Oswald Acted Alone Is The Most Popular Theory

[Fergus O'Brien]

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.

it seems i over estimated your intellect my friend , i assumed WRONGLY that even tho you are an LN that you were reasonably intelligent . and that you could see a comment for what it was , IE not and never intended to be a comment about knotts lab or indeed in regards the thread title . but about an LN hypocrisy , one of many . everyday people talk on forums such as this great forum and they discuss many things , and some times people interject (as i did )  to make a point that may or may not be about the actual topic at hand . my point was not about knotts lab , i have never once posted directly about it , nor have i ever endorsed it or disputed it . but these very simple points do seem to completely elude you .

[Fergus O'Brien]

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.

Fritz went into the snipers nest and picked up the shells interfering with a crime scene before it was recorded on photo / film , he lied and said he did not do this yet two LN witnesses Alyea and mooney said they saw him do it . he thrust a pre written confession into Fraziers face , a confession Frazier never gave , and demanded he sign it . he first denied a conversation between him and craig and then admitted it happened . hardly the actions of an honest man , why should we trust such a person ?. i am certain if he was a CT witness you would refuse to accept a word he said . by the way people testify under oath all the time and dont tell the truth , wouldnt you agree ? . hosty admitted destroying evidence and not revealing information . Harry holmes an FBI informant who was less than truthful in testimony . tell the readers here why they should have no doubts about these people and trust their word and yours ? .

[Jack Nessan]

it seems i over estimated your intellect my friend , i assumed WRONGLY that even tho you are an LN that you were reasonably intelligent . and that you could see a comment for what it was , IE not and never intended to be a comment about knotts lab or indeed in regards the thread title . but about an LN hypocrisy , one of many . everyday people talk on forums such as this great forum and they discuss many things , and some times people interject (as i did )  to make a point that may or may not be about the actual topic at hand . my point was not about knotts lab , i have never once posted directly about it , nor have i ever endorsed it or disputed it . but these very simple points do seem to completely elude you .

What you overestimated was your own intelligence and what you underestimated is your lack of it. The point you are making is you have no point. The whole post was to make disparaging comments about LNers and specifically Dale Myers. Nothing more. Once again you had a chance to post on the subject of Knotts Lab, but instead chose this tripe as the subject of your post.

[Richard Smith]

Fritz went into the snipers nest and picked up the shells interfering with a crime scene before it was recorded on photo / film , he lied and said he did not do this yet two LN witnesses Alyea and mooney said they saw him do it . he thrust a pre written confession into Fraziers face , a confession Frazier never gave , and demanded he sign it . he first denied a conversation between him and craig and then admitted it happened . hardly the actions of an honest man , why should we trust such a person ?. i am certain if he was a CT witness you would refuse to accept a word he said . by the way people testify under oath all the time and dont tell the truth , wouldnt you agree ? . hosty admitted destroying evidence and not revealing information . Harry holmes an FBI informant who was less than truthful in testimony . tell the readers here why they should have no doubts about these people and trust their word and yours ? .

So Fritz was part of the conspiracy to frame Oswald?  He did so not knowing or caring who the real assassin was or how he might explain the evidence if a different person was eventually linked to the crime.  And you were the one pushing back on this having to be a VAST conspiracy.  It's not VAST but everyone was involved except Oswald.  LOL.  Again, more people were in the room and asked questions of Oswald than just Fritz.  All of these people are lying and even risking their careers and convictions for crimes?

[Martin Weidmann]

So Fritz was part of the conspiracy to frame Oswald?  He did so not knowing or caring who the real assassin was or how he might explain the evidence if a different person was eventually linked to the crime.  And you were the one pushing back on this having to be a VAST conspiracy.  It's not VAST but everyone was involved except Oswald.  LOL.  Again, more people were in the room and asked questions of Oswald than just Fritz.  All of these people are lying and even risking their careers and convictions for crimes?

Another one of Smith's superficial arguments; "If Fritz's report and testimony isn't correct, he must have been part of a conspiracy". Just how stupid can you be?

There are massive discrepancies between the reports of Oswald's interrogators, which by itself makes the reports inconclusive and unreliable to any honest person. Even worse, some of the reports were written from memory several days after the interviews and after Oswald had been killed. To simply assume that what Fritz (who falsely claimed that he did not keep notes) said about Oswald's responses is the absolute truth is pathetic, ignorant and superficial.

When Oswald was asked about the "long bag", was he given dimensions of that bag or was he shown the bag allegedly found in the sniper's nest? Or was he simply asked if he brought a "long bag" to work?
Without knowing what the question was they asked Oswald, how in the world can you conclude that he lied when he denied bringing a long bag? The answer is simple; YOU CAN'T.

In other words you are once again making wild assumptions and then jump to massively flawed conclusions.

[Michael Capasse]

The Bag that He Saw

This slide was created by Dr. Tony Fratini for JFK Boards, "Did Lee Harvey Oswald construct the paper bag (CE 142)? "
Taken from a video by Tom Meros, and along with Buell Frazier, demonstrate the size of the bag he saw vs. the actual size of the rifle.
This is an important illustration of what it would take to carry a rifle approximately 34 inches long, packaged in brown paper.

Lee told Frazier, he was bringing curtain rods. Frazier, said he had no reason not to believe him, because Lee had never lied to him before.
Well then, Lee had better make a package that looks like curtain rods. Not one to be held like a soldier walking with a rifle.
Buell has always maintained the package was tucked under his armpit. That could not be the gun. Disassembled, the rifle is 34.8 inches long.

[Fergus O'Brien]

What you overestimated was your own intelligence and what you underestimated is your lack of it. The point you are making is you have no point. The whole post was to make disparaging comments about LNers and specifically Dale Myers. Nothing more. Once again you had a chance to post on the subject of Knotts Lab, but instead chose this tripe as the subject of your post.

my silly friend i speak as i find . meaning i call a spade a spade . if i speak to a person (LN or CT ) and they are being idiots , especially being an idiot with me . well then i will highlight the fact that they are being IDIOTIC .name calling which i have been subjected to here is at the best juvenile , yet most (but not all) LN go down that route . ones intellect and knowledge / research should be all that one requires in a discussion / debate such as this , it is all i need , sadly in those respects you fall quite short . so i dont have to say anything disparaging about you because your own posts here have done that job quite well .

a little common sense also is a good thing , i think most would agree . for example myers animation is RIGHTLY criticized , for some very valid reasons . he himself had to admit that neither connally nor his jumpseat were in the position in which his animation placed him , which was the 6 INCHES INBOARD . he in fact admitted the fact that the jump seat was 2.5 inches inboard as per the limo makers schematics / measurements . this is also the same  man who has said Oswald didnt do either shooting and who now has profited quite a bit from saying the opposite . so their are valid criticisms of myers and his work , just as i am sure there may well be valid criticisms of other work (such as knotts lab ) that should be considered and evaluated . however i see not one criticism of myers and his work made or accepted by LN or by you .and i see no common sense there .

[Fergus O'Brien]

Quote from: Fergus O'brien on May 10, 2024, 08:45:33 PM

"Fritz went into the snipers nest and picked up the shells interfering with a crime scene before it was recorded on photo / film , he lied and said he did not do this yet two LN witnesses Alyea and mooney said they saw him do it . he thrust a pre written confession into Fraziers face , a confession Frazier never gave , and demanded he sign it . he first denied a conversation between him and craig and then admitted it happened . hardly the actions of an honest man , why should we trust such a person ?. i am certain if he was a CT witness you would refuse to accept a word he said . by the way people testify under oath all the time and dont tell the truth , wouldnt you agree ? . hosty admitted destroying evidence and not revealing information . Harry holmes an FBI informant who was less than truthful in testimony . tell the readers here why they should have no doubts about these people and trust their word and yours ? ." fergus obrien

So Fritz was part of the conspiracy to frame Oswald?  He did so not knowing or caring who the real assassin was or how he might explain the evidence if a different person was eventually linked to the crime.  And you were the one pushing back on this having to be a VAST conspiracy.  It's not VAST but everyone was involved except Oswald.  LOL.  Again, more people were in the room and asked questions of Oswald than just Fritz.  All of these people are lying and even risking their careers and convictions for crimes?

so i wrote highlighting that Fritz was less than honest and asking a valid question , which was why should we then by default trust every word of such people . in essence they have given us reason , good reason to doubt their honesty , so then is it not and SHOULD IT NOT BE a valid concern of any person as to whether such person/s warrant our distrust ? .  and then i get the above reply stating that FRITZ WAS PARTY TO A CONSPIRACY TO FRAME OSWALD FOR JFKS MURDER . and LN wonder why i might question their intellect ? , i rest my case . i guess LN just find it easier to talk nonsense than to have to talk about such things as the honesty or lack their of of one of their own witnesses .