Oswald Acted Alone Is The Most Popular Theory

[Dan O'meara]

Oswald HAS to bring Shelley in to explain why he left, why he simply took off work. Otherwise what is his explanation for leaving? Again, according to the FBI report he didn't talk to Shelley or get permission from him to leave. Oswald reportedly said that because of what Shelley was saying about the events that he, Oswald, *thought* (his opinion) that no more work would be done and he could leave. That can't be contradicted by Shelley since, again, it was based on what Oswald thought he meant. But Oswald has a problem (several really): if Shelley is right there Oswald can go up and ask him about leaving work. He doesn't have to guess. "Sir, can we go home?" Furthermore, why was Oswald the *only* worker who left? If Shelley is saying that everyone can go home why didn't others leave?

I don't understand this argument that because Shelley could contradict what Oswald said that Oswald wouldn't make the claim. Oswald can simply say: "Well, he's wrong". Oswald said that Frazier was wrong about the curtain rod story. He knew that Frazier could expose that as a lie. But he made the claim anyway and said that Frazier was wrong. And again: the curtain rod story is so preposterous that one has to be little more than an Oswald apologist to believe it. Curtain rods my fanny.

Oswald made a series of demonstrably provable lies: about the rifle, about the BYPs, about where he lived. This idea that he wouldn't have made statements that he knew could be exposed as falsehoods make no sense. It's what guilty people do.

I have to say how impressed I am by your willingness to completely change your position on this from post to post.
Initially you were arguing that there was no documentary evidence that Oswald had even mentioned talking to Shelley during his interrogation. Remember this:

"Dan, question: Where is the evidence that Oswald told the interrogators he talked with Shelley? I think this is a mistaken belief - I used to believe it - that's not supported by the evidence."

Once I corrected you on this your argument morphed into your disbelief that Shelley gave Oswald "explicit permission" to leave. When I corrected you on this your argument has now become that "Oswald HAS to bring Shelley in to explain why he left".
It's almost as if you're willing to say anything to defend your beliefs regardless of the evidence or common sense.
It is most certainly not the case that Oswald HAS to bring Shelley into it. He could say he decided to leave because everything was so chaotic, or he overheard someone saying there was going to be no more work that day, or because he was so upset by what had happened, or because he thought others had already gone home or this or that or a thousand other things.
If Oswald was lying about why he left there is no reason he would bring Shelley into it because it could be so easily checked out and Oswald knew how easily it could be checked out.
If it was a lie, Oswald knew there was no way Shelley was going to back him up. He had absolutely no reason to believe that Shelley would lie to the police to back him up.
The single, sane reason why Oswald would bring Shelley into it is because he fully expected Shelley to back him up.
 
I don't understand this argument that because Shelley could contradict what Oswald said that Oswald wouldn't make the claim.

I'm really surprised you don't understand this argument.
It is a really simple argument and really easy to follow - there is absolutely no reason for Oswald to bring Shelley's name into it if he was lying. There are many other lies he could have told that would not involve giving the authorities a specific name they could check.
This might be the bit you are finding tricky - the reason not to give out somebody's name when you are lying is that this person can then be asked whether or not you are lying and if you are lying they can reveal this fact.
I'm not really sure why this is difficult to understand.

There is no question that Oswald lied through his teeth while he was being questioned.
There can be no doubt that Oswald was caught out in some of those lies. It would have been very interesting to have been there when they slapped one of the BYP's on the desk in front of him.
But this is not the issue - evidence like the BYP's or Frazier's statement about the curtain rods are pieces of evidence that have been collected as part of the investigation and can be used against Oswald to catch him out in his lies.
Telling his interrogators that he went out front with Shelley and had a conversation with him is the very opposite of this - this is evidence that Oswald is giving to his interrogators. Evidence that can easily be checked.
Oswald having to defend himself against evidence that has been collected and is being used against him is one thing, offering up evidence that can easily be checked out is another. They are very different things.

The idea that Oswald willingly offered up a way to catch him out in a lie is a non-starter.
Oswald named Shelley because he expected Shelley to back him up.
He expected Shelley to back him up for one of two reasons that I can see:
1] The incident with Shelley really did happen and Oswald fully expected Shelley to confirm that, but for some reason Shelley decided to lie about it.
2] Shelley was an accomplice and Oswald expected him to give him an alibi, instead Shelley threw him under the bus.

[Stuart Lee]

Hi all,
I am new to this forum that i recently found by Google.
I have done a deep dive into this topic, and have my own copy of the WC Report, which I have read, twice, all 888 pages, and i have concluded zero conspiracy. Nada. Zilch.
Along with various books promoting conspiracy (usual suspects), and no conspiracy such as Gerald Posner's Case Closed (excellent), and David Belin's Final Disclosure, also excellent, and pretty much a first hand account investigating so soon after the assassination. Anyway, too much to say in a initial post, but I wonder what percentage of people with an opinion have read the WC report? And it is too easy to dismiss the report as propaganda. It should be read by anyone interested.

One thing that has always struck me is the location and timing. Would any nefarious powers-that-be really think it would be a good idea to take out a President at Dealy Plaza, during a public motorcade? With thousands of witnesses? Would there not be a better plan that wasn't so public?

Also, that Oswald had an assassination trial run in April 63' (acting alone) with his attempt on General Walker is a massive red flag, and that this incident is played down, or not even mentioned by conspiracy theorists is telling.

[Dan O'meara]

There is an aspect of the theory that Oswald acted alone that is often overlooked.
If Oswald acted alone then everyone else working in the TSBD building that day were just everyday working folk going about their daily business, unaware that there was a lone nut in their midst who was going to change history. If Oswald was acting alone there is no reason for any suspicious activity other than that related to the actions of Oswald.
The reality could hardly be any different.
Shelley and Lovelady lie to various investigating authorities, including the Warren Commission, about their movements after the assassination. Seconds after the assassination both men re-enter the TSBD building through the front door and make their way towards the back of the first floor where they area seen by Vicki Adams and Marrion Baker. These movements are reflected in their same-day affidavits but in every subsequent statement they invent a series of movements and timings intended to disguise their actual movements.

As we have seen, Oswald expects Shelley to back him up as his excuse for leaving the TSBD building that day, but is instead thrown under the bus by Shelley.
Shelley is also involved in the incredibly suspicious sequence of events that leads to Oswald being brought to the attention of Fritz. Truly sees some of his men being questioned by the police on the first floor and notices Oswald is not there (it emerges that there are at least three other of 'Truly's boys' who are not being questioned by the police at that time). There is no search for Oswald, Truly simply asks Shelley if he's seen Oswald around. Naturally, Shelley says he hasn't and that's enough for Truly to single out as Oswald as someone who has gone missing and who needs to be immediately reported to the police.

Then we have the late addition to the story of Charles Givens, the man who would change his story for money due to his conviction for drugs. The full sorry saga can be read here - http://22november1963.org.uk/meagher-the-curious-testimony-of-mr-givens - and, although there is little doubt Givens lied to the Warren Commission, I think this is no more than an example of mundane corruption on behalf of the investigating authorities and is not really connected to the assassination as such.
Unlike the string of lies told by Bonnie Ray Williams. This definitely had something to do with assassination itself. I believe Bonnie Ray saw something in the SN he shouldn't have seen and does everything in his powers to distance himself from being there. In his affidavit there is no mention of the half hour he spent on the 6th floor having his lunch. He leaves the distinct impression he went directly to the fifth floor with Norman and Jarman and was never on the 6th floor. The next day he tells the FBI he was on the 6th floor for no more than 3 minutes. This is a clear lie. Every time he is questioned about it, the time he was on the 6th floor slowly increases - 3,5, 10, 12, 15 and finally 20 minutes - and even this isn't the full amount of time. Not only does he try to downplay how long he was on the 6th, he tries to physically distance himself from the SN while he was up there. SEVEN first responders report seeing his lunch remains in the corner where the SN was, three specifically state that the lunch remains were on top of the boxes that formed the back wall of the SN. However, Gerry Hill moves the remains and it is presumably him who puts them down by a trolley a few windows over from the SN where they are photographed by the Crime Lab. It is clear Williams had his lunch in the SN and is probably the black male Arnold Rowland saw in the SN window. However, Williams testifies that he had his lunch where the remains were photographed and we are supposed to believe he was watching this once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to see the President on a gloriously sunny day through a closed, dirty window.

Then there's the truly bizarre story told by Jack Dougherty. He freely admits he was on the 6th floor just before the shooting and then went down to the 5th floor where he heard a shot from the floor above. He then decides to go down to the first floor for some unknown reason, he never explains. On the first floor he approaches Eddie Piper and asks him if he heard anything and Piper tells him he heard three shots. So Dougherty goes up to the 6th floor to carry on working even though this is the floor he heard the shot coming from!!His account of his movements is just plain strange, as is the way he never has to explain to anyone what he saw when he was on the 6th floor. Never, in any of his statements or his testimony does he have to explain to anyone what he saw on the 6th floor in the minutes after the assassination. Others who were supposed be on the 6th floor, like Givens and Williams, are subject to an intense barrage of questions concerning what they saw while they were up there. But not Jack.

There is so much that is strange and suspicious surrounding the TSBD building and the assassination. If Oswald acted alone it shouldn't be like this, it should be mundane and boring. Fair enough if someone forgets a few details or mixes things up a bit, that's to be expected with a lot of eye-witness testimony. But that's not what we see. The majority of men who worked on the 6th floor that day make up things that never happened. They deliberately distort the reality of events. How can this be the case if these are just ordinary men going about their daily business?

[Fergus O'brien]

Hi all,
I am new to this forum that i recently found by Google.
I have done a deep dive into this topic, and have my own copy of the WC Report, which I have read, twice, all 888 pages, and i have concluded zero conspiracy. Nada. Zilch.
Along with various books promoting conspiracy (usual suspects), and no conspiracy such as Gerald Posner's Case Closed (excellent), and David Belin's Final Disclosure, also excellent, and pretty much a first hand account investigating so soon after the assassination. Anyway, too much to say in a initial post, but I wonder what percentage of people with an opinion have read the WC report? And it is too easy to dismiss the report as propaganda. It should be read by anyone interested.

One thing that has always struck me is the location and timing. Would any nefarious powers-that-be really think it would be a good idea to take out a President at Dealy Plaza, during a public motorcade? With thousands of witnesses? Would there not be a better plan that wasn't so public?

Also, that Oswald had an assassination trial run in April 63' (acting alone) with his attempt on General Walker is a massive red flag, and that this incident is played down, or not even mentioned by conspiracy theorists is telling.

"Also, that Oswald had an assassination trial run in April 63' (acting alone) with his attempt on General Walker is a massive red flag, and that this incident is played down, or not even mentioned by conspiracy theorists is telling." Stuart lee

with all due respect if you believe that so called CT do not mention the Walker incident well i have to question what you CLAIM you have read .i have seen and read plenty in regards the walker incident .and there is little or no evidence linking Oswald to it . the conclusion that Oswald did it was based in main on the say so of his wife and based on the so called Walker note that was undated .in fact there is evidence that contradicts a notion that Oswald did it .

the lead alloy of the bullet DID NOT match the alloy from JFKs limo .
the detective on the scene said the bullet was STEEL jacketed .
Walker HIMSELF disputed the authenticity of the so called walker bullet .
Walkers neghbour saw TWO men peering into Walkers window , they quickly took off .
the only known witness to the shooting saw TWO men leave in two cars after one placed something long on the rear seat .

you are as is everyone entitled to your opinion in regard this case , that is your right . however your logic is flawed in regards the WR . so if someone studied the 26 volumes plus the executive sessions etc etc but did not bother to read the report would that mean their opinion was invalid ? of course not . the WR is supposedly based on the 26 volumes . in 1964 and even now few had or could afford to buy the 26 volumes , most people in 64 accepted what the WC concluded based on what the media told them .

[Steve Barber]

Hi Royell, you seem to be the self proclaimed expert on the Knott Lab Laser reconstruction so I wondered if you could help me out with something I don't quite understand about it.
I watched a brief video outlining the reconstruction and how it relates to various photos taken around the time of the assassination. It zooms all over Dealey Plaza showing us views of the throat shot from numerous angles. It then whizzes up to the SN and turns around to show us the view the shooter had and the angle of the bullet [the green line]:



We then zoom down the green line toward the limo where we see how it passes through JFK and hits JBC. Which looks like this:



Now this is what I'm not sure about.
In the pic above the red line appears to show where the bullet entered Connally's back and passed through him. The green line shows the line of the bullet from the SN through JFK to where it hits Connally's back.
It looks to me like the green line hits Connally's back about 10 inches away from where it is supposed to hit [the red line].
Is this what Knott have come up with?
That, according to their calculations, a bullet from the SN would've actually hit Connally about 10 inches away from where it actually did?
Is this what they have demonstrated?
Am I missing something because I feel I must be missing something really major here.
Can you tell me what it is.

  Hi Dan! 

  I'm a bit baffled as to why you didn't receive an answer to your question from Royell Storing.   I was just leafing through this thread, and came upon this page, and noticed that you posted your question, with image included of the "Knotts" video on April 23.  Five days ago.  I'm interested in hearing Royell's answer.  The positions of both JKF and Connally and the trajectories aof the bullet is ludicrous.  JFK wasn't seated in that position, and neither of JBC when the bullet struck. Connally was seated with his back against the back cusion, as was JFK.
Where did "Knotts" come up with this nonsense? 

[Dan O'meara]

  Hi Dan! 

  I'm a bit baffled as to why you didn't receive an answer to your question from Royell Storing.   I was just leafing through this thread, and came upon this page, and noticed that you posted your question, with image included of the "Knotts" video on April 23.  Five days ago.  I'm interested in hearing Royell's answer.  The positions of both JKF and Connally and the trajectories aof the bullet is ludicrous.  JFK wasn't seated in that position, and neither of JBC when the bullet struck. Connally was seated with his back against the back cusion, as was JFK.
Where did "Knotts" come up with this nonsense?

This all seems like an opportunity missed. The model of Dealey Plaza and the limo seem great but when it comes to the most important aspect of this model - the occupants of the limo - it's like they got a 5 year old to do that bit. Everything that can be wrong about them is wrong - wrong size, wrong position, wrong relative positions. In comparison to the rest of the model, the occupants seem really crudely done. I don't understand why this is.
I can't find a critique of the Knott reconstruction anywhere. I know nothing about computer graphics but I can plainly see there is so much wrong here.
As for Royell...who knows.
He cannot stop going on about the Knott Lab reconstruction but ask him a question about it and he disappears.

[Matthew Finch]

Oswald had just assassinated the president and left his rifle at the crime scene and you are quibbling about a small lie that he told to explain why he left?  That's what you find "weird" in this scenario?  Oswald's problem was that he was guilty.  He knew that.  What else was he going to do?  He had no good explanation for fleeing the scene without permission or even pausing to ascertain what was going on.  So he lies.  Let the police figure it out as he stated.  Oswald knew he wasn't getting away with this crime.  He was just making life difficult for the authorities as a lifelong malcontent.   Here's a better question.  Why do you think Oswald would lie about this if he was innocent since we know he didn't talk to Shelley?  If anything, this lie is further proof of guilt rather than innocence or whatever you are implying here.

This! (Bolded). Whichever way one turns, one ends up at Oswald being the sole guilty party (in the physical events that day).

I'm surprised someone hasn't turned up to 'LOL' each of those completely accurate Bugliosi points. Naming no names.

[Charles Collins]

This! (Bolded). Whichever way one turns, one ends up at Oswald being the sole guilty party (in the physical events that day).

I'm surprised someone hasn't turned up to 'LOL' each of those completely accurate Bugliosi points. Naming no names.

No one with a truly open mind could ever turn their nose up at all the evidence that points to LHO’s guilt and then turn around and conclude that Bill Shelly was involved simply because LHO mentioned Shelly’s name in one of his lies.