Oswald Acted Alone Is The Most Popular Theory

[Steve M. Galbraith]

You are not getting the point.  If Frazier is telling the truth, then Oswald is lying.  You can't have it both ways.  The idea that someone would confuse a normal lunch sack for a bag over two feet long - particularly after Frazier indicates that he specifically asked Oswald about his lunch because he was not carrying his lunch bag, and Oswald confirmed to him that he didn't have it is comedy gold.   But if this is your claim, then it is necessary explain to us why Oswald would carry a bag about two feet long or his lunch, tell Frazier it contained curtain rods, and that he didn't have his lunch that day but then tell the police that he didn't carry curtain rods, his lunch or a bag this size the length described by Frazier.  It's laughable to accept your claim. 

If Oswald were innocent, no one would have had to look for this bag.  He would have instructed the police to find it and insisted that they did so because it would have assisted his case.  He only denies the existence of a long bag because he knows it will incriminate him.  Even a child could understand that.  And how do we know they searched the building?  Because one of the things they found was - wait for it - a long bag!  Whose prints were on this very bag?  Wait for it - Oswald's!  Then you go down the path of the implying that someone planted this bag while going on and on about not claiming a VAST conspiracy.  HA HA HA.  That is rich irony.  The bag is pictured being carried out of the building.  Several police officers saw it.  Case closed.

Yes, but like most conspiracists he doesn't trust or believe the police and government. So whatever evidence they produce - directly or indirectly - of Oswald's guilt is in his view part of the framing of Oswald. It doesn't matter how much evidence - the backyard photos, Marina's testimony, Frazier's testimony, the physical evidence, the circumstantial, even Oswald's statements (at least when they implicate him) - it's all corrupt. Because "the CIA" and Guatemala and Operation Northwoods and military industrial complex and JFK was a threat to that.

It's a bit amazing that they demand all of the evidence, all of the files be released. They say they want all of the information. Then they turn around and try to eliminate the evidence against Oswald by saying "chain of custody" and hearsay. They want all of the evidence on one hand and want to make it disappear on the other.

One more: Oswald was dead. They can say he admitted to the backyard photos, to carrying a large package, to going to Mexico City, to hating JFK. But they didn't. Why not? In conspiracy world everything was controlled, micromanaged, directed but they didn't do obvious things like this?

[Jack Nessan]

i do think you are incapable of seeing a clearly laid out point . i laid it out so simply that a 10 year old could get it , yet you some how failed . that my friend is your problem , not mine .

also all the nastiness ,  name calling insults or abuse that you feel you need to toss at me wont change a thing , and in the end all it serves is to make you look like an idiot . i wont ask you do stop , please do carry on .

You laid out a point? Where? No, you have made no point at all except to whine about LNers and Meyers. 

Making a point would have been to tie the whole oddball rant into an explanation about Knotts Lab and the obvious issue with a bullet exiting JFK and striking JBC in the back, but not one thing you posted was even remotely relevant to any discussion taking place. Now here you are trying to offer up lame excuses for your posts. All of your posts can be characterized as irrelevant whining, and it is not any more complicated than that. 

[Fergus O'Brien]

You are not getting the point.  If Frazier is telling the truth, then Oswald is lying.  You can't have it both ways.  The idea that someone would confuse a normal lunch sack for a bag over two feet long - particularly after Frazier indicates that he specifically asked Oswald about his lunch because he was not carrying his lunch bag, and Oswald confirmed to him that he didn't have it is comedy gold.   But if this is your claim, then it is necessary explain to us why Oswald would carry a bag about two feet long or his lunch, tell Frazier it contained curtain rods, and that he didn't have his lunch that day but then tell the police that he didn't carry curtain rods, his lunch or a bag this size the length described by Frazier.  It's laughable to accept your claim. 

If Oswald were innocent, no one would have had to look for this bag.  He would have instructed the police to find it and insisted that they did so because it would have assisted his case.  He only denies the existence of a long bag because he knows it will incriminate him.  Even a child could understand that.  And how do we know they searched the building?  Because one of the things they found was - wait for it - a long bag!  Whose prints were on this very bag?  Wait for it - Oswald's!  Then you go down the path of the implying that someone planted this bag while going on and on about not claiming a VAST conspiracy.  HA HA HA.  That is rich irony.  The bag is pictured being carried out of the building.  Several police officers saw it.  Case closed.

oh i get the point , and i get that you refuse to see the points i made . which rather makes this a pointless exercise . you talk about what Frazier said Oswald supposedly said . you have zero proof of what was or was not said in that vehicle FACT .you have opted to take Fraziers say so as fact , even tho you completely disregard his measurement of the paper sack he said he saw . and you disregard the fact that the area of the rear seat where Frazier said the sack laid was measured and found to be in and around 24 inches long .you choose to disregard the fact that Frazier said the sack was the type of sack one would get in a store , regular paper sack as opposed to industrial paper found in the depository . you ignore the fact that Frazier was interrogated as an accomplice and even had fritz thrust a pre written confession (not given by Frazier) in Fraziers face demanding he sign it . so you ignore the fact that Frazier was in save a-s mode during the interrogation .not unlike Marina who even Robert oswald said was being threatened with deportation . and you disregard another witness who saw Oswald walk in the door that morning and who said Oswald did not carry a 3 foot long by a good foot wide by several inch deep package that we are told he carried .

exactly when did i say Frazier confused anything ? these are your words not mine . if you want to talk about what i said QUOTE the sentence / s in full . do not make up nonsense and then say i said it .

you say Oswald confirmed but who besides Frazier heard this confirmation ? NO ONE that is who . so you have zero confirmation . you can say Oswald told you anything when you know Oswald is dead  and he is not around any more to dispute you .

which claim of mine is laughable ? quote me . on the other hand i am sure what ever you made up and say i claimed is indeed laughable .

"Then you go down the path of the implying that someone planted this bag while going on and on about not claiming a VAST conspiracy.  HA HA HA.  That is rich irony.  The bag is pictured being carried out of the building.  Several police officers saw it.  Case closed."

what is rich is your imagination . i made no such claim nor did i even come close to implying such a thing . i was very clear in saying YOU HAVE ZERO PROOF that any sack was on the floor in the so called snipers nest . there is not one photo or piece of film showing the sack in situ .and that cops etc saw the sack is debatable , some saw a small sack that williams left there , some saw nothing . so should the readers here simply take your word for it on this ? . personally i would have difficulty taking any LNs word for anything .

most certainly a sack was carried out of the building , its on photo . no one is denying that . that is not the point here .

[Fergus O'Brien]

Yes, but like most conspiracists he doesn't trust or believe the police and government. So whatever evidence they produce - directly or indirectly - of Oswald's guilt is in his view part of the framing of Oswald. It doesn't matter how much evidence - the backyard photos, Marina's testimony, Frazier's testimony, the physical evidence, the circumstantial, even Oswald's statements (at least when they implicate him) - it's all corrupt. Because "the CIA" and Guatemala and Operation Northwoods and military industrial complex and JFK was a threat to that.

It's a bit amazing that they demand all of the evidence, all of the files be released. They say they want all of the information. Then they turn around and try to eliminate the evidence against Oswald by saying "chain of custody" and hearsay. They want all of the evidence on one hand and want to make it disappear on the other.

One more: Oswald was dead. They can say he admitted to the backyard photos, to carrying a large package, to going to Mexico City, to hating JFK. But they didn't. Why not? In conspiracy world everything was controlled, micromanaged, directed but they didn't do obvious things like this?

if you have something to say ABOUT ME perhaps you should address it to me , i am not THEY i am ME . dont talk about what you think i believe to someone else . i am here ASK ME . but i would say yes any rational person would question the trustworthiness of any individual or group or organization that has been shown to have been less than honest . but if you can show something that is irrefutable and proven fact you can rest assured that i will accept it . no proof and i wont accept it as proven fact .

and by the way i am not a conspiracy theorist , i have not offered any theories here . there are those that do offer theories and that is between you and them .

[Fergus O'Brien]

You laid out a point? Where? No, you have made no point at all except to whine about LNers and Meyers. 

Making a point would have been to tie the whole oddball rant into an explanation about Knotts Lab and the obvious issue with a bullet exiting JFK and striking JBC in the back, but not one thing you posted was even remotely relevant to any discussion taking place. Now here you are trying to offer up lame excuses for your posts. All of your posts can be characterized as irrelevant whining, and it is not any more complicated than that.

there is only one oddball ranting here and it is you . and only one oddball talking about knotts lab and again it is you .

[Zeon Mason]

The problem with a statement like “if Frazier was telling the truth then Oswald must have lied” is that we cannot be certain exactly what Oswald said to Will Fritz, because there was no recording made , no attorney present, nor even a court stenographer present to verify the statements.

[Jack Nessan]

there is only one oddball ranting here and it is you . and only one oddball talking about knotts lab and again it is you .

The Knotts Lab depiction of JBC being struck in the back by the SBT was the original topic you posted a reply. You ignored it to whine, snivel, and whimper about Meyers and LNers for reasons only you understand. At any time, feel free to explain the Knotts Lab depiction of SBT or just keep posting this nonsense whichever suits you.

[Richard Smith]

The problem with a statement like “if Frazier was telling the truth then Oswald must have lied” is that we cannot be certain exactly what Oswald said to Will Fritz, because there was no recording made , no attorney present, nor even a court stenographer present to verify the statements.

That's not a reasonable claim unless you have some evidence Fritz was involved in the conspiracy.  Fritz and others testified under oath.  There were also other folks who interrogated Oswald or were present.  Obviously, it would be a major crime to lie about what a suspect said in a homicide investigation of the President.  But take it a step further.  If the DPD was involved in framing Oswald and fabricating what he said in custody, why not say he confessed, that he hated JFK, was glad he was dead, owned a rifle etc.  Why say he denied carrying a long bag or owned a rifle?  That doesn't make sense.  And we actually have the bag.  It can be measured to ascertain its exact length.  It has Oswald's prints on it confirming it came into contact with him.  There is no apparent work-related purpose for such a bag to be there.  No one else who worked in the TSBD ever explained its presence or suggested it belonged to them.  Don't you think someone would have come forward and explained the bag found if there was some legitimate reason for it to be on that floor?  No bag matching Frazier's description was ever found.