Oswald Acted Alone Is The Most Popular Theory

[Fergus O'Brien]

The Bag that He Saw

This slide was created by Dr. Tony Fratini for JFK Boards, "Did Lee Harvey Oswald construct the paper bag (CE 142)? "
Taken from a video by Tom Meros, and along with Buell Frazier, demonstrate the size of the bag he saw vs. the actual size of the rifle.
This is an important illustration of what it would take to carry a rifle approximately 34 inches long, packaged in brown paper.

Lee told Frazier, he was bringing curtain rods. Frazier, said he had no reason not to believe him, because Lee had never lied to him before.
Well then, Lee had better make a package that looks like curtain rods. Not one to be held like a soldier walking with a rifle.
Buell has always maintained the package was tucked under his armpit. That could not be the gun. Disassembled, the rifle is 34.8 inches long.

thank you for posting this Michael . as the british would say WHAT CANT SPEAK , CANT LIE . these images speak for them selves .

[Jack Nessan]

my silly friend i speak as i find . meaning i call a spade a spade . if i speak to a person (LN or CT ) and they are being idiots , especially being an idiot with me . well then i will highlight the fact that they are being IDIOTIC .name calling which i have been subjected to here is at the best juvenile , yet most (but not all) LN go down that route . ones intellect and knowledge / research should be all that one requires in a discussion / debate such as this , it is all i need , sadly in those respects you fall quite short . so i dont have to say anything disparaging about you because your own posts here have done that job quite well .

a little common sense also is a good thing , i think most would agree . for example myers animation is RIGHTLY criticized , for some very valid reasons . he himself had to admit that neither connally nor his jumpseat were in the position in which his animation placed him , which was the 6 INCHES INBOARD . he in fact admitted the fact that the jump seat was 2.5 inches inboard as per the limo makers schematics / measurements . this is also the same  man who has said Oswald didnt do either shooting and who now has profited quite a bit from saying the opposite . so their are valid criticisms of myers and his work , just as i am sure there may well be valid criticisms of other work (such as knotts lab ) that should be considered and evaluated . however i see not one criticism of myers and his work made or accepted by LN or by you .and i see no common sense there .

The discussion was all about Knotts Lab. A topic you obviously are avoiding. Wasting all this effort to avoid a simple subject in itself tells the story. 

Instead, you have engaged in this bizarre solo whining, sniveling, crying rant and rave about LNers and Meyers. It seems to be the sum total of all your knowledge concerning the JFK Assassination. 

How come gentleman, such as yourself, always portray yourselves as knowledgeable and/or “researchers”. You have demonstrated you could not know less. A simple little subject and you are running for cover. If you are afraid of the subject maybe just don’t post about it. It matters not to anyone.

[Fergus O'Brien]

"How come gentleman, such as yourself, always portray yourselves as knowledgeable and/or “researchers”. You have demonstrated you could not know less. "

i have not in any way portrayed my self as a researcher / expert in this case . this is another nonsense from you . in regards being knowledgeable about this case well it is clearly evident that i have knowledge of this case . that in no way makes me an expert , nor have i ever claimed this to be the case . but again another very simple point has proven too difficult for you to comprehend . which was that i do not go down the LN route of attack , insult , abuse , ad hominem , ridicule etc etc , i have zero need (nor any desire ) for such juvenile nonsense . on the other hand people like you need that sort of thing as a means to detract from the points , info and facts being discussed .and its an easy option for LN like you because it requires little or no intelligence .

"If you are afraid of the subject maybe just don’t post about it. It matters not to anyone."

I HAVENT POSTED ABOUT IT lol lol  , and i made it clear i was not posting about it quite a way back in this thread .

[Charles Collins]

"How come gentleman, such as yourself, always portray yourselves as knowledgeable and/or “researchers”. You have demonstrated you could not know less. "

i have not in any way portrayed my self as a researcher / expert in this case . this is another nonsense from you . in regards being knowledgeable about this case well it is clearly evident that i have knowledge of this case . that in no way makes me an expert , nor have i ever claimed this to be the case . but again another very simple point has proven too difficult for you to comprehend . which was that i do not go down the LN route of attack , insult , abuse , ad hominem , ridicule etc etc , i have zero need (nor any desire ) for such juvenile nonsense . on the other hand people like you need that sort of thing as a means to detract from the points , info and facts being discussed .and its an easy option for LN like you because it requires little or no intelligence .

"If you are afraid of the subject maybe just don’t post about it. It matters not to anyone."

I HAVENT POSTED ABOUT IT lol lol  , and i made it clear i was not posting about it quite a way back in this thread .

i made it clear i was not posting about it quite a way back in this thread .

Just another reason that no one should take your claims about it seriously then…

[Richard Smith]

Quote from: Fergus O'brien on May 10, 2024, 08:45:33 PM


so i wrote highlighting that Fritz was less than honest and asking a valid question , which was why should we then by default trust every word of such people . in essence they have given us reason , good reason to doubt their honesty , so then is it not and SHOULD IT NOT BE a valid concern of any person as to whether such person/s warrant our distrust ? .  and then i get the above reply stating that FRITZ WAS PARTY TO A CONSPIRACY TO FRAME OSWALD FOR JFKS MURDER . and LN wonder why i might question their intellect ? , i rest my case . i guess LN just find it easier to talk nonsense than to have to talk about such things as the honesty or lack their of of one of their own witnesses .

By "less than honest" you claimed he lied about what the suspect said in a homicide investigation.  Not just any homicide investigation but the assassination of the president.  Why would he do this in your fantasy except to frame Oswald for the crime?  Something that folks like yourself and others have claimed was a conspiracy.  If you want to back away from that given its absurdity, then do it without trying to have it every possible way.  A classic mindset of a CTer is to make a claim but then back away from addressing the issues raised by their claim having any validity.  Here it is obvious that Oswald lied about the bag either to Frazier or the police.  He told contradictory stories.  How to get around this for a CTer?  Suggest that the police were not honest about what was said.  Even that makes no sense because the police in this situation are indicating that Oswald claimed he was innocent and didn't carry a long bag.  If they are lying to frame him, they would have said the opposite (i.e. that he confessed and confirmed that he carried his rifle that morning in a long bag).  It's laughable to see the pretzel of logic that you CTers navigate to reach a desired conclusion.

[Steve M. Galbraith]

By "less than honest" you claimed he lied about what the suspect said in a homicide investigation.  Not just any homicide investigation but the assassination of the president.  Why would he do this in your fantasy except to frame Oswald for the crime?  Something that folks like yourself and others have claimed was a conspiracy.  If you want to back away from that given its absurdity, then do it without trying to have it every possible way.  A classic mindset of a CTer is to make a claim but then back away from addressing the issues raised by their claim having any validity.  Here it is obvious that Oswald lied about the bag either to Frazier or the police.  He told contradictory stories.  How to get around this for a CTer?  Suggest that the police were not honest about what was said.  Even that makes no sense because the police in this situation are indicating that Oswald claimed he was innocent and didn't carry a long bag.  If they are lying to frame him, they would have said the opposite (i.e. that he confessed and confirmed that he carried his rifle that morning in a long bag).  It's laughable to see the pretzel of logic that you CTers navigate to reach a desired conclusion.

Fritz didn't interrogate Oswald by himself, with no one else there. Hosty and Bookhout and others were in on the questioning too. So if Fritz lied about Oswald's statements about the curtain rod story, the bag, the backyard photos and other areas then these others went along with these falsehoods. And why would they lie about these things, about what Oswald said? What's the purpose? Just for the heck of it? Or to frame Oswald for the crimes? What's an innocent explanation?

So, we supposedly have multiple people lying about what Oswald said about critical issues in the assassination. But he's not saying there was a conspiracy to frame Oswald?

They all lied for what reason?

[Martin Weidmann]

Fritz didn't interrogate Oswald by himself, with no one else there. Hosty and Bookhout and others were in on the questioning too. So if Fritz lied about Oswald's statements about the curtain rod story, the bag, the backyard photos and other areas then these others went along with these falsehoods. And why would they lie about these things, about what Oswald said? What's the purpose? Just for the heck of it? Or to frame Oswald for the crimes? What's an innocent explanation?

So, we supposedly have multiple people lying about what Oswald said about critical issues in the assassination. But he's not saying there was a conspiracy to frame Oswald?

They all lied for what reason?

Their reports differ, no matter how you twist and turn it.

Yes, they claimed Oswald denied he carried a "long bag", but what exactly did they ask him? Did they ask simply if he was carrying a "large bag" (whatever that would have meant to him) or did they give a more detailed description in their question? We don't know, because it's not in their reports, which basically makes their reports worthless and unreliable.

They could have easily asked Oswald if he had carried a bag that was large enough to conceal a broken down rifle and when Oswald answered that he didn't, they just wrote down he denied carrying a large bag.
If, on the other hand, they had asked him if the bag he carried could have fitted between his armpit and the cup of his hand he might have said, "Yes, but that's not a large bag".
The quality of the question determines the quality of the answer and in this case we don't know what the question was they asked, which basically means they screwed up big time and all their reports are meaningless.