Then went outside to watch P. parade ( Parts 1 & 2 )

[Alan Ford]

The important part of his false claim is that he was outside watching the P. parade, the implication being that he was outside the TSBD as JFK passed by.

O'Meara Exhibit B.

[Dan O'meara]

You had been maintaining steadfastly that Mr Oswald merely claimed to have gone outside to watch what he thought would be the P. Parade, but that he never claimed to have been outside actually watching it. Your position has just shifted, most tellingly. You now accept that Mr Oswald did indeed claim to have been "outside watching the P. Parade" (your words). This admission commits you further to recognition of the fact that Mr Oswald's claim in this regard was not accurately reflected in the officially published interrogation reports, i.e. it was covered up.

Calm down Alan. Your flights of fancy are starting to get the better of you and you had been doing so well.
Just to clarify my position on this - I believe Oswald made the claims in Hosty's notes but I do not believe Oswald was being wholly truthful.
This is really simple and not open to the fantastical interpretations you claim I've "been maintaining steadfastly". (Steadfastly?? You really should listen to yourself sometime. It's great)

Now.... You say you don't know where exactly Mr Oswald was at the time the shots rang out. However, you believe Mr Oswald lied because he needed to create an alibi for his part in the assassination. You also believe he confirmed the post-assassination lunchroom encounter with the officer and Mr Truly.

How exactly does confirming a post-assassination lunchroom encounter with an officer and Mr Truly AND claiming to have reacted to this encounter by (first) going down to eat lunch and (then) going outside and watching the P. Parade (!) serve Mr Oswald's cause of fabricating an alibi?

There is nowhere that Oswald claims to have had the encounter with Baker and Truly and to reacted to this by going to eat lunch, then going outside. This is a flight of fancy.
If Oswald's claims are to be taken at face value then he is changing his story. Not an uncommon practice of the guilty.
 

No, at least not initially. On 12/23/63 Captain Fritz writes a report for Chief Jesse Curry in which he mentions that one of his officers (Officer Baker) "stopped" Mr Oswald "on the third or fourth floor on the stairway". Which indicates that, even at this late stage, he was out of the loop on the details of the lunchroom hoax.

However, he was of course a party to the burying of Mr Oswald's actual claims (though he did slip up when giving his WC testimony).

So in Fritz's notes where he states - "claims 2nd floor coke when off. came in" - you don't believe that's a reference to the lunchroom encounter?

[Alan Ford]

Calm down Alan. Your flights of fancy are starting to get the better of you and you had been doing so well.
Just to clarify my position on this - I believe Oswald made the claims in Hosty's notes but I do not believe Oswald was being wholly truthful.

Exactly-----you've gone from Mr Oswald said he went outside with the intention of watching the P. Parade to Mr Oswald said he actually watched the P. Parade. A clean 180. Want me to re-bump your two recent diametrically opposed posts in order to re-illustrate your 180 to everyone?

There is nowhere that Oswald claims to have had the encounter with Baker and Truly and to reacted to this by going to eat lunch, then going outside. This is a flight of fancy.

Really?

Agent Bookhout's later, solo interrogation report: "Oswald stated that on November 22 1963, at the time of the search of the Texas School Book Depository building by Dallas police officers, he was on the second floor of said building, having just purchased a Coca-Cola from the soft-drink machine, at which time a police officer came into the room with pistol drawn and asked him if he worked there./Mr. Truly was present and verified that he was an employee and the police officer thereafter left the room and continued through the building. Oswald stated that he took this Coke down to the first floor and stood around and had lunch in the employee’s lunch room. He thereafter went outside and stood around for five or ten minutes with foreman Bill Shelley."

If Oswald's claims are to be taken at face value then he is changing his story.

No, what's changing is the account of what he said.

Agent Hosty's draft interrogation report: "He went to 2nd floor to get Coca Cola to eat with lunch and returned to 1st floor to eat lunch. Then went outside to watch P. Parade."

Agent Bookhout's later, solo interrogation report: "Oswald stated that on November 22 1963, at the time of the search of the Texas School Book Depository building by Dallas police officers, he was on the second floor of said building, having just purchased a Coca-Cola from the soft-drink machine, at which time a police officer came into the room with pistol drawn and asked him if he worked there./Mr. Truly was present and verified that he was an employee and the police officer thereafter left the room and continued through the building. Oswald stated that he took this Coke down to the first floor and stood around and had lunch in the employee’s lunch room. He thereafter went outside and stood around for five or ten minutes with foreman Bill Shelley."

Both of these reports pertain to the same interrogation (the first) and yet tell completely different stories. Given your clarification that you now suddenly accept that the Hosty draft-report version is an accurate reflection of what Mr Oswald did indeed say, it follows that you cannot anymore stand over the later Bookhout version. Which-----------amongst other things------------deprives you of the claim that Mr Oswald himself confirmed a lunchroom encounter.

Not an uncommon practice of the guilty.

Ah, there we have it again: you believe Mr Oswald is guilty. Explains a lot!

What guilty deed do you think Mr Oswald is trying to hide by lying about having eaten lunch on one and then watched the P. Parade outside?

So in Fritz's notes where he states - "claims 2nd floor coke when off. came in" - you don't believe that's a reference to the lunchroom encounter?

Sure, but those notes, like all of Captain Fritz's notes, are derived later from Agent Bookhout's report. The 11/23 report to Chief Curry shows that Captain Fritz was not initially privy to the details of the lunchroom hoax.

[Walt Cakebread]

Calm down Alan. Your flights of fancy are starting to get the better of you and you had been doing so well.
Just to clarify my position on this - I believe Oswald made the claims in Hosty's notes but I do not believe Oswald was being wholly truthful.
This is really simple and not open to the fantastical interpretations you claim I've "been maintaining steadfastly". (Steadfastly?? You really should listen to yourself sometime. It's great)

There is nowhere that Oswald claims to have had the encounter with Baker and Truly and to reacted to this by going to eat lunch, then going outside. This is a flight of fancy.
If Oswald's claims are to be taken at face value then he is changing his story. Not an uncommon practice of the guilty.
 
So in Fritz's notes where he states - "claims 2nd floor coke when off. came in" - you don't believe that's a reference to the lunchroom encounter?

There is nowhere that Oswald claims to have had the encounter with Baker and Truly and to reacted to this by going to eat lunch, then going outside. This is a flight of fancy.
If Oswald's claims are to be taken at face value then he is changing his story. Not an uncommon practice of the guilty.

Changing his story?... How so?

[Dan O'meara]

There is nowhere that Oswald claims to have had the encounter with Baker and Truly and to reacted to this by going to eat lunch, then going outside. This is a flight of fancy.
If Oswald's claims are to be taken at face value then he is changing his story. Not an uncommon practice of the guilty.

Changing his story?... How so?

There is no mention of the second floor encounter according Hosty's notes (although Fritz does seem to mention it).

[Alan Ford]

There is nowhere that Oswald claims to have had the encounter with Baker and Truly and to reacted to this by going to eat lunch, then going outside. This is a flight of fancy.
If Oswald's claims are to be taken at face value then he is changing his story. Not an uncommon practice of the guilty.

Changing his story?... How so?

Mr O'Meara knows the interrogation reports are irreconcilable with one another and is blaming the fact on Mr Oswald, whose guilt he is convinced of.

Mr O'Meara is a WC defender pretending to be a critic of the official story.

[Walt Cakebread]

Mr O'Meara knows the interrogation reports are irreconcilable with one another and is blaming the fact on Mr Oswald, whose guilt he is convinced of.

Mr O'Meara is a WC defender pretending to be a critic of the official story.

I go don't give a damn if Dan is (or is not) a WC defender.   He seems to be more candid, open minded and honest, than You Mr Ford.  I'd really love for you to make a solid case that Lee was outside watching the P.Parade at the time JFK was murdered, but alas ....I can clearly see that  you are trying to read your wishful thoughts into the hastily scribbled and truncated notes.

Anybody who is truly seeking the truth should be totally unconcerned about another person's [i"]religion"[/i] as long as the other person is candid and honest and is willing to honestly examine the facts.   One of your major problems Mr Ford lies in your refusal to hear and examine any facet of a subject that conflicts with your views.