Oswald Acted Alone Is The Most Popular Theory

[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 .

[Jack Nessan]

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 .

You have done nothing but bawl, whine, and snivel. This post is a perfect example, LN this and LN that. Always the same nonsense, endless drivel about LNer, and in the end never address the real subject at hand, in this case the Knotts Lab animation. Instead, you took the opportunity to post some bizarre drivel about Dale Myers and in some odd fashion pretend it was relevant. 

[Fergus O'Brien]

it was relevant , but you chose and choose not to see the relevance . alas i cannot help you see what you clearly do not want to see .

for anyone that will read these comments . the knotts lad animation was brought up , however NOT BY ME . i never said a thing about it , so i never claimed it was either accurate or not accurate . meaning i simply allowed the person who brought it up to be the one who discusses it OR NOT . their choice . HOWEVER there was criticism of the animation (be it warranted or not , that is for the readers here to judge ) as one expects from those on the LN side of the fence . IE if something atleast tends to contradict their lone nut scenario or stance they criticize , attack or dismiss it . again i neither said it was accurate or inaccurate , in fact i said nothing about that animation , as i said the readers here will judge for them selves its reliability or lack there of .ALL I DID was to note a hypocrisy of LN , which was that they stand firmly behind , push and support an LN animation that has been shown to have problems of its own  . so my comment was merely to highlight an LN hypocrisy (just one of many really ) in no way did i endorse or have i endorsed the knotts lab animation . thus far i have not commented on it and at this point i dont plan too . but i will of course read with interest any thoughts , views , comments etc in regard that animation .

[Richard Smith]

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 .

Of course you did by implication.  You simply are displaying the skills that allow you to be a CTer.  Avoid context and discuss evidence as though it has no association to any other facts or evidence.  Don't accept the implications of your claim having any validity or even attempt to explain them.   End the discussion with testimony taken in a vacuum.  That's called trying to eat your cake and have it too.  We know from the evidence that either Frazier was lying about the bag or Oswald was lying.  There is no middle ground.  Frazier testified that Oswald carried a long bag that morning around two feet or so long.  Oswald denied carrying any bag of that length.  Frazier indicated that he asked Oswald about the bag and Oswald told him it contained curtain rods.  Oswald denied that he carried any curtain rods.  Frazier testified that he asked Oswald about his lunch and Oswald told him that he was not carrying it that day.  Oswald told the police that he carried his lunch to work that day.  All of these statements are completely contradictory.  What is the explanation?  One option is that Frazier lied about Oswald carrying a long bag, the curtain rods, and no lunch bag.  Why would he do all of this?  The only plausible explanation is that he was part of a conspiracy to frame Oswald.  This isn't the type of testimony where someone is mistaken - like characterizing a color or estimating a length.   Frazier says that Oswald told him that he was carrying curtain rods in the bag.  And where is the two-foot long bag that Frazier saw if not the bag found on the 6th floor.? No such bag matching that length was ever found or ever accounted for.  How do we square that fact with his testimony?  The bag he saw was the one found on the 6th floor.   That bag had Oswald's prints further confirming that fact.  That bag is longer than two feet. 

[Jack Nessan]

it was relevant , but you chose and choose not to see the relevance . alas i cannot help you see what you clearly do not want to see .

for anyone that will read these comments . the knotts lad animation was brought up , however NOT BY ME . i never said a thing about it , so i never claimed it was either accurate or not accurate . meaning i simply allowed the person who brought it up to be the one who discusses it OR NOT . their choice . HOWEVER there was criticism of the animation (be it warranted or not , that is for the readers here to judge ) as one expects from those on the LN side of the fence . IE if something atleast tends to contradict their lone nut scenario or stance they criticize , attack or dismiss it . again i neither said it was accurate or inaccurate , in fact i said nothing about that animation , as i said the readers here will judge for them selves its reliability or lack there of .ALL I DID was to note a hypocrisy of LN , which was that they stand firmly behind , push and support an LN animation that has been shown to have problems of its own  . so my comment was merely to highlight an LN hypocrisy (just one of many really ) in no way did i endorse or have i endorsed the knotts lab animation . thus far i have not commented on it and at this point i dont plan too . but i will of course read with interest any thoughts , views , comments etc in regard that animation .

Posting a reply to a post about Knotts Lab by whimpering, crying, and complaining about Meyers is relevant in what respect? You don’t like Meyers so that gives Knotts Lab a free ride to create this odd animation where they believe they debunked the SBT with an animation of JBC having been struck in the back by the same bullet that went through JFK’s neck? What a clown show.

What you are stating is you are unable to control this endless LNer diatribe? You start out to make a point, but it evolves into this strange rant and raving about LNers and you are powerless to stop it?

[Fergus O'Brien]

"    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 ." Fergus obrien


"Of course you did by implication.  You simply are displaying the skills that allow you to be a CTer.  Avoid context and discuss evidence as though it has no association to any other facts or evidence.  Don't accept the implications of your claim having any validity or even attempt to explain them.   End the discussion with testimony taken in a vacuum.  That's called trying to eat your cake and have it too.  We know from the evidence that either Frazier was lying about the bag or Oswald was lying.  There is no middle ground.  Frazier testified that Oswald carried a long bag that morning around two feet or so long.  Oswald denied carrying any bag of that length.  Frazier indicated that he asked Oswald about the bag and Oswald told him it contained curtain rods.  Oswald denied that he carried any curtain rods.  Frazier testified that he asked Oswald about his lunch and Oswald told him that he was not carrying it that day.  Oswald told the police that he carried his lunch to work that day.  All of these statements are completely contradictory.  What is the explanation?  One option is that Frazier lied about Oswald carrying a long bag, the curtain rods, and no lunch bag.  Why would he do all of this?  The only plausible explanation is that he was part of a conspiracy to frame Oswald.  This isn't the type of testimony where someone is mistaken - like characterizing a color or estimating a length.   Frazier says that Oswald told him that he was carrying curtain rods in the bag.  And where is the two-foot long bag that Frazier saw if not the bag found on the 6th floor.? No such bag matching that length was ever found or ever accounted for.  How do we square that fact with his testimony?  The bag he saw was the one found on the 6th floor.   That bag had Oswald's prints further confirming that fact.  That bag is longer than two feet.  "Richard

lol lol i claimed no such thing , neither openly or via any implication . LN start with nonsense usually about what would (in their mind ) have to be a VAST CONSPIRACY and then they try to assert that so called CT are claiming everyone and their dog was in on this conspiracy .i made zero claim about any conspiracy , and most certainly i IN NO WAY ever claimed that Frazier was party to a conspiracy to frame Oswald . if you think i did quote me .

you think Frazier either lied (as part of the LN VAST CONSPIRACY ) or that he told the truth , and there is for you no grey area , no other option as to why he MIGHT lie . i gave a reason why HE MIGHT lie , and its called self preservation . but you chose to ignore that .we have to consider the situation he found himself in that day , and how the DPD treated him .he was viewed as an accomplice and questioned as such .he was even polygraphed .

we only have Fraziers word for what was said in his vehicle thursday evening and friday morning . just as we only have the word of the DPD and the likes of Hosty for what Oswald supposedly said during interrogation .what he said for those brief moments caught on the TV cameras is there for all to see and hear .so you are saying Oswald said this or that when you have zero proof that he did . let us not forget that Frazier has said (all be it in later years ) that he saw Oswald leave via the rear of the depository wearing a jacket between 5 and 10 minutes after the shots . LN dismiss that claim by Frazier because they need Oswald leaving via the front door within 3 minutes of the shooting . LN also refused to accept his estimate of the length of the sack he said Oswald carried , some 24 inches give or take . and as i have said ive seen LN all but state that Frazier was so dumb that he did not know 2 feet equals 24 inches . so do LN trust Frazier or not ?. it appears to be the usual LN hypocrisy .

as for the sack , Frazier said (not verbatim ) that it was a regular type of sack / and paper that one would get in any store at that time as opposed to the industrial type paper in the depository . if you accept what we are told Oswald said in interrogation well then (again not verbatim ) they have Oswald saying about the bags size that some times you know you dont always have a sack that fits what you want to carry .so he could have carried a larger sack than he needed .

here are examples of paper sacks from a regular store of that era

https://www.alamy.com/stock-photo-1950s-1960s-happy-excited-man-wearing-business-suit-hat-carrying-grocery-175941074.html?imageid=AFC591A5-72BC-4D64-93EB-2330E1C859BF&p=38035&pn=1&searchId=1b18ee2cee3a1d16604f99924953eefc&searchtype=0

https://www.alamy.com/1950s-woman-worried-anxious-tired-exhausted-facial-expression-carrying-holding-two-brown-paper-bags-full-of-groceries-s8671-deb001-hars-nostalgia-old-fashion-1-anger-fear-communication-young-adult-balance-signal-worry-carry-brown-lifestyle-annoyed-females-grownup-home-life-communicating-copy-space-half-length-ladies-persons-grown-up-heavy-risk-contemplating-bw-sadness-shopper-eye-contact-homemaker-overworked-shoppers-homemakers-neighborhood-anxious-distressed-irate-housewives-ponder-pondering-deb001-displeasure-hostility-annoyance-communicate-contemplate-emotion-emotional-irritated-needs-image365794419.html?imageid=7914E688-6ED4-4D64-AAF9-A76EB78CC38B&p=38035&pn=1&searchId=1b18ee2cee3a1d16604f99924953eefc&searchtype=0

so for example a similar size sack as above would come in at about the foot long mark and could be held in the manner that Frazier described .

you say no such sack was found , do tell me who was actually looking for such a sack and where they looked .i doubt anyone ever looked for such a sack because it was quickly decided they had their man and that he carried a rifle not lunch .so it cant be stated as fact that no such sack was found if you cant prove such a sack was looked for . you say the bag he carried was found on the 6th floor , well WHERE ? . do you have photos or film to prove a sack was found on the 6th floor on the floor of the so called snipers nest ? . we both know the answer is NO .

i am not saying Oswald didnt , cant have done the shooting , its not impossible for him to have done it , very difficult in my view but impossible ? i have to say no . i am not saying there is no evidence that atleast appears to be pointing to him because there is  . i am not claiming things are fact if i cant prove them so . i am saying there are problems with this case , lots of them , but you and every other LN prefer to pretend that that is not the case .