arrest and said "That is the guy who comes into the store/library/wherever"? So these same people might have recognized Oswald when he got on the bus as the person they saw come into the store/library/wherever.

> > And this isn`t the pure happenstance of an ordinary day, Oswald wouldn`t be on the bus if he hadn`t been fleeing after killing Kennedy, and Bledsoe wouldn`t have been on the bus if she hadn`t gone downtown to see JFK.
> Still, what are the odds?

On another day Oswald would have stayed at work (having committed no murder to flee from), and Bledsoe would have stayed at home.

So it appears they cross paths 100% of the time that Oswald kills a President that Bledsoe went to see.

[Bud]

On Friday, May 20, 2022 at 11:40:53 AM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
> On Thursday, May 19, 2022 at 11:11:01 AM UTC-7, Bud wrote:
> > On Thursday, May 19, 2022 at 2:00:08 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > On Thu, 19 May 2022 10:23:03 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
> > > wrote:
> > > > And this isn`t the pure happenstance of an ordinary day, Oswald
> > > > wouldn`t be on the bus if he hadn`t been fleeing after killing Kennedy
> > > Where's Huckster when you need him to point out someone begging the
> > > question.
> > Four major investigations came to that conclusion
> And I bet that all four used the original DPD "facts"....

They used the evidence. You know, the stuff you guys play silly games with.

[donald willis]

On Friday, May 20, 2022 at 11:36:18 AM UTC-7, Bud wrote:
> On Friday, May 20, 2022 at 11:40:53 AM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
> > On Thursday, May 19, 2022 at 11:11:01 AM UTC-7, Bud wrote:
> > > On Thursday, May 19, 2022 at 2:00:08 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > > On Thu, 19 May 2022 10:23:03 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > And this isn`t the pure happenstance of an ordinary day, Oswald
> > > > > wouldn`t be on the bus if he hadn`t been fleeing after killing Kennedy
> > > > Where's Huckster when you need him to point out someone begging the
> > > > question.
> > > Four major investigations came to that conclusion
> > And I bet that all four used the original DPD "facts"....
> They used the evidence.

I'm saying--DPD "facts" = fantasy. I'd say that the DPD was playing silly games with their radio-log transcriptions, but it was too serious to be called a "game"....

[Bud]

On Friday, May 20, 2022 at 2:42:25 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
> On Friday, May 20, 2022 at 11:36:18 AM UTC-7, Bud wrote:
> > On Friday, May 20, 2022 at 11:40:53 AM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
> > > On Thursday, May 19, 2022 at 11:11:01 AM UTC-7, Bud wrote:
> > > > On Thursday, May 19, 2022 at 2:00:08 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > > > On Thu, 19 May 2022 10:23:03 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > And this isn`t the pure happenstance of an ordinary day, Oswald
> > > > > > wouldn`t be on the bus if he hadn`t been fleeing after killing Kennedy
> > > > > Where's Huckster when you need him to point out someone begging the
> > > > > question.
> > > > Four major investigations came to that conclusion
> > > And I bet that all four used the original DPD "facts"....
> > They used the evidence.
> I'm saying--DPD "facts" = fantasy.

You can say whatever you like, it is still a free country unless the Democrats have their way.

> I'd say that the DPD was playing silly games with their radio-log transcriptions, but it was too serious to be called a "game"....

Show that what went out on police radio has ever been significant to a criminal investigation.

[Ben Holmes]

On Fri, 20 May 2022 11:46:13 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

wrote:

>On Friday, May 20, 2022 at 2:42:25 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
>> On Friday, May 20, 2022 at 11:36:18 AM UTC-7, Bud wrote:
>>> On Friday, May 20, 2022 at 11:40:53 AM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
>>>> On Thursday, May 19, 2022 at 11:11:01 AM UTC-7, Bud wrote:
>>>>> On Thursday, May 19, 2022 at 2:00:08 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>>>>>> On Thu, 19 May 2022 10:23:03 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> And this isn`t the pure happenstance of an ordinary day, Oswald
>>>>>>> wouldn`t be on the bus if he hadn`t been fleeing after killing Kennedy
>>>>>> Where's Huckster when you need him to point out someone begging the
>>>>>> question.
>>>>> Four major investigations came to that conclusion
>>>> And I bet that all four used the original DPD "facts"....
>>> They used the evidence.
>> I'm saying--DPD "facts" = fantasy.
>
> You can say whatever you like, it is still a free country unless the Democrats have their way.
>
>> I'd say that the DPD was playing silly games with their radio-log transcriptions, but it was too serious to be called a "game"....
>
> Show that what went out on police radio has ever been significant to a criminal investigation.

Chickenshit is again using logical fallacies to avoid the truth.

He knows that what Don is pointing out is correct, but Chickenshit
simply isn't honest enough to admit it, or courageous enough to refute
what Don points out.

So logical fallacies will have to do...

[Bud]

On Friday, May 20, 2022 at 6:07:25 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Fri, 20 May 2022 11:46:13 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
> wrote:
>
> >On Friday, May 20, 2022 at 2:42:25 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
> >> On Friday, May 20, 2022 at 11:36:18 AM UTC-7, Bud wrote:
> >>> On Friday, May 20, 2022 at 11:40:53 AM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
> >>>> On Thursday, May 19, 2022 at 11:11:01 AM UTC-7, Bud wrote:
> >>>>> On Thursday, May 19, 2022 at 2:00:08 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> >>>>>> On Thu, 19 May 2022 10:23:03 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
> >>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>> And this isn`t the pure happenstance of an ordinary day, Oswald
> >>>>>>> wouldn`t be on the bus if he hadn`t been fleeing after killing Kennedy
> >>>>>> Where's Huckster when you need him to point out someone begging the
> >>>>>> question.
> >>>>> Four major investigations came to that conclusion
> >>>> And I bet that all four used the original DPD "facts"....
> >>> They used the evidence.
> >> I'm saying--DPD "facts" = fantasy.
> >
> > You can say whatever you like, it is still a free country unless the Democrats have their way.
> >
> >> I'd say that the DPD was playing silly games with their radio-log transcriptions, but it was too serious to be called a "game"....
> >
> > Show that what went out on police radio has ever been significant to a criminal investigation.
> Chickenshit is again using logical fallacies to avoid the truth.

I`m asking if he has ever seen this approach used in any other case.

> He knows that what Don is pointing out is correct,

What I know is that my characterization is correct, he is playing silly games with the evidence.

He looks through the transcripts for some gray area and then tries to park a battleship there. He collects toothpicks and claims they can hold up mountains. He is an idiot, and so are you.

> but Chickenshit
> simply isn't honest enough to admit it, or courageous enough to refute
> what Don points out.

You assume if Don says something it is something that needs refuting. What you should be asking is whether it has sufficient support.

[Ben Holmes]

On Fri, 20 May 2022 15:33:05 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

wrote:

>On Friday, May 20, 2022 at 6:07:25 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Fri, 20 May 2022 11:46:13 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>On Friday, May 20, 2022 at 2:42:25 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
>>>> On Friday, May 20, 2022 at 11:36:18 AM UTC-7, Bud wrote:
>>>>> On Friday, May 20, 2022 at 11:40:53 AM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
>>>>>> On Thursday, May 19, 2022 at 11:11:01 AM UTC-7, Bud wrote:
>>>>>>> On Thursday, May 19, 2022 at 2:00:08 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Thu, 19 May 2022 10:23:03 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> And this isn`t the pure happenstance of an ordinary day, Oswald
>>>>>>>>> wouldn`t be on the bus if he hadn`t been fleeing after killing Kennedy
>>>>>>>> Where's Huckster when you need him to point out someone begging the
>>>>>>>> question.
>>>>>>> Four major investigations came to that conclusion
>>>>>> And I bet that all four used the original DPD "facts"....
>>>>> They used the evidence.
>>>> I'm saying--DPD "facts" = fantasy.
>>>
>>> You can say whatever you like, it is still a free country unless the Democrats have their way.
>>>
>>>> I'd say that the DPD was playing silly games with their radio-log transcriptions, but it was too serious to be called a "game"....
>>>
>>> Show that what went out on police radio has ever been significant to a criminal investigation.
>> Chickenshit is again using logical fallacies to avoid the truth.

LFD.

>> He knows that what Don is pointing out is correct,

LFD.

>> but Chickenshit simply isn't honest enough to admit it, or
>> courageous enough to refute what Don points out.

LFD.

[Gil Jesus]

On Friday, May 20, 2022 at 2:46:14 PM UTC-4, Bud wrote:

> Show that what went out on police radio has ever been significant to a criminal investigation.

You can't be serious.

Thousands of times every day across the US, police radio broadcasts describing suspects or their vehicles involved in crimes lead police to arrests.

Every open case is considered "under investigation". Open cases may go cold but until they're closed, they're still under investigation. All leads are followed up.

I guess you're ignorant of B.O.T.L. or A. P. B. police radio broadcasts.

I'm not surprised. You're ignorant of most things police-related.

Radio broadcast of the description of a suspect in a Friday night purse snatching leads to his arrest on Monday by police in a neighboring town.

https://lancasteronline.com/news/arrest-made-in-purse-snatching-spree/article_61bfd60e-17f2-5267-a803-4a819246d4c3.html

Police radio broadcasts are big in solving crimes. What planet do you live on ?

[Bud]

On Saturday, May 21, 2022 at 9:29:56 AM UTC-4, gjjma...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Friday, May 20, 2022 at 2:46:14 PM UTC-4, Bud wrote:
>
> > Show that what went out on police radio has ever been significant to a criminal investigation.
> You can't be serious.
>
> Thousands of times every day across the US, police radio broadcasts describing suspects or their vehicles involved in crimes lead police to arrests.

Show that they are used to give insight into the crime committed. This is how Don uses them.

Like I said to Ben...

"I`m asking if he has ever seen this approach used in any other case."

> Every open case is considered "under investigation". Open cases may go cold but until they're closed, they're still under investigation. All leads are followed up.
>
> I guess you're ignorant of B.O.T.L. or A. P. B. police radio broadcasts.
>
> I'm not surprised. You're ignorant of most things police-related.
>
> Radio broadcast of the description of a suspect in a Friday night purse snatching leads to his arrest on Monday by police in a neighboring town.
>
> https://lancasteronline.com/news/arrest-made-in-purse-snatching-spree/article_61bfd60e-17f2-5267-a803-4a819246d4c3.html
>
> Police radio broadcasts are big in solving crimes. What planet do you live on ?

My mistake was thinking you would be smart enough to discern the point from the words I used. The point was that after the suspect is apprehended what purpose is served by studying the radio logs, what insight into the crime could be hoped to be gleaned from them?

[donald willis]

On Friday, May 20, 2022 at 11:46:14 AM UTC-7, Bud wrote:
> On Friday, May 20, 2022 at 2:42:25 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
> > On Friday, May 20, 2022 at 11:36:18 AM UTC-7, Bud wrote:
> > > On Friday, May 20, 2022 at 11:40:53 AM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
> > > > On Thursday, May 19, 2022 at 11:11:01 AM UTC-7, Bud wrote:
> > > > > On Thursday, May 19, 2022 at 2:00:08 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > > > > On Thu, 19 May 2022 10:23:03 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > And this isn`t the pure happenstance of an ordinary day, Oswald
> > > > > > > wouldn`t be on the bus if he hadn`t been fleeing after killing Kennedy
> > > > > > Where's Huckster when you need him to point out someone begging the
> > > > > > question.
> > > > > Four major investigations came to that conclusion
> > > > And I bet that all four used the original DPD "facts"....
> > > They used the evidence.
> > I'm saying--DPD "facts" = fantasy.
> You can say whatever you like, it is still a free country unless the Democrats have their way.

Hopefully, neither the radical left nor the radical right will "have their way".

> > I'd say that the DPD was playing silly games with their radio-log transcriptions, but it was too serious to be called a "game"....
> Show that what went out on police radio has ever been significant to a criminal investigation.

I have shown that it was significant in THIS investigation.

[Bud]

On Saturday, May 21, 2022 at 12:49:03 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
> On Friday, May 20, 2022 at 11:46:14 AM UTC-7, Bud wrote:
> > On Friday, May 20, 2022 at 2:42:25 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
> > > On Friday, May 20, 2022 at 11:36:18 AM UTC-7, Bud wrote:
> > > > On Friday, May 20, 2022 at 11:40:53 AM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
> > > > > On Thursday, May 19, 2022 at 11:11:01 AM UTC-7, Bud wrote:
> > > > > > On Thursday, May 19, 2022 at 2:00:08 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > > > > > On Thu, 19 May 2022 10:23:03 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > And this isn`t the pure happenstance of an ordinary day, Oswald
> > > > > > > > wouldn`t be on the bus if he hadn`t been fleeing after killing Kennedy
> > > > > > > Where's Huckster when you need him to point out someone begging the
> > > > > > > question.
> > > > > > Four major investigations came to that conclusion
> > > > > And I bet that all four used the original DPD "facts"....
> > > > They used the evidence.
> > > I'm saying--DPD "facts" = fantasy.
> > You can say whatever you like, it is still a free country unless the Democrats have their way.
> Hopefully, neither the radical left nor the radical right will "have their way".

The radical right has no political power in this country. The common sense right is gaining power every day because of the policies of the batshit crazy left.

> > > I'd say that the DPD was playing silly games with their radio-log transcriptions, but it was too serious to be called a "game"....
> > Show that what went out on police radio has ever been significant to a criminal investigation.
> I have shown that it was significant in THIS investigation.

To your satisfaction, sure. But how high a bar was that?

Does it clear the incredibly high bar of police acting to insure the murderer of a police officers get away scot free? Not even close.

[Ben Holmes]

Why do you bother, Gil, this is so OBVIOUSLY an example of Chickenshit
simply pulling your leg.

When Chickenshit tells lies this obvious, he's simply reminding
everyone of how dishonest he is... nothing more.

[Hank Sienzant]

On Monday, May 16, 2022 at 3:45:57 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
> Population of Dallas c1963: 700,000.
>
> Lee H. Oswald, a loner, doesn't know that many people there

>
> The one time he takes the bus in the middle of the day
>
> One of the few people he knows takes the same bus, at the same time
>
> Sure.
>
> What are the odds?

Your subject line invites an obvious retort. So obvious, there is no reason actually to use it.

But as to your intended question, the odds are slim to none before the fact. After the fact, the odds are 100%.

Because it happened.

Extremely unlikely things happen every day.

For example, the most recent Super Bowl ended with the final score of 23-20. How unlikely is that? Before the fact, if you predicted that particular final score, you probably could have won thousands on a one-dollar bet. After the fact, nobody would take your bet, because it already happened and the final score is already determined.

Another example, open your local Sunday paper to the obituary page. There will be stories about local residents who recently died. Before the fact, if you predicted all those people who didn't even know each other and maybe grew up hundreds or thousands from your locality and were born decades apart would appear on the obituary page on the same day, you'd be hailed as a psychic. After the fact, there's nothing remarkable about it at all.

Ditto with your example. First off, you make an unproven assumption, this one:
"The one time he [Oswald] takes the bus in the middle of the day".

Secondly, you confuse the 'before the fact' odds with the 'after the fact' odds. If it wasn't Mary Bledsoe seeing hm on the bus, maybe he takes a cab driven by an ex-Marine in his same squadron, maybe one of the roommates at the rooming house happens to be a third-grade classmate. Whatever. Unlikely things happen every day.

But the evidence is solid that Oswald boarded the same bus that Bledsoe was already on (FYI, your assertion suggests they boarded the same bus at the same time, and that too is wrong: "One of the few people he knows takes the same bus, at the same time").

These are the facts that make the case Bledsoe saw Oswald on the bus solid:

1 - Bledsoe came forward the next day to claim she saw him get on the bus and then off the bus after a few blocks. As Bud pointed out, she had no way of knowing at that early date whether Oswald might have a solid alibi for the time she claimed to see Oswald after the assassination. Her claim could have been exposed as a falsehood almost immediately. There was no reason for her to lie about seeing Oswald.

2 - The Dallas police and the FBI agents reported Oswald, while being interrogated, told essentially the same story of boarding a bus and then abandoning it when it got stuck in traffic. Of course, critics claim the police were lying about what Oswald said.

3 - A bus transfer with a unique punch mark was claimed to be found on Oswald by other police officers. The bus driver was found through that unique punch, and he claimed to give out only two on that particular trip - one to a woman and one to a man. He claimed the two people left within seconds of each other after the bus got stopped in traffic. Of course, critics claim he was lying or mistaken as well.

All those people were lying in your scenario to put Oswald on a bus? Why? To what end?

To put Oswald on a bus? Why? Riding a bus was not a crime.

Let's point that out again: Riding a bus was not a crime.

So this instance of him being seen on a bus by someone acquainted with him does nothing to establish his guilt or innocence in the assassination of the President or the killing of Officer Tippit.

And, of course, we know Oswald took some sort of motorized conveyance to travel between the Depository and the rooming house.

We know that because of the times and distances involved.

Since Oswald was reported being seen at the boarding house "about one o'clock," in any case, so we know he got there by then. Of course, critics suggest the rooming house attendant who reported seeing Oswald there on the *afternoon* of the assassination was also lying. But this is yet another claim Oswald made in custody, according to several of his interrogators from several law enforcement agencies.

And, of course, Oswald was arrested before two o'clock on the day of the assassination at the Texas Theatre after being seen within the Depository about 12:32. Again, these are the facts. Thus far, critics haven't suggested Oswald wasn't arrested at the theatre, as far as I know, but they do claim a separate arrest of another individual who looked like Oswald taken out the back of the theatre.

But being at the Depository after the assassination and at the theatre before two o'clock certainly implies taking public transit of some sort, whether a bus or a cab (or as the evidence suggests, both) because the distance between the Depository and the Theatre (with a stop in between at the rooming house) are too great to travel on foot in the time allotted, as Oswald did not own a car.

[Bud]

Ironic. You are both pretending that the fact that information goes out over police radio in order to apprehend suspects is something only police know, not everyone who has ever owned a television.

But nobody seems to be able to produce a case where what went out over police radio was used to give insight into the crime committed.

[Hank Sienzant]

Or what went out over the police radio waves was ever used to exonerate a suspect, which is what Gil and Ben (and conspiracy authors whom they echo) are attempting to do with the radio broadcasts vis-a-vis Oswald.

[donald willis]

On Tuesday, May 24, 2022 at 2:51:25 AM UTC-7, Hank Sienzant wrote:
> On Monday, May 16, 2022 at 3:45:57 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
> > Population of Dallas c1963: 700,000.
> >
> > Lee H. Oswald, a loner, doesn't know that many people there
> >
> > The one time he takes the bus in the middle of the day
> >
> > One of the few people he knows takes the same bus, at the same time
> >
> > Sure.
> >
> > What are the odds?
> Your subject line invites an obvious retort. So obvious, there is no reason actually to use it.
>
> But as to your intended question, the odds are slim to none before the fact. After the fact, the odds are 100%.
>
> Because it happened.
>
> Extremely unlikely things happen every day.
>
> For example, the most recent Super Bowl ended with the final score of 23-20. How unlikely is that? Before the fact, if you predicted that particular final score, you probably could have won thousands on a one-dollar bet. After the fact, nobody would take your bet, because it already happened and the final score is already determined.
>
> Another example, open your local Sunday paper to the obituary page. There will be stories about local residents who recently died. Before the fact, if you predicted all those people who didn't even know each other and maybe grew up hundreds or thousands from your locality and were born decades apart would appear on the obituary page on the same day, you'd be hailed as a psychic. After the fact, there's nothing remarkable about it at all.
>
> Ditto with your example. First off, you make an unproven assumption, this one:
> "The one time he [Oswald] takes the bus in the middle of the day".
>
> Secondly, you confuse the 'before the fact' odds with the 'after the fact' odds. If it wasn't Mary Bledsoe seeing hm on the bus, maybe he takes a cab driven by an ex-Marine in his same squadron, maybe one of the roommates at the rooming house happens to be a third-grade classmate. Whatever. Unlikely things happen every day.
>
> But the evidence is solid that Oswald boarded the same bus that Bledsoe was already on (FYI, your assertion suggests they boarded the same bus at the same time, and that too is wrong: "One of the few people he knows takes the same bus, at the same time").
>
> These are the facts that make the case Bledsoe saw Oswald on the bus solid:
>
> 1 - Bledsoe came forward the next day to claim she saw him get on the bus and then off the bus after a few blocks. As Bud pointed out, she had no way of knowing at that early date whether Oswald might have a solid alibi for the time she claimed to see Oswald after the assassination. Her claim could have been exposed as a falsehood almost immediately. There was no reason for her to lie about seeing Oswald.
>
> 2 - The Dallas police and the FBI agents reported Oswald, while being interrogated, told essentially the same story of boarding a bus and then abandoning it when it got stuck in traffic. Of course, critics claim the police were lying about what Oswald said.
>
> 3 - A bus transfer with a unique punch mark was claimed to be found on Oswald by other police officers. The bus driver was found through that unique punch, and he claimed to give out only two on that particular trip - one to a woman and one to a man. He claimed the two people left within seconds of each other after the bus got stopped in traffic. Of course, critics claim he was lying or mistaken as well.
>
> All those people were lying in your scenario to put Oswald on a bus? Why? To what end?
>
> To put Oswald on a bus?

I don't think I ever said that he wasn't on a bus. My bad is that I say that he wasn't in a *cab* that day.

[Hank Sienzant]

But you argue he wasn’t on the same bus as Bledsoe. Why? Because she identified the man as Oswald, and sh3 put Oswald getting on the bus, then getting off after only a few blocks. This agrees with both the bus driver ((McWatters) and th3 teenag3 passenger (Milton Jones), who likewise put a male passenger getting on and off the bus within a few blocks. Indeed, the only way McWatters was isolated as the bus driver is through the transfer found on Oswald. To get around all that, you argue the transfer does not establish he got off th3 Bus on Elm, but McWatters said he gave out only two on that trip, and the one found on Oswald must be the one McWatters gave to the male passenger who departed the bus on Elm.

And Whaley took a male passenger to the vicinity of Oswald’s rooming house shortly after Oswald obtained the transfer anddeparted the bus.

[donald willis]

Ignore his straightforward affidavit for his cockamamie testimony.

and th3 teenag3 passenger (Milton Jones), who likewise put a male passenger getting on and off the bus within a few blocks.

And had police boarding the bus and holding it up for an hour. Nowhere that I've seen does McW say anything like that happened.

Indeed, the only way McWatters was isolated as the bus driver is through the transfer found on Oswald. To get around all that, you argue the transfer does not establish he got off th3 Bus on Elm, but McWatters said he gave out only two on that trip, and the one found on Oswald must be the one McWatters gave to the male passenger who departed the bus on Elm.
>
> And Whaley took a male passenger to the vicinity of Oswald’s rooming house

He said that he did. The three-jacket/shirt claim by W however bring his whole testimony into doubt. It suggests that he'd saying anything that he thought was wanted.

dcw

[Hank Sienzant]

> > But you argue he wasn’t on the same bus as Bledsoe. Why? Because she identified the man as Oswald, and she put Oswald getting on the bus, then getting off after only a few blocks. This agrees with both the bus driver ((McWatters)

> Ignore his straightforward affidavit for his cockamamie testimony.

Link his straightforward affidavit here and tell us what in it helps your argument.


>> and the teenage passenger (Milton Jones), who likewise put a male passenger getting on and off the bus within a few blocks.

> And had police boarding the bus and holding it up for an hour. Nowhere that I've seen does McW say anything like that happened.

Asked and answered. Jones recalled it took that long. Sometimes a few minutes feels like an hour if you're in a hurry. And if you're immersed in a good book, an hour can feel like five minutes. People's estimates of time duration are all over the map.


>> Indeed, the only way McWatters was isolated as the bus driver is through the transfer found on Oswald. To get around all that, you argue the transfer does not establish he got off the Bus on Elm, but McWatters said he gave out only two on that trip, and the one found on Oswald must be the one McWatters gave to the male passenger who departed the bus on Elm.

The bus transfer is the hard evidence that links Oswald to Mcwatters' bus. And the action of a male passenger getting on the bus on Elm and also departing on Elm after riding only a few blocks is described by McWatters, Bledsoe, Jones, and Oswald (in custody in law enforcement officers' reports).

Yeah, they were all thinking of a different passenger, and the bus transfer was a forgery, and Oswald never admitted that in custody is your argument, based on nothing but differences in each person's recollection of events. But differences in each person's recollections of events are the norm, even when nobody is trying to frame Oswald for anything. Because people are human.

So I just need from you a way to determine the normal differences in recollections from the after-the-fact fake differences in recollection where the witness is lying to frame Oswald.

Not every difference means a witness was deliberately lying, but it appears from here that is the methodology you use to exclude a witness.


> >
> > And Whaley took a male passenger to the vicinity of Oswald’s rooming house shortly after Oswald obtained the transfer and departed the bus.

> He said that he did. The three-jacket/shirt claim by W however bring his whole testimony into doubt. It suggests that he'd saying anything that he thought was wanted.

No, his trip log prepared the day of the assassination shows that trip (albeit the interval is off, because, as he explained, he estimated the times). And Oswald admitted to a cab ride in custody.

It suggests that Whaley's testimony is doubtful in its entirety to you. But then, you are trying to exclude Oswald from killing Tippit. So you find reasons to exclude a lot of the testimony and lineup identifications of Oswald by witnesses and hard evidence like the bus transfer and the trip log.


>
> dcw

[Sky Throne 19efppp]

This story about the police keeping the bus for an hour simply is not credible. So why was it concocted? One hour makes it too late for the Tippit shooting. They don't want us thinking that this bus delivered "Oswald" to Tenth Street in time to shoot Tippit. That's where this bus goes. After passing by Mary Bledsoe's house it goes by Tenth Street. If "Oswald" rode the bus to Tenth Street, and it had not been stopped for an hour, then it would have delivered him to Tenth Street in time to walk west on Tenth to "shoot Tippit." But that means he can't have gone to 1026 North Beckley. The bus ride has to be nixed. So if the bus is stopped for an hour, you can't possibly think that Oswald rode the bus, just in case you doubt the transfer. And Whaley with his ridiculous testimony provides the alternative transportation explanation. So, either there were two of these Oswald critters, or he never went to 1026 North Beckley. I believe Earlene, so that makes two.

[Gil Jesus]

On Friday, May 27, 2022 at 5:16:34 AM UTC-4, Hank Sienzant wrote:

> The bus transfer is the hard evidence that links Oswald to Mcwatters' bus

Hank likes to hang on this hard evidence, how hard is it ?

The transfer was supposedly found on Oswald as he was searched waiting for the first lineup to begin at 4:05 pm.

So the police arrested Oswald and didn’t search him for almost an hour and a half after his arrest ?

It was allegedly found by Detective Richard Sims, who took it back up to the office, initialed it and put it in an envelope and left it in a desk of a superior officer of whom he could not remember. ( 7 H 173 )

It appears more than likely that this item was planted by police to defend the idea that Oswald fled on his own and not with an accomplice.

Why do I call this transfer phony ? Several reasons.

Firstly, Officer M.G. Hall assisted Sims and Boyd with the escort of Oswald to the first and second lineups. His report makes no mention of of a search or of finding any bus transfer on Oswald.

https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/mg-hall.jpg

Officer M.G. Hall’s report make no mention of finding any bus transfer or unfired rounds on Oswald

Secondly, an FBI teletype dated 2-3-64 notes that Detective Paul Bentley reported that he “completely searched Oswald and nothing was left in his pockets.”

https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/105-82555-Sec-78-pg-14-1.png

No mention of any bus transfer.

Capt. Fritz verified that Oswald “was completely searched following his arrest.”

Thirdly, verification that Bentley emptied Oswald’s pockets comes during a second search as he sat in Capt. Fritz’s office by Dallas policeman Charles Truman ( CT ) Walker who told the HSCA in a 1978 interview that he “searched him good, but found nothing“.

https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/image003.png

The evidence shows that Oswald was completely searched TWICE, that his pockets were EMPTIED prior to the 4:05 pm lineup and that he could NOT have been in possession of either the bus transfer or the unfired .38 rounds at 4:05 pm like the Dallas Police said he was.

[Bud]

On Friday, May 27, 2022 at 9:07:44 AM UTC-4, gjjma...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Friday, May 27, 2022 at 5:16:34 AM UTC-4, Hank Sienzant wrote:
>
> > The bus transfer is the hard evidence that links Oswald to Mcwatters' bus
> Hank likes to hang on this hard evidence, how hard is it ?
>
> The transfer was supposedly found on Oswald as he was searched waiting for the first lineup to begin at 4:05 pm.
>
> So the police arrested Oswald and didn’t search him for almost an hour and a half after his arrest ?
>
> It was allegedly found by Detective Richard Sims, who took it back up to the office, initialed it and put it in an envelope and left it in a desk of a superior officer of whom he could not remember. ( 7 H 173 )
>
> It appears more than likely that this item was planted by police to defend the idea that Oswald fled on his own and not with an accomplice.

It appears that way to an idiot.

> Why do I call this transfer phony ? Several reasons.
>
> Firstly, Officer M.G. Hall assisted Sims and Boyd with the escort of Oswald to the first and second lineups. His report makes no mention of of a search or of finding any bus transfer on Oswald.
>
> https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/mg-hall.jpg
>
> Officer M.G. Hall’s report make no mention of finding any bus transfer or unfired rounds on Oswald
>
> Secondly, an FBI teletype dated 2-3-64 notes that Detective Paul Bentley reported that he “completely searched Oswald and nothing was left in his pockets.”
>
> https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/105-82555-Sec-78-pg-14-1.png
>
> No mention of any bus transfer.
>
> Capt. Fritz verified that Oswald “was completely searched following his arrest.”
>
> Thirdly, verification that Bentley emptied Oswald’s pockets comes during a second search as he sat in Capt. Fritz’s office by Dallas policeman Charles Truman ( CT ) Walker who told the HSCA in a 1978 interview that he “searched him good, but found nothing“.
>
> https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/image003.png
>
> The evidence shows that Oswald was completely searched TWICE, that his pockets were EMPTIED prior to the 4:05 pm lineup and that he could NOT have been in possession of either the bus transfer or the unfired .38 rounds at 4:05 pm like the Dallas Police said he was.

Both were found in his shirt pocket, which apparently was missed during prior searches.

[Hank Sienzant]

Oswald was most likely patted down - rather than his pockets emptied - and the bus transfer and bullets not felt in the shirt pocket, or when patted down from behind the shirt pocket was missed.

Critics would rather believe in any fantastic conspiracy involving nearly everyone who came within 30 miles or 30 minutes of Oswald than believe in human error. Because human error is so much more rare than massive conspiracies.

[Gil Jesus]

On Friday, May 27, 2022 at 9:15:26 AM UTC-4, Bud wrote:

> Both were found in his shirt pocket, which apparently was missed during prior searches.

evidence ?

[Hank Sienzant]

Your assumption is it was concocted. Your assumption is unproven and nothing — *nothing* — is provided by you to support your ‘concocted’ claim.

On the contrary, only one witness (Jones) claimed that, contrary to the recollections of McWatters or Bledsoe, who make no mention of any such extreme delay.

> One hour makes it too late for the Tippit shooting.

Nobody is accusing the bus of shooting Tippit. So it matters not how long the bus took, because Oswald left the bus after a few blocks. This is further evidence that conspiracy theorists look at the wrong evidence and look at it wrongly.

The Commission concluded Oswald shot Tippit, based in great part on shells at the scene matching Oswald’s revolver to the exclusion of all other weapons in the world and the testimony of numerous eyewitnesses to seeing Oswald either commit the murder of Tippit or seeing him empty the revolver or seeing him holding a revolver in the vicinity of the Tippit killing.

> They don't want us thinking that this bus delivered "Oswald" to Tenth Street in time to shoot Tippit.

Why not? That’s certainly a perfectly reasonable conclusion, if the evidence supported Oswald staying on the bus. However, the evidence from Bledsoe, Jones, McWatters, and the bus transfer itself says Oswald left the bus while it was still on Elm.

> That's where this bus goes. After passing by Mary Bledsoe's house it goes by Tenth Street. If "Oswald" rode the bus to Tenth Street, and it had not been stopped for an hour, then it would have delivered him to Tenth Street in time to walk west on Tenth to "shoot Tippit."

Great. Without realizing it, you’ve offered up a better scenario than anything offered by any CT since the day of the murder of Tippit.

> But that means he can't have gone to 1026 North Beckley.

That’s a problem why? Most CTs argue Earlene Roberts was a liar, prone to exaggeration, when they wish to claim Oswald never visited the rooming house in any case.

> The bus ride has to be nixed.

No, it doesn’t. All that has to be nixed is the one-hour delay, and that’s already been explained as solely Jones perception.

> So if the bus is stopped for an hour, you can't possibly think that Oswald rode the bus, just in case you doubt the transfer.

You not only have to doubt the transfer, but the testimony of Jones (who says a man got on and off the bus after a few blocks), the testimony of McWatters (who says a man got on and off the bus after a few blocks and requested a transfer when leaving), and the testimony of Bledsoe, who recognized Oswald (and likewise testified he got on and off the bus after a few blocks). And even Oswald in custody, according to various LEO reporting.

> And Whaley with his ridiculous testimony provides the alternative transportation explanation.

His trip log prepared on the day of the assassination shows he took a passenger to the vicinity of the rooming house from the Greyhound Station at about the right time. And we know Oswald got to the rooming house at about one o’clock in any case, as again, Oswald admitted that in custody.

> So, either there were two of these Oswald critters, or he never went to 1026 North Beckley.

False dilemma. The evidence indicates Oswald took a bus and then a cab to the rooming house.

> I believe Earlene, so that makes two.

No, there’s no evidence of two Oswald’s. One guy shot the President, went to his rooming house and got his revolver and then shot Tippit and fled to a theatre to hide out. That’s exactly what the evidence indicates.

[Sky Throne 19efppp]

"Most likely" is good enough for Hank when it supports his wacky theories. Besides, he has no burdens. Only people who disagree with him have burdens. That's Hank Logic.

[Hank Sienzant]

On Friday, May 27, 2022 at 9:07:44 AM UTC-4, gjjma...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Friday, May 27, 2022 at 5:16:34 AM UTC-4, Hank Sienzant wrote:
>
> > The bus transfer is the hard evidence that links Oswald to Mcwatters' bus
> Hank likes to hang on this hard evidence, how hard is it ?

It’s a physical document hand-punched by another physical object. It’s as hard evidence as the shells and the rifle recovered from the Depository.

>
> The transfer was supposedly found on Oswald as he was searched waiting for the first lineup to begin at 4:05 pm.
>
> So the police arrested Oswald and didn’t search him for almost an hour and a half after his arrest ?

More than likely, after he was subdued, handcuffed and his revolver taken away, he was given a pat-down and not searched thoroughly. We know this because the bus transfer was not found until about four PM on the day of the assassination.

>
> It was allegedly found by Detective Richard Sims, who took it back up to the office, initialed it and put it in an envelope and left it in a desk of a superior officer of whom he could not remember. ( 7 H 173 )

Yes, that’s what Sims testified to. Any reason to presume he’s lying (other than your refusal to accept the evidence of Oswald’s guilt, I mean?)

>
> It appears more than likely that this item was planted by police to defend the idea that Oswald fled on his own and not with an accomplice.

Stated but unproven. When do you intend to provide the evidence of this supposed accomplice?

>
> Why do I call this transfer phony ? Several reasons.

One reason. You cannot accept that Oswald shot the a president and believe instead in a massive conspiracy you are unable to establish.

>
> Firstly, Officer M.G. Hall assisted Sims and Boyd with the escort of Oswald to the first and second lineups. His report makes no mention of of a search or of finding any bus transfer on Oswald.
> https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/mg-hall.jpg

Did he conduct the search? Was he present for the search?
If no to either, why would he mention it? His report makes no mention of the Empire State Building either. Your presumption is if Hall failed to mention something, it never happened. That presumption is unproven.

>
>
> Officer M.G. Hall’s report make no mention of finding any bus transfer or unfired rounds on Oswald

Yeah, you said that already. Stating it twice doesn’t make your claim any stronger.

>
> Secondly, an FBI teletype dated 2-3-64 notes that Detective Paul Bentley reported that he “completely searched Oswald and nothing was left in his pockets.”
> https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/105-82555-Sec-78-pg-14-1.png

That’s a hearsay document. It’s typical of conspiracy advocates to ignore the first-person testimony and instead put their faith in a second-hand claim. You’re no different.

>

>
> No mention of any bus transfer.
>
> Capt. Fritz verified that Oswald “was completely searched following his arrest.”

Again, a second-hand hearsay report. What did Sims - the person who testified he searched Oswald and found the bus transfer - say?

>
> Thirdly, verification that Bentley emptied Oswald’s pockets comes during a second search as he sat in Capt. Fritz’s office by Dallas policeman Charles Truman ( CT ) Walker who told the HSCA in a 1978 interview that he “searched him good, but found nothing“.
>
> https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/image003.png

Riiiight. A 1978 recollection takes precedence over the testimony of the police officer who conducted the search on the after the assassination. We understand how this works, and we understand how it doesn’t work. Truman’s 15-year after-the-fact recollection is meaningless.

>
> The evidence shows that Oswald was completely searched TWICE, that his pockets were EMPTIED prior to the 4:05 pm lineup and that he could NOT have been in possession of either the bus transfer or the unfired .38 rounds at 4:05 pm like the Dallas Police said he was.

The evidence shows nothing you’ve presented overturns the bus transfer nor the testimony of Sims.

[Gil Jesus]

On Friday, May 27, 2022 at 9:15:26 AM UTC-4, Bud wrote:

> Both were found in his shirt pocket, which apparently was missed during prior searches.

Wrong again. The .38 shells were supposedly found in his pants pocket.

https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh7/html/WC_Vol7_0091a.htm

Your ignorance of police procedures are only exceeded by your ignorance of the evidence.

How did two searches miss his shirt AND pants pockets ?

When you search a suspect, you have him empty his pockets and then search ALL his pockets.

There's NO WAY they could have missed all of that in TWO searches.

The cops were lying about the bus transfer and the 38 rounds.

[Gil Jesus]

On Friday, May 27, 2022 at 9:52:53 AM UTC-4, Hank Sienzant wrote:

> Oswald was most likely patted down - rather than his pockets emptied - and the bus transfer and bullets not felt in the shirt pocket, or when patted down from behind the shirt pocket was missed.
>
> Critics would rather believe in any fantastic conspiracy involving nearly everyone who came within 30 miles or 30 minutes of Oswald than believe in human error. Because human error is so much more rare than massive conspiracies.

I guess you're another one who doesn't look at the evidence.

"nothing weas left in his pockets"
"Oswald was allowed to keep nothing"

here it is again for you to ignore

https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/105-82555-Sec-78-pg-14-1.png

[David Healy]

they're *hapless* Gil, they just can't help themselves...

[Gil Jesus]

On Friday, May 27, 2022 at 12:37:24 PM UTC-4, David Healy wrote:

> they're *hapless* Gil, they just can't help themselves...

Hank and Bud.....a perfect example of how 1 + 1 = 0.

[Hank Sienzant]

On Friday, May 27, 2022 at 10:52:08 AM UTC-4, Sky Throne 19efppp wrote:
> On Friday, May 27, 2022 at 9:57:44 AM UTC-4, gjjma...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Friday, May 27, 2022 at 9:15:26 AM UTC-4, Bud wrote:
> > > Both were found in his shirt pocket, which apparently was missed during prior searches.
> > evidence ?
> "Most likely" is good enough for Hank when it supports his wacky theories.

What’s wacky about human error? We all have made more than a few.

> Besides, he has no burdens. Only people who disagree with him have burdens. That's Hank Logic.

The historical case has been laid out end to end for over 57 years. If you wish to overturn it, present a better end-to-end scenario that adheres to the known evidence better than the existing one. I don’t have a continuing obligation to present the historical case every time you bring up some testimony or evidence you think doesn’t fit the historical case.

You — and other CTs — pretend the evidence is a chain and if you snip one link, the case crashes. It’s not. It’s more like a spider web, where each strand upholds and supports all the other strands. Snipping one strand doesn’t make the spider web fall apart.

This property is called consilience. It’s where a given conclusion is supported by multiple pieces of evidence over multiple science disciplines. For example, that Oswald arrived in time to shoot Tippit is supported by the shells found at the scene matched to his revolver, by the eyewitnesses at the scene, by the bus transfer, the testimony of McWatters, Jones, and Bledsoe on the bus, and the trip log of Whaley, Whaley’s testimony, as well as Oswald’s admissions in custody he took a bus and then a cab.

[Bud]

On Friday, May 27, 2022 at 12:20:58 PM UTC-4, gjjma...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Friday, May 27, 2022 at 9:15:26 AM UTC-4, Bud wrote:
> > Both were found in his shirt pocket, which apparently was missed during prior searches.
> Wrong again. The .38 shells were supposedly found in his pants pocket.
>
> https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh7/html/WC_Vol7_0091a.htm
>
> Your ignorance of police procedures are only exceeded by your ignorance of the evidence.

The police search people? Where would we be without your insight?

> How did two searches miss his shirt AND pants pockets ?

It seems it was the second search that turned up that evidence.

> When you search a suspect, you have him empty his pockets and then search ALL his pockets.

I know firsthand of several instances where the cops didn`t search me or people I was arrested with properly.

Once, I was locked up for drinking on the corner. My jacket had a hole in the pocket that allowed me to put beers down into the lining. They patted me down and put me in the patrol car and when they were driving me to the station I pulled one out and asked them if they wanted a beer. Another time I was arrested with a big knife. I remember dropping it on the floor of the patrol car and trying to kick it under the seat and it kept rolling back down. Once me and my friends got in a fight with some Septa bus drivers, and we got arrested. My friend made the mistake of pulling out one of those ninja throwing stars in the back seat of the patrol car and telling the cop he could have killed him with it. They didn`t like that much, and kicked his ass.

And I`ve seen numerous videos of cops being killed or suicides by apprehended suspects who pull out concealed weapons.

Like this case...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ricardo_Cerna

This is a funny one, presumably this guy was searched but pulls out a lighter and attempts to burn the patrol car, but the cop swerves and the guy is jettisoned out the back...

https://youtu.be/L1ZdBKI_Udw

> There's NO WAY they could have missed all of that in TWO searches.

It seems the second search turned up the evidence.

> The cops were lying about the bus transfer and the 38 rounds.

Why would they do that?

[Hank Sienzant]

On Friday, May 27, 2022 at 12:20:58 PM UTC-4, gjjma...@gmail.com wrote:

> On Friday, May 27, 2022 at 9:15:26 AM UTC-4, Bud wrote:
> > Both were found in his shirt pocket, which apparently was missed during prior searches.
> Wrong again. The .38 shells were supposedly found in his pants pocket.
>
> https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh7/html/WC_Vol7_0091a.htm

I beg your pardon. That minor error changes nothing. Sims’ statement is still a matter of record. At 4PM, Oswald was a suspect in the murder of Tippit. Why would the police frame an innocent man and let the real cop-killer go free?

>
> Your ignorance of police procedures are only exceeded by your ignorance of the evidence.

I pointed out that what you you cited was hearsay in several,cases and in another was 15 years old recollection. That does not overturn Sims’ testimony.

>
> How did two searches miss his shirt AND pants pockets ?

Were there two searches?

You have not established that. Do you know what a “fish story” is? Do you understand that people sometimes inflate their own importance in retelling stories? Do you understand you doubt everything the police said that points to Oswald and accept everything the police said — even stuff years later — that points away from Oswald?

>
> When you search a suspect, you have him empty his pockets and then search ALL his pockets.
>
> There's NO WAY they could have missed all of that in TWO searches.

Assumed, not established.

>
> The cops were lying about the bus transfer and the 38 rounds.

Let’s just make this simple:

True or false: you believe the police and FBI were lying about everything that points to Oswald.

[David Healy]

Sticking to your script keeps backing you in a corner, right nutter? Or is it left nutter?

[Hank Sienzant]

Don’t have a script. Only the facts.

[Hank Sienzant]

Gil? You hoo? [taps microphone] Is this thing working?

[Ben Holmes]

And what Huckster is attempting to do is molest his own grandmother.

He's quite incapable of debating what I *actually* say, and must make
up things like this.

[Ben Holmes]

On Fri, 27 May 2022 02:16:33 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:

...

>The bus transfer is the hard evidence that links Oswald to Mcwatters' bus.

No, it isn't. You cannot even produce the book it came out of.

> And the action of a male passenger getting on the bus on Elm and also
> departing on Elm after riding only a few blocks is described by
> McWatters, Bledsoe, Jones, and Oswald (in custody in law enforcement
> officers' reports).
>
>Yeah, they were all thinking of a different passenger,

Nothing more need be said. You've admitted it.

[Ben Holmes]

On Fri, 27 May 2022 06:52:52 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:

>Oswald was most likely...

And here come the speculations to explain the actual evidence.

Believers are quite fond of speculation.

[Ben Holmes]

On Fri, 27 May 2022 10:32:46 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:

>On Friday, May 27, 2022 at 10:52:08 AM UTC-4, Sky Throne 19efppp wrote:
>> On Friday, May 27, 2022 at 9:57:44 AM UTC-4, gjjma...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> On Friday, May 27, 2022 at 9:15:26 AM UTC-4, Bud wrote:
>>>> Both were found in his shirt pocket, which apparently was missed during prior searches.
>>> evidence ?
>> "Most likely" is good enough for Hank when it supports his wacky theories.
>
>What’s wacky about human error? We all have made more than a few.
>
>
>> Besides, he has no burdens. Only people who disagree with him have burdens. That's Hank Logic.
>
>The historical case has been laid out end to end for over 57 years.

And **NEVER** supported.

Run coward... RUN!

[Ben Holmes]

On Fri, 27 May 2022 11:44:01 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:

>On Friday, May 27, 2022 at 12:20:58 PM UTC-4, gjjma...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Friday, May 27, 2022 at 9:15:26 AM UTC-4, Bud wrote:
>> > Both were found in his shirt pocket, which apparently was missed during prior searches.
>> Wrong again. The .38 shells were supposedly found in his pants pocket.
>>
>> https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh7/html/WC_Vol7_0091a.htm
>
>I beg your pardon. That minor error changes nothing.

This common opinion of believers that accuracy doesn't matter simply
goes to show their cowardice, nothing more

> Sims’ statement is still a matter of record. At 4PM, Oswald was a
> suspect in the murder of Tippit. Why would the police frame an
> innocent man and let the real cop-killer go free?

This is a simple logical fallacy, and demonstrates the fear that
believers have - that they need to constantly use logical fallacies to
support their wacky ideas.

[Ben Holmes]

On Fri, 27 May 2022 13:24:51 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:

>Don’t have a script. Only the facts.

What are the facts about the "roll call?"

Dare you explicitly explain them to Chrissy?

[Hank Sienzant]

And what Ben is doing here is trying to raise my ire, so I respond in kind. We understand how you work. Address what I said, which had nothing to do with grandparents.

> He's quite incapable of debating what I *actually* say, and must make
> up things like this.

I addressed exactly what you said. You called Bud a liar here:
“When Chickenshit tells lies this obvious, he's simply reminding everyone of how dishonest he is...nothing more.”

For saying this:
“Show that what went out on police radio has ever been significant to a criminal investigation.”

I pointed out:
“Or what went out over the police radio waves was ever used to exonerate a suspect, which is what Gil and Ben (and conspiracy authors whom they echo) are attempting to do with the radio broadcasts vis-a-vis Oswald.”

Bud said this:
“He looks through the transcripts for some gray area and then tries to park a battleship there. He collects toothpicks and claims they can hold up mountains. … You assume if Don says something it is something that needs refuting. What you should be asking is whether it has sufficient support. …
But nobody seems to be able to produce a case where what went out over police radio was used to give insight into the crime committed.”

I concurred in that, and expanded it to include others beyond Don:
“Or what went out over the police radio waves was ever used to exonerate a suspect, which is what Gil and Ben (and conspiracy authors whom they echo) are attempting to do with the radio broadcasts vis-a-vis Oswald.”

You have no response to that, so you talk about my grandmother.

[Hank Sienzant]

On Friday, June 3, 2022 at 10:54:11 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Fri, 27 May 2022 02:16:33 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
> <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> ...
> >The bus transfer is the hard evidence that links Oswald to Mcwatters' bus.
> No, it isn't. You cannot even produce the book it came out of.

Show why I need to produce this. Does anyone save their empty checkbooks after all the checks are written? If not, does that mean those checks are somehow false, and weren’t actually written? This is a perfect example of the lengths a CT will go to in an attempt to exonerate Oswald.

> > And the action of a male passenger getting on the bus on Elm and also
> > departing on Elm after riding only a few blocks is described by
> > McWatters, Bledsoe, Jones, and Oswald (in custody in law enforcement
> > officers' reports).
> >
> >Yeah, they were all thinking of a different passenger,
> Nothing more need be said. You've admitted it.

And because Ben can’t refute what I actually said, he has to to quote incompletely and out of context. What I was doing above was summarizing Don’s argument:

“Yeah, they were all thinking of a different passenger, and the bus transfer was a forgery, and Oswald never admitted that in custody is your argument, based on nothing but differences in each person's recollection of events.”

What part of “IS YOUR ARGUMENT” did Ben not understand? Or worse, did he not mind lying about what I said when he took one phrase out of context and tried to make it into an admission by me?

My argument was this, which Ben avoided almost entirely:
== quote ==
The bus transfer is the hard evidence that links Oswald to Mcwatters' bus. And the action of a male passenger getting on the bus on Elm and also departing on Elm after riding only a few blocks is described by McWatters, Bledsoe, Jones, and Oswald (in custody in law enforcement officers' reports). … But differences in each person's recollections of events are the norm, even when nobody is trying to frame Oswald for anything. Because people are human.

So I just need from you a way to determine the normal differences in recollections from the after-the-fact fake differences in recollection where the witness is lying to frame Oswald.

Not every difference means a witness was deliberately lying, but it appears from here that is the methodology you use to exclude a witness.
== unquote ==

[Hank Sienzant]

On Friday, June 3, 2022 at 10:54:21 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Fri, 27 May 2022 11:44:01 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
> <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >On Friday, May 27, 2022 at 12:20:58 PM UTC-4, gjjma...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> On Friday, May 27, 2022 at 9:15:26 AM UTC-4, Bud wrote:
> >> > Both were found in his shirt pocket, which apparently was missed during prior searches.
> >> Wrong again. The .38 shells were supposedly found in his pants pocket.
> >>
> >> https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh7/html/WC_Vol7_0091a.htm
> >
> >I beg your pardon. That minor error changes nothing.
> This common opinion of believers that accuracy doesn't matter simply

> goes to show their cowardice, nothing more.

It’s cowardice to make a simple error now?

> > Sims’ statement is still a matter of record. At 4PM, Oswald was a
> > suspect in the murder of Tippit. Why would the police frame an
> > innocent man and let the real cop-killer go free?
> This is a simple logical fallacy, and demonstrates the fear that
> believers have - that they need to constantly use logical fallacies to
> support their wacky ideas.

I summarized Gil’s argument and asked him a simple question about it… at 4pm on the day of the Tippit murder, about two hours after Oswald’s arrest, why would a cop try to frame a innocent man and let the real cop-killer go free?

Gil has no answer, neither do you. You pretend this is a logical fallacy because you can’t answer the question either. Quite simply, they wouldn’t, which royally screws Gil’s attempt to establish Oswald’s innocence by throwing out all the evidence against Oswald.

[Hank Sienzant]

26 volumes of Evidence and Testimony are ready to testify to your falsehood above.


>
> Run coward... RUN!

The facts dictate the answer… and the only one running from those facts is you…
You pretend the lack of an empty transfer book is somehow germane, you take quotes out of context, you delete my points and seldom cite anything to support your claims.

[Hank Sienzant]

On Friday, June 3, 2022 at 10:54:26 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Fri, 27 May 2022 13:24:51 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
> <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >Don’t have a script. Only the facts.
> What are the facts about the "roll call?"

There wasn’t one. The Commission admitted it, you admit it, and I admit it. Lane tried to make a case for one but finally admitted there wasn’t one as well.

>
> Dare you explicitly explain them to Chrissy?

He can read. If he has any questions about my conclusions, he need only ask.

[Hank Sienzant]

What evidence did Gil cite, other than the testimony of the officer who found the transfer?

A recollection from 15 years later, and a claim of a thorough search by another officer (which is provably incorrect) and a hearsay report by the FBI.

And again, why would the police be intent on framing an innocent man about two hours after his arrest?

[Ben Holmes]

On Sat, 4 Jun 2022 05:37:24 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant

>And what Ben is doing here...

Is illustrating what happens each time someone tries to put words in
my mouth that I never said.

I understand *why* you do it - you have problems debating what I
ACTUALLY say... but I still object to it, and you pay the price each
time you do.

>> He's quite incapable of debating what I *actually* say, and must make
>> up things like this.
>
>I addressed exactly what you said.

Quote me saying what you claimed I'd said above... Quote my ACTUAL
WORDS... or acknowledge that you molest your own Grandmother.

[Ben Holmes]

On Sat, 4 Jun 2022 06:11:28 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant

<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:

>On Friday, June 3, 2022 at 10:54:15 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Fri, 27 May 2022 06:52:52 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
>> <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Oswald was most likely...
>>
>> And here come the speculations to explain the actual evidence.
>>
>> Believers are quite fond of speculation.
>

>What evidence ...

Tut tut tut... yet another logical fallacy.

Tell us how a sentence that begins: "Oswald was most likely..." is
*NOT* a speculation.

Don't change the topic... DEAL WITH IT.

[Ben Holmes]

On Sat, 4 Jun 2022 06:04:53 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant

<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:

>On Friday, June 3, 2022 at 10:54:18 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Fri, 27 May 2022 10:32:46 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
>> <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Friday, May 27, 2022 at 10:52:08 AM UTC-4, Sky Throne 19efppp wrote:
>>>> On Friday, May 27, 2022 at 9:57:44 AM UTC-4, gjjma...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>> On Friday, May 27, 2022 at 9:15:26 AM UTC-4, Bud wrote:
>>>>>> Both were found in his shirt pocket, which apparently was missed during prior searches.
>>>>> evidence ?
>>>> "Most likely" is good enough for Hank when it supports his wacky theories.
>>>
>>>What’s wacky about human error? We all have made more than a few.
>>>
>>>
>>>> Besides, he has no burdens. Only people who disagree with him have burdens. That's Hank Logic.
>>>
>>>The historical case has been laid out end to end for over 57 years.
>>
>> And **NEVER** supported.
>
>26 volumes of Evidence and Testimony are ready to testify to your falsehood above.

Logical fallacy, and quite the stupidity.

Tell us, oh moron, how does the 26 volumes support itself?

>> Run coward... RUN!
>
>The facts dictate the answer… and the only one running from those facts is you…

Says the coward who refuses to post the evidence for the time JFK's
body arrived at Parkland.

You lose!

[Ben Holmes]

On Sat, 4 Jun 2022 06:07:42 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant

<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:

>On Friday, June 3, 2022 at 10:54:26 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Fri, 27 May 2022 13:24:51 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
>> <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Don’t have a script. Only the facts.
>>
>> What are the facts about the "roll call?"
>
>There wasn’t one.

Then you should be honest enough to confront Chrissy over this issue.

But you provably aren't...

[Ben Holmes]

On Sat, 4 Jun 2022 06:01:10 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant

<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:

>On Friday, June 3, 2022 at 10:54:21 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Fri, 27 May 2022 11:44:01 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
>> <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Friday, May 27, 2022 at 12:20:58 PM UTC-4, gjjma...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> On Friday, May 27, 2022 at 9:15:26 AM UTC-4, Bud wrote:
>>>>> Both were found in his shirt pocket, which apparently was missed during prior searches.
>>>> Wrong again. The .38 shells were supposedly found in his pants pocket.
>>>>
>>>> https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh7/html/WC_Vol7_0091a.htm
>>>
>>>I beg your pardon. That minor error changes nothing.
>>
>> This common opinion of believers that accuracy doesn't matter simply
>> goes to show their cowardice, nothing more.
>
>It’s cowardice to make a simple error now?

No wonder you're a believer... you're too stupid to understand simple
English.

I commented on "cowardice."

I stated what *SHOWS* cowardice.

What did I say "shows" cowardice, Huckster?

And can you stop molesting your grandmother long enough to be honest
about what I said?

[Ben Holmes]

On Sat, 4 Jun 2022 05:53:30 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant

<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:

>On Friday, June 3, 2022 at 10:54:11 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Fri, 27 May 2022 02:16:33 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
>> <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>> ...
>>>The bus transfer is the hard evidence that links Oswald to Mcwatters' bus.
>>
>> No, it isn't. You cannot even produce the book it came out of.
>
>Show why I need to produce this.

No.

>>> And the action of a male passenger getting on the bus on Elm and also
>>> departing on Elm after riding only a few blocks is described by
>>> McWatters, Bledsoe, Jones, and Oswald (in custody in law enforcement
>>> officers' reports).
>>>
>>>Yeah, they were all thinking of a different passenger,
>>
>> Nothing more need be said. You've admitted it.
>

>And ...

As I stated, nothing more need be said.

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 19 May 2022 11:11:00 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

>On Thursday, May 19, 2022 at 2:00:08 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Thu, 19 May 2022 10:23:03 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
>> wrote:
>>> And this isn`t the pure happenstance of an ordinary day, Oswald
>>> wouldn`t be on the bus if he hadn`t been fleeing after killing Kennedy
>>
>> Where's Huckster when you need him to point out someone begging the
>> question.
>
> Four major investigations came to that conclusion, can`t be begging the question.

Watch folks, as Chickenshit refuses to cite a *SINGLE* investigation
that came to the conclusion that Oswald's bus ride was evidence he was
a murderer.

>> I took a bus a few weeks back... who did I kill?
>
> I get it, you think I was saying that being on the bus made him a murderer.

"Oswald wouldn`t be on the bus if he hadn`t been fleeing after killing
Kennedy..."


Notice folks, that Chickenshit was unable to name who I killed...

[Ben Holmes]

On Tue, 17 May 2022 03:48:21 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

>On Tuesday, May 17, 2022 at 4:46:55 AM UTC-4, Sky Throne 19efppp wrote:
>> On Tuesday, May 17, 2022 at 4:03:09 AM UTC-4, Mark Ulrik wrote:
>>> tirsdag den 17. maj 2022 kl. 06.28.13 UTC+2 skrev David Healy:
>>>> On Monday, May 16, 2022 at 2:05:44 PM UTC-7, Mark Ulrik wrote:
>>>>> mandag den 16. maj 2022 kl. 22.37.11 UTC+2 skrev gjjma...@gmail.com:
>>>>>> On Monday, May 16, 2022 at 3:45:57 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
>>>>>>> Population of Dallas c1963: 700,000.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Lee H. Oswald, a loner, doesn't know that many people there
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The one time he takes the bus in the middle of the day
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> One of the few people he knows takes the same bus, at the same time
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Sure.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What are the odds?
>>>>>> And what are the odds that a stroked-out old lady who testified his face was distorted but she never looked at him be considered a positive ID he was on the bus ?
>>>>> What's wrong with you? She didn't say that she NEVER looked at him.
>>>>>
>>>>>> What a joke.
>>>>>
>>>>>> ROFLMAO
>>>> cite what she said...
>>> WC 6H400-27
>> Mr. BALL - You didn't look very carefully, did you?
>> Mrs. BLEDSOE - No; I just glanced at him, and then looked the other way and I hoped he didn't see me.
>>
>> Just a glance and she noticed the hole in his shirt elbow, and the fact that his shirt was TUCKED IN, inside his ragged trousers waist. . Uh-huh.
>
> Some retards here think Chaney could do a lot more under conditions that were a lot worse.

He did. And, of course, you're simply lying again...

[Ben Holmes]

On Mon, 16 May 2022 14:01:04 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

>On Monday, May 16, 2022 at 3:45:57 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
>> Population of Dallas c1963: 700,000.
>>
>> Lee H. Oswald, a loner, doesn't know that many people there
>>
>> The one time he takes the bus in the middle of the day
>>
>> One of the few people he knows takes the same bus, at the same time
>>
>> Sure.
>>
>> What are the odds?
>

> After it happens, 100%.

A complete misunderstanding of statistics.

[Ben Holmes]

On Tue, 24 May 2022 02:56:57 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

>On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 10:52:09 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Sat, 21 May 2022 06:29:55 -0700 (PDT), Gil Jesus

>> <gjjma...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Friday, May 20, 2022 at 2:46:14 PM UTC-4, Bud wrote:
>>>
>>>> Show that what went out on police radio has ever been significant to a criminal investigation.
>>>
>>>You can't be serious.
>>>
>>>Thousands of times every day across the US, police radio broadcasts describing suspects or their vehicles involved in crimes lead police to arrests.
>>>
>>>Every open case is considered "under investigation". Open cases may go cold but until they're closed, they're still under investigation. All leads are followed up.
>>>
>>>I guess you're ignorant of B.O.T.L. or A. P. B. police radio broadcasts.
>>>
>>>I'm not surprised. You're ignorant of most things police-related.
>>>
>>>Radio broadcast of the description of a suspect in a Friday night purse snatching leads to his arrest on Monday by police in a neighboring town.
>>>
>>>https://lancasteronline.com/news/arrest-made-in-purse-snatching-spree/article_61bfd60e-17f2-5267-a803-4a819246d4c3.html
>>>
>>>Police radio broadcasts are big in solving crimes. What planet do you live on ?
>>
>> Why do you bother, Gil, this is so OBVIOUSLY an example of Chickenshit
>> simply pulling your leg.
>>
>> When Chickenshit tells lies this obvious, he's simply reminding
>> everyone of how dishonest he is... nothing more.
>
> Ironic. You are both pretending that the fact that information
> goes out over police radio in order to apprehend suspects is something
> only police know, not everyone who has ever owned a television.

Quote me saying ANYTHING that would lead a reasonable person to
believe I said this or implied this. Or admit that you're molesting
Chrissy again.

> But nobody seems to be able to produce a case where what went out
> over police radio was used to give insight into the crime committed.

https://www.govtech.com/em/disaster/the-911-error-that-led-to-an-officers-death-heres-why-call-locations-can-be-wrong.html

More examples are easy to find.

[Ben Holmes]

On Sat, 21 May 2022 10:29:43 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

>>> Show that what went out on police radio has ever been significant to a criminal investigation.

>> I have shown that it was significant in THIS investigation.
>
> To your satisfaction, sure. But how high a bar was that?
>
> Does it clear the incredibly high bar of police acting to insure
> the murderer of a police officers get away scot free? Not even close.

This is, of course, a simple logical fallacy.

[Ben Holmes]

On Sat, 21 May 2022 06:49:20 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

>On Saturday, May 21, 2022 at 9:29:56 AM UTC-4, gjjma...@gmail.com wrote:

>> On Friday, May 20, 2022 at 2:46:14 PM UTC-4, Bud wrote:
>>
>> > Show that what went out on police radio has ever been significant to a criminal investigation.

>> You can't be serious.
>>
>> Thousands of times every day across the US, police radio broadcasts describing suspects or their vehicles involved in crimes lead police to arrests.
>

> Show that they are used to give insight into the crime committed. This is how Don uses them.

You see? Chickenshit is doing it again...

[Ben Holmes]

On Fri, 27 May 2022 06:15:25 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

>On Friday, May 27, 2022 at 9:07:44 AM UTC-4, gjjma...@gmail.com wrote:

>> On Friday, May 27, 2022 at 5:16:34 AM UTC-4, Hank Sienzant wrote:
>>
>> > The bus transfer is the hard evidence that links Oswald to Mcwatters' bus

>> Hank likes to hang on this hard evidence, how hard is it ?
>>
>> The transfer was supposedly found on Oswald as he was searched waiting for the first lineup to begin at 4:05 pm.
>>
>> So the police arrested Oswald and didn’t search him for almost an hour and a half after his arrest ?
>>
>> It was allegedly found by Detective Richard Sims, who took it back up to the office, initialed it and put it in an envelope and left it in a desk of a superior officer of whom he could not remember. ( 7 H 173 )
>>
>> It appears more than likely that this item was planted by police to defend the idea that Oswald fled on his own and not with an accomplice.
>
> It appears that way to an idiot.


Huckster can's see logical fallacies if they are perpetrated by fellow
liars.


>> Why do I call this transfer phony ? Several reasons.
>>
>> Firstly, Officer M.G. Hall assisted Sims and Boyd with the escort of Oswald to the first and second lineups. His report makes no mention of of a search or of finding any bus transfer on Oswald.
>>
>> https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/mg-hall.jpg
>>
>> Officer M.G. Hall’s report make no mention of finding any bus transfer or unfired rounds on Oswald
>>
>> Secondly, an FBI teletype dated 2-3-64 notes that Detective Paul Bentley reported that he “completely searched Oswald and nothing was left in his pockets.”
>>
>> https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/105-82555-Sec-78-pg-14-1.png
>>
>> No mention of any bus transfer.
>>
>> Capt. Fritz verified that Oswald “was completely searched following his arrest.”
>>
>> Thirdly, verification that Bentley emptied Oswald’s pockets comes during a second search as he sat in Capt. Fritz’s office by Dallas policeman Charles Truman ( CT ) Walker who told the HSCA in a 1978 interview that he “searched him good, but found nothing“.
>>
>> https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/image003.png
>>
>> The evidence shows that Oswald was completely searched TWICE, that his pockets were EMPTIED prior to the 4:05 pm lineup and that he could NOT have been in possession of either the bus transfer or the unfired .38 rounds at 4:05 pm like the Dallas Police said he was.

>
> Both were found in his shirt pocket, which apparently was missed during prior searches.

ROTFLMAO!!! Barney Fife...

[Ben Holmes]

On Tue, 17 May 2022 08:41:42 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

>On Tuesday, May 17, 2022 at 8:46:08 AM UTC-4, Sky Throne 19efppp wrote:
>> On Tuesday, May 17, 2022 at 7:43:14 AM UTC-4, Mark Ulrik wrote:
>>> tirsdag den 17. maj 2022 kl. 12.03.56 UTC+2 skrev gjjma...@gmail.com:

>>>> On Monday, May 16, 2022 at 5:05:44 PM UTC-4, Mark Ulrik wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> What's wrong with you? She didn't say that she NEVER looked at him.
>>>>>
>>>>>> What a joke.
>>>>>
>>>>>> ROFLMAO

>>>> Looks like the joke is on you:
>>>>
>>>> "He looks like a maniac”. I DIDN'T LOOK AT HIM. I didn’t even want to know I seen him and I just looked off. He looked so bad in his face and his face was so distorted.” ( 6 H 409 )
>>>>
>>>> Maybe you should read the testimony.
>>> She explained what she meant. She looked away because she didn't want Oswald to know she had seen him. You lied when you said she NEVER looked at him, didn't you?
>> Amusing how both sides here did not want to deal directly with the testimony of Bledsoe. It's almost as if they would rather just argue past each other instead of dealing with the evidence. Quoting Bledose would show Gil to be exaggerating, or "lying," but then it would also show what a weak witness Bledsoe is. Better to just keep arguing and leave the evidence be. Heh heh...

LFD.

> Basically Bledsoe has Oswald getting on the bus she was on, and
> getting off the bus she was on, nothing really more than that.

Of course, to make a judgment on how *correct* she was in that
assertion, you need to look at EVERYTHING she said about it.

And what she testified to has holes in it.

Holes that critics have no trouble seeing.

[Ben Holmes]

On Tue, 17 May 2022 08:48:20 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

>On Tuesday, May 17, 2022 at 7:01:39 AM UTC-4, Sky Throne 19efppp wrote:
>> On Tuesday, May 17, 2022 at 6:59:20 AM UTC-4, Bud wrote:

>>> On Tuesday, May 17, 2022 at 6:03:56 AM UTC-4, gjjma...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> On Monday, May 16, 2022 at 5:05:44 PM UTC-4, Mark Ulrik wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> What's wrong with you? She didn't say that she NEVER looked at him.
>>>>>
>>>>>> What a joke.
>>>>>
>>>>>> ROFLMAO
>>>> Looks like the joke is on you:
>>>>
>>>> "He looks like a maniac”. I DIDN'T LOOK AT HIM. I didn’t even want to know I seen him and I just looked off. He looked so bad in his face and his face was so distorted.” ( 6 H 409 )
>>>>
>>>> Maybe you should read the testimony.

>>> Maybe you should try to be honest and stop cherry picking. Obviously she looked at him.
>>>
>>> Her next day affidavit.
>>>
>>> https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/testimony/bledsoe1.htm
>>>
>>> "The bus traveled West on Elm Street to about Murphy Street and made a stop and that is when I saw Lee Oswald get on the bus."
>>>
>>> "...Oswald got off the bus and I didn't see him again."
>>>
>>> At the very least she saw him getting on and getting off.
>>>
>>> Some idiots think it is plausible she would call the police so she could start telling lies about him being on the bus. For all she would know there could be a hundred witnesses saying they saw him elsewhere. Plus the other people on the bus might contest what she said. Plus she might have to go to trial and repeat these lies under oath. As usual in their desperation to play silly games with the evidence to try to exonerate poor sweet Lee they neglect to notice that their ideas don`t make a lot of sense. By focusing on the wrong things they get to pretend they can steer the patsy through all the indications of his guilt and have him emerge on the other side unscathed.
>> Some retards here for sure! You got that part right.
>
> Yes, they make a big deal out of Chaney being the "closest
> non-limo witness", yet in the video Gil posted the woman hostage would
> be the closest to the victim, would this make her a good witness? Even
> if she was facing the guy would that make her a good person to use to
> determine the facts about the instantaneous head explosion? Yet Chaney
> is represented as having that ability.

Police are generally considered by the courts to be more reliable
witnesses than the average person. Then too, James Chaney was looking
directly at the murder victim at the time of the murder, and was
documented by a photo so doing.

Chickenshit cannot refute these facts.

[Bud]

How do you know that?

[Bud]

Try to find one that speaks to the point.

[Bud]

On Friday, June 10, 2022 at 10:51:45 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:

<snicker> Missing it during a search is too fantastic to entertain. Now planting it...