Oswald Acted Alone Is The Most Popular Theory

[Dan O'meara]

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.

[Charles Collins]

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.

[Charles Collins]

I have clouds in my coffee and a Carly Simon song stuck in my head.

[Dan O'meara]

I have clouds in my coffee and a Carly Simon song stuck in my head.

You're so vain.

[Zeon Mason]

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.

[Fergus O'Brien]

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 .

[Fergus O'Brien]

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 .

[Charles Collins]

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.