Oswald Acted Alone Is The Most Popular Theory

[Fergus O'brien]

Posting a reply to a post about Knotts Lab by whimpering, crying, and complaining about Meyers is relevant in what respect? You don’t like Meyers so that gives Knotts Lab a free ride to create this odd animation where they believe they debunked the SBT with an animation of JBC having been struck in the back by the same bullet that went through JFK’s neck? What a clown show.

What you are stating is you are unable to control this endless LNer diatribe? You start out to make a point, but it evolves into this strange rant and raving about LNers and you are powerless to stop it?

i do think you are incapable of seeing a clearly laid out point . i laid it out so simply that a 10 year old could get it , yet you some how failed . that my friend is your problem , not mine .

also all the nastiness ,  name calling insults or abuse that you feel you need to toss at me wont change a thing , and in the end all it serves is to make you look like an idiot . i wont ask you do stop , please do carry on .

[Patrick Jackson]

Let's say that 65% of the public believe Kennedy was assassinated as a result of a conspiracy and 35% believe Oswald acted alone.

Let's say of the 65%, there are a dozen different conspiracy theories.  Splitting it up evenly and we have each of the dozen conspiracy theories taking up about 5% to 6% of those polled.

Now, we have the idea that Oswald acted alone taking up 35% of those polled.

Therefore, the idea that Oswald acted alone is the most popular theory.

Khm, khm, you have to give some room for none of the above and I am not thinking on UFOs, ghosts, big foots...
There are people who believe JFK did not die that day in Dallas. We are not many but we do exist.

[Richard Smith]

"    lol when did i claim that Frazier was involved in a plot to frame Oswald for the assassination ? . it is typical of LN to dream up nonsense and then to claim SO CALLED CT made the claims . LN and rationality are two things that in my experience rarely if ever go together ." Fergus obrien


"Of course you did by implication.  You simply are displaying the skills that allow you to be a CTer.  Avoid context and discuss evidence as though it has no association to any other facts or evidence.  Don't accept the implications of your claim having any validity or even attempt to explain them.   End the discussion with testimony taken in a vacuum.  That's called trying to eat your cake and have it too.  We know from the evidence that either Frazier was lying about the bag or Oswald was lying.  There is no middle ground.  Frazier testified that Oswald carried a long bag that morning around two feet or so long.  Oswald denied carrying any bag of that length.  Frazier indicated that he asked Oswald about the bag and Oswald told him it contained curtain rods.  Oswald denied that he carried any curtain rods.  Frazier testified that he asked Oswald about his lunch and Oswald told him that he was not carrying it that day.  Oswald told the police that he carried his lunch to work that day.  All of these statements are completely contradictory.  What is the explanation?  One option is that Frazier lied about Oswald carrying a long bag, the curtain rods, and no lunch bag.  Why would he do all of this?  The only plausible explanation is that he was part of a conspiracy to frame Oswald.  This isn't the type of testimony where someone is mistaken - like characterizing a color or estimating a length.   Frazier says that Oswald told him that he was carrying curtain rods in the bag.  And where is the two-foot long bag that Frazier saw if not the bag found on the 6th floor.? No such bag matching that length was ever found or ever accounted for.  How do we square that fact with his testimony?  The bag he saw was the one found on the 6th floor.   That bag had Oswald's prints further confirming that fact.  That bag is longer than two feet.  "Richard

lol lol i claimed no such thing , neither openly or via any implication . LN start with nonsense usually about what would (in their mind ) have to be a VAST CONSPIRACY and then they try to assert that so called CT are claiming everyone and their dog was in on this conspiracy .i made zero claim about any conspiracy , and most certainly i IN NO WAY ever claimed that Frazier was party to a conspiracy to frame Oswald . if you think i did quote me .

you think Frazier either lied (as part of the LN VAST CONSPIRACY ) or that he told the truth , and there is for you no grey area , no other option as to why he MIGHT lie . i gave a reason why HE MIGHT lie , and its called self preservation . but you chose to ignore that .we have to consider the situation he found himself in that day , and how the DPD treated him .he was viewed as an accomplice and questioned as such .he was even polygraphed .

we only have Fraziers word for what was said in his vehicle thursday evening and friday morning . just as we only have the word of the DPD and the likes of Hosty for what Oswald supposedly said during interrogation .what he said for those brief moments caught on the TV cameras is there for all to see and hear .so you are saying Oswald said this or that when you have zero proof that he did . let us not forget that Frazier has said (all be it in later years ) that he saw Oswald leave via the rear of the depository wearing a jacket between 5 and 10 minutes after the shots . LN dismiss that claim by Frazier because they need Oswald leaving via the front door within 3 minutes of the shooting . LN also refused to accept his estimate of the length of the sack he said Oswald carried , some 24 inches give or take . and as i have said ive seen LN all but state that Frazier was so dumb that he did not know 2 feet equals 24 inches . so do LN trust Frazier or not ?. it appears to be the usual LN hypocrisy .

as for the sack , Frazier said (not verbatim ) that it was a regular type of sack / and paper that one would get in any store at that time as opposed to the industrial type paper in the depository . if you accept what we are told Oswald said in interrogation well then (again not verbatim ) they have Oswald saying about the bags size that some times you know you dont always have a sack that fits what you want to carry .so he could have carried a larger sack than he needed .

here are examples of paper sacks from a regular store of that era

https://www.alamy.com/stock-photo-1950s-1960s-happy-excited-man-wearing-business-suit-hat-carrying-grocery-175941074.html?imageid=AFC591A5-72BC-4D64-93EB-2330E1C859BF&p=38035&pn=1&searchId=1b18ee2cee3a1d16604f99924953eefc&searchtype=0

https://www.alamy.com/1950s-woman-worried-anxious-tired-exhausted-facial-expression-carrying-holding-two-brown-paper-bags-full-of-groceries-s8671-deb001-hars-nostalgia-old-fashion-1-anger-fear-communication-young-adult-balance-signal-worry-carry-brown-lifestyle-annoyed-females-grownup-home-life-communicating-copy-space-half-length-ladies-persons-grown-up-heavy-risk-contemplating-bw-sadness-shopper-eye-contact-homemaker-overworked-shoppers-homemakers-neighborhood-anxious-distressed-irate-housewives-ponder-pondering-deb001-displeasure-hostility-annoyance-communicate-contemplate-emotion-emotional-irritated-needs-image365794419.html?imageid=7914E688-6ED4-4D64-AAF9-A76EB78CC38B&p=38035&pn=1&searchId=1b18ee2cee3a1d16604f99924953eefc&searchtype=0

so for example a similar size sack as above would come in at about the foot long mark and could be held in the manner that Frazier described .

you say no such sack was found , do tell me who was actually looking for such a sack and where they looked .i doubt anyone ever looked for such a sack because it was quickly decided they had their man and that he carried a rifle not lunch .so it cant be stated as fact that no such sack was found if you cant prove such a sack was looked for . you say the bag he carried was found on the 6th floor , well WHERE ? . do you have photos or film to prove a sack was found on the 6th floor on the floor of the so called snipers nest ? . we both know the answer is NO .

i am not saying Oswald didnt , cant have done the shooting , its not impossible for him to have done it , very difficult in my view but impossible ? i have to say no . i am not saying there is no evidence that atleast appears to be pointing to him because there is  . i am not claiming things are fact if i cant prove them so . i am saying there are problems with this case , lots of them , but you and every other LN prefer to pretend that that is not the case .

You are not getting the point.  If Frazier is telling the truth, then Oswald is lying.  You can't have it both ways.  The idea that someone would confuse a normal lunch sack for a bag over two feet long - particularly after Frazier indicates that he specifically asked Oswald about his lunch because he was not carrying his lunch bag, and Oswald confirmed to him that he didn't have it is comedy gold.   But if this is your claim, then it is necessary explain to us why Oswald would carry a bag about two feet long or his lunch, tell Frazier it contained curtain rods, and that he didn't have his lunch that day but then tell the police that he didn't carry curtain rods, his lunch or a bag this size the length described by Frazier.  It's laughable to accept your claim. 

If Oswald were innocent, no one would have had to look for this bag.  He would have instructed the police to find it and insisted that they did so because it would have assisted his case.  He only denies the existence of a long bag because he knows it will incriminate him.  Even a child could understand that.  And how do we know they searched the building?  Because one of the things they found was - wait for it - a long bag!  Whose prints were on this very bag?  Wait for it - Oswald's!  Then you go down the path of the implying that someone planted this bag while going on and on about not claiming a VAST conspiracy.  HA HA HA.  That is rich irony.  The bag is pictured being carried out of the building.  Several police officers saw it.  Case closed.

[Steve M. Galbraith]

You are not getting the point.  If Frazier is telling the truth, then Oswald is lying.  You can't have it both ways.  The idea that someone would confuse a normal lunch sack for a bag over two feet long - particularly after Frazier indicates that he specifically asked Oswald about his lunch because he was not carrying his lunch bag, and Oswald confirmed to him that he didn't have it is comedy gold.   But if this is your claim, then it is necessary explain to us why Oswald would carry a bag about two feet long or his lunch, tell Frazier it contained curtain rods, and that he didn't have his lunch that day but then tell the police that he didn't carry curtain rods, his lunch or a bag this size the length described by Frazier.  It's laughable to accept your claim. 

If Oswald were innocent, no one would have had to look for this bag.  He would have instructed the police to find it and insisted that they did so because it would have assisted his case.  He only denies the existence of a long bag because he knows it will incriminate him.  Even a child could understand that.  And how do we know they searched the building?  Because one of the things they found was - wait for it - a long bag!  Whose prints were on this very bag?  Wait for it - Oswald's!  Then you go down the path of the implying that someone planted this bag while going on and on about not claiming a VAST conspiracy.  HA HA HA.  That is rich irony.  The bag is pictured being carried out of the building.  Several police officers saw it.  Case closed.

Yes, but like most conspiracists he doesn't trust or believe the police and government. So whatever evidence they produce - directly or indirectly - of Oswald's guilt is in his view part of the framing of Oswald. It doesn't matter how much evidence - the backyard photos, Marina's testimony, Frazier's testimony, the physical evidence, the circumstantial, even Oswald's statements (at least when they implicate him) - it's all corrupt. Because "the CIA" and Guatemala and Operation Northwoods and military industrial complex and JFK was a threat to that.

It's a bit amazing that they demand all of the evidence, all of the files be released. They say they want all of the information. Then they turn around and try to eliminate the evidence against Oswald by saying "chain of custody" and hearsay. They want all of the evidence on one hand and want to make it disappear on the other.

One more: Oswald was dead. They can say he admitted to the backyard photos, to carrying a large package, to going to Mexico City, to hating JFK. But they didn't. Why not? In conspiracy world everything was controlled, micromanaged, directed but they didn't do obvious things like this?

[Jack Nessan]

i do think you are incapable of seeing a clearly laid out point . i laid it out so simply that a 10 year old could get it , yet you some how failed . that my friend is your problem , not mine .

also all the nastiness ,  name calling insults or abuse that you feel you need to toss at me wont change a thing , and in the end all it serves is to make you look like an idiot . i wont ask you do stop , please do carry on .

You laid out a point? Where? No, you have made no point at all except to whine about LNers and Meyers. 

Making a point would have been to tie the whole oddball rant into an explanation about Knotts Lab and the obvious issue with a bullet exiting JFK and striking JBC in the back, but not one thing you posted was even remotely relevant to any discussion taking place. Now here you are trying to offer up lame excuses for your posts. All of your posts can be characterized as irrelevant whining, and it is not any more complicated than that. 

[Fergus O'brien]

You are not getting the point.  If Frazier is telling the truth, then Oswald is lying.  You can't have it both ways.  The idea that someone would confuse a normal lunch sack for a bag over two feet long - particularly after Frazier indicates that he specifically asked Oswald about his lunch because he was not carrying his lunch bag, and Oswald confirmed to him that he didn't have it is comedy gold.   But if this is your claim, then it is necessary explain to us why Oswald would carry a bag about two feet long or his lunch, tell Frazier it contained curtain rods, and that he didn't have his lunch that day but then tell the police that he didn't carry curtain rods, his lunch or a bag this size the length described by Frazier.  It's laughable to accept your claim. 

If Oswald were innocent, no one would have had to look for this bag.  He would have instructed the police to find it and insisted that they did so because it would have assisted his case.  He only denies the existence of a long bag because he knows it will incriminate him.  Even a child could understand that.  And how do we know they searched the building?  Because one of the things they found was - wait for it - a long bag!  Whose prints were on this very bag?  Wait for it - Oswald's!  Then you go down the path of the implying that someone planted this bag while going on and on about not claiming a VAST conspiracy.  HA HA HA.  That is rich irony.  The bag is pictured being carried out of the building.  Several police officers saw it.  Case closed.

oh i get the point , and i get that you refuse to see the points i made . which rather makes this a pointless exercise . you talk about what Frazier said Oswald supposedly said . you have zero proof of what was or was not said in that vehicle FACT .you have opted to take Fraziers say so as fact , even tho you completely disregard his measurement of the paper sack he said he saw . and you disregard the fact that the area of the rear seat where Frazier said the sack laid was measured and found to be in and around 24 inches long .you choose to disregard the fact that Frazier said the sack was the type of sack one would get in a store , regular paper sack as opposed to industrial paper found in the depository . you ignore the fact that Frazier was interrogated as an accomplice and even had fritz thrust a pre written confession (not given by Frazier) in Fraziers face demanding he sign it . so you ignore the fact that Frazier was in save a-s mode during the interrogation .not unlike Marina who even Robert oswald said was being threatened with deportation . and you disregard another witness who saw Oswald walk in the door that morning and who said Oswald did not carry a 3 foot long by a good foot wide by several inch deep package that we are told he carried .

exactly when did i say Frazier confused anything ? these are your words not mine . if you want to talk about what i said QUOTE the sentence / s in full . do not make up nonsense and then say i said it .

you say Oswald confirmed but who besides Frazier heard this confirmation ? NO ONE that is who . so you have zero confirmation . you can say Oswald told you anything when you know Oswald is dead  and he is not around any more to dispute you .

which claim of mine is laughable ? quote me . on the other hand i am sure what ever you made up and say i claimed is indeed laughable .

"Then you go down the path of the implying that someone planted this bag while going on and on about not claiming a VAST conspiracy.  HA HA HA.  That is rich irony.  The bag is pictured being carried out of the building.  Several police officers saw it.  Case closed."

what is rich is your imagination . i made no such claim nor did i even come close to implying such a thing . i was very clear in saying YOU HAVE ZERO PROOF that any sack was on the floor in the so called snipers nest . there is not one photo or piece of film showing the sack in situ .and that cops etc saw the sack is debatable , some saw a small sack that williams left there , some saw nothing . so should the readers here simply take your word for it on this ? . personally i would have difficulty taking any LNs word for anything .

most certainly a sack was carried out of the building , its on photo . no one is denying that . that is not the point here .

[Fergus O'brien]

Yes, but like most conspiracists he doesn't trust or believe the police and government. So whatever evidence they produce - directly or indirectly - of Oswald's guilt is in his view part of the framing of Oswald. It doesn't matter how much evidence - the backyard photos, Marina's testimony, Frazier's testimony, the physical evidence, the circumstantial, even Oswald's statements (at least when they implicate him) - it's all corrupt. Because "the CIA" and Guatemala and Operation Northwoods and military industrial complex and JFK was a threat to that.

It's a bit amazing that they demand all of the evidence, all of the files be released. They say they want all of the information. Then they turn around and try to eliminate the evidence against Oswald by saying "chain of custody" and hearsay. They want all of the evidence on one hand and want to make it disappear on the other.

One more: Oswald was dead. They can say he admitted to the backyard photos, to carrying a large package, to going to Mexico City, to hating JFK. But they didn't. Why not? In conspiracy world everything was controlled, micromanaged, directed but they didn't do obvious things like this?

if you have something to say ABOUT ME perhaps you should address it to me , i am not THEY i am ME . dont talk about what you think i believe to someone else . i am here ASK ME . but i would say yes any rational person would question the trustworthiness of any individual or group or organization that has been shown to have been less than honest . but if you can show something that is irrefutable and proven fact you can rest assured that i will accept it . no proof and i wont accept it as proven fact .

and by the way i am not a conspiracy theorist , i have not offered any theories here . there are those that do offer theories and that is between you and them .

[Fergus O'brien]

You laid out a point? Where? No, you have made no point at all except to whine about LNers and Meyers. 

Making a point would have been to tie the whole oddball rant into an explanation about Knotts Lab and the obvious issue with a bullet exiting JFK and striking JBC in the back, but not one thing you posted was even remotely relevant to any discussion taking place. Now here you are trying to offer up lame excuses for your posts. All of your posts can be characterized as irrelevant whining, and it is not any more complicated than that.

there is only one oddball ranting here and it is you . and only one oddball talking about knotts lab and again it is you .