JFK Assassination Kennedy Assassination JFK Assassination Forum JFK Dealey Plaza Dallas November 22nd 1963

Why can't it be Oswald ? (Read 564 times)

Topic Options

Jon Davies

January 18, 2012, 09:39:00 PM

Full Member

Posts: 134

Someone shot JFK dead in the street why can't that someone be Oswald ? You can still have all your CTs if Oswald pulled the trigger.

-------------------------

-------------------------

Oswald admitted his guilt when he claimed to have been a patsy.

Reply

David Josephs

January 19, 2012, 06:47:33 PM

Super Member

Posts: 2568

As a guest, you are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

So David, should we just keep having these committees untill you get a result you like? Perhaps Mark Lane could chair the next one. You OK with that? lol

Denis... for you to ignore or not acknowledge the "politics" involved in the WC and HSCA is a bit of a surprise.. I was under the impression you were much more informed than that...

Given a choice between a stacked governmental inquiry offering incomprehensible evidence without a shred of corroborateion or authentication
and the work of private citizens like Weisberg and Lane.... and so many others...

I'll stick with the ones NOT trying to save their phony baloney jobs... (give the mayor a hrrrumph)

That you choose to believe Specter and posse, or Blakey and gang... WITHOUT EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THEM
versus Fonzi, Lopez, Sprague, and the senators (and ex WC) who know there was intelligence involved in a conspiracy... and prove it is just

-------------------------

Reply

Lee Johnson

January 19, 2012, 07:17:59 PM

Sr. Member

Posts: 352

As a guest, you are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

David: Mark Lane parlayed the assassination into a career. His motives, if anything, can be construed as less than pure. I don't know about Weisberg.

As far as "not a shred of corroboration or authentication," that's simply not true. You just don't believe any of the evidence collected by any government agencies, and hand-wave any corroborating witnesses to the LN theory. You also focus on "what could have happened" as opposed to "what did happen."

For example, you said in another thread that the police could have planted the gun on Oswald, throw-down style, in the Texas Theater. You can endlessly dismiss any evidence if you focus on discrete pieces of evidence, one at a time, and demand perfect proof and come up with an individual scenario for each one explaining how evidence could have been planted altered or planted, without ever fitting them together and asking yourself, "Does this make sense?" If you can't fit the pieces to a plausible scenario, the kind of thing that would happen in the real world, you're just collecting data points as a hobby, as many CTers do.

The point is: Sometimes things are not as they appear, but more often, things are exactly as they appear.

-------------------------

Reply

Ian Kingsbury

January 19, 2012, 07:29:21 PM

Super Member

Posts: 5253

As a guest, you are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

"Yup when I go ta Texas ah always wear my best rifle hiding jacket". Is this the man who asked Arce/ cop

for the bathroom due to a kidney complaint ?.

Does anybody recognise the cop?.

-------------------------


« Last Edit: January 19, 2012, 10:42:37 PM by Ian Kingsbury »

-------------------------

Some things we know we know,the rest we have to find out for ourselves

One of the first things we found out was that the Warren Commission never pursued a conspiracy investigation.
Louis Stokes

Gentlemen, you can't fight in here! This is the War Room

Reply

Mark Underwood

January 20, 2012, 04:17:30 AM

Super Member

Posts: 603

it started with the gunshots

oswald, i just find it funny he was spotted in the lunchroom a little before the assassination. and he spotted in the exaxt location he was spotted just roughly 90 seconds after the shooting. i find it very ironic that why would man that commited such a haneous crime would even stay in the building at all? how come oswald would stop at the second floor and go have a drink.

now some say he wasn't going to the lunchroom he was actually leaving but thought he might get busted trying to leave so he dipped into the lunchroom.

but whats bizarre is if roy truly recognized and validated him as employee in the lunchroom. what would have been the difference on the stairs.. employees knew oswald worked there so his story would have checked out no matter where he was spotted in the building.

the only sign of guilt would have been if he was spotted on the sixthed floor which he was not. another thing that bother me was we have the rifle found in one location and the shells found by the window as if they were intentionally left to be found. if you take the time to hide the rifle then why not hide the shells as well? or why not leave the rifle next to window. it was going to be found regardless.. why waist the energy?

another thing that bothered me was when a witness said they saw a black man in the east window but saw a white male with a rifle in the west window? how come bonnie ray williams never saw that man with a rifle? i'm sure he would have spotted the man if he was on the same floor.
a man wondering around the room is quite obvious to spot wouldn't you say?

-------------------------

-------------------------

politics is a very dangerous game, because you never know what evil is lurking against you if you piss them off

Reply

Anthony Marsh

January 20, 2012, 04:50:41 AM

Super Member

Posts: 6715

As a guest, you are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Who said Oswald was in the lunchroom before the shooting? Name names and quote. Oswald said that he was in the DOMINO room. Not the same as the lunchroom where Baker confronted him.

Maybe a professional would take the time to gather his shells or catch them in a special bag. The average person does not.

-------------------------

Reply

Bill Brown

January 20, 2012, 07:10:48 AM

Super Member

Posts: 9052

As a guest, you are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

It is very debatable, to say the least, whether or not Oswald was seen at 12:15 by Carolyn Arnold.

The FBI interviewed employees of the Depository. Those who ate their lunch that day in both the domino room on the first floor and the lunch room on the second floor said that Oswald was not in the lunch room/domino room.

On November 26, 1963 when she gave her statement to the FBI, Carolyn Arnold wasn't certain that it was Oswald who she saw.

Psychological studies on eyewitness accounts show that witnesses become less reliable over time and that witnesses will often change their accounts to bring them in accord with the accounts of others as if it were their own memories. Therefore, the accounts closest to the event (before a witness can compare their memories to others) are the most reliable.

In the 1964 statement to the FBI, which she signed, Arnold made no mention of seeing Oswald at any point, much less fifteen minutes before the assassination. If she would have seen Oswald, she would have said so in this statement.

I simply cannot believe that Carolyn Arnold would not mention seeing Oswald (IF she saw him) to the FBI when she gave her March 18, 1964 statement (which she signed).

If you're Carolyn Arnold and you're giving a statement to FBI agents about your activities on the day of the assassination, aren't you going to mention seeing the accused assassin to these agents (if you really saw him eating his lunch fifteen minutes or so before the shooting)?

The bottom line is, Oswald lied when he claimed that he was in the domino room eating his lunch...and Carolyn Arnold did not see Oswald in the second floor lunchroom at 12:15.

-------------------------

-------------------------

"The TRUTH doesn't require anyone's belief." - Dale Myers

"The human mind craves a mystery more than it loves the truth." - Dan Rather

"Reason does not always appeal to unreasonable men." - John F. Kennedy

Reply

0 Members and 3 Guests are viewing this topic.