How many liars does it take to screw in a Lone Nutter?

[Glenn Nall]

I wonder if anyone's ever compiled a list of all the people who would have to have beeen intentionally deceitful or otherwise blindly wrong to support all of the claims of the generic Lone Gunman Theorist, and if so, how many 1TB hard drives would one need?

just askin'. it's like, every time I read testimonies of supposedly honorable and trustworthy witnesses, I'm thinking, "How can anyone (besides the Warren Commissioners, of course) find fault or error with this many people whose testimonies are clearly sound and are supportive of other sound testimony?"

I will begin one. Just a list of all those whose statements must be wrong for the LG Theory to work. For the sensitive, the basis for error can be avoided, although, in some cases one option is clearly more preferable than the other.

for instance,

Aquilla Clemmons: The FBI feared for her health and was of the opinion that her 'particularly low level of education and culture' negated any viability of her statement. It would be a shame to be so ignorant (according to the FBI or the WC - I feel I must qualify, here) as not to know whether you've seen two persons or just one. Option: mistaken, by virtue of...

Nurse Audrey Bell: mistaken or deceitful?

Nurse Diana Hamilton Bowron: mistaken or deceitful?

Dr Kemp Clark: mistaken or deceitful?

I wonder how long would this list be...?

[i've edited out the bad words in the interest of diplomacy and so as not to incite further civil unrest. unable to edit the title, or I would, although I kind of like its play on the old joke...]

Edited October 7, 2016 by Glenn Nall

[Glenn Nall]

Ms. Beckett has taken umbrage to this question, as if it's not quite as valid as all the rest. So perhaps I should clarify.

I happen to think that such a list would be pretty telling, since the number of errant testimonies for a LN Theorist to be right would be along the lines of astronomical.

I wish to apologize if my wording wasn't to expectations. But I certainly mean what I asked, and I've seriously considered making such a list.

My perfectly valid opinion is that a list of this size would be interesting to see.

[David Von Pein]

I wonder if anyone's ever compiled a list of all the people who would have to be lying or otherwise blindly wrong to support all of the claims of the generic LNer...

That's funny, Glenn....because I've asked conspiracy theorists the same question many times in the last several years.

(Anybody got a Pot/Kettle icon?)

jfk-archives.blogspot.com/Liars List

Excerpt from above link....

JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID (IN JULY 2015):

Davey, in all honesty, Hoosier Pride and all, let me ask you this:

Do you ever trace the history of an evidentiary point in this case, or see if there are any differing views in the official story by someone else who was there on the scene?

Because if you had in this case, you would have seen that if there is one cop who may be as bad as Gerry Hill as a witness, it's McDonald. Either one of these guys would have been humiliated on the stand by a competent attorney.

But further, that BS about the police blocking a shot by LHO in the theater, please. Please Davey. The FBI lab technician exposed that for a hoax many years ago. Gil Jesus once had that on his site. And we are supposed to believe you do not know that? It's ancient history, and you know it.

What's wrong, slow day at KFC today?

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Good job, Jimmy. Just keep piling on those liars. Gerald Hill, Nick McDonald, Johnny Brewer. (In addition to Buell Frazier, Linnie Randle, Ruth Paine, Marrion Baker, Roy Truly, and Will Fritz, among dozens of others.)

Who's next on your Liars List, Jim? Julia Postal? Or is she already part of your "Let's Frame Oswald At All Costs" fantasy plot?

Good gravy, even Oswald himself admitted that he had a gun on him when he was arrested [WR, p.601].

But maybe Lee was trying to frame himself as the patsy, eh Jim? Or you can always pretend that Captain Fritz was lying again on page 601 of the Warren Report. But if you go down the "Fritz lied" road, you're going to have to deal with the report written on 11/22/63 by FBI agents Hosty and Bookhout, which says....

"Oswald admitted to carrying a pistol with him to this movie, stating he did this because he felt like it, giving no other reason. Oswald further admitted attempting to fight the Dallas police officers who arrested him in this movie theater when he received a cut and a bump." -- 11/22/63 FBI Report by James Bookhout and James Hosty; WR, p.613

More liars, right Jimmy?

It's never a slow day at the "Let's Pretend Everybody Was Lying In Order To Frame Lee Harvey Oswald" factory, is it Jimbo?

[...]

I love it when Jimbo gets going on one of his "Everybody Lied" tangents. I wish he'd do it more often, in fact. Because it only solidifies things more for the "Lone Assassin" side. And that's because when you're forced to twist yourself into a pretzel in order to make your case for conspiracy or cover-up by pretending that a whole bunch of people (from different walks of life) were outright liars, as Jim DiEugenio constantly does when discussing the JFK and Tippit murders, all reasonable people can easily see how desperate (and unreasonable) an argument that truly is.

Edited October 7, 2016 by David Von Pein

[Michael Walton]

"Oswald admitted to carrying a pistol with him to this movie, stating he did this because he felt like it, giving no other reason. Oswald further admitted attempting to fight the Dallas police officers who arrested him in this movie theater when he received a cut and a bump." -- 11/22/63 FBI Report by James Bookhout and James Hosty; WR, p.613

Yes, Dave, but oh, did Oswald say so, so much more.

So what was Oswald supposed to say when asked why he was carrying a gun? That he was a raving lunatic, a former defected-to-Russia Marxist who just shot the president, then while he was at it, shot a police officer, too, down the street from his rooming house? And oh, yeah, while he did that, he scattered the gun's shells all over the place and, for even better good measure, he threw down his wallet at the scene that contained an ID card under the name Hidell?

I would love to know whether he made his "because I felt like it" statement before or after his "I'm a patsy" statement. Crazy Kid was no dummy so I'd love to have seen his expression on his face when it dawned on him, "Holy s###, so *that's* why they told me to take the gun and meet up with ------ at the theater."

[David Von Pein]

Well, Michael, it's refreshing to see that you've got more sense than many of your Internet CT brethren with respect to the subject of Oswald packing a rod in the theater. Because I've been encountering a whole bunch of CTers lately on the Internet who are so deep into denial that they are now pretending that Oswald had no gun at all while he was inside the Texas Theater on 11/22/63.

Bizarre.

Edited October 7, 2016 by David Von Pein

[Glenn Nall]

"Oswald admitted to carrying a pistol with him to this movie, stating he did this because he felt like it, giving no other reason. Oswald further admitted attempting to fight the Dallas police officers who arrested him in this movie theater when he received a cut and a bump." -- 11/22/63 FBI Report by James Bookhout and James Hosty; WR, p.613

Yes, Dave, but oh, did Oswald say so, so much more.

So what was Oswald supposed to say when asked why he was carrying a gun? That he was a raving lunatic, a former defected-to-Russia Marxist who just shot the president, then while he was at it, shot a police officer, too, down the street from his rooming house? And oh, yeah, while he did that, he scattered the gun's shells all over the place and, for even better good measure, he threw down his wallet at the scene that contained an ID card under the name Hidell?

I would love to know whether he made his "because I felt like it" statement before or after his "I'm a patsy" statement. Crazy Kid was no dummy so I'd love to have seen his expression on his face when it dawned on him, "Holy s###, so *that's* why they told me to take the gun and meet up with ------ at the theater."

I apologize for my vague wording in the original question, Michael; i'm hoping to compile a list myself, of the thousands of people who simply must be wrong for whatever reason.

I kind of think that "something" began dawning on Oswald right about the time the gunshots ended in Dealey, and at that point, as he was on whatever mission he thought he was on, things began becoming a little clearer as events unfolded and he met with whomever he met with. Who knows what "reasons" he was given to rendezvous at the Theater. I think at that point he had little choice but to try to get there and in some way get out of whatever trouble he'd found himself in; even if he was fully aware of the assassination before it happened, he was still left with no option but to find this person who had in all likelihood promised him an escape, probably on a plane to "safety" in Cuba - or more likely "safety" approximately half-way to Cuba.

But yes, i'm sure there were some priceless faces Oswald made on his little excursion. Aside from his appalling spelling, which itself is questionable, he was no idiot. Russian speaking or not, he was no idiot.

[edit: oh, i just realized you're replying to someone named "Dave." I can't see his posts for some reason. ]

Edited October 7, 2016 by Glenn Nall

[Glenn Nall]

Last week the sentiment was posited to me that:

"Anyone could lie, anyone having anything to do with the Assassination, pre, during, or post. That would include folks who also would be on either side of the JFK Debate. Not all folks who are CTs and not all witnesses are credible, as well as LNs,"

which is true, of course. And speaks to the point I think a list of this kind would make all on its own, which is that the number of people who would have to be wrong in order for the Warren Report to be right would be so much larger, and the odds against therefore so much larger, than that of those who CTers have to show as wrong (which is also seemingly a good bit easier).

I think that very imbalance would be pretty self-evident.