Thoughts on a bus trip

[Drew Phipps]

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

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

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

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

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