Oswald Acted Alone Is The Most Popular Theory

[Jack Nessan]

OBrien--“i have not in any way portrayed my self as a researcher / expert in this case . this is another nonsense from you . in regards being knowledgeable about this case well it is clearly evident that i have knowledge of this case . that in no way makes me an expert , nor have i ever claimed this to be the case . but again another very simple point has proven too difficult for you to comprehend . which was that i do not go down the LN route of attack , insult , abuse , ad hominem , ridicule etc etc , i have zero need (nor any desire ) for such juvenile nonsense . on the other hand people like you need that sort of thing as a means to detract from the points , info and facts being discussed .and its an easy option for LN like you because it requires little or no intelligence .”

My god, you even whine, snivel, and cry about your whining, sniveling, and crying. I did not even know that was possible.

Agreed, you have proven time and time again you are not either a researcher or an expert.

"If you are afraid of the subject maybe just don’t post about it. It matters not to anyone."
 
“I HAVENT POSTED ABOUT IT lol lol  , and i made it clear i was not posting about it quite a way back in this thread .”

Wrong—The only thing you made clear was you like to whine, snivel, and cry about Myers and LNers. 



 

[Fergus O'Brien]

"i made it clear i was not posting about it quite a way back in this thread " fergus obrien

"Just another reason that no one should take your claims about it seriously then…" Charles

riddle me this Charles IF I NEVER posted about it HOW can i have made claims about it ? .

[Fergus O'Brien]

By "less than honest" you claimed he lied about what the suspect said in a homicide investigation.  Not just any homicide investigation but the assassination of the president.  Why would he do this in your fantasy except to frame Oswald for the crime?  Something that folks like yourself and others have claimed was a conspiracy.  If you want to back away from that given its absurdity, then do it without trying to have it every possible way.  A classic mindset of a CTer is to make a claim but then back away from addressing the issues raised by their claim having any validity.  Here it is obvious that Oswald lied about the bag either to Frazier or the police.  He told contradictory stories.  How to get around this for a CTer?  Suggest that the police were not honest about what was said.  Even that makes no sense because the police in this situation are indicating that Oswald claimed he was innocent and didn't carry a long bag.  If they are lying to frame him, they would have said the opposite (i.e. that he confessed and confirmed that he carried his rifle that morning in a long bag).  It's laughable to see the pretzel of logic that you CTers navigate to reach a desired conclusion.

you still have a problem with the LESS THAN HONEST bit dont you ? . whether you want to ignore it or not Fritz was atleast less than honest when it came to THIS CASE  , likewise Hosty and likewise Holmes . Bookhout is another matter . and as i said that then colors the opinion of people , it gives them valid reason to doubt their word . after all you would probably say at the least (as an example ) that you have valid reason to doubt the word of Earlene roberts regarding certain claims she made . however you would cite her and rely upon other claims he made . to put it simply if you were to lie , to be less than honest on more than one occasion , would not the members here have a valid reason to be distrustful of you ? .

i cant speak about why a person would do what they did , all i can do is tell you what they did , after that you or others can decide why they did it . and once again A MODICUM OF COMMON SENSE please , how could the DPD say Oswald admitted carrying a rifle when HE at every opportunity ON TV and in front of masses of press vehemently protested his innocence and denied any and all quilt ? .

as has been pointed out here already and it seems ignored is that we were told  NO interrogation notes were kept , that was a lie was it not ? . because they exist today . and the notes such as they are now may not even have been written at the time of interrogation but later , perhaps after Oswalds death . when of course they then could never be disputed .

[Fergus O'Brien]

Fritz didn't interrogate Oswald by himself, with no one else there. Hosty and Bookhout and others were in on the questioning too. So if Fritz lied about Oswald's statements about the curtain rod story, the bag, the backyard photos and other areas then these others went along with these falsehoods. And why would they lie about these things, about what Oswald said? What's the purpose? Just for the heck of it? Or to frame Oswald for the crimes? What's an innocent explanation?

So, we supposedly have multiple people lying about what Oswald said about critical issues in the assassination. But he's not saying there was a conspiracy to frame Oswald?

They all lied for what reason?

"So, we supposedly have multiple people lying about what Oswald said about critical issues in the assassination. But he's not saying there was a conspiracy to frame Oswald?" Steve

once again if you wish to state i made a certain claim that is fine , but first QUOTE ME making that claim , then feel free to dispute that claim if you desire . that way it will be clear ifi did indeed claim what you say i claim .

[Fergus O'Brien]

OBrien--“i have not in any way portrayed my self as a researcher / expert in this case . this is another nonsense from you . in regards being knowledgeable about this case well it is clearly evident that i have knowledge of this case . that in no way makes me an expert , nor have i ever claimed this to be the case . but again another very simple point has proven too difficult for you to comprehend . which was that i do not go down the LN route of attack , insult , abuse , ad hominem , ridicule etc etc , i have zero need (nor any desire ) for such juvenile nonsense . on the other hand people like you need that sort of thing as a means to detract from the points , info and facts being discussed .and its an easy option for LN like you because it requires little or no intelligence .”

My god, you even whine, snivel, and cry about your whining, sniveling, and crying. I did not even know that was possible.

Agreed, you have proven time and time again you are not either a researcher or an expert.

"If you are afraid of the subject maybe just don’t post about it. It matters not to anyone."
 
“I HAVENT POSTED ABOUT IT lol lol  , and i made it clear i was not posting about it quite a way back in this thread .”

Wrong—The only thing you made clear was you like to whine, snivel, and cry about Myers and LNers.

lol you are funny , idiotic but funny . but it is a serious topic and people like you help to lighten it up for us , so thank you .

[Charles Collins]

"i made it clear i was not posting about it quite a way back in this thread " fergus obrien

"Just another reason that no one should take your claims about it seriously then…" Charles

riddle me this Charles IF I NEVER posted about it HOW can i have made claims about it ? .

If you never posted anything about it, then I apologize. I must have been confused.

[Dan O'meara]

you still have a problem with the LESS THAN HONEST bit dont you ? . whether you want to ignore it or not Fritz was atleast less than honest when it came to THIS CASE  , likewise Hosty and likewise Holmes . Bookhout is another matter . and as i said that then colors the opinion of people , it gives them valid reason to doubt their word . after all you would probably say at the least (as an example ) that you have valid reason to doubt the word of Earlene roberts regarding certain claims she made . however you would cite her and rely upon other claims he made . to put it simply if you were to lie , to be less than honest on more than one occasion , would not the members here have a valid reason to be distrustful of you ? .

i cant speak about why a person would do what they did , all i can do is tell you what they did , after that you or others can decide why they did it . and once again A MODICUM OF COMMON SENSE please , how could the DPD say Oswald admitted carrying a rifle when HE at every opportunity ON TV and in front of masses of press vehemently protested his innocence and denied any and all quilt ? .

as has been pointed out here already and it seems ignored is that we were told  NO interrogation notes were kept , that was a lie was it not ? . because they exist today . and the notes such as they are now may not even have been written at the time of interrogation but later , perhaps after Oswalds death . when of course they then could never be disputed .

A serious problem with this case is the staggering incompetence of the good ol' boy investigation.
Not a single piece of evidence, other than the rifle, was photographed in it's original position - not the Sniper's Perch (a staged photo was put in evidence), not the hulls (picked up by Fritz before being photographed), not the rifle bag ( a drawing of where it was positioned was put in evidence!!) and not Bonnie Ray Williams' lunch remains (discovered by at least SEVEN first responders on top of the boxes that formed the SN).
That there was no tape recording or stenographer present during Oswald's interrogation regarding the assassination of the President of the United States is simply mind-blowing.
All of this is fuel for the Conspiracy Theorist, the trick is trying to discern what is incompetence, what is corruption and what is conspiracy.
It doesn't help that Nutters believe law enforcement can never do anything wrong and everything was done honestly and competently. It reveals them for the frauds they really are.

[Dan O'meara]

Well, there are at least three Crime Lab Photos taken of the Sniper's Nest on November 22nd prior to boxes being moved. The reconstruction done on Monday (without reference photos, it would seem) proved inaccurate in terms of the boxes by the window but afforded better viewpoints of the overall scene, so some came to be used as exhibits. A good idea; probably not. No one thought the paper bag was evidence at the time and it got moved, but testimony established where it was.

You're confusing the Sniper's Perch with the Sniper's Nest.
I never mentioned anything about photographing the Sniper's Nest.
And your notion that no-one thought the long bag was connected to the crime is massively wrong. Plenty of first responders thought that the bag was used to carry the rifle. I'm really surprised you're not aware of this. But, of course you are aware of this.
Are you also aware that the picture of the Sniper's Perch in evidence taken on Monday the 25th is labelled as being taken shortly after the assassination?
Of course you are.
Are you aware that drawing a picture of where evidence was doesn't really count?
At least you agree about Bonnie Ray's lunch.

When did police anywhere tape-record interrogations in that era? Maybe some confessions were taped. Back then, the FBI-on-down relied on notes, which usually formed the basis of reports, and the courts accepted those reports as accurate; they also allowed a law officer to testify while referring to his notes. It's not that "Nutters" think police were infallible; it's more that they understand the law enforcement of the time and not to apply the "CSI Effect".

Where do you think the DPD failed?