Who do you believe?

[Wesley Johnson]

Name a witness that supports Arnold or Oswald's statements of where Oswald had lunch.

Asking for information which you know does not exist, or at least is not included in the official narative, does not make your case any stronger. In fact, trying to shift the burden of proof only weakens your own arguments.

I've read the statements by Captain Will Fritz and he stated that when asked "Oswald said he had lunch on the first floor".

The problem is, that what Fritz says isn't always supported by what others who were present said in their reports. But in this case, if Oswald said he had his lunch on the first floor (in the Domino room) what do you think that proves?

On the one hand it only makes it more possible that he did indeed see Norman and Jarman enter the building, minutes before the shots being fired and on the other hand it does not rule out at all that, after he finished his lunch, Oswald went up to the 2nd floor lunchroom to get a drink. So, what is your point?

Remember, the man in the 6th floor window was first seen some 15 minutes prior to the shooting. The problem for you is that we know for a fact that Norman and Jarman entered the shipping room of the building anywhere between 12.20 and 12.25. If Oswald did in fact see them and/or if Carolyn Arnold did see Oswald some time between 12.20 (when Sanders said she was in the 2nd floor lunchroom) and 12.25 (when Arnold said she left the building to watch to motorcade) you've got Oswald on either the first or second floor at a time when the man seen in the 6th floor window was already in position!

Seriously? What if they were asked  "could Oswald have been in the toilet when they came through?" what if they were asked "could Carolyn Arnold have been on the first floor when they walked through?"

Trying to ridicule a serious point is a weak strategy. The point I was making, which apparently went over your head, is that the quality of the answer by a witness is determined by the quality of the question asked. Ask the wrong question and you get a wrong answer. Failure to question Norman and Jarman more closely on this subject tells me that Fritz et all were not really interested in finding out anything that might support Oswald's claim.

You can attempt to twist and spin it however you like Martin, I stand by my question "name any witness that can support Oswald's and Arnold's statements concerning where Oswald was during lunch."

Name one person who can support Brennan's claim that it was Oswald who was shooting from the 6th floor window?
Name one person who can support Bledsoe's claim that Oswald was wearing the same shirt on the bus as he was arrested in?
Name one person who can support Roberts' claim that Oswald left the roominghouse zipping up a jacket?

See, how easy it is to ask such questions?

You seem to think (as many LNs do) that your position is correct unless you can be proven wrong. It doesn't work that way. There is no "winning by default". You need to prove your case... try and concentrate on that!

Have you read the documents concerning Oswald's interrogation and studied the films of the man while in custody?

Yes, I have read the reports and they contradict eachother too often to be considered accurate or sufficiently reliable. As for the fims of Oswald in custody, I don't really see what's there to study...

If he was being framed and a "patsy" as he claimed, he sure didn't act like it.

Really? How was he supposed to act?

I would have been screaming my head off every chance I got for a lawyer and telling Captain Fritz I was innocent.


You are not Oswald. Not everybody reacts and acts in the same way. Just because you would do something one way, doesn't mean that everybody else has to do it that way. Your argument is bogus. Besides, Oswald protested his innocence and he did ask for a lawyer several times.

Oswald did not do that Martin. On the contrary he was confrontational the whole time.

How in the world would you even know this for a fact? And what does that mean to you? Oswald did something different than you would do and thus he must be guilty, is that it? That's right out of the Salem playbook. 

He told lie after lie.

We have already established that there is no verbatim account of what Oswald really said while in custody, yet you continue to claim he lied.... based on what, exactly?

Martin you and your CT buff buddies better not ever start a life of crime or be in a real conspiracy. None of you have any common sense or any sense at all. Over the years the CTers have created so many theories that there must be over a hundred shooters now. It is funny that a lot of the people on here will not commit to saying which theory they believe. Instead all they do is argue with the people who believe Oswald acted alone. CTers have more people being at the plaza then were really there. You said earlier that you had concerns about the evidence against Oswald. So let me ask you. Is there a single piece of evidence that points to Oswald that you do trust? Anything? It is entertaining though.

[Wesley Johnson]

And what would Oswald's motivation be for trying to provide an alibi that included co-workers who could easily deny his presence there. Does anyone think Fritz would not ask Jarman and Norman if Oswald was there? Perhaps that is not exactly what he said.....we will never know will we.

How could Oswald pick the only 2 co-workers that just happened to pass the domino room within 5 minutes of the shots? Was he Nostradamus? Perhaps he knew he would be killed on the Sunday and it didn?t matter what he said.

Colin, what theory do you believe?
"How could Oswald pick the only 2 co-workers that just happened to pass the domino room within 5 minutes of the
shots?"

Colin, Oswald did not name Norman. He really never named Jarman, what he told Fritz was "he had lunch with some of the colored boys that worked with him. One of them was called Junior and the other one was a little short man whose name he did not know." The short man was probably Charles Givens. Do you want to re-track that statement? And none of the black men that worked there said they saw Oswald during lunch.

[Martin Weidmann]

Martin you and your CT buff buddies better not ever start a life of crime or be in a real conspiracy. None of you have any common sense or any sense at all. Over the years the CTers have created so many theories that there must be over a hundred shooters now. It is funny that a lot of the people on here will not commit to saying which theory they believe. Instead all they do is argue with the people who believe Oswald acted alone. CTers have more people being at the plaza then were really there. You said earlier that you had concerns about the evidence against Oswald. So let me ask you. Is there a single piece of evidence that points to Oswald that you do trust? Anything? It is entertaining though.

It seems you have great difficulty processing information and dealing with anything that is outside the bubble you live in. When unable to debate and come up with credible replies, just attack/insult the person your talking to. Classic LN strategy and as weak as can be. But at least you have now shown your true colors...

Instead all they do is argue with the people who believe Oswald acted alone.

Of course they do, because those people seem to be the gullible ones who claim to know and be right about just about everything yet are unable to prove and/or convince.

You said earlier that you had concerns about the evidence against Oswald. So let me ask you. Is there a single piece of evidence that points to Oswald that you do trust? Anything?

What, now you turn into Richard Smith make II? Always the same crappy questions. You sound like a desperate prosecutor with an extremely weak case who is asking to jury what he needs to tell them to get a conviction. It's beyond pathetic.

I have answered every question you have asked me. You on the other hand, not so much. Fortunately, I have enough common sense to know when I am talking to a zealot with an agenda and a closed mind. Conversation is over....

[Wesley Johnson]

It seems you have great difficulty processing information and dealing with anything that is outside the bubble you live in. When unable to debate and come up with credible replies, just attack/insult the person your talking to. Classic LN strategy and as weak as can be. But at least you have now shown your true colors...

Instead all they do is argue with the people who believe Oswald acted alone.

Of course they do, because the people are the gullible ones who claim to know and be right about just about everything yet are unable to prove and/or convince.

You said earlier that you had concerns about the evidence against Oswald. So let me ask you. Is there a single piece of evidence that points to Oswald that you do trust? Anything?

What, now you turn into Richard Smith make II? Always the same crappy questions. You sound like a desperate prosecutor with an extremely weak case who is asking to jury what he needs to tell them to get a conviction. It's beyond pathetic.

I have answered every question you have asked me. You on the other hand, not so much. Fortunately, I have enough common sense to know when I am talking to a zealot with an agenda and a closed mind. Conversation is over....

A little sensitive there aren't you Martin? I don't know who Richard Smith is so "your insult" means nothing. And what you guys always do when you fail is to quit. Been fun. Thanks for the amusement. 

[Colin Crow]

Colin, what theory do you believe?
"How could Oswald pick the only 2 co-workers that just happened to pass the domino room within 5 minutes of the
shots?"

Colin, Oswald did not name Norman. He really never named Jarman, what he told Fritz was "he had lunch with some of the colored boys that worked with him. One of them was called Junior and the other one was a little short man whose name he did not know." The short man was probably Charles Givens. Do you want to re-track that statement? And none of the black men that worked there said they saw Oswald during lunch.

Do you understand what a theory is?

Do you know that Oswald knew Jarman's surname? Or Normans'? They didn?t even know Bonnie Ray Williams' surname. How tall do you believe Givens was.....and Norman? Do you think the facts require me to retract?

[Bill Brown]

I already told you in the "Oswald probably did it" thread who the 4 people were who said they saw a gunman in a window.  Hint:  Worrell was not one of them.  But when the topic of Mac Wallace came up, you asked what witnesses said they saw Mac Wallace.  So it's fair to ask you then what witnesses said they saw Lee Oswald.

It's just Brennan then, right?  And that was some time later after not identifying him in the lineup, right?  Do you consider his change of heart to be reliable?  I don't.  Do you think that the details that Brennan described in great detail both in his testimony and in his book were things that he actually could or did see? I don't.  For example, how did he see a gunman in firing position for the head shot from where he was sitting and see enough of him to estimate his height, weight, and clothing?  How did he see a gunman in firing position for the head shot from the belt up?  How did he see 70-85% of the gun and not see a scope (if it was C2766)?

The people who claimed to have seen two men:

- Arnold Rowland
- Carolyn Walther
- Ruby Henderson
- Norman Similas
- Johnny Powell

It's just Brennan then, right?  And that was some time later after not identifying him in the lineup, right?

For the record, at the time he attended the lineup, Brennan did pick Oswald as most resembling the man (of all the lineup "suspects") who he saw in the window.

While this may not be a proof positive identification, it is also inaccurate to state that Brennan did not identify Oswald in the lineup.

[Martin Weidmann]

Do you understand what a theory is?

Do you know that Oswald knew Jarman's surname? Or Normans'? They didn?t even know Bonnie Ray Williams' surname. How tall do you believe Givens was.....and Norman? Do you think the facts require me to retract?

It seems he is completely clueless and beyond any sense of reality. Givens wasn't anywhere near the TSBD when Norman and Jarman made their way to the 5th floor. Wesley seems to be one of those LNs who won't let the facts get in the way of a bogus selfserving claim.

The reality is that, according to his own testimony, Givens left the building to see the motorcade with Norman and Jarman, but he left them and went first to the parking lot east of Elm and Houston and then to the corner of Main and Record, where he was when the shots were fired. There is no way the short guy was Givens. 

[Colin Crow]

It seems he is completely clueless and beyond any sense of reality. Givens wasn't anywhere near the TSBD when Norman and Jarman made their way to the 5th floor. Wesley seems to be one of those LNs who won't let the facts get in the way of a bogus selfserving claim.

The reality is that, according to his own testimony, Givens left the building to see the motorcade with Norman and Jarman, but he left them and went first to the parking lot east of Elm and Houston and then to the corner of Main and Record, where he was when the shots were fired. There is no way the short guy was Givens.

Then again Givens was a short 6?2? LOL. Some people should stick to the shallow end.