Oswald Acted Alone Is The Most Popular Theory

[Richard Smith]

 
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.

[Fergus O'Brien]

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 .

[Steve M. Galbraith]

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.

[Fergus O'Brien]

"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 ? .

[Dan O'meara]

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?

[Dan O'meara]

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.

[Stuart Lee]

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.

[Dan O'meara]

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?