Oswald Acted Alone Is The Most Popular Theory

[Fergus O'Brien]

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 .

[Fergus O'Brien]

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 .

[Jack Nessan]

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.

[Fergus O'Brien]

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 .

[Jack Nessan]

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. 

[Fergus O'Brien]

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 .

[Richard Smith]

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

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.