Oswald Acted Alone Is The Most Popular Theory

[Jack Nessan]

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 .

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.

[Richard Smith]

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 .

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.

[Fergus O'Brien]

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.

i am not talking about MY PERCEPTIONS (as you call it ) what i said is what LN in my experience over many years have said , atleast one of them is right here on this forum . nor am i or do i complain about LN  .

[Fergus O'Brien]

Where did you learn how to write like this? It's the worst grammar I've ever seen. It's painful on the eyes.

i would rather have the grammar you complain about than to be an obnoxious idiot . my reply was not even directed at you , yet you still felt a need to butt in and be idiotic .anyone with intellect , good research and the courage of their convictions would not lower them selves as you did .

[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 .