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

[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.

 

[Alan Ford]

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.

~Shrug~

[Dan O'meara]

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.

How do you defend something by criticising it?

The utterly moronic quality of some of your statements is astounding.

I am totally open-minded about all this and willing to have my outlook completely changed by compelling argument.
At this moment in time I'm convinced Oswald was involved in the assassination and look at his recorded statements in that light.
I find your rabid defence of something for which there is zero evidence repellent and have fun making a fool of you.
There is no evidence for the identification of Prayer Man as Oswald, equally there is no evidence for the Hoax.
You blindly argue both cases with no regard for Reason or even sanity.
Your fantastical ravings are funny.
And that's all they are.

[Alan Ford]

How do you defend something by criticising it?

The utterly moronic quality of some of your statements is astounding.

I am totally open-minded about all this and willing to have my outlook completely changed by compelling argument.
At this moment in time I'm convinced Oswald was involved in the assassination and look at his recorded statements in that light.
I find your rabid defence of something for which there is zero evidence repellent and have fun making a fool of you.
There is no evidence for the identification of Prayer Man as Oswald, equally there is no evidence for the Hoax.
You blindly argue both cases with no regard for Reason or even sanity.
Your fantastical ravings are funny.
And that's all they are.

So! Your "totally open-minded" position at present is:

1. Yes, Mr Oswald did indeed claim to have gone outside and watched the P. Parade, but...
2. Mr Oswald, being guilty, was lying because he needed to construct a false alibi.

Question!

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?

[Dan O'meara]

So! Your "totally open-minded" position at present is:

1. Yes, Mr Oswald did indeed claim to have gone outside and watched the P. Parade, but...
2. Mr Oswald, being guilty, was lying because he needed to construct a false alibi.

Question!

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?

This same question has already been answered in full.

What evidence do you have confirming the reality of the Hoax?