What's your favorite reason for believing Oswald didn't do it?

[Jack Nessan]

You need to calm down, Jack.
Let's deal with your wild, unsubstantiated claims first -

1] Quote what nonsense I have "made up" about Williams and his lunch.
By that I mean quote the actual words I have posted, not your raving opinion.

2] Quote what "fabricated tripe" I have posted.
Again, quote my actual words, not your unhinged ravings.

Shelley told the WC he 'thought' that at one time he might have said to someone that Givens was eating fried chicken, but he wasn't sure. He even had to ask Givens, he was so unsure.
But Givens is clear - he left his lunch in the domino room when he arrived at work and ate his sandwich outside the building at lunch time.
That's a fact.
What are you going to do now? Have another breakdown?

I've dealt with you before, Jack.
You usually last at least a couple of posts before you start ranting.
So, take a breath and decide whether you want to discuss this rationally or whether you are just going full rant mode from the start.

Check Givens' testimony. He states he had his sandwich outside the building.
Do you agree that a partially eaten piece of chicken was found on top of the Sniper's Nest?
Now...here's the big one - Do you agree that a small lunch sack was also found on top of the Sniper's Nest?

Let's have a rational discussion, Jack. Like two adults.

This is new. Dan the Victim.

You need to calm down, Jack.
Let's deal with your wild, unsubstantiated claims first -

This is surprising. Tripe and nonsense are the basis and backbone of your standard post.
 
1] Quote what nonsense I have "made up" about Williams and his lunch.
By that I mean quote the actual words I have posted, not your raving opinion.
 
2] Quote what "fabricated tripe" I have posted.
Again, quote my actual words, not your unhinged ravings.

Dan---"The lunch remains photographed by Studebaker by the two-wheeler, at the end of the third aisle, in front of the third set of windows from Houston Street, were initially discovered by Luke Mooney ON TOP of the Sniper's Nest. Luke Mooney was the  officer who discovered the SN, the first person on that scene after the shooting.
This means two things:
1] When Bonnie Ray finished his lunch he left the remains of the lunch on top of the Sniper's Nest. Why would he do that?
2] These lunch remains were removed from the Sniper's Nest and placed by the two-wheeler truck shortly after their discovery. Who did that and why?"

What kind of a mind could even think this crap up? They knew they had to move because --Why? What a bunch of garbage.
 
 
Shelley told the WC he 'thought' that at one time he might have said to someone that Givens was eating fried chicken, but he wasn't sure. He even had to ask Givens, he was so unsure.
But Givens is clear - he left his lunch in the domino room when he arrived at work and ate his sandwich outside the building at lunch time.
That's a fact.

Huh, what? Typical Dan one dimensional thinking. Completely missed the point or deliberately trying to change the subject.

I've dealt with you before, Jack.

Really? No, you were tolerated like a simple minded child. Had to babysit you through the whole discussion.

 
You usually last at least a couple of posts before you start ranting.
So, take a breath and decide whether you want to discuss this rationally or whether you are just going full rant mode from the start.

Dan the Victim again. After babysitting you through the Styles and Adams nonsense, pretty low on tolerance.
 
Check Givens' testimony. He states he had his sandwich outside the building.
Do you agree that a partially eaten piece of chicken was found on top of the Sniper's Nest?
Now...here's the big one - Do you agree that a small lunch sack was also found on top of the Sniper's Nest?

He was stating they were always snacking. You can’t put that together? No wonder this whole thing goes right past you.
 
Let's have a rational discussion, Jack. Like two adults.   

The discussion is over. Two detectives explained their role in watching over the lunch remains. Did you miss that? Once again, I think you have been embarrassed by not knowing the whole story and posting your one dimensional thinking. The rest of this is covering up that fact.

[Dan O'meara]

This is new. Dan the Victim.

You need to calm down, Jack.
Let's deal with your wild, unsubstantiated claims first -

This is surprising. Tripe and nonsense are the basis and backbone of your standard post.
 
1] Quote what nonsense I have "made up" about Williams and his lunch.
By that I mean quote the actual words I have posted, not your raving opinion.
 
2] Quote what "fabricated tripe" I have posted.
Again, quote my actual words, not your unhinged ravings.

Dan---"The lunch remains photographed by Studebaker by the two-wheeler, at the end of the third aisle, in front of the third set of windows from Houston Street, were initially discovered by Luke Mooney ON TOP of the Sniper's Nest. Luke Mooney was the  officer who discovered the SN, the first person on that scene after the shooting.
This means two things:
1] When Bonnie Ray finished his lunch he left the remains of the lunch on top of the Sniper's Nest. Why would he do that?
2] These lunch remains were removed from the Sniper's Nest and placed by the two-wheeler truck shortly after their discovery. Who did that and why?"

What kind of a mind could even think this crap up? They knew they had to move because --Why? What a bunch of garbage.
 
 
Shelley told the WC he 'thought' that at one time he might have said to someone that Givens was eating fried chicken, but he wasn't sure. He even had to ask Givens, he was so unsure.
But Givens is clear - he left his lunch in the domino room when he arrived at work and ate his sandwich outside the building at lunch time.
That's a fact.

Huh, what? Typical Dan one dimensional thinking. Completely missed the point or deliberately trying to change the subject.

I've dealt with you before, Jack.

Really? No, you were tolerated like a simple minded child. Had to babysit you through the whole discussion.

 
You usually last at least a couple of posts before you start ranting.
So, take a breath and decide whether you want to discuss this rationally or whether you are just going full rant mode from the start.

Dan the Victim again. After babysitting you through the Styles and Adams nonsense, pretty low on tolerance.
 
Check Givens' testimony. He states he had his sandwich outside the building.
Do you agree that a partially eaten piece of chicken was found on top of the Sniper's Nest?
Now...here's the big one - Do you agree that a small lunch sack was also found on top of the Sniper's Nest?

He was stating they were always snacking. You can’t put that together? No wonder this whole thing goes right past you.
 
Let's have a rational discussion, Jack. Like two adults.   

The discussion is over. Two detectives explained their role in watching over the lunch remains. Did you miss that? Once again, I think you have been embarrassed by not knowing the whole story and posting your one dimensional thinking. The rest of this is covering up that fact.

 
Classic Nessan foaming-at -the-mouth lunacy.
For anyone who wants a laugh have a look at the "3 Minute Lie" thread where you will find Jack in full rant mode.
When handling someone like Jack, the trick is to keep presenting the facts and simply wait for the meltdown.

Finding Bonnie Ray's lunch remains ON TOP of the Sniper's Nest is a truly massive headache for Lone Nuttters. There have been numerous attempts trying to explain this inconvenient fact away (we've already seen Tom's piss-weak attempt) and now we have Jack insisting there was two sets of lunch remains - one on the Sniper's Nest and one a couple of aisles over by the two-wheeler truck.
The main part of Jack's argument is Shelley's WC testimony. In it Shelley says he thought that maybe he might have told someone at some time that he thought he might have seen Charles Givens eating chicken on the 6th floor  on the day of the assassination. He says that he even asked Givens what he was eating.
However, Givens is adamant that he ate his lunch - a sandwich - outside the building:

Mr. BELIN. I want to backtrack a minute before we come to the shots. When did you eat lunch?
Mr. GIVENS. When did I eat lunch? I ate lunch after. Let’s see, no; I ate lunch before I went up there, because I stood outside and ate my sandwich standing out there.
Mr. BELIN. You ate your lunch outside?
Mr. GIVENS. Yes, sir. Standing in front of the building.
Mr. BELIN. In front of what building?
Mr. GIVENS. Texas School Book.
Mr. BELIN. Did you ever eat any lunch inside the building?
Mr. GIVENS. Yes, sir ; I eat inside the building all the time.
Mr. BELIN. On November 22, did you eat inside the building?
Mr. GIVENS. No, sir.

What do you say to that, Jack?
And here's the two questions you avoided from my last post. So, for the second time:

Do you agree that a partially eaten piece of chicken was found on top of the Sniper's Nest?
Now...here's the big one - Do you agree that a small lunch sack was also found on top of the Sniper's Nest?


Let the meltdown commence 

[Jack Nessan]

Classic Nessan foaming-at -the-mouth lunacy.
For anyone who wants a laugh have a look at the "3 Minute Lie" thread where you will find Jack in full rant mode.
When handling someone like Jack, the trick is to keep presenting the facts and simply wait for the meltdown.

Finding Bonnie Ray's lunch remains ON TOP of the Sniper's Nest is a truly massive headache for Lone Nuttters. There have been numerous attempts trying to explain this inconvenient fact away (we've already seen Tom's piss-weak attempt) and now we have Jack insisting there was two sets of lunch remains - one on the Sniper's Nest and one a couple of aisles over by the two-wheeler truck.
The main part of Jack's argument is Shelley's WC testimony. In it Shelley says he thought that maybe he might have told someone at some time that he thought he might have seen Charles Givens eating chicken on the 6th floor  on the day of the assassination. He says that he even asked Givens what he was eating.
However, Givens is adamant that he ate his lunch - a sandwich - outside the building:

Mr. BELIN. I want to backtrack a minute before we come to the shots. When did you eat lunch?
Mr. GIVENS. When did I eat lunch? I ate lunch after. Let’s see, no; I ate lunch before I went up there, because I stood outside and ate my sandwich standing out there.
Mr. BELIN. You ate your lunch outside?
Mr. GIVENS. Yes, sir. Standing in front of the building.
Mr. BELIN. In front of what building?
Mr. GIVENS. Texas School Book.
Mr. BELIN. Did you ever eat any lunch inside the building?
Mr. GIVENS. Yes, sir ; I eat inside the building all the time.
Mr. BELIN. On November 22, did you eat inside the building?
Mr. GIVENS. No, sir.

What do you say to that, Jack?
And here's the two questions you avoided from my last post. So, for the second time:

Do you agree that a partially eaten piece of chicken was found on top of the Sniper's Nest?
Now...here's the big one - Do you agree that a small lunch sack was also found on top of the Sniper's Nest?


Let the meltdown commence 

It must be causing you a great deal of anguish to have your silly little conspiracy theory get stepped on just because a couple of detectives were assigned to watch over the area. Are you coming to the end of these ridiculous odd theories that are basically meaningless to start with or are there more of them?

Maybe next time, read a little more before you start posting. There are numerous older threads that have dealt with this same information. You aren’t the first, just the latest.

So, the only problem you are having is where did Givens eat his lunch. Not did he or other workers eat a piece of chicken during the day? Wow, and now you are lying on the floor throwing a temper tantrum because Shelley noticed they would do just that?

Mr. Shelley’s, Det Johnson’s, and Det. Montgomery’s testimonies have not changed. If you look back on page 8, you can reread them. Maybe this time you will understand them.

[Michael Capasse]

Mr. BELIN. On November 22, did you eat inside the building?
Mr. GIVENS. No, sir.

[Jack Nessan]

Mr. BELIN. On November 22, did you eat inside the building?
Mr. GIVENS. No, sir.

Not surprising you missed this. Givens told Shelley a different story.

Mr. SHELLEY - At one time I think I said I did but Charles Givens was the guy that was eating and he was further on over toward the west side and he was eating a sandwich so he says.
Mr. BALL - Now you say that you thought that you had seen someone had eaten fried chicken that morning?
Mr. SHELLEY - I thought I had; those colored boys are always eating chicken.
Mr. BALL - Do you think you did or do you know?
Mr. SHELLEY - I asked Charles Givens whether it was him that was eating and he said it was a sandwich.

[Dan O'meara]

It must be causing you a great deal of anguish to have your silly little conspiracy theory get stepped on just because a couple of detectives were assigned to watch over the area. Are you coming to the end of these ridiculous odd theories that are basically meaningless to start with or are there more of them?

Maybe next time, read a little more before you start posting. There are numerous older threads that have dealt with this same information. You aren’t the first, just the latest.

So, the only problem you are having is where did Givens eat his lunch. Not did he or other workers eat a piece of chicken during the day? Wow, and now you are lying on the floor throwing a temper tantrum because Shelley noticed they would do just that?

Mr. Shelley’s, Det Johnson’s, and Det. Montgomery’s testimonies have not changed. If you look back on page 8, you can reread them. Maybe this time you will understand them.

 
Full meltdown mode, as expected.
For the THIRD time:

Do you agree that a partially eaten piece of chicken was found on top of the Sniper's Nest?
Now...here's the big one - Do you agree that a small lunch sack was also found on top of the Sniper's Nest?

Have a closer read of Shelley's testimony, Jack.
He is, basically, asked if he saw anyone eating chicken on the 6th floor on the day of the assassination. It's a Yes or No answer.
His reply could not be more vague - he might have, perhaps, maybe said that to unnamed someone at some unspecified time. But it turns out Givens, the man that Shelley thinks perhaps might have been eating fried chicken WASN'T eating fried chicken at all and that it was further west in the building than where the lunch remains in the third aisle were discovered.
So it couldn't have been Given's lunch remains found ON TOP of the Sniper's Nest even if they were Givens' lunch remains.

According to Shelley, Givens had his lunch at 9:30 IN THE MORNING, which is utter nonsense.
Givens had his lunch at lunch time and he was stood outside the building when he had it:

Mr. BELIN. I want to backtrack a minute before we come to the shots. When did you eat lunch?
Mr. GIVENS. When did I eat lunch? I ate lunch after. Let’s see, no; I ate lunch before I went up there, because I stood outside and ate my sandwich standing out there.
Mr. BELIN. You ate your lunch outside?
Mr. GIVENS. Yes, sir. Standing in front of the building.
Mr. BELIN. In front of what building?
Mr. GIVENS. Texas School Book.
Mr. BELIN. Did you ever eat any lunch inside the building?
Mr. GIVENS. Yes, sir ; I eat inside the building all the time.
Mr. BELIN. On November 22, did you eat inside the building?
Mr. GIVENS. No, sir.

There is no uncertainty in Given's mind.
He left his lunch in the domino room when he arrived at work and had his lunch at lunch time, stood outside the building.

Your little "two lunches" theory lies in tatters (like most every other theory you propose).
But, just for laughs, kindly explain to the forum how Given's imaginary lunch remains made it all the way over to ON TOP of the Sniper's Nest and where did they disappear to by the time Studebaker arrived on the scene.

[Jack Nessan]

Full meltdown mode, as expected.
For the THIRD time:

Do you agree that a partially eaten piece of chicken was found on top of the Sniper's Nest?
Now...here's the big one - Do you agree that a small lunch sack was also found on top of the Sniper's Nest?

Have a closer read of Shelley's testimony, Jack.
He is, basically, asked if he saw anyone eating chicken on the 6th floor on the day of the assassination. It's a Yes or No answer.
His reply could not be more vague - he might have, perhaps, maybe said that to unnamed someone at some unspecified time. But it turns out Givens, the man that Shelley thinks perhaps might have been eating fried chicken WASN'T eating fried chicken at all and that it was further west in the building than where the lunch remains in the third aisle were discovered.
So it couldn't have been Given's lunch remains found ON TOP of the Sniper's Nest even if they were Givens' lunch remains.

According to Shelley, Givens had his lunch at 9:30 IN THE MORNING, which is utter nonsense.
Givens had his lunch at lunch time and he was stood outside the building when he had it:

Mr. BELIN. I want to backtrack a minute before we come to the shots. When did you eat lunch?
Mr. GIVENS. When did I eat lunch? I ate lunch after. Let’s see, no; I ate lunch before I went up there, because I stood outside and ate my sandwich standing out there.
Mr. BELIN. You ate your lunch outside?
Mr. GIVENS. Yes, sir. Standing in front of the building.
Mr. BELIN. In front of what building?
Mr. GIVENS. Texas School Book.
Mr. BELIN. Did you ever eat any lunch inside the building?
Mr. GIVENS. Yes, sir ; I eat inside the building all the time.
Mr. BELIN. On November 22, did you eat inside the building?
Mr. GIVENS. No, sir.

There is no uncertainty in Given's mind.
He left his lunch in the domino room when he arrived at work and had his lunch at lunch time, stood outside the building.

Your little "two lunches" theory lies in tatters (like most every other theory you propose).
But, just for laughs, kindly explain to the forum how Given's imaginary lunch remains made it all the way over to ON TOP of the Sniper's Nest and where did they disappear to by the time Studebaker arrived on the scene.

This is exactly the response that was expected. The previous posts explain the flaws in your story. There is no reason to keep posting the same information that completely refutes this theory, and then you once again pretend the information doesn’t exist.

Now here you are once again, continually bawling for an answer to some doltish question you have concocted while ignoring the facts of the issue that have already been posted. Instead, whining and hoping for help to salvage this seriously flawed theory.

It seems you are getting worse. These theories have become so increasingly pathetic that you can’t even support them anymore. A little research on your part and you would have known how meritless this theory was before it ever was posted. Maybe the next one, and I am sure there will be one, will be a little more based on reality. You have been told the answer; you just aren’t clever enough to accept it. Instead, pretending the information has not been posted already.

Do you even realize you have postulated, that these detectives had moved a chicken lunch to a new location with no explanation for why they would even do that, or why anyone would even do that, and it somehow makes complete sense to you. Just another made up bizarre Dan O fantasy. The Styles and Adams storyline was pathetic enough but pales in comparison to this conspiracy fantasy.