Buell Wesley Frazier

[Martin Weidmann]

According to CK's Oswald liked the President and even though, arguably, the most important man in the World was passing by the building Oswald was in, he never bothered having a look, Oswald didn't even go to a window to see the man he liked and after Kennedy was shot and possibly injured, all Oswald wanted to do was get to the cinema as quickly as possible and ironically see two movies "War Is Hell" and "Cry of Battle" with even more death and senseless violence? You can't make this up!

JohnM

According to CK's

According to who?

even though, arguably, the most important man in the World was passing by the building Oswald was in, he never bothered having a look, Oswald didn't even go to a window to see the man he liked

Three times in my life I was in an area where a POTUS motorcade was passing by. Once in Washington, once in Paris and once in Berlin, and I couldn't be bothered to go and look at any of them. 

By your flawed (as per usual) reasoning, that makes me a potential POTUS assassin, right?   

all Oswald wanted to do was get to the cinema as quickly as possible and ironically see two movies

Now let me say in advance, that Oswald must have been involved, at some level, in what happened in Dallas. Having said that, there is an alternate explanation why he went to the Texas Theater. Ever considered it?

[John Mytton]

According to CK's

According to who?

even though, arguably, the most important man in the World was passing by the building Oswald was in, he never bothered having a look, Oswald didn't even go to a window to see the man he liked

Three times in my life I was in an area where a POTUS motorcade was passing by. Once in Washington, once in Paris and once in Berlin, and I couldn't be bothered to go and look at any of them. 

By your flawed (as per usual) reasoning, that makes me a potential POTUS assassin, right?   

all Oswald wanted to do was get to the cinema as quickly as possible and ironically see two movies

Now let me say in advance, that Oswald must have been involved, at some level, in what happened in Dallas. Having said that, there is an alternate explanation why he went to the Texas Theater. Ever considered it?

Three times in my life I was in an area where a POTUS motorcade was passing by. Once in Washington, once in Paris and once in Berlin, and I couldn't be bothered to go and look at any of them. 

By your flawed (as per usual) reasoning, that makes me a potential POTUS assassin, right?   

Gee Willikers, what are the chances? You are some type of really cool guy!

Now let me say in advance, that Oswald must have been involved, at some level, in what happened in Dallas.

No kidding Sherlock!

Having said that, there is an alternate explanation why he went to the Texas Theater. Ever considered it?

And here come the mental gymnastics! Yawn!

JohnM

[Martin Weidmann]

Great minds think alike, I just made the same point! And even if Oswald didn't like crowds, there were a bunch of windows where Oswald the Loner all by himself could have safely watched the President go by, and Oswald could have easily had his lunch while watching.

Now before the CK's pipe up, I'm well aware that other employees didn't care and didn't watch the parade but as you say, Oswald was very politically orientated and we are led to believe that Oswald would give up this once in a lifetime opportunity? Really?

But let's get serious, as history has shown, Oswald did watch the Parade, through the 4xscope on his rifle!

JohnM

Great minds think alike

Oh boy, the insecurity...... if you have to beat your own drum 

But let's get serious, as history has shown, Oswald did watch the Parade, through the 4xscope on his rifle!

History "showed" for centuries that The Donation of Constantine was considered to be authentic (since the 8th century) until the Vatican declared it to be a forgery in the 1450's.

So much for "History has shown"

[Steve M. Galbraith]

Huh? You're making Steve's point for him and reinforcing his conclusion, Oswald didn't act normal because he was in fact an "anti-social, commie-defecting nutjob", who after the assassination immediately left the building.

Pure logic has never been your forte, has it, Tom!

JohnM

The Oswald defenders have to explain this behavior, this lack of interest in what happened, not me. I gave my answer: he shot JFK and was in flight. Nothing about being a "nutjob." What is theirs?

Second: Oswald was a political person. He read political journals, newspapers, biographies of political people like Mao and JFK. He attended an ACLU meeting three weeks before the assassination where the Birchers and politics were discussed. He discussed politics with the Paines. DeMohrenshchildt said they discussed politics. Marina said he would she her news stories about JFK and translate it to her. He had radical views, was angry and erratic; but he wasn't apolitical.

So he's not interested AT ALL in what happened? He comes out of the building (So why did he come outside? To find out what was happening? And then doesn't ask anyone what happened?) and doesn't ask anyone what was going on? There is chaos going on; he doesn't ask what is this all about? Again, he's an erratic angry man; he's not an idiot. An hour later he's in a movie theater with a loaded revolver and five extra bullets. Why? He doesn't want to watch the news?

Oswald defenders can't rationally explain this lack of interest in all of this madness going on right outside the building; so they want to wave their hands and turn the question around. We know why. If they tried to give one it would be typical Oswald defender gibberish and nonsense. Admittedly, they are good at that.

[Martin Weidmann]

Gee Willikers, what are the chances? You are some type of really cool guy!

No kidding Sherlock!

And here come the mental gymnastics! Yawn!

JohnM

Gee Willikers, what are the chances? You are some type of really cool guy!

You will never know... 

No kidding Sherlock!

Just being honest.... something you would know very little about!

And here come the mental gymnastics! Yawn!

Thank you for proving my point, yet again....

[John Mytton]

Great minds think alike

Oh boy, the insecurity...... if you have to beat your own drum 

But let's get serious, as history has shown, Oswald did watch the Parade, through the 4xscope on his rifle!

History "showed" for centuries that The Donation of Constantine was considered to be authentic (since the 8th century) until the Vatican declared it to be a forgery in the 1450's.

So much for "History has shown"

History "showed" for centuries that The Donation of Constantine was considered to be authentic (since the 8th century) until the Vatican declared it to be a forgery in the 1450's.

So much for "History has shown"

Hilarious! Exactly Martin, since the 1450s, history has shown it to be not authentic! You can't make this up!

JohnM

[Martin Weidmann]

The Oswald defenders have to explain this behavior, this lack of interest in what happened, not me.

Second: Oswald was a political person. He read political journals, newspapers, biographies of political people like Mao and JFK. He attended an ACLU meeting three weeks before the assassination where the Birchers and politics were discussed. He discussed politics with the Paines. DeMohrenshchildt said they discussed politics. Marina said he would she her news stories about JFK and translate it to her. He had radical views, was angry and erratic; but he wasn't apolitical.

So he's not interested AT ALL in what happened? He comes out of the building (so why did he come outside?) and doesn't ask anyone what was going on? There is chaos going on; he doesn't ask what is this all about? Again, he's an erratic angry man; he's not an idiot.

Oswald defenders can't explain this lack of interest; so they want to wave their hands and turn the question around. We know why.

The Oswald defenders have to explain this behavior, this lack of interest in what happened, not me.

Why? You are the one making the insinuations.

[Martin Weidmann]

Hilarious! Exactly Martin, since the 1450s, history has shown it to be not authentic! You can't make this up!

JohnM

Stop showing you ignorance, John

I can't help it that you don't understand history and it's relation to reality, but if you don't understand the saying "history is written by the victors" there isn't much I can do to help you.

But I still have confidence in you, John, and I believe that at some point in time you will understand. Let me try to give you an example;

When Henry Tudor defeated and killed Richard III he became the first Tudor king. The first thing he did was to alter the records to show that he was already the rightful king the day prior to the battle of Bosworth Field, declaring for the History books that it was Richard who was the usurper.

And according to you, history books are always right... think again