Oswald Acted Alone Is The Most Popular Theory

[Dan O'meara]

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.

[Richard Smith]

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.   

[Dan O'meara]

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.

[Steve M. Galbraith]

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?

[Royell Storing]

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 O'meara]

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.

[Royell Storing]

  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.

[Bill Brown]

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".