Oswald Acted Alone Is The Most Popular Theory

[Steve M. Galbraith]

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.

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?

[Martin Weidmann]

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?

Their reports differ, no matter how you twist and turn it.

Yes, they claimed Oswald denied he carried a "long bag", but what exactly did they ask him? Did they ask simply if he was carrying a "large bag" (whatever that would have meant to him) or did they give a more detailed description in their question? We don't know, because it's not in their reports, which basically makes their reports worthless and unreliable.

They could have easily asked Oswald if he had carried a bag that was large enough to conceal a broken down rifle and when Oswald answered that he didn't, they just wrote down he denied carrying a large bag.
If, on the other hand, they had asked him if the bag he carried could have fitted between his armpit and the cup of his hand he might have said, "Yes, but that's not a large bag".
The quality of the question determines the quality of the answer and in this case we don't know what the question was they asked, which basically means they screwed up big time and all their reports are meaningless.

[Fergus O'Brien]

Quote from: Fergus O'brien on May 13, 2024, 02:14:32 PM

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


    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 ." fergus obrien


"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." Richard smith
« Last Edit: Today at 03:34:38 PM by Richard Smith »

NO , when i said he was less than honest i gave some valid reasons why he can be viewed as less than honest . you seem to have decided to ignore that . neither you nor i or anyone else on this forum can provide proof of a single word that Oswald said during his interrogations .the FACT is all you can possibly claim is that the FBI / DPD etc in interrogation stated that Oswald said certain things , maybe he did and maybe he did not . but  what is for certain is that neither you , nor i or anyone on this forum has a tape recording or first hand typed transcript of any of the interrogations . and as i said very clearly if a person (whom ever they are ) has shown them selves to have been dishonest several times would people then  have a valid reason to distrust such a person ? . i think they would have valid reason .

how exactly could they DPD lie and say he Oswald admitted to them carrying a rifle to work when he had been on TV from friday to sunday denying any guilt , saying I DIDNT SHOOT ANYONE ? .

if i was you i would be more concerned about YOU , and i would worry about how you look my friend , i am a big boy , let me take care of me OK .

[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 .