BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963

[Martin Weidmann]

It's all perfectly simple, Mr Cakebread, but we need to put the pieces together methodically! 

Now!

Question! How long did Mr Frazier estimate the bag carried by Mr Oswald that morning to be?

Answer! Given in the 2 Dec interview report of Agents Odum & McNeely:



27 inches.

Question! How long did Ms Randle estimate the bag carried by Mr Oswald that morning to be?

Answer! Given in Ms Randle's WC testimony:

Mr. BALL. What about length?
Mrs. RANDLE. You mean the entire bag?
Mr. BALL. Yes.
Mrs. RANDLE. There again you have the problem of all this down here. It was folded down, of course, if you would take it from the bottom--
Mr. BALL. Fold it to about the size that you think it might be.
Mrs. RANDLE. This is the bottom here, right. This is the bottom, this part down here.
Mr. BALL. I believe so, but I am not sure. But let's say it is.
Mrs. RANDLE. And this goes this way, right? Do you want me to hold it?
Mr. BALL. Yes.
Mrs. RANDLE. About this.
Mr. BALL. Is that about right? That is 28 1/2 inches.
Mrs. RANDLE. I measured 27 last time.
Mr. BALL. You measured 27 once before?
Mrs. RANDLE. Yes, sir.

27 inches.

That number, my friends, is no random number. Unless I'm very much mistaken, it tells us what was in the bag Mr Oswald carried that morning.

 

Alan, I would really appreciate it if you stopped talking in riddles.

First of all, I still have no idea how any of this can even remotely be considered a clue to how Oswald was framed.

Secondly, you seem to focus on the estimates of Frazier and Randle, when those estimates IMO are the weakest part of the argument. Sure, they indicate that the bag was shorter than CE-142 and could not have contained a broken down rifle, but - as the LNs frequently point out - estimates can be wrong.

A far better way - again IMO - to determine the size of the bag, is for example Frazier's description of how Oswald carried the bag; i.e. in the cup of his hand and under his armpit. That's no estimate, it's an observation and one that can conclusively show that the bag could not have been large enough to conceal a rifle, simply because Oswald's arms were not long enough for that. The same goes, to a lesser extend, for the FBI measurement of the car back seat and Randle's description of how Oswald carried the bag in Irving when she saw him. None of it, however, gives us a clue to how Oswald was framed.

[Alan Ford]

Alan, I would really appreciate it if you stopped talking in riddles.

First of all, I still have no idea how any of this would can even remotely be considered a clue to how Oswald was framed.

Secondly, you seem to focus on the estimates of Frazier and Randle, when those estimates IMO are the weakest part of the argument. Sure, they indicate that the bag was shorter than CE-142 and could not have contained a broken down rifle, but - as the LNs frequently point out - estimates can be wrong.

A far better way - again IMO - to determine the size of the bag, is for example Frazier's description of how Oswald carried the bag; i.e. in the cup of his hand and under his armpit. That's no estimate, it's an observation and one that can conclusively show that the bag could not have been large enough to conceal a rifle, simply because Oswald's arms were not long enough for that. The same goes, to a lesser extend, for the FBI measurement of the car back seat and Randle's description of how Oswald carried the bag in Irving when she saw him. None of it, however, gives us a clue to how Oswald was framed.

Oh, but it does, Mr Weidmann!

In order to go down as the man who brought the rifle into the Depository building, Mr Oswald had to be seen bringing a long bag into the building.

In order to be seen bringing a long bag into the building, he had to be manipulated into bringing a long bag into the building.

Yes?

Well!

If we take the entirely reasonable step of listening to Mr Frazier and Ms Randle when they give us their length estimate, we find ourselves considering a manipulation of Mr Oswald that required a bag
------------long enough to contain something some 27 inches long (which Mr Oswald did bring into the building in the bag)
and
------------long enough to contain a dissassembled rifle (which Mr Oswald did not bring into the building in the bag)!

Now!

Question! What was some 27 inches long?

Answer! The curtain rods in Ms Ruth Paine's garage!

Mr. JENNER. They are the sliding or extension type, one fitting into the other when closed entirely, measuring from upended tip to upended tip they are----
Agent HOWLETT. The white one is 2 feet 3 1/2 inches.
Mr. JENNER. And the cream colored one measured in the like fashion?
Agent HOWLETT. It is 2 feet 3 1/2 inches.

2 feet 3 1/2 inches, a.k.a....

27.5 inches! 

Just think about this.......

-----------Mr Frazier and Ms Randle are not under suspicion of having broken into Ms Paine's garage and measured her curtain rods! 
-----------Yet they somehow managed to come up with a size estimate for the bag that was uncannily close to the length of the objects which Mr Frazier says Mr Oswald told him were in that bag!

No coincidence, Mr Weidmann, no coincidence!

 

[Alan Ford]

Just think about this.......

-----------Mr Frazier and Ms Randle are not under suspicion of having broken into Ms Paine's garage and measured her curtain rods! 
-----------Yet they somehow managed to come up with a size estimate for the bag that was uncannily close to the length of the objects which Mr Frazier says Mr Oswald told him were in that bag!

No coincidence, Mr Weidmann, no coincidence!

 

Now!

As to what Mr Frazier and Ms Randle saw Mr Oswald carrying, it was Ms Randle who was careful to differentiate the bag's length when at full length and its length when some of it was folded down:

Mrs. RANDLE. What I remember seeing is about this long, sir, as I told you it was folded down so it could have been this long.

Spot on, Ms Randle---what you saw that morning was a bag long enough to contain a dissassembled Carcano but folded down so as to contain 27.5-inch curtain rods! 

[John Iacoletti]

This is simple:

Everything is "simple" when you take speculation and pretend that is it fact.

Frazier - Oswald carried a long bag that was not his lunch.  Oswald tells him it contains curtain rods.  "I asked him where was his lunch and he said he was going to buy his lunch that day."

Oswald - tells the DPD he carried his lunch and not curtain rods (i.e. any long bag such as described by Frazier).

Put the statements together and the conclusion is that one or the other is lying.

One of them is wrong (or quoted incorrectly), not necessarily lying.  That's your first mistake.

Then you go completely off the rails in concluding that therefore there must have been a rifle in that bag.

[John Iacoletti]

No one lies to get themselves in further difficulties by, for example, denying that they had a bag that contained exculpatory evidence like curtain rods.

Wrong again, "Richard".  Some people (like Walt and yourself) pathologically lie, because you're incapable of separating fact from fiction.

[John Iacoletti]

Oswald's unusual behavior on 21/22 November before and after the shootings is evidence as to his guilt.

No matter how Oswald had behaved, you would say that.  Confirmation bias is not evidence.

These are just examples of that unusual behavior. Since CE-142 is the bag that carried CE-139 the connection is obvious. Since Oswald carried no lunch bag that morning BWF could not have seen any bag other than CE-142.

...and you know that Oswald carried no lunch bag that morning, how?

It is really quite simple, JohnI. If you were really just seeking the truth then this would be obvious.

LOL.  "If you were really seeking the truth, you would just agree with my speculations".

[Alan Ford]

Now!

As to what Mr Frazier and Ms Randle saw Mr Oswald carrying, it was Ms Randle who was careful to differentiate the bag's length when at full length and its length when some of it was folded down:

Mrs. RANDLE. What I remember seeing is about this long, sir, as I told you it was folded down so it could have been this long.

Spot on, Ms Randle---what you saw that morning was a bag long enough to contain a dissassembled Carcano but folded down so as to contain 27.5-inch curtain rods! 

Friends, I invite you to take a long careful look at the document below.

If the uncanny similarity between the 27-inch estimate of Mr Frazier and Ms Randle and the 27.5-inch length of two curtain rods found in Mrs Paine's garage constitutes the first smoking gun here, then this document constitutes the second!

[John Iacoletti]

This is the guy who goes from a vaguely seeing Oswald to being definite that Oswald had nothing in his hands. Very convincing witness 

And yet, you're apparently convinced by the equally wacky Brennan, Markham, Bledsoe, and Roberts.

Be honest, you are convinced by whoever supports your narrative.