JFK Assassination Forum
JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion & Debate => JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion And Debate => Topic started by: Bill Brown on April 21, 2024, 05:44:52 PM
-
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.
-
If only any of the conspiracy theories were honestly subjected to the over-the-top degree of proof that the Oswald lone-assassin finding. Through another conspiracy theory, they blame the mass media for not mindlessly spreading their theories, rather than the critics acknowledging their theories are to blame.
Is this an American thing? Do other countries have anything similar to the obsession over the JFK assassination? For example, in the UK, Jack the Ripper, while quite intriguing, never got this out of hand.
BTW, the British recently endured a conspiracy, in the form of the Post Office Scandal.
It's a baby boomer fixation (each anniversary the attention diminishes); the Kennedys were viewed as American royalty (Camelot and all of that); and people want to believe that the horrors of the Sixties, Vietnam and the deaths of RFK and King and other upheavals, would have been avoided if JFK survived. Add all of the other ingredients - spies and Cold War intrigue, a blurry film as sort of Holy Grail, interesting characters, JFK as King Arthur - and you get this almost mythological level of interest.
I would imagine the closest parallel today (but not real close) would be the death of Lady Di. It's remarkable how obsessed the British were over that.
Conspiracy theorists once asked good, fair, legitimate questions - even though their answers were wrong (to his credit, Epstein didn't try). Certainly at that time and maybe up through the 1980s. But now some 60 years later these are no longer good faith questions. This is Jim Garrison type paranoid nonsense. How many times do the backyard photos have to be authenticated? And they still don't believe it? The idea that people, real human beings, in the fractured, divided, split American government - federal and state and local bureaucracies with all of the divisions and conflicts - could plan this all out, execute it, and cover it up (even today!!) is preposterous. Worse than preposterous there's not credible evidence for it (where and when was this planned?)
-
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.
Therefore, the idea that Oswald acted alone is the most popular theory.
It's important to recognise that Oswald acting alone is indeed a theory.
There are LNers who are every bit as fanatical as the most ardent tinfoil CTers, who believe they are dealing in facts when they are dealing with a narrative.
That said, the strength of the LN position has always been it's narrative.
It is easy to pick holes in any narrative, it is another thing to offer up a competing narrative that can withstand the same amount of scrutiny.
-
If only any of the conspiracy theories were honestly subjected to the over-the-top degree of proof that the Oswald lone-assassin finding. Through another conspiracy theory, they blame the mass media for not mindlessly spreading their theories, rather than the critics acknowledging their theories are to blame.
Is this an American thing? Do other countries have anything similar to the obsession over the JFK assassination? For example, in the UK, Jack the Ripper, while quite intriguing, never got this out of hand.
BTW, the British recently endured a conspiracy, in the form of the Post Office Scandal.
Is this an American thing? Do other countries have anything similar to the obsession over the JFK assassination?
One never speaks of this assassination without making reckless judgments…The absurdity of the accusations, the total lack of evidence, nothing stops them…One must read everything with mistrust. —Voltaire, speaking about the incredible stories and conspiracy theories surrounding the assassination of King Henri IV of France1
“Reclaiming History” Vincent Bugliosi page 1280
-
Therefore, the idea that Oswald acted alone is the most popular theory.
It's important to recognise that Oswald acting alone is indeed a theory.
There are LNers who are every bit as fanatical as the most ardent tinfoil CTers, who believe they are dealing in facts when they are dealing with a narrative.
That said, the strength of the LN position has always been it's narrative.
It is easy to pick holes in any narrative, it is another thing to offer up a competing narrative that can withstand the same amount of scrutiny.
All facts are based upon a "theory." That alone doesn't make the conclusion suspect. The facts and evidence are used to support certain theories and reject others. It is not "fanatical" to conclude that the world is round because the facts support that "narrative." Just because some unreasonable people refuse to accept the facts doesn't cast doubt on the conclusion to be drawn from them or force intelligent people to entertain doubt. The evidence against Oswald is overwhelming. There is zero credible evidence of the involvement of anyone else at six decades and counting.
-
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.
There are polls that indicate that many people believe in bigfoot, ghosts, and UFOs etc. Do the majority of people believe in all this nonsense or is it just more fun to claim do so? I think it is mostly the latter. In addition, 95% of the public doesn't know the first thing about the JFK assassination. So their opinion is largely based on ignorance of the evidence. The truth is ultimately determined by the facts and evidence and not by what anyone believes. And the facts and evidence link Oswald to the JFK and Tippit murders beyond any doubt. I don't have any bias against a conspiracy conclusion. I accept that there have been many conspiracies in history including some relating to assassinations (e.g. Lincoln). Rather, it is the facts and evidence that support the conclusion that Oswald committed these acts.
-
All facts are based upon a "theory." That alone doesn't make the conclusion suspect. The facts and evidence are used to support certain theories and reject others. It is not "fanatical" to conclude that the world is round because the facts support that "narrative." Just because some unreasonable people refuse to accept the facts doesn't cast doubt on the conclusion to be drawn from them or force intelligent people to entertain doubt. The evidence against Oswald is overwhelming. There is zero credible evidence of the involvement of anyone else at six decades and counting.
All facts are based upon a "theory."
I might be wrong, but I think what you're trying to say here is that all theories/narratives are based on facts.
If you're actually saying that all facts are based upon a theory then I don't have a clue what you're talking about.
The LNer narrative is a story that tries to encompass as many of the known facts about this case as possible and it is clearly an effective narrative. As I say, the strength of the LNer position is the narrative even if, on closer inspection, it is a lot more fragile than it first appears.
The bottom line is that no competing narrative has successfully challenged it.
It is easy to pick away at individual elements of the LNer narrative but it doesn't mean anything. The narrative is greater than the sum of it's parts.
It is not "fanatical" to conclude that the world is round because the facts support that "narrative."
But it is fanatical to insist that the world is flat and to refuse to engage in any kind of debate or arguments about the facts. Just to blindly insist over and over "No, it's flat and that's that."
It is particularly fanatical if this is something a person hasn't worked out for themselves. They've been told what to believe and have zero interest in anything that in any way disturbs that belief.
The evidence against Oswald is overwhelming. There is zero credible evidence of the involvement of anyone else at six decades and counting.
The evidence that Oswald was involved in the assassination may be overwhelming but there is zero credible evidence that Oswald was in the SN taking the shots.
Just to reiterate that - THERE IS ZERO CREDIBLE EVIDENCE THAT OSWALD WAS IN THE SN TAKING THE SHOTS AT THE TIME OF THE ASSASSINATION.
You believe that he was there so much you confuse it with a fact - now that is fanatical.
Nearly every piece of the meagre collection of evidence that exists regarding who was on the 6th floor just before, during and after the assassination points away from Oswald or contradicts the LNer narrative - that is a fact.
-
All facts are based upon a "theory."
I might be wrong, but I think what you're trying to say here is that all theories/narratives are based on facts.
If you're actually saying that all facts are based upon a theory then I don't have a clue what you're talking about.
The LNer narrative is a story that tries to encompass as many of the known facts about this case as possible and it is clearly an effective narrative. As I say, the strength of the LNer position is the narrative even if, on closer inspection, it is a lot more fragile than it first appears.
The bottom line is that no competing narrative has successfully challenged it.
It is easy to pick away at individual elements of the LNer narrative but it doesn't mean anything. The narrative is greater than the sum of it's parts.
It is not "fanatical" to conclude that the world is round because the facts support that "narrative."
But it is fanatical to insist that the world is flat and to refuse to engage in any kind of debate or arguments about the facts. Just to blindly insist over and over "No, it's flat and that's that."
It is particularly fanatical if this is something a person hasn't worked out for themselves. They've been told what to believe and have zero interest in anything that in any way disturbs that belief.
The evidence against Oswald is overwhelming. There is zero credible evidence of the involvement of anyone else at six decades and counting.
The evidence that Oswald was involved in the assassination may be overwhelming but there is zero credible evidence that Oswald was in the SN taking the shots.
Just to reiterate that - THERE IS ZERO CREDIBLE EVIDENCE THAT OSWALD WAS IN THE SN TAKING THE SHOTS AT THE TIME OF THE ASSASSINATION.
You believe that he was there so much you confuse it with a fact - now that is fanatical.
Nearly every piece of the meagre collection of evidence that exists regarding who was on the 6th floor just before, during and after the assassination points away from Oswald or contradicts the LNer narrative - that is a fact.
All theories and narratives are based on facts? LOL. What a psychological insight. Many children have a theory that a fat man lives at the North Pole and works with his elves to make their Christman presents. I'm not aware of any facts that this theory is based upon. You have to have theories and a hypothesis to test with facts. Otherwise you are in a state of ignorant bliss not only not knowing the answers but not even suspecting the questions. Bottom line. Oswald did it. The evidence supports this conclusion. Not every nut has to be convinced of this for it to be deemed an established fact. Writing nonsense like there is "zero credible evidence that Oswald was in the SN taking the shots at the time of the assassination" demonstrates your complete lack of seriousness. Oswald's rifle was found at the scene of the crime. Fired bullet casings from Oswald's rifle were found by the very window from which witnesses confirm the shots were fired. Oswald provided no explanation for the presence of his rifle to be at the crime scene - his place of employment. Instead he lies about ownership of the rifle that prints, photos, documents, and testimony link to him. His prints are found on the SN boxes. Imagine any other case in history where this is deemed "zero credible evidence." What you are effectively suggesting is that in the absence of a time machine no such crime can ever be solved. I can't even contemplate how there could be any more evidence than exists that links Oswald to this crime.
-
All theories and narratives are based on facts? LOL. What a psychological insight. Many children have a theory that a fat man lives at the North Pole and works with his elves to make their Christman presents. I'm not aware of any facts that this theory is based upon. You have to have theories and a hypothesis to test with facts. Otherwise you are in a state of ignorant bliss not only not knowing the answers but not even suspecting the questions. Bottom line. Oswald did it. The evidence supports this conclusion. Not every nut has to be convinced of this for it to be deemed an established fact. Writing nonsense like there is "zero credible evidence that Oswald was in the SN taking the shots at the time of the assassination" demonstrates your complete lack of seriousness. Oswald's rifle was found at the scene of the crime. Fired bullet casings from Oswald's rifle were found by the very window from which witnesses confirm the shots were fired. Oswald provided no explanation for the presence of his rifle to be at the crime scene - his place of employment. Instead he lies about ownership of the rifle that prints, photos, documents, and testimony link to him. His prints are found on the SN boxes. Imagine any other case in history where this is deemed "zero credible evidence." What you are effectively suggesting is that in the absence of a time machine no such crime can ever be solved. I can't even contemplate how there could be any more evidence than exists that links Oswald to this crime.
Many children have a theory...
Wow. Some of the things you come up with are really off the charts.
You have to have theories and a hypothesis to test with facts.
So what did you mean when you posted this - All facts are based upon a "theory."
What does that mean?
Bottom line. Oswald did it
Do you remember what I was saying about fanaticism? And here is a perfect example of the "logic" used by your average fanatic -
"Oswald's rifle" was found at the scene, therefore Oswald was in the SN taking the shots at the time of the shooting!
Something you believe to be an "established fact" when it is nothing more than your belief.
You don't know what "fact" means, you don't know what "theory" means, you don't know what "logic" means.
You're a fanatic.
That's all you know.
That four of the five eye-witnesses who saw a man on the 6th floor around the time of the shooting describe the shooter wearing clothes that Oswald wasn't wearing and didn't even own, is not a problem for a fanatic.
That Oswald seemed to magically teleport down to the second floor lunchroom is no issue for a fanatic.
That Oswald used Shelley as his alibi for why he left the building is no cause for concern...that Shelley and Lovelady lied about their movements after the assassination...that Oswald saw Junior Jarman and Hank Norman on the first floor a few minutes before the shooting...that Arnold saw the shooter on the other side of the building...that Brennan reports the shooter still being at the window after the limo has entered the underpass...that every single piece of ballistic evidence was tainted...that Oswald was still on the first floor when Bonnie Ray was having his lunch on the 6th...that SEVEN first responders reported seeing his lunch remains at the SN...
etc. etc. etc.
You believed in Father Christmas because you were told to.
The very same reason you believe Oswald took the shots.
-
Many children have a theory...
Wow. Some of the things you come up with are really off the charts.
You have to have theories and a hypothesis to test with facts.
So what did you mean when you posted this - All facts are based upon a "theory."
What does that mean?
Bottom line. Oswald did it
Do you remember what I was saying about fanaticism? And here is a perfect example of the "logic" used by your average fanatic -
"Oswald's rifle" was found at the scene, therefore Oswald was in the SN taking the shots at the time of the shooting!
Something you believe to be an "established fact" when it is nothing more than your belief.
You don't know what "fact" means, you don't know what "theory" means, you don't know what "logic" means.
You're a fanatic.
That's all you know.
That four of the five eye-witnesses who saw a man on the 6th floor around the time of the shooting describe the shooter wearing clothes that Oswald wasn't wearing and didn't even own, is not a problem for a fanatic.
That Oswald seemed to magically teleport down to the second floor lunchroom is no issue for a fanatic.
That Oswald used Shelley as his alibi for why he left the building is no cause for concern...that Shelley and Lovelady lied about their movements after the assassination...that Oswald saw Junior Jarman and Hank Norman on the first floor a few minutes before the shooting...that Arnold saw the shooter on the other side of the building...that Brennan reports the shooter still being at the window after the limo has entered the underpass...that every single piece of ballistic evidence was tainted...that Oswald was still on the first floor when Bonnie Ray was having his lunch on the 6th...that SEVEN first responders reported seeing his lunch remains at the SN...
etc. etc. etc.
You believed in Father Christmas because you were told to.
The very same reason you believe Oswald took the shots.
Dan, are you saying that there's no *single* piece of credible evidence showing Oswald was the assassin - he was at that window at 12:30 - or that the totality of evidence that's been presented - the physical, circumstantial and eyewitness evidence - is, as a whole, "not credible"? Every single piece - each of it - of the ballistics evidence is tainted? The recovery of the fragments? All of this is not credible, tainted, corrupt?
And one two more: I really don't understand your focus on the Shelley alibi. No one - not a single co-worker - said they saw Oswald after the shooting. Not a single person on the steps, et cetera. Were they all lying?
Second: You've suggested, if I read you correctly that Oswald's defection to the USSR and his pro-Castro activity in New Orleans that summer were actions directed by others? He was under control/orders of someone else? These were not independent acts? Correct?
-
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.
The Knott Lab Laser 360 SCIENCE recently found the SBT "IS IMPOSSIBLE". Oswald could certainly have been involved in the JFK Assassination, but his "acted alone" per SCIENCE is now a dead issue.
-
Dan, are you saying that there's no *single* piece of credible evidence showing Oswald was the assassin - he was at that window at 12:30 - or that the totality of evidence that's been presented - the physical, circumstantial and eyewitness evidence - is, as a whole, "not credible"? Every single piece - each of it - of the ballistics evidence is tainted? The recovery of the fragments? All of this is not credible, tainted, corrupt?
Hi Steve, I'm saying there is not a single piece of credible evidence that puts Oswald in the SN around the time of the assassination and plenty of circumstantial evidence that he wasn't.
Oswald was in the building at the time, his behaviour before and after the assassination very strongly suggest he was involved with the assassination in some capacity, the backyard pics are real, and lots more that indicate guilt.
However, multiple eye-witnesses describe the shooter wearing clothes that Oswald didn't wear to work that day and didn't own at the time of the assassination. This fact alone should have alarm bells ringing.
As for the ballistics, the only fragments of bullets that appear to have an acceptable chain of custody are the ones taken from JFK's head. Every other piece of ballistic evidence is tainted - Fritz picking up the shells, Tomlinson discovering a pointed bullet on the stretcher which was swapped for CE399, the sorry saga of the Q9 fragments etc.
And one two more: I really don't understand your focus on the Shelley alibi. No one - not a single co-worker - said they saw Oswald after the shooting. Not a single person on the steps, et cetera. Were they all lying?
I'm surprised you're asking about this as I had to correct you on this very issue in the "Vicki Adams: The Lost Interview" thread [Reply#442]
Oswald leaving the TSBD on the day of the assassination was a massive indication of guilt. When questioned about it he said that he left because of a conversation he had with Bill Shelley after his encounter with Baker in the second floor lunchroom.
Why did he bring Shelley into it when he knew it could so easily be checked out whether that was true or not?
It's important because the only rational explanation is that Oswald viewed Shelley as an accomplice who would back him up.
For anyone interested I go into this in detail in the "3 Minute Lie" thread [Reply#75]
[
Second: You've suggested, if I read you correctly that Oswald's defection to the USSR and his pro-Castro activity in New Orleans that summer were actions directed by others? He was under control/orders of someone else? These were not independent acts? Correct?
Honestly, I'm not sure how you've interpreted this into what I wrote in the post you are replying to.
Just out of interest, what was it in the post that gave you this impression as I'm totally baffled.
-
No matter how fast you LN'ers wantta dance around it, SCIENCE has proven the SBT "IS IMPOSSIBLE"! Now, if you wanna be a Science Denier, that's up to you. Just do Not try and claim that the facts support the Oswald acted alone Theory. SCIENCE has proven that is False.
-
There are polls that indicate that many people believe in bigfoot, ghosts, and UFOs etc. Do the majority of people believe in all this nonsense or is it just more fun to claim do so? I think it is mostly the latter. In addition, 95% of the public doesn't know the first thing about the JFK assassination. So their opinion is largely based on ignorance of the evidence. The truth is ultimately determined by the facts and evidence and not by what anyone believes. And the facts and evidence link Oswald to the JFK and Tippit murders beyond any doubt. I don't have any bias against a conspiracy conclusion. I accept that there have been many conspiracies in history including some relating to assassinations (e.g. Lincoln). Rather, it is the facts and evidence that support the conclusion that Oswald committed these acts.
You're absolutely right, Richard.
Most of those polled who supposedly believe the assassination was the result of a conspiracy don't know a damn thing about the case at all. They don't know names like Ruth Paine, J.D. Tippit, Howard Brennan and Buell Frazier. They only know terms like "grassy knoll' and "magic bullet".
-
The Knott Lab Laser 360 SCIENCE recently found the SBT "IS IMPOSSIBLE". Oswald could certainly have been involved in the JFK Assassination, but his "acted alone" per SCIENCE is now a dead issue.
The Knott Lab "recreation" doesn't even have Kennedy and Connally in the correct positions.
-
Hi Steve, I'm saying there is not a single piece of credible evidence that puts Oswald in the SN around the time of the assassination and plenty of circumstantial evidence that he wasn't.
Oswald was in the building at the time, his behaviour before and after the assassination very strongly suggest he was involved with the assassination in some capacity, the backyard pics are real, and lots more that indicate guilt.
However, multiple eye-witnesses describe the shooter wearing clothes that Oswald didn't wear to work that day and didn't own at the time of the assassination. This fact alone should have alarm bells ringing.
As for the ballistics, the only fragments of bullets that appear to have an acceptable chain of custody are the ones taken from JFK's head. Every other piece of ballistic evidence is tainted - Fritz picking up the shells, Tomlinson discovering a pointed bullet on the stretcher which was swapped for CE399, the sorry saga of the Q9 fragments etc.
I'm surprised you're asking about this as I had to correct you on this very issue in the "Vicki Adams: The Lost Interview" thread [Reply#442]
Oswald leaving the TSBD on the day of the assassination was a massive indication of guilt. When questioned about it he said that he left because of a conversation he had with Bill Shelley after his encounter with Baker in the second floor lunchroom.
Why did he bring Shelley into it when he knew it could so easily be checked out whether that was true or not?
It's important because the only rational explanation is that Oswald viewed Shelley as an accomplice who would back him up.
For anyone interested I go into this in detail in the "3 Minute Lie" thread [Reply#75]
Honestly, I'm not sure how you've interpreted this into what I wrote in the post you are replying to.
Just out of interest, what was it in the post that gave you this impression as I'm totally baffled.
However, multiple eye-witnesses describe the shooter wearing clothes that Oswald didn't wear to work that day and didn't own at the time of the assassination. This fact alone should have alarm bells ringing.
I'll bite. Who are you referring to and what did they say, re: what the man with the rifle was wearing?
Before you begin, know that Oswald was indeed wearing a white T-shirt under his brown shirt and there is nothing to suggest that he could not have removed the outer brown shirt before the assassination, only to put it back on at some point between the sniper's nest window and the 2nd floor lunchroom.
Hell, my opinion is that Oswald used the brown shirt (the one he was arrested in) to wipe down the rifle of prints as he fled across the sixth floor. This resulted in microscopic fibers becoming embedded in the crevice between the wooden stock and the metal butt plate which matched test fibers removed from the arrest shirt. Then, once dropping the rifle into place, Oswald puts on the brown shirt by the time he's seen on the 2nd floor by Baker.
-
The Knott Lab "recreation" doesn't even have Kennedy and Connally in the correct positions.
The Knott Lab Laser SCIENCE regarding the tracing of bullet trajectories is routinely admitted into courtrooms as EVIDENCE across the USA day-in-day-out. The lone gunman stuff has Always been based on nothing more than a THEORY. Kinda like when people merely accepted the THEORY that the Earth was flat. Just like that Theory was eventually guffawed at, SCIENCE has now Proven that the SBT "IS IMPOSSIBLE". And that result also vindicated the relentlessly ridiculed Cyril Wecht.
-
You're absolutely right, Richard.
Most of those polled who supposedly believe the assassination was the result of a conspiracy don't know a damn thing about the case at all. They don't know names like Ruth Paine, J.D. Tippit, Howard Brennan and Buell Frazier. They only know terms like "grassy knoll' and "magic bullet".
We have an entire generation just becoming familiar with the JFK Assassination. How about speeding their learning curve and helping to educate them? Condescension achieves absolutely nothing.
-
We have an entire generation just becoming familiar with the JFK Assassination. How about speeding their learning curve and helping to educate them? Condescension achieves absolutely nothing.
There was nothing condescending in what I said.
-
There was nothing condescending in what I said.
As Brad Garrett, ("Everybody Loves Raymond"), exclaims in his best Jimmy John's sandwich commercial, "THAT'S A PROBLEM!". You have a lot of knowledge with regard to the JFK Assassination. Why not come down from your high horse and become a Mentor? "A good deed is its own reward"
-
I'll bite. Who are you referring to and what did they say, re: what the man with the rifle was wearing?
Hi Bill, not really sure why you have to "bite" as this is really common knowledge. As we shall see, the eye-witnesses in question collectively describe the same type and colour of garment the shooter was wearing and it is known that Oswald didn't wear such a garment to work that day and didn't have one in his possessions.
The shooter was wearing clothes that Oswald didn't.
I'll start with Ronald Fischer and Bob Edwards.
Both got a really good look at the man in the SN seconds before the Presidential limo entered Dealey Plaza. Fischer, in particular, got a really good look at him and it must be remembered that these two got a look at the man when his face wasn't obscured by a rifle. Edwards initially pointed him out and was making fun of him in his cramped position behind the boxes but Fischer's attention was drawn to the man because he was doing something that seemed quite unusual - instead of looking at where the motorcade would enter Dealey Plaza, this guy was looking in almost the opposite direction, towards the underpass. Fischer describes the man as being "transfixed".
In the aftermath of the assassination both men were question by Deputy Sheriff Lummie Lewis. In his report the day after the assassination Lewis records that, according to Fischer and Roberts, the man on the 6th floor wore a "Sport shirt opened at the collar".
In his affidavit, taken on the day of the assassination, Edwards states that he noticed the man was wearing "a sport shirt, it was light colored, it was yellow or white."
In his affidavit, Fischer simply states that the man "had on an open necked shirt".
Then we come to their WC testimonies.
Edwards -
Light colored shirt, short sleeve and open neck.
Fischer -
And he had--he had on an open-neck shirt, but it-uh--could have been a sport shirt or a T-shirt. It was light in color; probably white, I couldn't tell whether it had long sleeves or whether it was a short-sleeved shirt, but it was open-neck and light in color.
Mr. Belin: The statement here says that he was light-headed and that he had on an open-neck shirt. Did he have an open---neck shirt on?
Mr. Fischer: Yes.
Both men got a really good look at the man on the 6th floor, Fischer in particular. They describe him wearing a very light, white or almost white, open necked sport shirt. Oswald was wearing a brown shirt and white t-shirt. It's very easy to tell the difference between a t-shirt of the type Oswald was wearing and an open necked sport shirt. They are two very different garments.
Next up is Arnold Rowland who saw the man on the west side of the 6th floor around 15 minutes before the motorcade arrived. Up front I'd like to say that I'm not a believer in the Major Miracle on Elm Street - that Rowland made up this sighting of a man answering the general description of the other eye-witnesses and who was carrying a scoped rifle on the 6th floor only for it to transpire, by some utterly perverse coincidence, that there was indeed a slender, short-haired, white male carrying a scoped rifle on the 6th floor of the TSBD building. I find discussing this with those who do believe in the "Miracle" a truly fruitless endeavour.
From Rowland's affidavit on the day of the assassination - "This man appeared to be a white man, and appeared to have a light colored shirt on, open at the neck."
From his WC testimony - "He had on a light shirt, a very light-colored shirt, white or a light blue or a color such as that. This was open at the collar. I think it was unbuttoned about halfway, and then he had a regular T-shirt, a polo shirt under this, at least this is what it appeared to be."
A very light coloured, white/off white, open necked shirt, open at the collar. Three eye-witnesses all describing the same man, same open necked shirt, same very light colour, white or almost white.
Oswald was not wearing such a shirt that day and did not have one in his possessions when he was arrested. I can tell the difference between an open necked sport shirt and the plain white t-shirt Oswald was wearing. It's a very easy distinction to make.
For those who need this man to be Oswald then all three eye-witnesses can't make this very simple distinction. Instead of accepting what they are saying we have to hear about what they really meant to say.
Hell, my opinion is that Oswald used the brown shirt (the one he was arrested in) to wipe down the rifle of prints as he fled across the sixth floor. This resulted in microscopic fibers becoming embedded in the crevice between the wooden stock and the metal butt plate which matched test fibers removed from the arrest shirt. Then, once dropping the rifle into place, Oswald puts on the brown shirt by the time he's seen on the 2nd floor by Baker.
There are so many minor details that rub me up the wrong way and Oswald wiping his fingerprints off the rifle is one of them. Why on earth would he bother doing such a thing if he was going to flee the scene anyway? What's the point if he's heading for the border? Why would he bother to wipe the rifle clean but leave the empty shells on the floor? How could he wipe the rifle so clean considering he had to assemble it on site and every piece would have been covered with prints [...and when did he get the chance to assemble the rifle...and when did he get the chance to construct the "rifle bag"].
-
The Knott Lab Laser SCIENCE regarding the tracing of bullet trajectories is routinely admitted into courtrooms as EVIDENCE across the USA day-in-day-out. The lone gunman stuff has Always been based on nothing more than a THEORY. Kinda like when people merely accepted the THEORY that the Earth was flat. Just like that Theory was eventually guffawed at, SCIENCE has now Proven that the SBT "IS IMPOSSIBLE". And that result also vindicated the relentlessly ridiculed Cyril Wecht.
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]:
(https://i.postimg.cc/jdDxRk4t/knott1.png) (https://postimages.org/)
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:
(https://i.postimg.cc/nVPxSGb5/knott2.png) (https://postimages.org/)
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.
-
Almost every witness who encountered Oswald in close proximity after the assassination described his manner of dress differently and even in conflict with one another other. Some of these witnesses knew it was Oswald they were describing because they worked in the TSBD. What is the most reasonable way to reconcile these different descriptions? Was Oswald changing his clothes from encounter to encounter? Was it not Oswald even though some witnesses knew him or Oswald himself confirmed these encounters took place (bus, cab)? Or did they simply get some details incorrect because they had no cause to notice and/or used subjective words to describe his appearance which are then subjectively interpreted to suggest a conflict. Regardless, how does any of this explain the fact that Oswald's rifle was left at the scene of the crime and fired shell casings from that rifle were found by the window from which the shots were fired? That is a classic can't see the forest for the trees rabbit hole. Oswald has no credible alibi, flees the scene, and murders a police officer. He leaves a trail of evidence that links him to the crime that he can't explain. The pedantic nitpicking of witness descriptions of someone seen through a 6th floor window when we know that even those who stood face to face with him got the description incorrect is contrarian weak sauce. And, of course, one witness identified Oswald as the assassin.
-
Almost every witness who encountered Oswald in close proximity after the assassination described his manner of dress differently and even in conflict with one another other. Some of these witnesses knew it was Oswald they were describing because they worked in the TSBD. What is the most reasonable way to reconcile these different descriptions? Was Oswald changing his clothes from encounter to encounter? Was it not Oswald even though some witnesses knew him or Oswald himself confirmed these encounters took place (bus, cab)? Or did they simply get some details incorrect because they had no cause to notice and/or used subjective words to describe his appearance which are then subjectively interpreted to suggest a conflict. Regardless, how does any of this explain the fact that Oswald's rifle was left at the scene of the crime and fired shell casings from that rifle were found by the window from which the shots were fired? That is a classic can't see the forest for the trees rabbit hole. Oswald has no credible alibi, flees the scene, and murders a police officer. He leaves a trail of evidence that links him to the crime that he can't explain. The pedantic nitpicking of witness descriptions of someone seen through a 6th floor window when we know that even those who stood face to face with him got the description incorrect is contrarian weak sauce. And, of course, one witness identified Oswald as the assassin.
Let's flip this argument about the clothing around: if these witnesses had all described his clothing correctly (however we define that) but they all said it wasn't Oswald, the man's facial qualities were different, it didn't look like Oswald, I don't think any "Oswald was innocent defenders" would accept that as evidence it was him. Anyone saying, "They got the clothes right" would be responded with, "They said it wasn't Oswald!"
In any case, as you point out, no one is relying solely on eyewitnesses. It's the totality of evidence - the circumstantial (primarily), eyewitness and physical - that we think point to Oswald. His behavior alone post assassination is a giant red flag (and it's why many of his defenders say he was a CIA agent/asset and left to meet his handler; his actions post-shooting are inexplicable otherwise).
-
Let's flip this argument about the clothing around: if these witnesses had all described his clothing correctly (however we define that) but they all said it wasn't Oswald, the man's facial qualities were different, it didn't look like Oswald, I don't think any "Oswald was innocent defenders" would accept that as evidence it was him. Anyone saying, "They got the clothes right" would be responded with, "They said it wasn't Oswald!"
In any case, as you point out, no one is relying solely on eyewitnesses. It's the totality of evidence - the circumstantial (primarily), eyewitness and physical - that we think point to Oswald. His behavior alone post assassination is a giant red flag (and it's why many of his defenders say he was a CIA agent/asset and left to meet his handler; his actions post-shooting are inexplicable otherwise).
Yes, there is a simplicity that lies on the far side of complexity that some CTers appear unable to grasp. Just because not everything can be known or explained doesn't mean nothing can be known or explained. This case starts and ends with the rifle. It belongs to Oswald. It is left at the crime scene. He is asked about the rifle and denies he owns it. A lie. There is no logical reason for it being left on the 6th floor and Oswald lying about it except for Oswald bringing it there and using it to assassinate JFK. There is plenty of other evidence and circumstances that link Oswald to the crime but the rifle is the key. Everything else is noise until the presence of the rifle is explained. Conjuring up the mere possibility that some unknown person(s) left it there to frame him is just a baseless fantasy absent evidence of such. No fact could ever be proven in human history if someone could just think up a possibility to raise doubt. Prove to me that Lincoln delivered the Gettysburg Address if all I need to claim to show doubt is that someone present got the description of his manner of dress wrong.
-
Fischer -
And he had--he had on an open-neck shirt, but it-uh--could have been a sport shirt or a T-shirt. It was light in color; probably white, I couldn't tell whether it had long sleeves or whether it was a short-sleeved shirt, but it was open-neck and light in color.
The above quote should make it clear that the clothing details they describe are somewhat ambiguous. In that era, button up collars and ties were more common. Especially among office workers. The above quote indicates to me that he is only trying to say that it definitely was not a buttoned up collar. “Open neck” appears to include a t-shirt, at least to Fischer. With so much evidence pointing to LHO, he and his t-shirt seems to me to be what they saw in the window.
-
Fischer -
And he had--he had on an open-neck shirt, but it-uh--could have been a sport shirt or a T-shirt. It was light in color; probably white, I couldn't tell whether it had long sleeves or whether it was a short-sleeved shirt, but it was open-neck and light in color.
The above quote should make it clear that the clothing details they describe are somewhat ambiguous. In that era, button up collars and ties were more common. Especially among office workers. The above quote indicates to me that he is only trying to say that it definitely was not a buttoned up collar. “Open neck” appears to include a t-shirt, at least to Fischer. With so much evidence pointing to LHO, he and his t-shirt seems to me to be what they saw in the window.
Edwards said similar things, i.e., open neck shirt.
I would think that if Oswald was framed, if all of this evidence was planted by these powerful groups, that one key thing the conspirators would do is have the eyewitnesses read from the same script: e.g., get the clothing correct, say Oswald expressed hatred towards JFK, the workers saw him carrying a large package, the nitrate test on the cheek was positive, et cetera. But many of the same conspiracists who claim this was all manufactured then turn around and point to the inconsistencies of the eyewitnesses or these other areas. You can't have it both ways but in conspiracy land consistency is never a requirement.
-
What a shock!!
Three eye-witnesses describing the same clothing - a light coloured, open necked shirt - are all wrong because the Nutters know better.
And it's not that they all describe clothing different from that Oswald was wearing. It's that they are all consistent in describing the same clothing that Oswald wasn't wearing. They all corroborate each other.
Nutter Logic Alert - Of course this is just a silly mistake they all made because everybody knows it was Oswald doing the shooting, and if it was Oswald doing the shooting he must have been wearing Oswald's clothing but these three men aren't describing Oswald's clothes therefore they must be wrong.
At least Bill Chapman's tactic of producing a washed-out photo of Oswald being arrested to argue that his shirt looked a lot whiter in daylight has been abandoned ::)
But it's not like this is definitive evidence, maybe Oswald did have a sneaky sport shirt hidden in his rifle bag. It's circumstantial at best.
However, Rowland witnessing rifle man on the west side of the building while there was a black man in the SN is direct eye-witness testimony.
A black man in the SN at the same time Bonnie Ray Williams was having his lunch on the 6th floor.
The remains of this lunch being discovered on top of the boxes that form the SN by no less than SEVEN first responders.
The remains that were moved by Gerry Hill who was waving them out of the window, as reported by Jim Ewell.
Or is it really the case that Oswald cowered in silence for almost half an hour while Williams sat a couple of aisles away taking in the gloriously sunny day and his once-in-a-lifetime chance to see the President through a closed, dirty window. A window he could have opened with ease.
I find that odd.
Like I find it odd how Oswald wasn't noticed by anyone descending the stairs. Dougherty was more or less stood in the area he would have had to cross to get to the stairs down to the fourth floor where Dorothy Garner would have noticed him. Or any of the other ladies stood at the west windows in that area.
Maybe he teleported down to the second floor.
And maybe Oswald just had an outrageously lucky guess that Junior Jarman was hanging around with a very small black man, who can only have been Hank Norman, during the lunch hour. At the time Oswald said he was on the first floor, having his lunch in the Domino Room. Jarman and Norman entered the back door of the TSBD building to get an elevator up to the fifth floor. If they would have caught the east elevator, a person sat in the lunch room would never have seen them. But the east elevator wasn't available so they had to walk round to the west elevator and because of this - and only because of this - they became visible to someone sat in the Domino Room.
How could Oswald have guessed this if he were cowering in the SN at the time?
Is it a coincidence that Oswald claimed he was drinking a Coke at the time Baker burst in and that, in his initial report, Baker reported exactly the same thing but then crossed it out?
And loads of other annoying little details that all don't quite make sense.
The point is this - As far as I'm concerned, Oswald didn't take the shots. As far as you're concerned he did.
And if definitive evidence emerges that Oswald did take the shots I will gladly accept that as I just want to know what really happened.
-
What a shock!!
Three eye-witnesses describing the same clothing - a light coloured, open necked shirt - are all wrong because the Nutters know better.
And it's not that they all describe clothing different from that Oswald was wearing. It's that they are all consistent in describing the same clothing that Oswald wasn't wearing. They all corroborate each other.
Nutter Logic Alert - Of course this is just a silly mistake they all made because everybody knows it was Oswald doing the shooting, and if it was Oswald doing the shooting he must have been wearing Oswald's clothing but these three men aren't describing Oswald's clothes therefore they must be wrong.
At least Bill Chapman's tactic of producing a washed-out photo of Oswald being arrested to argue that his shirt looked a lot whiter in daylight has been abandoned ::)
But it's not like this is definitive evidence, maybe Oswald did have a sneaky sport shirt hidden in his rifle bag. It's circumstantial at best.
However, Rowland witnessing rifle man on the west side of the building while there was a black man in the SN is direct eye-witness testimony.
A black man in the SN at the same time Bonnie Ray Williams was having his lunch on the 6th floor.
The remains of this lunch being discovered on top of the boxes that form the SN by no less than SEVEN first responders.
The remains that were moved by Gerry Hill who was waving them out of the window, as reported by Jim Ewell.
Or is it really the case that Oswald cowered in silence for almost half an hour while Williams sat a couple of aisles away taking in the gloriously sunny day and his once-in-a-lifetime chance to see the President through a closed, dirty window. A window he could have opened with ease.
I find that odd.
Like I find it odd how Oswald wasn't noticed by anyone descending the stairs. Dougherty was more or less stood in the area he would have had to cross to get to the stairs down to the fourth floor where Dorothy Garner would have noticed him. Or any of the other ladies stood at the west windows in that area.
Maybe he teleported down to the second floor.
And maybe Oswald just had an outrageously lucky guess that Junior Jarman was hanging around with a very small black man, who can only have been Hank Norman, during the lunch hour. At the time Oswald said he was on the first floor, having his lunch in the Domino Room. Jarman and Norman entered the back door of the TSBD building to get an elevator up to the fifth floor. If they would have caught the east elevator, a person sat in the lunch room would never have seen them. But the east elevator wasn't available so they had to walk round to the west elevator and because of this - and only because of this - they became visible to someone sat in the Domino Room.
How could Oswald have guessed this if he were cowering in the SN at the time?
Is it a coincidence that Oswald claimed he was drinking a Coke at the time Baker burst in and that, in his initial report, Baker reported exactly the same thing but then crossed it out?
And loads of other annoying little details that all don't quite make sense.
The point is this - As far as I'm concerned, Oswald didn't take the shots. As far as you're concerned he did.
And if definitive evidence emerges that Oswald did take the shots I will gladly accept that as I just want to know what really happened.
No one said that the three eye witnesses were wrong. Fischer in fact said that it could have been a t-shirt and that in fact that it was probably white. LHO was wearing a white t-shirt. Your interpretation that these three witnesses said the man in the window was wearing clothing that LHO didn’t have is what is wrong.
-
No one said that the three eye witnesses were wrong. Fischer in fact said that it could have been a t-shirt and that in fact that it was probably white. LHO was wearing a white t-shirt. Your interpretation that these three witnesses said the man in the window was wearing clothing that LHO didn’t have is what is wrong.
My interpretation is wrong??
Was Oswald wearing an light coloured open necked sport shirt?
I don't think he was, was he?
Is it possible, because of your Nutter belief, that your interpretation is wrong.
According to Lummie Lewis this is what Fischer said - "Sport shirt open at collar"
Note the word "collar". Note that it was "open" at the collar. Note that it was a "sport shirt".
From Fischer's affidavit - "...an open neck shirt"
Note the phrase "open neck", the use of the word "open" again. Note the word "shirt".
From Fischer's WC testimony. He is asked a very direct question:
Mr. Belin: ...Did he have an open---neck shirt on?
Mr. Fischer: Yes.
Did he have an open neck shirt on? Yes he did.
From all of this you have managed the interpretation that Fischer was talking about about a white T-shirt that had no collar and wasn't open at the neck.
Once a Nutter...
-
My interpretation is wrong??
Was Oswald wearing an light coloured open necked sport shirt?
I don't think he was, was he?
Is it possible, because of your Nutter belief, that your interpretation is wrong.
According to Lummie Lewis this is what Fischer said - "Sport shirt open at collar"
Note the word "collar". Note that it was "open" at the collar. Note that it was a "sport shirt".
From Fischer's affidavit - "...an open neck shirt"
Note the phrase "open neck", the use of the word "open" again. Note the word "shirt".
From Fischer's WC testimony. He is asked a very direct question:
Mr. Belin: ...Did he have an open---neck shirt on?
Mr. Fischer: Yes.
Did he have an open neck shirt on? Yes he did.
From all of this you have managed the interpretation that Fischer was talking about about a white T-shirt that had no collar and wasn't open at the neck.
Once a Nutter...
No interpretation required. Fischer said it could have been a t-shirt and it probably was white.
-
No interpretation required. Fischer said it could have been a t-shirt and it probably was white.
But look at how much you are willing to discard,
Ask yourself about that.
-
But look at how much you are willing to discard,
Ask yourself about that.
It is quite obvious to me that Fischer’s definition of an open neck shirt includes a t-shirt. It is as simple as that.
-
What a shock!!
Three eye-witnesses describing the same clothing - a light coloured, open necked shirt - are all wrong because the Nutters know better.
And it's not that they all describe clothing different from that Oswald was wearing. It's that they are all consistent in describing the same clothing that Oswald wasn't wearing. They all corroborate each other.
Nutter Logic Alert - Of course this is just a silly mistake they all made because everybody knows it was Oswald doing the shooting, and if it was Oswald doing the shooting he must have been wearing Oswald's clothing but these three men aren't describing Oswald's clothes therefore they must be wrong.
At least Bill Chapman's tactic of producing a washed-out photo of Oswald being arrested to argue that his shirt looked a lot whiter in daylight has been abandoned ::)
But it's not like this is definitive evidence, maybe Oswald did have a sneaky sport shirt hidden in his rifle bag. It's circumstantial at best.
However, Rowland witnessing rifle man on the west side of the building while there was a black man in the SN is direct eye-witness testimony.
A black man in the SN at the same time Bonnie Ray Williams was having his lunch on the 6th floor.
The remains of this lunch being discovered on top of the boxes that form the SN by no less than SEVEN first responders.
The remains that were moved by Gerry Hill who was waving them out of the window, as reported by Jim Ewell.
Or is it really the case that Oswald cowered in silence for almost half an hour while Williams sat a couple of aisles away taking in the gloriously sunny day and his once-in-a-lifetime chance to see the President through a closed, dirty window. A window he could have opened with ease.
I find that odd.
Like I find it odd how Oswald wasn't noticed by anyone descending the stairs. Dougherty was more or less stood in the area he would have had to cross to get to the stairs down to the fourth floor where Dorothy Garner would have noticed him. Or any of the other ladies stood at the west windows in that area.
Maybe he teleported down to the second floor.
And maybe Oswald just had an outrageously lucky guess that Junior Jarman was hanging around with a very small black man, who can only have been Hank Norman, during the lunch hour. At the time Oswald said he was on the first floor, having his lunch in the Domino Room. Jarman and Norman entered the back door of the TSBD building to get an elevator up to the fifth floor. If they would have caught the east elevator, a person sat in the lunch room would never have seen them. But the east elevator wasn't available so they had to walk round to the west elevator and because of this - and only because of this - they became visible to someone sat in the Domino Room.
How could Oswald have guessed this if he were cowering in the SN at the time?
Is it a coincidence that Oswald claimed he was drinking a Coke at the time Baker burst in and that, in his initial report, Baker reported exactly the same thing but then crossed it out?
And loads of other annoying little details that all don't quite make sense.
The point is this - As far as I'm concerned, Oswald didn't take the shots. As far as you're concerned he did.
And if definitive evidence emerges that Oswald did take the shots I will gladly accept that as I just want to know what really happened.
Again, many people who encountered Oswald face to face described his manner of dress in different ways. You are relying upon descriptions of how he was dressed as viewed from a 6th floor window to suggest doubt while disregarding one witness who confirmed it was Oswald while also ignoring the mountain of evidence that links him to the crime.
-
It is quite obvious to me that Fischer’s definition of an open neck shirt includes a t-shirt. It is as simple as that.
Even though he mentions a collar and the type of T-shirt you're talking about isn't open necked?
How does Oswald's T-shirt have a collar?
How is it open necked?
It is "quite obvious" that you need this to be the clothing Oswald was wearing. It is "quite obvious" that you have chosen to ignore the bulk of the testimonies of Fischer, Roberts and Rowland regarding this matter.
Which is completely understandable and I hope you appreciate why I choose to look at things in a different way.
-
Even though he mentions a collar and the type of T-shirt you're talking about isn't open necked?
How does Oswald's T-shirt have a collar?
How is it open necked?
It is "quite obvious" that you need this to be the clothing Oswald was wearing. It is "quite obvious" that you have chosen to ignore the bulk of the testimonies of Fischer, Roberts and Rowland regarding this matter.
Which is completely understandable and I hope you appreciate why I choose to look at things in a different way.
LHO’s t-shirt was open necked (as opposed to a buttoned-up collar). In other words the lower portion of his neck was visible. Whereas if he was wearing a buttoned up collared shirt the lower portion of his neck would not have been visible. I believe that this was the distinction between the two types of shirts that the investigators were asking about. You can believe whatever you wish. I really couldn’t care less.
-
LHO’s t-shirt was open necked (as opposed to a buttoned-up collar). In other words the lower portion of his neck was visible. Whereas if he was wearing a buttoned up collared shirt the lower portion of his neck would not have been visible. I believe that this was the distinction between the two types of shirts that the investigators were asking about. You can believe whatever you wish. I really couldn’t care less.
And you can believe whatever you need to, it's none of my business.
-
And you can believe whatever you need to, it's none of my business.
Fischer said it could have been a t-shirt. Rowland said he was wearing a t-shirt. And it appears that LHO was wearing a t-shirt. Therefore, your claim that (they said he was wearing clothes LHO didn’t have) doesn’t hold water.
-
Again, many people who encountered Oswald face to face described his manner of dress in different ways. You are relying upon descriptions of how he was dressed as viewed from a 6th floor window to suggest doubt while disregarding one witness who confirmed it was Oswald while also ignoring the mountain of evidence that links him to the crime.
You are relying upon descriptions of how he was dressed as viewed from a 6th floor window to suggest doubt
I'm not suggesting any kind of doubt, I'm simply quoting what all three eye-witnesses said. It's you who wants to introduce doubt.
while disregarding one witness who confirmed it was Oswald
:D
I'm disregarding Brennan's "identification" of Oswald?
Which identification would that be?
The first one? The second one?
Out of interest (not that you would know this) but when is Brennan's first official "identification" of Oswald?
What is the first documented evidence of Brennan's "identification"?
And as long as you're relying on Brennan's identification of the man he thought was about ten years older than Oswald, what about his description of the shooter lingering at the SN window until after the limo had reached the underpass? Doesn't that undo your narrative about Oswald teleporting down to the second floor lunchroom in time to buy a Coke before Baker comes bursting in even though Truly, who was ahead of Baker, never saw Oswald or the door closing or waffle, waffle, waffle.
while also ignoring the mountain of evidence that links him to the crime.
I don't ignore a single scrap of evidence that links Oswald to the crime.
How else could he be framed for it?
-
Fischer said it could have been a t-shirt. Rowland said he was wearing a t-shirt. And it appears that LHO was wearing a t-shirt. Therefore, your claim that (they said he was wearing clothes LHO didn’t have) doesn’t hold water.
Rowland said he was wearing a t-shirt
Arnold Rowland's WC testimony:
"He had on a light shirt, a very light-colored shirt, white or a light blue or a color such as that. This was open at the collar. I think it was unbuttoned about halfway, and then he had a regular T-shirt, a polo shirt under this, at least this is what it appeared to be."
The man on the 6th floor was wearing a light coloured shirt that was open at the collar. Underneath this shirt he was wearing a T-shirt.
You are in danger of making a fool of yourself here Charles, you're better than this. Don't go full blown Nutter.
Believe what you need to believe Charles, but let the evidence speak for itself.
-
You are relying upon descriptions of how he was dressed as viewed from a 6th floor window to suggest doubt
I'm not suggesting any kind of doubt, I'm simply quoting what all three eye-witnesses said. It's you who wants to introduce doubt.
So Oswald did it? Great. Close the forum. There is nothing left to discuss.
-
Rowland said he was wearing a t-shirt
Arnold Rowland's WC testimony:
"He had on a light shirt, a very light-colored shirt, white or a light blue or a color such as that. This was open at the collar. I think it was unbuttoned about halfway, and then he had a regular T-shirt, a polo shirt under this, at least this is what it appeared to be."
The man on the 6th floor was wearing a light coloured shirt that was open at the collar. Underneath this shirt he was wearing a T-shirt.
You are in danger of making a fool of yourself here Charles, you're better than this. Don't go full blown Nutter.
Believe what you need to believe Charles, but let the evidence speak for itself.
No one is making a fool out of himself. Your assumptions do however show some promise in that regard. I didn’t say anything about what he was wearing over the t-shirt. The fact remains that Rowland said he was wearing a t-shirt. It is entirely feasible that the outer shirt could have been removed by the time he was seen in the SE corner window. He was described as wearing a t-shirt as he went through the second floor offices. It appears to me that he was donning and removing the outer shirt purposefully in order to change his appearance and try to make it harder to track him.
-
So Oswald did it? Great. Close the forum. There is nothing left to discuss.
:D
You'd love that, wouldn't you. ;)
-
No one is making a fool out of himself. Your assumptions do however show some promise in that regard. I didn’t say anything about what he was wearing over the t-shirt. The fact remains that Rowland said he was wearing a t-shirt. It is entirely feasible that the outer shirt could have been removed by the time he was seen in the SE corner window. He was described as wearing a t-shirt as he went through the second floor offices. It appears to me that he was donning and removing the outer shirt purposefully in order to change his appearance and try to make it harder to track him.
I didn’t say anything about what he was wearing over the t-shirt.
I know. That's why I made the remark about allowing the evidence to speak for itself. Like Fischer and Edwards, Rowland describes the man on the sixth floor as wearing a light coloured open necked shirt with a collar. It doesn't matter how you try to twist and turn the evidence, Oswald wasn't wearing such a garment. Oswald was wearing a brown coloured shirt with a collar and a white T-shirt with no collar. That's just the way it is.
Your waffle about Oswald taking off his shirt is really silly.
It's clear you've gone full blown Nutter. I'm just going to let the posts I've made about this issue stand as they are. I'm happy to let the reader judge for themselves.
-
I didn’t say anything about what he was wearing over the t-shirt.
I know. That's why I made the remark about allowing the evidence to speak for itself. Like Fischer and Edwards, Rowland describes the man on the sixth floor as wearing a light coloured open necked shirt with a collar. It doesn't matter how you try to twist and turn the evidence, Oswald wasn't wearing such a garment. Oswald was wearing a brown coloured shirt with a collar and a white T-shirt with no collar. That's just the way it is.
Your waffle about Oswald taking off his shirt is really silly.
It's clear you've gone full blown Nutter. I'm just going to let the posts I've made about this issue stand as they are. I'm happy to let the reader judge for themselves.
Clearly Fischer includes a t-shirt as an open collar shirt. He specifically and unequivocally says that it could have been a t-shirt. You choose to ignore this fact and continue to delude yourself. And why would you think that taking off the outer shirt is silly?
-
Clearly Fischer includes a t-shirt as an open collar shirt. He specifically and unequivocally says that it could have been a t-shirt. You choose to ignore this fact and continue to delude yourself. And why would you think that taking off the outer shirt is silly?
Clearly Fischer includes a t-shirt as an open collar shirt.
You think Fischer includes a T-shirt with no collar as an open collar shirt?? ???
It's official Charles. you are now making a fool of yourself.
The shooter was wearing a light coloured shirt, open at the collar, as recalled by three eye-witnesses. That's how I see it and there's plenty of evidence to back me up.
I'm not interested in your desperate attempts to make it how you want it.
Let's just agree to disagree because this is getting embarrassing.
You've said nothing that even remotely comes close to changing my opinion on this. In fact, you've only strengthened it.
-
Here's one for the Nutters:
Why do you think Oswald said that it was as the result of a conversation with Bill Shelley that he decided to go home?
Why do you think he specifically named Shelley?
The thing that first draws Oswald's name to the attention of the police is that he 'flees the scene' of the crime. When asked about it, he must come up with an innocent explanation for why he did it. His explanation is that, basically, Shelley said it was alright to go home.
Oswald knows that it is the easiest thing in the world for the police to check with Shelley whether this happened or not.
So why do you think he named Shelley?
Let's see if we have any takers.
-
Clearly Fischer includes a t-shirt as an open collar shirt.
You think Fischer includes a T-shirt with no collar as an open collar shirt?? ???
It's official Charles. you are now making a fool of yourself.
The shooter was wearing a light coloured shirt, open at the collar, as recalled by three eye-witnesses. That's how I see it and there's plenty of evidence to back me up.
I'm not interested in your desperate attempts to make it how you want it.
Let's just agree to disagree because this is getting embarrassing.
You've said nothing that even remotely comes close to changing my opinion on this. In fact, you've only strengthened it.
You think Fischer includes a T-shirt with no collar as an open collar shirt?? ???
I don’t just have the opinion, I know it as a fact. Read the transcript of Fischer’s testimony.
“And he had--he had on an open-neck shirt, but it-uh--could have been a sport shirt or a T-shirt. It was light in color; probably white”,
He said it very clearly and precisely. No interpretation needed. However, the term is an “open-neck shirt”. I apparently got sloppy with my words by saying open collar. Please forgive me.
-
You think Fischer includes a T-shirt with no collar as an open collar shirt?? ???
I don’t just have the opinion, I know it as a fact. Read the transcript of Fischer’s testimony.
“And he had--he had on an open-neck shirt, but it-uh--could have been a sport shirt or a T-shirt. It was light in color; probably white”,
He said it very clearly and precisely. No interpretation needed. However, the term is an “open-neck shirt”. I apparently got sloppy with my words by saying open collar. Please forgive me.
I like the way you say Fischer said it "very clearly and precisely" and then admit he said something completely different ::)
Let's just agree to disagree.
Meanwhile back at the ranch...what do you think of Oswald using Shelley as an excuse.
This is an incredibly important aspect of the case as it represents the only testable part of Oswald's alibi for his movements that day.
Why do you think he introduced Shelley into it?
-
I like the way you say Fischer said it "very clearly and precisely" and then admit he said something completely different ::)
Let's just agree to disagree.
Meanwhile back at the ranch...what do you think of Oswald using Shelley as an excuse.
This is an incredibly important aspect of the case as it represents the only testable part of Oswald's alibi for his movements that day.
Why do you think he introduced Shelley into it?
Both Fischer and Edward’s describe an open neck shirt. It is you who is trying to claim that they described clothing that LHO didn’t own. That simply isn’t true. It is only your, apparently biased, interpretation/opinion.
-
Both Fischer and Edward’s describe an open neck shirt. It is you who is trying to claim that they described clothing that LHO didn’t own. That simply isn’t true. It is only your, apparently biased, interpretation/opinion.
So, what do you think about Oswald naming Shelley?
Do you have an opinion about that?
-
So, what do you think about Oswald naming Shelley?
Do you have an opinion about that?
The record shows that LHO was a compulsive liar. He lied about many items that could easily be checked. Even when there was no apparent reason to lie. In my opinion, this was just another fabrication and has no significant meaning to me.
-
The record shows that LHO was a compulsive liar. He lied about many items that could easily be checked. Even when there was no apparent reason to lie. In my opinion, this was just another fabrication and has no significant meaning to me.
This claim that Oswald was told by Shelley that it was okay to leave and that's why he did so is simply, for me, not supportable. Apparently the source for this is this FBI report (neither Fritz nor Hosty mention this Oswald/Shelley conversation):
(https://www.drivehq.com/file/DFPublishFile.aspx/FileID11221104487/Keyb0ofuwf15uqe/oswald shelley.JPG)
Full source/link: https://aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/wc/wr/pdf/WR_A11_ReportsDPD.pdf pg. 619
So this account says that in Oswald's opinion that based on Shelley's remarks no more work would be done. Nothing about Shelley actually saying this, nothing about Shelley saying it was okay to leave. Furthermore, if Oswald is out there with Shelley then he, Oswald, can simply ask if it's okay to leave. But he didn't. He just took off. And no other worker took off at that time.
Added: Oswald can say here that he's not lying. He thought, based on Shelley's remarks, that because no more work would be done he could leave. The fact that Shelley was in the next room wouldn't prevent him from making this claim. Again, he apparently said it was just his opinion.
Unless there's another source that I'm missing this idea that he left based on Shelley's explicit permission is not supportable.
-
This claim that Oswald was told by Shelley that it was okay to leave and that's why he did so is simply, for me, not supportable. Apparently the source for this is this FBI report (neither Fritz nor Hosty mention this Oswald/Shelley conversation):
(https://www.drivehq.com/file/DFPublishFile.aspx/FileID11221104487/Keyb0ofuwf15uqe/oswald shelley.JPG)
Full source/link: https://aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/wc/wr/pdf/WR_A11_ReportsDPD.pdf pg. 619
So this account says that in Oswald's opinion that based on Shelley's remarks no more work would be done. Nothing about Shelley actually saying this, nothing about Shelley saying it was okay to leave. Furthermore, if Oswald is out there with Shelley then he, Oswald, can simply ask if it's okay to leave. But he didn't. He just took off. And no other worker took off at that time.
Added: Oswald can say here that he's not lying. He thought, based on Shelley's remarks, that because no more work would be done he could leave. The fact that Shelley was in the next room wouldn't prevent him from making this claim. Again, he apparently said it was just his opinion.
Unless there's another source that I'm missing this idea that he left based on Shelley's explicit permission is not supportable.
Thanks Steve, I skimmed through some of those reports. It is interesting to me that both Bookhout and Kelly indicated that LHO said that he changed his both his shirt and his pants when he went to the rooming house.
-
You're absolutely right, Richard.
Most of those polled who supposedly believe the assassination was the result of a conspiracy don't know a damn thing about the case at all. They don't know names like Ruth Paine, J.D. Tippit, Howard Brennan and Buell Frazier. They only know terms like "grassy knoll' and "magic bullet".
ive spoken with a raft of LN over the years who dont know peoples names , or know them badly example TIBBITS . i knew an LN who stated he was an american history teacher and that he taught a course on the assassination . he posted a photo of Brennan sat on the while wall directly facing the depository and he stated that the photo was taken at 12.30 on november 22 1963 . i pointed out that he was wrong and he attacked me . i posted a photo (a still ) of brennan sat in his actual position on the wall , he said it was a fake , not only that but that i faked it lol . i asked him what was going on at 12.30 that tragic day in that tragic place ? . i pointed out that there was obviously a motorcade and that JFK and Jackie drove right in front of Brennan while sat on the wall , that there was a large crowd . NONE OF WHICH ARE SEEN IN HIS PHOTO . why ? because it was not taken that tragic day but months later in 1964 . and that is an LN who is a history teacher teaching a class on this subject , i feel sorry for any students he has . so yes while it can be argued that some people who believe in conspiracy have not properly researched i can assure you that the same applies to LN . but i dont judge all LNs because some have not properly researched , plenty of LN have properly researched Bill , you are one of them , so you are aware of this . and plenty of so called CT also have properly researched .and we both know that you are all too aware of that also .
also as you have never spoken to MOST of the people polled in any poll it is safe to say you dont know a single thing about them .you certainly are qualified to speak about those you know or have spoken with / debated with over the years (i imagine its quite a few after all these years ) and offer an opinion on them . when i speak i speak about those i have spoken with or debated over the years also , not about those i have never met in my life .
-
This claim that Oswald was told by Shelley that it was okay to leave and that's why he did so is simply, for me, not supportable. Apparently the source for this is this FBI report (neither Fritz nor Hosty mention this Oswald/Shelley conversation):
(https://www.drivehq.com/file/DFPublishFile.aspx/FileID11221104487/Keyb0ofuwf15uqe/oswald shelley.JPG)
Full source/link: https://aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/wc/wr/pdf/WR_A11_ReportsDPD.pdf pg. 619
So this account says that in Oswald's opinion that based on Shelley's remarks no more work would be done. Nothing about Shelley actually saying this, nothing about Shelley saying it was okay to leave. Furthermore, if Oswald is out there with Shelley then he, Oswald, can simply ask if it's okay to leave. But he didn't. He just took off. And no other worker took off at that time.
Added: Oswald can say here that he's not lying. He thought, based on Shelley's remarks, that because no more work would be done he could leave. The fact that Shelley was in the next room wouldn't prevent him from making this claim. Again, he apparently said it was just his opinion.
Unless there's another source that I'm missing this idea that he left based on Shelley's explicit permission is not supportable.
This claim that Oswald was told by Shelley that it was okay to leave and that's why he did so is simply, for me, not supportable.
Unless there's another source that I'm missing this idea that he left based on Shelley's explicit permission is not supportable.
Who is making this claim that Shelley told Oswald it was okay to leave? Who is saying Shelley gave Oswald "explicit permission"?
I'm not aware of anyone making this claim so I'm not sure why you feel the need to make a big deal out of it.
The point being made is that Oswald told his interrogators that, at some point after his encounter with Baker in the second floor lunchroom, he got together with Bill Shelley and had some kind of conversation with him. Oswald tells his interrogators he decides to go home as a result of this conversation.
Do you agree Oswald told his interrogators that he had some kind of interaction with Bill Shelley before he left the TSBD building?
The question isn't whether this interaction really happened or not. The question is whether or not Oswald told his interrogators he had this interaction with Bill Shelley (and there is plenty of evidence indicating that he did tell them this).
Which is really weird.
It is really weird that Oswald would specifically name Shelley when he didn't have to. Oswald had no need to bring Shelley into his explanation because, if he was lying, he knew that it could be easily checked out. If Oswald is trying to paint himself as this innocent guy who had nothing to do with the assassination why would he bring an element into his story that could instantly show he was lying. Why didn't he just say that he went home without talking to anybody?
To try an explain it by saying Oswald was a liar makes no sense whatsoever. It doesn't address the issue in any way.
Oswald was a lot of things but he wasn't stupid.
Although an anti-social mumbling loner to most of his work colleagues, on his TV appearance in New Orleans and, in particular, his radio interviews [which can be found here - https://oswald-on-the-radio.blogspot.com/ ], Oswald comes across as an intelligent and articulate man. I imagine that teaching yourself Russian is no mean feat and requires a certain degree of brain power. So, we can drop the idea that he was so stupid he wouldn't realise that his alibi for leaving the TSBD building would be checked.
We can also drop the idea Oswald was panicking and just blurted out the first thing that came to his mind. In his WC testimony, Fritz makes the point that, to a large extent, Oswald was controlling how the interrogation progressed. It makes such an impression on Fritz that he asks Oswald whether he has had any training in interrogation techniques:
Mr. Fritz: You know I didn't have trouble with him. If we would just talk to him quietly like we are talking right now, we talked all right until I asked him a question that meant something, every time I asked him a question that meant something, that would produce evidence he immediately told me he wouldn't tell me about it and he seemed to anticipate what I was going to ask. In fact, he got so good at it one time, I asked him if he had had any training, if he hadn't been questioned before.
Mr. Dulles: Questioned before?
Mr. Fritz: Questioned before, and he said that he had, he said yes, the FBI questioned him when he came back from Russia for a long time and they tried different methods. He said they tried the buddy boy method and thorough method, and let me see some other method he told me and he said, "I understand that."
So, Oswald is an intelligent man who is comfortable in an interrogation situation. He had absolutely no intention of appearing guilty in any way. So why introduce this element that could so easily have been checked by simply asking Shelley whether it happened or not. Why would he lie about this if it could easily be discovered that he was lying, which would make him look guilty. Something he was trying to avoid.
-
It is really weird that Oswald would specifically name Shelley when he didn't have to. Oswald had no need to bring Shelley into his explanation because, if he was lying, he knew that it could be easily checked out. If Oswald is trying to paint himself as this innocent guy who had nothing to do with the assassination why would he bring an element into his story that could instantly show he was lying. Why didn't he just say that he went home without talking to anybody?
To try an explain it by saying Oswald was a liar makes no sense whatsoever. It doesn't address the issue in any way.
Oswald was a lot of things but he wasn't stupid.
Although an anti-social mumbling loner to most of his work colleagues, on his TV appearance in New Orleans and, in particular, his radio interviews [which can be found here - https://oswald-on-the-radio.blogspot.com/ ], Oswald comes across as an intelligent and articulate man. I imagine that teaching yourself Russian is no mean feat and requires a certain degree of brain power. So, we can drop the idea that he was so stupid he wouldn't realise that his alibi for leaving the TSBD building would be checked.
We can also drop the idea Oswald was panicking and just blurted out the first thing that came to his mind. In his WC testimony, Fritz makes the point that, to a large extent, Oswald was controlling how the interrogation progressed. It makes such an impression on Fritz that he asks Oswald whether he has had any training in interrogation techniques:
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 claim that Oswald was told by Shelley that it was okay to leave and that's why he did so is simply, for me, not supportable.
Unless there's another source that I'm missing this idea that he left based on Shelley's explicit permission is not supportable.
Who is making this claim that Shelley told Oswald it was okay to leave? Who is saying Shelley gave Oswald "explicit permission"?
I'm not aware of anyone making this claim so I'm not sure why you feel the need to make a big deal out of it.
The point being made is that Oswald told his interrogators that, at some point after his encounter with Baker in the second floor lunchroom, he got together with Bill Shelley and had some kind of conversation with him. Oswald tells his interrogators he decides to go home as a result of this conversation.
Do you agree Oswald told his interrogators that he had some kind of interaction with Bill Shelley before he left the TSBD building?
The question isn't whether this interaction really happened or not. The question is whether or not Oswald told his interrogators he had this interaction with Bill Shelley (and there is plenty of evidence indicating that he did tell them this).
Which is really weird.
It is really weird that Oswald would specifically name Shelley when he didn't have to. Oswald had no need to bring Shelley into his explanation because, if he was lying, he knew that it could be easily checked out. If Oswald is trying to paint himself as this innocent guy who had nothing to do with the assassination why would he bring an element into his story that could instantly show he was lying. Why didn't he just say that he went home without talking to anybody?
To try an explain it by saying Oswald was a liar makes no sense whatsoever. It doesn't address the issue in any way.
Oswald was a lot of things but he wasn't stupid.
Although an anti-social mumbling loner to most of his work colleagues, on his TV appearance in New Orleans and, in particular, his radio interviews [which can be found here - https://oswald-on-the-radio.blogspot.com/ ], Oswald comes across as an intelligent and articulate man. I imagine that teaching yourself Russian is no mean feat and requires a certain degree of brain power. So, we can drop the idea that he was so stupid he wouldn't realise that his alibi for leaving the TSBD building would be checked.
We can also drop the idea Oswald was panicking and just blurted out the first thing that came to his mind. In his WC testimony, Fritz makes the point that, to a large extent, Oswald was controlling how the interrogation progressed. It makes such an impression on Fritz that he asks Oswald whether he has had any training in interrogation techniques:
Mr. Fritz: You know I didn't have trouble with him. If we would just talk to him quietly like we are talking right now, we talked all right until I asked him a question that meant something, every time I asked him a question that meant something, that would produce evidence he immediately told me he wouldn't tell me about it and he seemed to anticipate what I was going to ask. In fact, he got so good at it one time, I asked him if he had had any training, if he hadn't been questioned before.
Mr. Dulles: Questioned before?
Mr. Fritz: Questioned before, and he said that he had, he said yes, the FBI questioned him when he came back from Russia for a long time and they tried different methods. He said they tried the buddy boy method and thorough method, and let me see some other method he told me and he said, "I understand that."
So, Oswald is an intelligent man who is comfortable in an interrogation situation. He had absolutely no intention of appearing guilty in any way. So why introduce this element that could so easily have been checked by simply asking Shelley whether it happened or not. Why would he lie about this if it could easily be discovered that he was lying, which would make him look guilty. Something he was trying to avoid.
hi i would if its ok just like to speak in regard Oswald and his russian . i have taken up learning russian and in main i am doing so alone for a few reasons . one being that the lady i am with is originally from ukraine and speaks both ukranian and russian . in the main russian .all be it she speaks english reasonably well also , and i want to converse with her to a reasonable degree in her own language if i can . another reason is because i have a keen interest in this case that i wanted to test just how hard or easy it is too learn such a language pretty much on ones own .
firstly the alphabet is crylic and very different to the english alphabet , some look closer to symbols than letters , some letters are similar to the english alphabet .some letters are merely a sound . depending on whether you are speaking with a male or female different words or expressions apply . similarly when it comes to a person you know as opposed to a person you have just met and dont know different things apply .such as merely saying hi as opposed to a proper hello , how are you etc . a stranger could view hi as being not respectful .
but anyway i am learning and studying in a modern age . meaning i have the internet , i have Google translate , Deepl and others at my disposal along with very good online tutorials which make it easier to learn this language .pronunciation is difficult at times but also very important . it is difficult because a natural russian speaker will have had a life time pronouncing these words and sounds , trust me some are not natural to an english speaker and thus difficult . i can ask the woman i am with questions about the language if i am stuck , all be it i try to not do that . Oswald had none of that . well i mean if we accept that he was self thought that is .i think about all that i have now to help me to learn and how difficult it is , all be it i have made reasonable progress and i will continue to learn . when i think about Oswald 60 plus years ago learning this language , and we are told he did so alone with none of the help i have today and that he seemingly learned to speak so proficiently that he was thought to be a natural russian speaker , well if he did what he did alone MY HAT IS OFF TO HIM . he did a very very difficult thing all by himself and came out the other end seemingly sounding like a native .i can tell you that even with as much as i have learned and with as much work as i have put in I CANNOT SAY THE SAME THING .i will say that the more you learn , if you have a head to learn and accept new things , meaning that enjoy learning new things and i have the patience to sit and learn where others will not . but the more you learn this language as with anything we start to learn well you do start to gain an understanding and you do start to grasp things a bit easier . but then you find words you just learned mutate into other similar but different words within similar and also different sentences that have differing meanings . atleast i am talking now about my experiences in learning this language .
i once heard a russian speaking lady say IF YOU THINK LEARNING RUSSIAN IS DIFFICULT TRY CHINESE .but trust me it is a difficult language , and even with all my study and all the time i put in , and with all the help i have from modern technology i can tell you it is not an easy language to learn . so if mr Oswald alone sat in his room in the later 50s and early 60s taught himself to speak seemingly flawless russian sufficient to have native speakers believe he too was a native speaker and he had zero help in doing so well my hat is off to him , i would love to know how he went about it . you need to put thought into it , i mean to have people believe you are a native speaker you have to not only speak fluently but flawlessly and in correct terms according to who you are speaking to .if not your errors will find you out .i would love to know his secret .
what baffles me is the inconsistency of reports regarding Oswald . Demohrenschildt said that Oswald had a "remarkable fluency in Russian" , others said that he would read russian language literature , yet we also hear he supposedly spoke in a relatively poor or broken russian . how can that be ? it smells fishy . but anyway i just wanted to give my 2 cents here in regard Oswalds russian , and so please forgive me for interjecting here into your conversation , it is just that i wanted to give my thoughts on the point you raised regarding his russian and intellect . and i think its an important aspect of this case and into finding the real Oswald if you will .Oswald was not the idiot the various commissions and our LN friends make him out to be , far from it .
-
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.
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.
-
"Oswald made a series of demonstrably provable lies: " Steve
are you talking about his time in custody behind closed doors and excluding the few moments he was captured on film speaking that weekend ? . obviously we can all hear what he said to the media , we can have opinions on what he said in those moments , why he said it or what it may mean . but if you are talking about interrogations behind closed doors well that is another matter . no typed transcript of the interrogations was made or is available . no tape recordings of the interrogations were made or are available . that only leaves you with what one person or another who attended the interrogations CLAIMED Oswald said during the interrogations . or with the interrogation notes that we were told were NOT KEPT and which were hidden away for decades . and we would only have the authors say so in regards authenticity meaning we would only have the authors say so that what the notes say is an accurate representation of Oswalds statements . they were hardly unbiased , Fritz had his man friday afternoon it was already decided , the FBI and hosty were hardly unbiased , then there was Holmes an FBI informant who testified that part 3 of Oswalds PO box application form was discarded as per PO regulations . when PO regulations (and im going from memory here ) were that part 3 of the form must be kept for some 2 years after the PO box account was closed . meaning part 3 should have been easily accessible to both FBI and warren commission until some time in 1965 i believe .and indeed it seems it was as the FBI in a warren commission exhibit state that in essence A HIDDELL was not authorized to receive mail at Oswalds PO box . and that in fact only Oswald was authorized .yet Holmes stated under oath that part 3 was ROUTINELY discarded as per PO regulations .according to the FBI statement it seems that that was untrue . so can you explain what you mean by "demonstrably provable lies: " and tell us and show us what that demonstrable proof is ? .
-
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.
As usual, nothing more than your ill informed and fanatically biased opinion.
I've discovered it's important to make this point before dealing with your posts - the story that Oswald took the shots and left his rifle at the scene of the crime is nothing more than that...a story. You believe this story so fanatically that you have convinced yourself it is a "fact" and it is nothing of the sort. As a result, your explanation begins with the assumption of Oswald's guilt regarding taking the shots, and all evidence is interpreted in the light of this predetermined conclusion. As we shall see, this approach results in you posting some very silly things.
Although you try to pass it off as a "small lie", Oswald specifically naming Shelley is of immense importance as it is the only testable aspect of his 'alibi' regarding his movements in the immediate aftermath of the assassination.
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?
Firstly, I'm not quibbling about anything, it's you who's doing the quibbling, I'm presenting facts relating to this aspect of the case, you're just stamping your little foot down and insisting it can't be so just because you say so.
So, let's have a look at what you are NOT quibbling with in the post you are responding to:
1] You agree that Oswald told his interrogators he had some kind of interaction with Shelley before he left the TSBD building.
2] You agree Oswald told his interrogators that it was as a result of this conversation he decided to leave, in effect naming Shelley as part of his alibi for leaving
3] You agree that the New Orleans TV interview and radio interviews reveal Oswald was an intelligent and articulate man, as did his achievement of teaching himself the Russian language.
4] You agree with Fritz's assessment of Oswald as someone who was comfortable in an interrogation situation.
According to your 'opinion', Oswald told a "small lie" to the police because he didn't have an explanation for leaving the scene of the crime. Yet you completely avoid the point that is being made - if Oswald did lie about this why would he specifically name Shelley in this "small lie" when he didn't have to? The only comment you make that comes close to dealing with this issue is the following piss-weak effort: "He was just making life difficult for the authorities as a lifelong malcontent."
So maybe you could explain how Oswald telling this easily checked-out lie is "making life difficult for the authorities".
How is it making life difficult for the authorities if they can simply call Shelley and ask him whether this is true or not and immediately find out if Oswald was lying? Anyone with half a brain would realise that Oswald telling this "small lie" is making life easy for the authorities, not difficult.
After his arrest Oswald goes out of his way to tell anyone who is listening that he is innocent, that he had nothing to do with anything. The last thing he was going to do in those first interviews is hand the authorities anything that would point to his guilt.
Fritz makes the point that, during the interrogation, every time an issue was raised that might be checked out against evidence, Oswald skilfully moved the focus of the questioning elsewhere. Fritz is so impressed with this he actually asks if Oswald has had experience in this type of situation to which Oswald reveals that he has and is aware of various interrogation techniques.
The idea that he would then tell a "small lie" and specifically name Shelley is utter nonsense.
When you ask - "What else was he going to do?" - it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that if he was going to lie about why he left the TSBD building in the immediate aftermath of the assassination HE WOULDN'T NAME SOMEONE WHO COULD EASILY REVEAL THIS WAS A LIE.
What else was he going to do?? He could've said he left the TSBD that day for any one of a thousand reasons but not name someone who could reveal it was a lie.
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?
Firstly, I'm not sure where you're getting the idea from that Oswald was "innocent". Certainly not from me.
I don't believe Oswald took the shots from the SN but I do think he was involved up to his eyeballs with events that day. There is a mountain of evidence that demonstrates that Oswald was far from innocent. However, there is not a single scrap of evidence that Oswald was in the SN at the time of the shooting and plenty of circumstantial evidence that he was not.
As for your question, there is only one rational reason why Oswald specifically named Shelley - because he fully expected Shelley to back him up!
The question then becomes - Why would Oswald fully expect Shelley to back him up?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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 .
-
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]:
(https://i.postimg.cc/jdDxRk4t/knott1.png) (https://postimages.org/)
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:
(https://i.postimg.cc/nVPxSGb5/knott2.png) (https://postimages.org/)
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
no one with a truly open mind would summarily dismiss a raft of first hand witnesses calling them liars , nuts , fame seekers or money grabbers , but as we have seen LN do so with alarming regularity .some times citing a witness one day because what the witness said suits their argument , while attacking that same witness another day because now what they say does not suit .
as an example Earlene roberts .this woman must be 100% relied upon when she says Oswald arrived home and spoke about him wearing a zipper jacket etc . but when she says she hears / sees a police car outside she becomes completely unreliable and in fact ive seen her called a liar (that she invented this ) , when she says Oswald stood at the bus stop that must be ignored . in fact i have seen very well known LN seriously question her eyesight in effect saying her eyesight was in a very bad way . i would say in my many years ive never known an LN that was truly open minded .so for LN to criticize others in regards open mindedness is well its laughable .
-
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.
well LN often speak of Myers animation . offering it as the be all and end all as it were . but the problems with it are numerous and LN ignore them .myers moves both the jump seat and JBC in tandem 6 inches inboard . the jump seat did not move that way . and most certainly was not 6 inches inboard , schematics by the limo maker show the measurement to be just 2.5 inches . Myers moves JFK forwards and backwards when it suits him . on one angle jfk is moved closer to Connally , his knees right up against the back of JBC jump seat .we are talking about the presidential limo here . on the opposite angle JKF is placed back in his correct position . it is easier to get the trajectory to work if you pretend JFK was scrunched up behind JBC .the trajectory lines only going or stopping where it suits Myers . elongating JFKs neck , his jacket collar all but up to the level of JFKs ears to make it easier to locate the entry wound higher up as per the WC . and this is a man (Myers ) who has in the past said Oswald was innocent of both killings and that he could prove it . Myers once said the truth does not require anyones belief . i say the truth does not require deception , omission , distortion or lies , but we got all from the various so called investigations .
-
well LN often speak of Myers animation . offering it as the be all and end all as it were . but the problems with it are numerous and LN ignore them .myers moves both the jump seat and JBC in tandem 6 inches inboard . the jump seat did not move that way . and most certainly was not 6 inches inboard , schematics by the limo maker show the measurement to be just 2.5 inches . Myers moves JFK forwards and backwards when it suits him . on one angle jfk is moved closer to Connally , his knees right up against the back of JBC jump seat .we are talking about the presidential limo here . on the opposite angle JKF is placed back in his correct position . it is easier to get the trajectory to work if you pretend JFK was scrunched up behind JBC .the trajectory lines only going or stopping where it suits Myers . elongating JFKs neck , his jacket collar all but up to the level of JFKs ears to make it easier to locate the entry wound higher up as per the WC . and this is a man (Myers ) who has in the past said Oswald was innocent of both killings and that he could prove it . Myers once said the truth does not require anyones belief . i say the truth does not require deception , omission , distortion or lies , but we got all from the various so called investigations .
So, you have nothing to refute Dan’s claim but this nonsense about Myers?
The whole Knotts cartoon is a complete insult to reasoned intelligence. Dan’s assertion is that it still strikes JBC in the back no matter what they do. It even strikes JBC in the back at the exact same level as his wound from 11/22. Can you not understand this?
Knotts is not seasoned enough to understand the bullet can change trajectories when striking flesh. They have a separate bullet and a new trajectory represented because they do not understand this? They are supposedly testifying in criminal court cases? That must be comical to watch, except for whoever hired them.
The only person with this little of understanding of the assassination and would promote this tripe would be Royell Storing.
-
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.
Oh yes, the "truly open mind" of the Nutter!!
What a thing to behold - a bunch of poorly programmed robots clunking along on a course set down for them by others. Unable to think outside their programming, unable to question beyond the bounds of it, unable to deal with the very real problems that plague the STORY they have swallowed down whole.
To point out any of these very real problems with their STORY results in Denial Mode, which can take a few different forms.
One is for them to hide like scared rabbits until the danger has passed by when they can emerge again to make crass statements like "whichever way one turns, one ends up at Oswald being the sole guilty party".
Alternatively, there is the bluster and lies of the old school Nutters.
And this post by Charles is an exquisite example of this desperate attempt to obfuscate and avoid at all costs. It is almost a work of art. In this single sentence he has managed to cram the usual falsehoods, misrepresentation and general ignorance of the details of the case. It's really quite extraordinary:
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.
Firstly the ignorance of details - his name is Shelley, not Shelly. William Hoyt Shelley.
Secondly, the falshood, which is contained in this potion - "No one...could ever turn their nose up at all the evidence that points to LHO’s guilt..."
I do no such thing, as Charles well knows. I could search around various threads I've posted on to demonstrate that my whole approach is based on accepting as much evidence as possible, which includes the copious amounts of evidence pointing to Oswald's guilt and his involvement with the assassination, and that I fully appreciate the strength of having a narrative that includes as much evidence as possible. But I don't need to search around, I'll use examples of it posted on this thread:
REPLY#8
"The LNer narrative is a story that tries to encompass as many of the known facts about this case as possible and it is clearly an effective narrative. As I say, the strength of the LNer position is the narrative even if, on closer inspection, it is a lot more fragile than it first appears."
"The evidence that Oswald was involved in the assassination may be overwhelming but there is zero credible evidence that Oswald was in the SN taking the shots."
REPLY#13
"Hi Steve, I'm saying there is not a single piece of credible evidence that puts Oswald in the SN around the time of the assassination and plenty of circumstantial evidence that he wasn't.
Oswald was in the building at the time, his behaviour before and after the assassination very strongly suggest he was involved with the assassination in some capacity, the backyard pics are real, and lots more that indicate guilt."
"Oswald leaving the TSBD on the day of the assassination was a massive indication of guilt..."
REPLY#42
"I don't ignore a single scrap of evidence that links Oswald to the crime."
The bottom line is, it doesn't matter how many times I reiterate this point, I'll be dealing with the same falsehood. Nutters can be very lazy and it is easier to spew the same old bullsh%t than do some actual research or form a reasonable, rational argument.
Which only leaves the misrepresentation, which is contained in this part - "...and conclude that Bill Shelly was involved simply because LHO mentioned Shelly’s name in one of his lies."
This is gross misrepresentation of the laziest kind. Shelley lied to the Warren Commission about his movements after the assassination, an issue discussed in "The 3 Minute Lie" thread. There is zero doubt that he lied and this led me to examine what else he was involved with regarding the assassination. Not only was Shelley involved in the incredibly suspicious events surrounding Oswald being reported to Fritz as missing, it also emerged that Oswald had specifically named Shelley as the reason he decided to leave work that day. I discuss the importance of this in detail in REPLY#60, 65 and 66. In REPLY#68 I put this suspicious activity into a wider context of a pattern of suspicious activity relating to the assassination.
Obviously the Nutters can't be dealing with any of that as it would require independent thinking.
THERE IS ZERO CREDIBLE EVIDENCE THAT OSWALD WAS ON THE 6TH FLOOR AFTER 12:00PM.
All the circumstantial evidence that exists regarding who was on the 6th floor just before, during and after the assassination points away from Oswald.
-
no one with a truly open mind would summarily dismiss a raft of first hand witnesses calling them liars , nuts , fame seekers or money grabbers , but as we have seen LN do so with alarming regularity .some times citing a witness one day because what the witness said suits their argument , while attacking that same witness another day because now what they say does not suit .
as an example Earlene roberts .this woman must be 100% relied upon when she says Oswald arrived home and spoke about him wearing a zipper jacket etc . but when she says she hears / sees a police car outside she becomes completely unreliable and in fact ive seen her called a liar (that she invented this ) , when she says Oswald stood at the bus stop that must be ignored . in fact i have seen very well known LN seriously question her eyesight in effect saying her eyesight was in a very bad way . i would say in my many years ive never known an LN that was truly open minded .so for LN to criticize others in regards open mindedness is well its laughable .
It is possible that a witness remembers certain aspect(s) of an event correctly but mis-remembers other aspect(s) of the same event. Human memories are not infallible, so this happens fairly regularly. I don’t mind saying that it happens to me fairly regularly. When other evidence exists that supports portion(s) of a witness’ account, that portion of their account becomes more believable. However, when other evidence exists that contradicts certain portions of that same witness’ account, that portion(s) of their account becomes less believable. Under these conditions, it is therefore entirely possible and proper that one witness’ account of an event can be both credible or not (depending of which portion of their account we are considering).
In the case of Earlene Roberts, I believe her allegations regarding the police car were investigated. However what they found tends to contradict that portion of her account. If it appears to you that that portion of her account was dismissed simply because it didn’t fit a certain scenario, then you have apparently been misled somewhere along the way.
-
I have clouds in my coffee and a Carly Simon song stuck in my head.
-
I have clouds in my coffee and a Carly Simon song stuck in my head.
You're so vain.
-
Well it’s uncertain if JFK would have expanded the 16K “advisor” force in Vietnam to 500K combat soldiers and with tanks and heavy artillery and an air force dropping more bombs than in WW2.
It’s more than coincidence imo that 3 days after JFK was dead that LBJ had already reversed policy of JFK and embarked on a new policy to expand war in Vietnam.
And it’s more than just coincidence imo that Harold Byrd, owner of TSBD and for a good friend of LBJ. gets awarded a contract to build the A7 Corsair planes used in Vietnam.
-
So, you have nothing to refute Dan’s claim but this nonsense about Myers?
The whole Knotts cartoon is a complete insult to reasoned intelligence. Dan’s assertion is that it still strikes JBC in the back no matter what they do. It even strikes JBC in the back at the exact same level as his wound from 11/22. Can you not understand this?
Knotts is not seasoned enough to understand the bullet can change trajectories when striking flesh. They have a separate bullet and a new trajectory represented because they do not understand this? They are supposedly testifying in criminal court cases? That must be comical to watch, except for whoever hired them.
The only person with this little of understanding of the assassination and would promote this tripe would be Royell Storing.
please feel free to tell me what part of what i said is nonsense , and then feel free to provide your proof that it is nonsense .
-
It is possible that a witness remembers certain aspect(s) of an event correctly but mis-remembers other aspect(s) of the same event. Human memories are not infallible, so this happens fairly regularly. I don’t mind saying that it happens to me fairly regularly. When other evidence exists that supports portion(s) of a witness’ account, that portion of their account becomes more believable. However, when other evidence exists that contradicts certain portions of that same witness’ account, that portion(s) of their account becomes less believable. Under these conditions, it is therefore entirely possible and proper that one witness’ account of an event can be both credible or not (depending of which portion of their account we are considering).
In the case of Earlene Roberts, I believe her allegations regarding the police car were investigated. However what they found tends to contradict that portion of her account. If it appears to you that that portion of her account was dismissed simply because it didn’t fit a certain scenario, then you have apparently been misled somewhere along the way.
i have not been misled . i am stating what LN in my experience have said about witnesses and how they deem them both credible and at the least lacking in credibility as and when it suits . remember Wes frazier and the long package ? . LN cite him as credible when he says Oswald carried a package . but when he says that package was around about 24 inches long not 36 inches ? . well a well known LN said that FRAZIER PROBABLY DOES NOT EVEN KNOW THAT 24 INCHES EQUALS TWO FEET . meaning he at best lacks intellect .regarding roberts LN have said she was near blind when it suits , yet they deem her visual observations absolutely credible when it suits . and a well known LN has said she made up the police car story . that should make her unreliable and lacking in credibility , because any witness caught lying has a credibility problem , if a witness has lied one time they could have lied multiple times . yet LN still cite her .
you are correct the human memory is not infallible , but there is a big difference between an incorrect memory and a lie . when it comes to the police car LN are not saying Roberts memory was incorrect , they have said she made the whole thing up .
-
i have not been misled . i am stating what LN in my experience have said about witnesses and how they deem them both credible and at the least lacking in credibility as and when it suits . remember Wes frazier and the long package ? . LN cite him as credible when he says Oswald carried a package . but when he says that package was around about 24 inches long not 36 inches ? . well a well known LN said that FRAZIER PROBABLY DOES NOT EVEN KNOW THAT 24 INCHES EQUALS TWO FEET . meaning he at best lacks intellect .regarding roberts LN have said she was near blind when it suits , yet they deem her visual observations absolutely credible when it suits . and a well known LN has said she made up the police car story . that should make her unreliable and lacking in credibility , because any witness caught lying has a credibility problem , if a witness has lied one time they could have lied multiple times . yet LN still cite her .
you are correct the human memory is not infallible , but there is a big difference between an incorrect memory and a lie . when it comes to the police car LN are not saying Roberts memory was incorrect , they have said she made the whole thing up .
I cannot control what other people think or say. If you want to discuss the case, then please stick with the elements of the case. If you just want to complain about your perceptions of what other people say, I am not interested. If you want to discuss what I have said, please address the specific statement.
-
please feel free to tell me what part of what i said is nonsense , and then feel free to provide your proof that it is nonsense .
Posting about Myers instead of the real topic about Knotts Lab is nonsense. The proof is your whole nonsense post.
How in anyway way does the Myers graphic have any relative relationship to Knotts Lab? If you lack an answer maybe don’t post anything let alone these replies.
Feel free to explain the relationship between the Myers and Knotts Lab and provide proof that Myers animation, in any manner, has an impact on understanding how Knotts Lab has a bullet striking JBC in the back in their animation, but instead they falsely state SBT is proven false by their work when in reality they proved it.
-
remember Wes frazier and the long package ? . LN cite him as credible when he says Oswald carried a package . but when he says that package was around about 24 inches long not 36 inches ? . well a well known LN said that FRAZIER PROBABLY DOES NOT EVEN KNOW THAT 24 INCHES EQUALS TWO FEET . meaning he at best lacks intellect .regarding roberts LN have said she was near blind when it suits , yet they deem her visual observations absolutely credible when it suits . and a well known LN has said she made up the police car story . that should make her unreliable and lacking in credibility , because any witness caught lying has a credibility problem , if a witness has lied one time they could have lied multiple times . yet LN still cite her .
This is a great example of CTer "logic." Refusing to look to the totality of circumstances or applying any analysis to the situation. Frazier - someone with no apparent reason to lie - tells the police that LHO carries a long package to work that morning that Oswald tells Frazier contains curtain rods. Frazier also specifically asks Oswald about his lunch. LHO confirms to him that he is not carrying his lunch that morning. When asked about the bag after his arrest, LHO denies carrying any long bag along the lines described by Frazier. He denies carrying any curtain rods. In complete contradiction of what he told Frazier that morning, he then claims it was his lunch. Did he carry his lunch to work that morning in a two-foot-long bag? And then for some unknown reason lie to Frazier about his lunch and the curtain rods. That makes absolutely no sense. Obviously, either Frazier or Oswald is lying about this situation. Who has the greater incentive to lie? A random witness or the person accused of murder? What happened to Oswald's two-foot-long bag if it is not the longer bag found on the 6th floor?
What is the most rational way to reconcile these conflicting accounts? Obviously, that Frazier did not estimate the length of the bag correctly. It was an estimate. He repeated over and over that he didn't really take much notice of it. What is the alternative? That Frazier knowingly lied to implicate Oswald but he did so in way that doesn't really do that since he claimed the bag was too short to contain the rife? LOL. In addition to there being zero credible evidence that Frazier was involved in a plot to frame Oswald for the assassination, even if he were involved his "lie" would be to place a bag long enough to contain the rifle in Oswald's hands. That would be the entire purpose of the lie. He wouldn't insist it was too short for that purpose. There is no way to reconcile Frazier's account in any other way except that Oswald carried a long bag that morning and he simply gave an estimate of its length that was slightly shorter than the actual bag.
-
I cannot control what other people think or say. If you want to discuss the case, then please stick with the elements of the case. If you just want to complain about your perceptions of what other people say, I am not interested. If you want to discuss what I have said, please address the specific statement.
i am not talking about MY PERCEPTIONS (as you call it ) what i said is what LN in my experience over many years have said , atleast one of them is right here on this forum . nor am i or do i complain about LN .
-
Where did you learn how to write like this? It's the worst grammar I've ever seen. It's painful on the eyes.
(https://www.easons.com/globalassets/5637150827/all/books/reference/encyclopaedias/97804700575202.jpg)
i would rather have the grammar you complain about than to be an obnoxious idiot . my reply was not even directed at you , yet you still felt a need to butt in and be idiotic .anyone with intellect , good research and the courage of their convictions would not lower them selves as you did .
-
Posting about Myers instead of the real topic about Knotts Lab is nonsense. The proof is your whole nonsense post.
How in anyway way does the Myers graphic have any relative relationship to Knotts Lab? If you lack an answer maybe don’t post anything let alone these replies.
Feel free to explain the relationship between the Myers and Knotts Lab and provide proof that Myers animation, in any manner, has an impact on understanding how Knotts Lab has a bullet striking JBC in the back in their animation, but instead they falsely state SBT is proven false by their work when in reality they proved it.
i think you need to do what you seem to have not done and actually read what i posted , i made ZERO claims regarding the Knotts lab animation . but i was quite clear in what i said and in the point i was making . enough said .
-
This is a great example of CTer "logic." Refusing to look to the totality of circumstances or applying any analysis to the situation. Frazier - someone with no apparent reason to lie - tells the police that LHO carries a long package to work that morning that Oswald tells Frazier contains curtain rods. Frazier also specifically asks Oswald about his lunch. LHO confirms to him that he is not carrying his lunch that morning. When asked about the bag after his arrest, LHO denies carrying any long bag along the lines described by Frazier. He denies carrying any curtain rods. In complete contradiction of what he told Frazier that morning, he then claims it was his lunch. Did he carry his lunch to work that morning in a two-foot-long bag? And then for some unknown reason lie to Frazier about his lunch and the curtain rods. That makes absolutely no sense. Obviously, either Frazier or Oswald is lying about this situation. Who has the greater incentive to lie? A random witness or the person accused of murder? What happened to Oswald's two-foot-long bag if it is not the longer bag found on the 6th floor?
What is the most rational way to reconcile these conflicting accounts? Obviously, that Frazier did not estimate the length of the bag correctly. It was an estimate. He repeated over and over that he didn't really take much notice of it. What is the alternative? That Frazier knowingly lied to implicate Oswald but he did so in way that doesn't really do that since he claimed the bag was too short to contain the rife? LOL. In addition to there being zero credible evidence that Frazier was involved in a plot to frame Oswald for the assassination, even if he were involved his "lie" would be to place a bag long enough to contain the rifle in Oswald's hands. That would be the entire purpose of the lie. He wouldn't insist it was too short for that purpose. There is no way to reconcile Frazier's account in any other way except that Oswald carried a long bag that morning and he simply gave an estimate of its length that was slightly shorter than the actual bag.
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 . after all to believe LN we would have to accept that every liar , conman /woman ,fame seeker and money grabber and nut in dallas converged on dealey plaza that tragic day . on the overpass alone we have 3 different people saying a shot came from the knoll and that they saw a puff of smoke under the tress there . but LN ignore or dismiss them . we have 3 to 4 people in the depository saying they saw or spoke to Oswald on the 1st and 2nd floors between about 11.45 and in and around 12.20 . but LN ignore or dismiss them . and you talk about what is rational ? .
Frazier was considered and questioned as a potential accomplice . he himself said that Fritz thrust an already typed up confession into his face demanding he sign it , and that Frazier rightly refused to sign . we only have one persons word for what may have been said in that car , so all we have is what Frazier claimed Oswald said . and we only have the word of those involved in interrogation for what oswald is said to have claimed . you ask a valid question . if Oswald carried his lunch in a paper sack where is that sack ? . but i would say given that Oswald is said to have claimed he carried his lunch that then the cops should have been asking him WHERE IS THAT SACK ? and trying to find it . for me it would be a logical thing if i was told by a suspect that he carried his lunch in a sack (not a rifle ) to ask them WELL WHERE DID YOU LEAVE THE SACK ? .if you left it there it should still be there RIGHT ? .i feel certain that if for example Oswald said that he carried his lunch in a sack that any competent cop would have asked WELL WHERE IS THE SACK ? and if he said for example IN THE DOMINO ROOM and that if it was searched and was not there that we would have heard all about that in the media .as it would be used to say Oswald was caught in a lie . and ive never heard , seen or read of such a thing happening .
the area of the seat where Frazier said the sack lay was measured and it came in as roughly 24 inches long .
-
i think you need to do what you seem to have not done and actually read what i posted , i made ZERO claims regarding the Knotts lab animation . but i was quite clear in what i said and in the point i was making . enough said .
You weren't clear about anything except you want to pretend Knotts Lab's obvious failure is somehow connected to Dale Myers's animation.
"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."
Can you point out in this post by Dan where he is asking you to bawl, whine and snivel about the animation of Dale Myers.
He does ask you to explain Knotts Lab’s animation, which you are obviously avoiding.
You know the animation depicting JBC having been struck in the back by the same bullet that struck JFK, all the while erroneously insisting that SBT is somehow false.
-
You weren't clear about anything except you want to pretend Knotts Lab's obvious failure is somehow connected to Dale Myers's animation.
"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."
Can you point out in this post by Dan where he is asking you to bawl, whine and snivel about the animation of Dale Myers.
He does ask you to explain Knotts Lab’s animation, which you are obviously avoiding.
You know the animation depicting JBC having been struck in the back by the same bullet that struck JFK, all the while erroneously insisting that SBT is somehow false.
i have never been one to bawl , while and snivel , i leave such things to LN such as yourself .and after all as we can see here in that respect you have achieved success , so congratulations .
and once again i can only suggest that you do that which you clearly did not do and READ what i actually said . or do not , the choice is yours , either way it makes no difference to me . have a good day bawling and snivelling .
-
i have never been one to bawl , while and snivel , i leave such things to LN such as yourself .and after all as we can see here in that respect you have achieved success , so congratulations .
and once again i can only suggest that you do that which you clearly did not do and READ what i actually said . or do not , the choice is yours , either way it makes no difference to me . have a good day bawling and snivelling .
You have done nothing but bawl, whine, and snivel. This post is a perfect example, LN this and LN that. Always the same nonsense, endless drivel about LNer, and in the end never address the real subject at hand, in this case the Knotts Lab animation. Instead, you took the opportunity to post some bizarre drivel about Dale Myers and in some odd fashion pretend it was relevant.
-
it was relevant , but you chose and choose not to see the relevance . alas i cannot help you see what you clearly do not want to see .
for anyone that will read these comments . the knotts lad animation was brought up , however NOT BY ME . i never said a thing about it , so i never claimed it was either accurate or not accurate . meaning i simply allowed the person who brought it up to be the one who discusses it OR NOT . their choice . HOWEVER there was criticism of the animation (be it warranted or not , that is for the readers here to judge ) as one expects from those on the LN side of the fence . IE if something atleast tends to contradict their lone nut scenario or stance they criticize , attack or dismiss it . again i neither said it was accurate or inaccurate , in fact i said nothing about that animation , as i said the readers here will judge for them selves its reliability or lack there of .ALL I DID was to note a hypocrisy of LN , which was that they stand firmly behind , push and support an LN animation that has been shown to have problems of its own . so my comment was merely to highlight an LN hypocrisy (just one of many really ) in no way did i endorse or have i endorsed the knotts lab animation . thus far i have not commented on it and at this point i dont plan too . but i will of course read with interest any thoughts , views , comments etc in regard that animation .
-
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 .
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.
-
it was relevant , but you chose and choose not to see the relevance . alas i cannot help you see what you clearly do not want to see .
for anyone that will read these comments . the knotts lad animation was brought up , however NOT BY ME . i never said a thing about it , so i never claimed it was either accurate or not accurate . meaning i simply allowed the person who brought it up to be the one who discusses it OR NOT . their choice . HOWEVER there was criticism of the animation (be it warranted or not , that is for the readers here to judge ) as one expects from those on the LN side of the fence . IE if something atleast tends to contradict their lone nut scenario or stance they criticize , attack or dismiss it . again i neither said it was accurate or inaccurate , in fact i said nothing about that animation , as i said the readers here will judge for them selves its reliability or lack there of .ALL I DID was to note a hypocrisy of LN , which was that they stand firmly behind , push and support an LN animation that has been shown to have problems of its own . so my comment was merely to highlight an LN hypocrisy (just one of many really ) in no way did i endorse or have i endorsed the knotts lab animation . thus far i have not commented on it and at this point i dont plan too . but i will of course read with interest any thoughts , views , comments etc in regard that animation .
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?
-
" 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 .
-
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 .
-
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.
-
" 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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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 .
-
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 .
-
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 .
-
The problem with a statement like “if Frazier was telling the truth then Oswald must have lied” is that we cannot be certain exactly what Oswald said to Will Fritz, because there was no recording made , no attorney present, nor even a court stenographer present to verify the statements.
-
there is only one oddball ranting here and it is you . and only one oddball talking about knotts lab and again it is you .
The Knotts Lab depiction of JBC being struck in the back by the SBT was the original topic you posted a reply. You ignored it to whine, snivel, and whimper about Meyers and LNers for reasons only you understand. At any time, feel free to explain the Knotts Lab depiction of SBT or just keep posting this nonsense whichever suits you.
-
The problem with a statement like “if Frazier was telling the truth then Oswald must have lied” is that we cannot be certain exactly what Oswald said to Will Fritz, because there was no recording made , no attorney present, nor even a court stenographer present to verify the statements.
That's not a reasonable claim unless you have some evidence Fritz was involved in the conspiracy. Fritz and others testified under oath. There were also other folks who interrogated Oswald or were present. Obviously, it would be a major crime to lie about what a suspect said in a homicide investigation of the President. But take it a step further. If the DPD was involved in framing Oswald and fabricating what he said in custody, why not say he confessed, that he hated JFK, was glad he was dead, owned a rifle etc. Why say he denied carrying a long bag or owned a rifle? That doesn't make sense. And we actually have the bag. It can be measured to ascertain its exact length. It has Oswald's prints on it confirming it came into contact with him. There is no apparent work-related purpose for such a bag to be there. No one else who worked in the TSBD ever explained its presence or suggested it belonged to them. Don't you think someone would have come forward and explained the bag found if there was some legitimate reason for it to be on that floor? No bag matching Frazier's description was ever found.
-
The Knotts Lab depiction of JBC being struck in the back by the SBT was the original topic you posted a reply. You ignored it to whine, snivel, and whimper about Meyers and LNers for reasons only you understand. At any time, feel free to explain the Knotts Lab depiction of SBT or just keep posting this nonsense whichever suits you.
it seems i over estimated your intellect my friend , i assumed WRONGLY that even tho you are an LN that you were reasonably intelligent . and that you could see a comment for what it was , IE not and never intended to be a comment about knotts lab or indeed in regards the thread title . but about an LN hypocrisy , one of many . everyday people talk on forums such as this great forum and they discuss many things , and some times people interject (as i did ) to make a point that may or may not be about the actual topic at hand . my point was not about knotts lab , i have never once posted directly about it , nor have i ever endorsed it or disputed it . but these very simple points do seem to completely elude you .
-
That's not a reasonable claim unless you have some evidence Fritz was involved in the conspiracy. Fritz and others testified under oath. There were also other folks who interrogated Oswald or were present. Obviously, it would be a major crime to lie about what a suspect said in a homicide investigation of the President. But take it a step further. If the DPD was involved in framing Oswald and fabricating what he said in custody, why not say he confessed, that he hated JFK, was glad he was dead, owned a rifle etc. Why say he denied carrying a long bag or owned a rifle? That doesn't make sense. And we actually have the bag. It can be measured to ascertain its exact length. It has Oswald's prints on it confirming it came into contact with him. There is no apparent work-related purpose for such a bag to be there. No one else who worked in the TSBD ever explained its presence or suggested it belonged to them. Don't you think someone would have come forward and explained the bag found if there was some legitimate reason for it to be on that floor? No bag matching Frazier's description was ever found.
Fritz went into the snipers nest and picked up the shells interfering with a crime scene before it was recorded on photo / film , he lied and said he did not do this yet two LN witnesses Alyea and mooney said they saw him do it . he thrust a pre written confession into Fraziers face , a confession Frazier never gave , and demanded he sign it . he first denied a conversation between him and craig and then admitted it happened . hardly the actions of an honest man , why should we trust such a person ?. i am certain if he was a CT witness you would refuse to accept a word he said . by the way people testify under oath all the time and dont tell the truth , wouldnt you agree ? . hosty admitted destroying evidence and not revealing information . Harry holmes an FBI informant who was less than truthful in testimony . tell the readers here why they should have no doubts about these people and trust their word and yours ? .
-
it seems i over estimated your intellect my friend , i assumed WRONGLY that even tho you are an LN that you were reasonably intelligent . and that you could see a comment for what it was , IE not and never intended to be a comment about knotts lab or indeed in regards the thread title . but about an LN hypocrisy , one of many . everyday people talk on forums such as this great forum and they discuss many things , and some times people interject (as i did ) to make a point that may or may not be about the actual topic at hand . my point was not about knotts lab , i have never once posted directly about it , nor have i ever endorsed it or disputed it . but these very simple points do seem to completely elude you .
What you overestimated was your own intelligence and what you underestimated is your lack of it. The point you are making is you have no point. The whole post was to make disparaging comments about LNers and specifically Dale Myers. Nothing more. Once again you had a chance to post on the subject of Knotts Lab, but instead chose this tripe as the subject of your post.
-
Fritz went into the snipers nest and picked up the shells interfering with a crime scene before it was recorded on photo / film , he lied and said he did not do this yet two LN witnesses Alyea and mooney said they saw him do it . he thrust a pre written confession into Fraziers face , a confession Frazier never gave , and demanded he sign it . he first denied a conversation between him and craig and then admitted it happened . hardly the actions of an honest man , why should we trust such a person ?. i am certain if he was a CT witness you would refuse to accept a word he said . by the way people testify under oath all the time and dont tell the truth , wouldnt you agree ? . hosty admitted destroying evidence and not revealing information . Harry holmes an FBI informant who was less than truthful in testimony . tell the readers here why they should have no doubts about these people and trust their word and yours ? .
So Fritz was part of the conspiracy to frame Oswald? He did so not knowing or caring who the real assassin was or how he might explain the evidence if a different person was eventually linked to the crime. And you were the one pushing back on this having to be a VAST conspiracy. It's not VAST but everyone was involved except Oswald. LOL. Again, more people were in the room and asked questions of Oswald than just Fritz. All of these people are lying and even risking their careers and convictions for crimes?
-
So Fritz was part of the conspiracy to frame Oswald? He did so not knowing or caring who the real assassin was or how he might explain the evidence if a different person was eventually linked to the crime. And you were the one pushing back on this having to be a VAST conspiracy. It's not VAST but everyone was involved except Oswald. LOL. Again, more people were in the room and asked questions of Oswald than just Fritz. All of these people are lying and even risking their careers and convictions for crimes?
Another one of Smith's superficial arguments; "If Fritz's report and testimony isn't correct, he must have been part of a conspiracy". Just how stupid can you be?
There are massive discrepancies between the reports of Oswald's interrogators, which by itself makes the reports inconclusive and unreliable to any honest person. Even worse, some of the reports were written from memory several days after the interviews and after Oswald had been killed. To simply assume that what Fritz (who falsely claimed that he did not keep notes) said about Oswald's responses is the absolute truth is pathetic, ignorant and superficial.
When Oswald was asked about the "long bag", was he given dimensions of that bag or was he shown the bag allegedly found in the sniper's nest? Or was he simply asked if he brought a "long bag" to work?
Without knowing what the question was they asked Oswald, how in the world can you conclude that he lied when he denied bringing a long bag? The answer is simple; YOU CAN'T.
In other words you are once again making wild assumptions and then jump to massively flawed conclusions.
-
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.
(https://preview.ibb.co/cqGmgw/Slide18.gif)
-
What you overestimated was your own intelligence and what you underestimated is your lack of it. The point you are making is you have no point. The whole post was to make disparaging comments about LNers and specifically Dale Myers. Nothing more. Once again you had a chance to post on the subject of Knotts Lab, but instead chose this tripe as the subject of your post.
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 .
-
Quote from: Fergus O'brien on May 10, 2024, 08:45:33 PM
"Fritz went into the snipers nest and picked up the shells interfering with a crime scene before it was recorded on photo / film , he lied and said he did not do this yet two LN witnesses Alyea and mooney said they saw him do it . he thrust a pre written confession into Fraziers face , a confession Frazier never gave , and demanded he sign it . he first denied a conversation between him and craig and then admitted it happened . hardly the actions of an honest man , why should we trust such a person ?. i am certain if he was a CT witness you would refuse to accept a word he said . by the way people testify under oath all the time and dont tell the truth , wouldnt you agree ? . hosty admitted destroying evidence and not revealing information . Harry holmes an FBI informant who was less than truthful in testimony . tell the readers here why they should have no doubts about these people and trust their word and yours ? ." fergus obrien
So Fritz was part of the conspiracy to frame Oswald? He did so not knowing or caring who the real assassin was or how he might explain the evidence if a different person was eventually linked to the crime. And you were the one pushing back on this having to be a VAST conspiracy. It's not VAST but everyone was involved except Oswald. LOL. Again, more people were in the room and asked questions of Oswald than just Fritz. All of these people are lying and even risking their careers and convictions for crimes?
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 .
-
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.
(https://preview.ibb.co/cqGmgw/Slide18.gif)
thank you for posting this Michael . as the british would say WHAT CANT SPEAK , CANT LIE . these images speak for them selves .
-
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.
-
"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 .
-
"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…
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
Quote from: Fergus O'brien on May 13, 2024, 02:14:32 PM
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 ." fergus obrien
"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." Richard smith
« Last Edit: Today at 03:34:38 PM by Richard Smith »
NO , when i said he was less than honest i gave some valid reasons why he can be viewed as less than honest . you seem to have decided to ignore that . neither you nor i or anyone else on this forum can provide proof of a single word that Oswald said during his interrogations .the FACT is all you can possibly claim is that the FBI / DPD etc in interrogation stated that Oswald said certain things , maybe he did and maybe he did not . but what is for certain is that neither you , nor i or anyone on this forum has a tape recording or first hand typed transcript of any of the interrogations . and as i said very clearly if a person (whom ever they are ) has shown them selves to have been dishonest several times would people then have a valid reason to distrust such a person ? . i think they would have valid reason .
how exactly could they DPD lie and say he Oswald admitted to them carrying a rifle to work when he had been on TV from friday to sunday denying any guilt , saying I DIDNT SHOOT ANYONE ? .
if i was you i would be more concerned about YOU , and i would worry about how you look my friend , i am a big boy , let me take care of me OK .
-
OBrien--“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 .”
My god, you even whine, snivel, and cry about your whining, sniveling, and crying. I did not even know that was possible.
Agreed, you have proven time and time again you are not either a researcher or an expert.
"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 .”
Wrong—The only thing you made clear was you like to whine, snivel, and cry about Myers and LNers.
-
"i made it clear i was not posting about it quite a way back in this thread " fergus obrien
"Just another reason that no one should take your claims about it seriously then…" Charles
riddle me this Charles IF I NEVER posted about it HOW can i have made claims about it ? .
-
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.
you still have a problem with the LESS THAN HONEST bit dont you ? . whether you want to ignore it or not Fritz was atleast less than honest when it came to THIS CASE , likewise Hosty and likewise Holmes . Bookhout is another matter . and as i said that then colors the opinion of people , it gives them valid reason to doubt their word . after all you would probably say at the least (as an example ) that you have valid reason to doubt the word of Earlene roberts regarding certain claims she made . however you would cite her and rely upon other claims he made . to put it simply if you were to lie , to be less than honest on more than one occasion , would not the members here have a valid reason to be distrustful of you ? .
i cant speak about why a person would do what they did , all i can do is tell you what they did , after that you or others can decide why they did it . and once again A MODICUM OF COMMON SENSE please , how could the DPD say Oswald admitted carrying a rifle when HE at every opportunity ON TV and in front of masses of press vehemently protested his innocence and denied any and all quilt ? .
as has been pointed out here already and it seems ignored is that we were told NO interrogation notes were kept , that was a lie was it not ? . because they exist today . and the notes such as they are now may not even have been written at the time of interrogation but later , perhaps after Oswalds death . when of course they then could never be disputed .
-
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?
"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?" Steve
once again if you wish to state i made a certain claim that is fine , but first QUOTE ME making that claim , then feel free to dispute that claim if you desire . that way it will be clear ifi did indeed claim what you say i claim .
-
OBrien--“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 .”
My god, you even whine, snivel, and cry about your whining, sniveling, and crying. I did not even know that was possible.
Agreed, you have proven time and time again you are not either a researcher or an expert.
"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 .”
Wrong—The only thing you made clear was you like to whine, snivel, and cry about Myers and LNers.
lol you are funny , idiotic but funny . but it is a serious topic and people like you help to lighten it up for us , so thank you .
-
"i made it clear i was not posting about it quite a way back in this thread " fergus obrien
"Just another reason that no one should take your claims about it seriously then…" Charles
riddle me this Charles IF I NEVER posted about it HOW can i have made claims about it ? .
If you never posted anything about it, then I apologize. I must have been confused.
-
you still have a problem with the LESS THAN HONEST bit dont you ? . whether you want to ignore it or not Fritz was atleast less than honest when it came to THIS CASE , likewise Hosty and likewise Holmes . Bookhout is another matter . and as i said that then colors the opinion of people , it gives them valid reason to doubt their word . after all you would probably say at the least (as an example ) that you have valid reason to doubt the word of Earlene roberts regarding certain claims she made . however you would cite her and rely upon other claims he made . to put it simply if you were to lie , to be less than honest on more than one occasion , would not the members here have a valid reason to be distrustful of you ? .
i cant speak about why a person would do what they did , all i can do is tell you what they did , after that you or others can decide why they did it . and once again A MODICUM OF COMMON SENSE please , how could the DPD say Oswald admitted carrying a rifle when HE at every opportunity ON TV and in front of masses of press vehemently protested his innocence and denied any and all quilt ? .
as has been pointed out here already and it seems ignored is that we were told NO interrogation notes were kept , that was a lie was it not ? . because they exist today . and the notes such as they are now may not even have been written at the time of interrogation but later , perhaps after Oswalds death . when of course they then could never be disputed .
A serious problem with this case is the staggering incompetence of the good ol' boy investigation.
Not a single piece of evidence, other than the rifle, was photographed in it's original position - not the Sniper's Perch (a staged photo was put in evidence), not the hulls (picked up by Fritz before being photographed), not the rifle bag ( a drawing of where it was positioned was put in evidence!!) and not Bonnie Ray Williams' lunch remains (discovered by at least SEVEN first responders on top of the boxes that formed the SN).
That there was no tape recording or stenographer present during Oswald's interrogation regarding the assassination of the President of the United States is simply mind-blowing.
All of this is fuel for the Conspiracy Theorist, the trick is trying to discern what is incompetence, what is corruption and what is conspiracy.
It doesn't help that Nutters believe law enforcement can never do anything wrong and everything was done honestly and competently. It reveals them for the frauds they really are.
-
Well, there are at least three Crime Lab Photos taken of the Sniper's Nest on November 22nd prior to boxes being moved. The reconstruction done on Monday (without reference photos, it would seem) proved inaccurate in terms of the boxes by the window but afforded better viewpoints of the overall scene, so some came to be used as exhibits. A good idea; probably not. No one thought the paper bag was evidence at the time and it got moved, but testimony established where it was.
You're confusing the Sniper's Perch with the Sniper's Nest.
I never mentioned anything about photographing the Sniper's Nest.
And your notion that no-one thought the long bag was connected to the crime is massively wrong. Plenty of first responders thought that the bag was used to carry the rifle. I'm really surprised you're not aware of this. But, of course you are aware of this.
Are you also aware that the picture of the Sniper's Perch in evidence taken on Monday the 25th is labelled as being taken shortly after the assassination?
Of course you are.
Are you aware that drawing a picture of where evidence was doesn't really count?
At least you agree about Bonnie Ray's lunch.
When did police anywhere tape-record interrogations in that era? Maybe some confessions were taped. Back then, the FBI-on-down relied on notes, which usually formed the basis of reports, and the courts accepted those reports as accurate; they also allowed a law officer to testify while referring to his notes. It's not that "Nutters" think police were infallible; it's more that they understand the law enforcement of the time and not to apply the "CSI Effect".
Where do you think the DPD failed?
-
A serious problem with this case is the staggering incompetence of the good ol' boy investigation.
Not a single piece of evidence, other than the rifle, was photographed in it's original position - not the Sniper's Perch (a staged photo was put in evidence), not the hulls (picked up by Fritz before being photographed), not the rifle bag ( a drawing of where it was positioned was put in evidence!!) and not Bonnie Ray Williams' lunch remains (discovered by at least SEVEN first responders on top of the boxes that formed the SN).
That there was no tape recording or stenographer present during Oswald's interrogation regarding the assassination of the President of the United States is simply mind-blowing.
All of this is fuel for the Conspiracy Theorist, the trick is trying to discern what is incompetence, what is corruption and what is conspiracy.
It doesn't help that Nutters believe law enforcement can never do anything wrong and everything was done honestly and competently. It reveals them for the frauds they really are.
"All of this is fuel for the Conspiracy Theorist "
the above assertion infers that ANYONE who does not accept the official version of events is A by default a conspiracy theorist , B by LN definition then a kook or a nut , C who simply only look for and ONLY seek anything no matter how outlandish that would appear to support a conspiracy narrative . the above is not only completely unfair ,irrational but false .
"the trick is trying to discern what is incompetence, what is corruption and what is conspiracy"
well yes that i guess is not unreasonable logic .there was incompetence , there was corruption , and at the least a conspiracy of both silence and to conceal truth after the fact . as an example i do not think that Fritz intention in picking up the shells was intended by him to interfere with the crime scene (some may disagree ) but none the less he did just that , and then was untruthful about it . two LN witnesses alyea and mooney say him do this . so LN can not reasonably dispute this without them selves looking dishonest .there is no doubt , fritz did it , he was seen doing it , there is testimony and a statement from alyea that they saw him do it . this was done PRIOR to the shells being photographed , and so that in turn means undeniably that we simply cannot rely upon the positions of the shells in the photos taken after the above events . of course they may have been re positioned roughly as the DPD thought they had originally laid , but we simply do not know this .
on another note i do feel that the man seen hanging out of the snipers nest window seen by Rowland can only have been Williams . we know he was up there on the 6th floor , we know he was eating lunch , and we know his lunch sack was found in close proximity to the snipers nest on a box . officially he is the only one on the 6th floor at that time , all be it the FBI , commission and LN have in the past sought to dishonestly get him off the 6th floor long before 12.15 . so logically if Williams was the only person on the 6th floor at 12.15 (excluding any thoughts of Oswald at this time ) as Williams was a man of color and Oswald was not , and if we accept that Rowland did see a man in the window . well then who else but williams could have been that man ?. to my knowledge he never admitted being inside the snipers nest , and to my knowledge he was never asked if he was , but people can feel free to correct me if i am wrong . i of course understand why LN are reluctant to have Williams inside the snipers nest at 12.15 , because if he was he simply could not have missed Oswald sat in there with a rifle . assuming Oswald was in there of course . that would raise serious questions , uncomfortable questions .
-
lol you are funny , idiotic but funny . but it is a serious topic and people like you help to lighten it up for us , so thank you .
It is good to know you are able to see the ridiculousness of your actions.
-
"i made it clear i was not posting about it quite a way back in this thread " fergus obrien
"Just another reason that no one should take your claims about it seriously then…" Charles
riddle me this Charles IF I NEVER posted about it HOW can i have made claims about it ? .
Oh, but you did. You mention the event as a hypocrisy but do not explain it, instead post a bunch of meaningless crap about Myers and LNers. Both animations end with the exact same outcome. A bullet striking JBC in the back except Knotts Lab claims to have proven SBT is false while Myers claims it proves it. The hypocrisy is all yours when you go on a strange rant and rave about Myers but accept Knotts Lab. Not directly mentioning Knotts Lab does not make you non-committal, what it makes you is a – better not, you are kind of delicate and hypersensitive.
-
"All of this is fuel for the Conspiracy Theorist "
the above assertion infers that ANYONE who does not accept the official version of events is A by default a conspiracy theorist , B by LN definition then a kook or a nut , C who simply only look for and ONLY seek anything no matter how outlandish that would appear to support a conspiracy narrative . the above is not only completely unfair ,irrational but false .
"the trick is trying to discern what is incompetence, what is corruption and what is conspiracy"
well yes that i guess is not unreasonable logic .there was incompetence , there was corruption , and at the least a conspiracy of both silence and to conceal truth after the fact . as an example i do not think that Fritz intention in picking up the shells was intended by him to interfere with the crime scene (some may disagree ) but none the less he did just that , and then was untruthful about it . two LN witnesses alyea and mooney say him do this . so LN can not reasonably dispute this without them selves looking dishonest .there is no doubt , fritz did it , he was seen doing it , there is testimony and a statement from alyea that they saw him do it . this was done PRIOR to the shells being photographed , and so that in turn means undeniably that we simply cannot rely upon the positions of the shells in the photos taken after the above events . of course they may have been re positioned roughly as the DPD thought they had originally laid , but we simply do not know this .
on another note i do feel that the man seen hanging out of the snipers nest window seen by Rowland can only have been Williams . we know he was up there on the 6th floor , we know he was eating lunch , and we know his lunch sack was found in close proximity to the snipers nest on a box . officially he is the only one on the 6th floor at that time , all be it the FBI , commission and LN have in the past sought to dishonestly get him off the 6th floor long before 12.15 . so logically if Williams was the only person on the 6th floor at 12.15 (excluding any thoughts of Oswald at this time ) as Williams was a man of color and Oswald was not , and if we accept that Rowland did see a man in the window . well then who else but williams could have been that man ?. to my knowledge he never admitted being inside the snipers nest , and to my knowledge he was never asked if he was , but people can feel free to correct me if i am wrong . i of course understand why LN are reluctant to have Williams inside the snipers nest at 12.15 , because if he was he simply could not have missed Oswald sat in there with a rifle . assuming Oswald was in there of course . that would raise serious questions , uncomfortable questions .
the above assertion infers that ANYONE who does not accept the official version of events is A by default a conspiracy theorist , B by LN definition then a kook or a nut , C who simply only look for and ONLY seek anything no matter how outlandish that would appear to support a conspiracy narrative . the above is not only completely unfair ,irrational but false .
Every word of this is utter nonsense. It all exists in your own mind and nowhere else.
Jack puts forward a compelling case for only two shots being fired instead of the three shots that are part of the official narrative. Just because he does not accept the official version of events does not make him a Conspiracy Theorist. As you are finding out, Jack is a proper Nutter.
Personally, I accept a large portion of the official narrative apart from one, quite significant detail - I don't believe Oswald took the shots.
Now, this does, by default, make me a Conspiracy Theorist.
You are being overly sensitive and reading too much into things. Present your case, the evidence for it and the arguments emanating from that evidence. You seem to be spending a lot of your time putting out fires that have nothing to do with the actual case.
-
Oh, but you did. You mention the event as a hypocrisy but do not explain it, instead post a bunch of meaningless crap about Myers and LNers. Both animations end with the exact same outcome. A bullet striking JBC in the back except Knotts Lab claims to have proven SBT is false while Myers claims it proves it. The hypocrisy is all yours when you go on a strange rant and rave about Myers but accept Knotts Lab. Not directly mentioning Knotts Lab does not make you non-committal, what it makes you is a – better not, you are kind of delicate and hypersensitive.
i mention " THE EVENT " what event ? . i made zero comment about knotts lab either in favor or against it . neither pushing it as accurate nor questioning its accuracy . that is the beginning ,middle and end . you even had someone else (i think it was charles ) believing i did mention it . however that is now cleared up . i never mentioned it . PERIOD . the only one now having a difficulty in accepting reality is you .
there is a hypocrisy , and LN hypocrisy .as i accurately pointed out , one of many .
LN will cite a witness to support todays LN claim , while tomorrow they will attack the same witness if they said or saw something LN do not like .
LN continually ask CT to produce animations or work to support their claims . when an animation has been produced (all be it not a CT created animation ) you as an LN then immediately look to attack and dismiss it .
LN as i have said choose to ignore problems with myers animation , while you seek to go to town on attacking and dismissing knotts lab animation .
as i said only one of many hypocrisies by LN .
there is no hypocrisy on my side . i merely stated a fact , a fact that you dont care for .
"John Kelin: What do you think about Lee Harvey Oswald? Could he have done it by himself?
Dale Myers: Oh, certainly: anybody could have done it by themselves. First off, I don't think Lee Harvey Oswald pulled the trigger.
John Kelin: The trigger, or a trigger?
Dale Myers: Okay ... a trigger.
John Kelin: I mean – you know, if there were two gunmen, could he have been one of them?
Dale Myers: Exactly. Okay. Well the gun that was fired from the Texas School Book Depository was the gun that fired all the shots that hit any victims. And including the fatal shot. But I don't think he was the finger that was behind that trigger. Although there's no doubt that it was his rifle. And to say that he did not pull the trigger does not mean that he was not involved in some way; he obviously was involved. But as far as saying that he was guilty ... I find that extremely hard to believe. And I think I'll show enough evidence to indicate, or that I think I could circumstantially beyond a reasonable doubt, so to speak, prove to anybody else, that he was not the man behind the trigger."
theres another hypocrisy . a man who said that Oswalds finger WAS NOT on the trigger , that he can prove to a reasonable doubt that Oswald did not do it .yet he now has profited substantially certainly by over 1 million by saying Oswald did do it . the grass really is greener (green being the operative word ) on the LN side of the fence lol .
-
the above assertion infers that ANYONE who does not accept the official version of events is A by default a conspiracy theorist , B by LN definition then a kook or a nut , C who simply only look for and ONLY seek anything no matter how outlandish that would appear to support a conspiracy narrative . the above is not only completely unfair ,irrational but false .
Every word of this is utter nonsense. It all exists in your own mind and nowhere else.
Jack puts forward a compelling case for only two shots being fired instead of the three shots that are part of the official narrative. Just because he does not accept the official version of events does not make him a Conspiracy Theorist. As you are finding out, Jack is a proper Nutter.
Personally, I accept a large portion of the official narrative apart from one, quite significant detail - I don't believe Oswald took the shots.
Now, this does, by default, make me a Conspiracy Theorist.
You are being overly sensitive and reading too much into things. Present your case, the evidence for it and the arguments emanating from that evidence. You seem to be spending a lot of your time putting out fires that have nothing to do with the actual case.
"Every word of this is utter nonsense. It all exists in your own mind and nowhere else."
actually it exists on multiple threads not only on this forum but everywhere that LN post . whether you accept that or not matters not one bit to me .
you dont need to tell me on what side of the fence any particular person posting here is on .
"You are being overly sensitive and reading too much into things"
as i have already said to one or two people here who are far to quick to attack . YOU WORRY ABOUT YOU and how and why and what you post . i am a big boy , i can take care of myself .
-
"Every word of this is utter nonsense. It all exists in your own mind and nowhere else."
actually it exists on multiple threads not only on this forum but everywhere that LN post . whether you accept that or not matters not one bit to me .
you dont need to tell me on what side of the fence any particular person posting here is on .
"You are being overly sensitive and reading too much into things"
as i have already said to one or two people here who are far to quick to attack . YOU WORRY ABOUT YOU and how and why and what you post . i am a big boy , i can take care of myself .
you dont need to tell me on what side of the fence any particular person posting here is on
I wasn't showing you what side of the fence anyone was on.
I was showing that you post nonsense that you can't back up.
But you crack on "big boy", let's see what you've got.
-
you dont need to tell me on what side of the fence any particular person posting here is on
I wasn't showing you what side of the fence anyone was on.
I was showing that you post nonsense that you can't back up.
But you crack on "big boy", let's see what you've got.
i back up that WHICH I CLAIM to be fact , not what LN falsely state that i claim . the two are very different things . just like you i / we have zero responsibility for what OTHERS claim , only what i / you claim . this is the very reason why i have posted multiple times to a person who said i made claims / was claiming (asking them to quote ME and speak to me directly ) when i never did . that person neither responded to me nor quoted me because it is patently obvious that i never made the claims they mentioned .
as i have said YOU WORRY ABOUT YOU and what you post or claim ok ? , let me worry about me . oh and again you seek to be nasty or rude ,why is that ? . when i said i am a big boy i simply mean i am an adult and that as such i can look after myself . it seems to me that you took that in a very different way to how it was intended . but so be it .
-
i mention " THE EVENT " what event ? . i made zero comment about knotts lab either in favor or against it . neither pushing it as accurate nor questioning its accuracy . that is the beginning ,middle and end . you even had someone else (i think it was charles ) believing i did mention it . however that is now cleared up . i never mentioned it . PERIOD . the only one now having a difficulty in accepting reality is you .
there is a hypocrisy , and LN hypocrisy .as i accurately pointed out , one of many .
LN will cite a witness to support todays LN claim , while tomorrow they will attack the same witness if they said or saw something LN do not like .
LN continually ask CT to produce animations or work to support their claims . when an animation has been produced (all be it not a CT created animation ) you as an LN then immediately look to attack and dismiss it .
LN as i have said choose to ignore problems with myers animation , while you seek to go to town on attacking and dismissing knotts lab animation .
as i said only one of many hypocrisies by LN .
there is no hypocrisy on my side . i merely stated a fact , a fact that you dont care for .
"John Kelin: What do you think about Lee Harvey Oswald? Could he have done it by himself?
Dale Myers: Oh, certainly: anybody could have done it by themselves. First off, I don't think Lee Harvey Oswald pulled the trigger.
John Kelin: The trigger, or a trigger?
Dale Myers: Okay ... a trigger.
John Kelin: I mean – you know, if there were two gunmen, could he have been one of them?
Dale Myers: Exactly. Okay. Well the gun that was fired from the Texas School Book Depository was the gun that fired all the shots that hit any victims. And including the fatal shot. But I don't think he was the finger that was behind that trigger. Although there's no doubt that it was his rifle. And to say that he did not pull the trigger does not mean that he was not involved in some way; he obviously was involved. But as far as saying that he was guilty ... I find that extremely hard to believe. And I think I'll show enough evidence to indicate, or that I think I could circumstantially beyond a reasonable doubt, so to speak, prove to anybody else, that he was not the man behind the trigger."
theres another hypocrisy . a man who said that Oswalds finger WAS NOT on the trigger , that he can prove to a reasonable doubt that Oswald did not do it .yet he now has profited substantially certainly by over 1 million by saying Oswald did do it . the grass really is greener (green being the operative word ) on the LN side of the fence lol .
Don’t be so kind to yourself. It is known as talking out of both sides of your mouth. Attempting to say something while not saying it out loud. Now you are stating you are comparing Meyers and LNers to no one and at the same time everyone.
Where is your comparison of Meyers SBT and Knotts Lab SBT, but I guess we already saw it in the original post. Knotts Lab animation side mouth post was the exact opposite of the Meyers critique? They were both animations of the exact same event. Exactly what was the difference in your mind?
Is it because there is no difference? Wouldn’t the same whining, sniveling, bawling rant and rave equally apply to Knotts Lab?
Once again back at Meyers and LNers.
-
"Where is your comparison of Meyers SBT and Knotts Lab SBT, but I guess we already saw it in the original post. Knotts Lab animation side mouth post was the exact opposite of the Meyers critique? They were both animations of the exact same event. Exactly what was the difference in your mind? "
oh dear still not grasping a very simple thing . do i really have to say it again ? , i do believe my dog would have grasped this by now . so here we are one more time
" i made zero comment about knotts lab either in favor or against it . neither pushing it as accurate nor questioning its accuracy . that is the beginning ,middle and end "
there are 27 words thee and over half of them are only 4 letters long or less . i dont know how i can make it much more simplified so that you can understand it .
-
"Where is your comparison of Meyers SBT and Knotts Lab SBT, but I guess we already saw it in the original post. Knotts Lab animation side mouth post was the exact opposite of the Meyers critique? They were both animations of the exact same event. Exactly what was the difference in your mind? "
oh dear still not grasping a very simple thing . do i really have to say it again ? , i do believe my dog would have grasped this by now . so here we are one more time
" i made zero comment about knotts lab either in favor or against it . neither pushing it as accurate nor questioning its accuracy . that is the beginning ,middle and end "
there are 27 words thee and over half of them are only 4 letters long or less . i dont know how i can make it much more simplified so that you can understand it .
Denying it doesn’t change anything. You answered a post about the Knotts Lab animation with the Meyers animation rant and rave. Both are the exact same depiction about a bullet to JBC’s back. Says it all. Run it by the dog, it might be the only thinker there.
You know though, you might be onto something with the dog. Is the dog who taught you how to type? Maybe put the keyboard in front of the dog and we will see what happens, there is absolutely nothing to lose trying it. The dog sure could not be any less clever and apparently more likely to man up a little.
-
That theory before telescopes were invented that the earth was the center of the universe and that the planets orbited in perfect circles was a simple elegant theory that fit well with the Orthodox Church.
You just had to ignore some of the anomalous unexplained motions of some of the planets and the theory worked fine. 🙂
-
Well, there are at least three Crime Lab Photos taken of the Sniper's Nest on November 22nd prior to boxes being moved. The reconstruction done on Monday (without reference photos, it would seem) proved inaccurate in terms of the boxes by the window but afforded better viewpoints of the overall scene, so some came to be used as exhibits. A good idea; probably not. No one thought the paper bag was evidence at the time and it got moved, but testimony established where it was.
When did police anywhere tape-record interrogations in that era? Maybe some confessions were taped. Back then, the FBI-on-down relied on notes, which usually formed the basis of reports, and the courts accepted those reports as accurate; they also allowed a law officer to testify while referring to his notes. It's not that "Nutters" think police were infallible; it's more that they understand the law enforcement of the time and not to apply the "CSI Effect".
The TSBD was NOT SECURE within minutes after the assassination and/or Hour(s) after the JFK assassination. You can Forget any evidence immediately gathered within this extremely porous building. My Proof that Officer Haygood is NOT the motorcycle cop we see on the Darnell/Martin Films was groundbreaking. I am now getting close to concluding my research regarding just how INSECURE the TSBD was for roughly 2 hrs, (maybe more), following the JFK assassination. My discoveries continue to prove just how inept the JFK Research Community was back then and going forward. STAY TUNED!