CBS News Inquiry 1967 - Warren Report (Dan Rather carries a rifle package)

[Ross Lidell]

Why do you selectively accept what those two witnesses said?

And too short for the alleged murder weapon.  Who says it didn't contain french bread?

I'm still trying to figure out how you make the leap from "too long for a lunch" to "rifle".

Why do you selectively accept what those two witnesses said?

Because Buell Frazier and Linnie May Randle saw Oswald's long bag on 22 November 2019. They testified about the "paper-sack" under oath to the Warren Commission.

Why don't YOU accept the statements of these two (2) witnesses?

Stop this silliness John (the devil's advocate) and make a proper contribution to the Forum.

[John Iacoletti]

Why do you selectively accept what those two witnesses said?

Because Buell Frazier and Linnie May Randle saw Oswald's long bag on 22 November 2019. They testified about the "paper-sack" under oath to the Warren Commission.

Why don't YOU accept the statements of these two (2) witnesses?

Who says I don't?  You're the one who selectively accepts "long bag", but rejects "2 feet long" and "flimsy paper".

[Alan Hardaker]

"Curtain rods"...what happened to the curtain rods. If Oswald claimed he had curtain rods in the bag, where they ever found. Obviously not. Because it was a lie to cover up the fact that the bag contained the MC. And he carried it cupped low in his hand in close contact with his body. Entirely consistent with carrying a rifle.

Obviously taking the MC into the TSBD does not prove Oswald was the shooter but Oswald owned an MC, he carried a long paper bag containing an item that could have feasible been an MC. The MC Oswald owned was later found on the 6th floor of the TSBD.

This is not Sherlock Holmes territory. Obviously not every single statement in any murder case can be 100% verified. This is one of those that are 95% factual. Way beyond reasonable doubt.

[Ross Lidell]

"Curtain rods"...what happened to the curtain rods. If Oswald claimed he had curtain rods in the bag, where they ever found. Obviously not. Because it was a lie to cover up the fact that the bag contained the MC. And he carried it cupped low in his hand in close contact with his body. Entirely consistent with carrying a rifle.

Obviously taking the MC into the TSBD does not prove Oswald was the shooter but Oswald owned an MC, he carried a long paper bag containing an item that could have feasible been an MC. The MC Oswald owned was later found on the 6th floor of the TSBD.

This is not Sherlock Holmes territory. Obviously not every single statement in any murder case can be 100% verified. This is one of those that are 95% factual. Way beyond reasonable doubt.

Keep posting those kind of sensible, logical conclusions Alan: Your gonna get a lot of nonsensical replies from "contrarians".

[Ross Lidell]

Who says I don't?  You're the one who selectively accepts "long bag", but rejects "2 feet long" and "flimsy paper".

Stop beating around the bush and get to the point. Do you accept Buell Frazier's testimony about the paper-sack that Oswald claimed contained curtain rods?

[Martin Weidmann]

Keep posting those kind of sensible, logical conclusions Alan: Your gonna get a lot of nonsensical replies from "contrarians".

Nothing sensible about it. It's actually Salem like "logic".

[Thomas Graves]

Nothing sensible about it. It's actually Salem like "logic".

Dear Marty,

Do you mean "Salem-like"?

-- MWT 

[Martin Weidmann]

Stop beating around the bush and get to the point. Do you accept Buell Frazier's testimony about the paper-sack that Oswald claimed contained curtain rods?

Silly question.

I think there isn't a single CT who doesn't accept the fact that Frazier and Randle saw Oswald carry a bag.

The difference of opinion with the LNs is about the size and quality of the bag as well as it's content. That's where LNs start jumping to conclusions they can not support by evidence as well as dismissing some of what Frazier actually said based on the pathetic "he was not paying attention" argument.