Oswald's sack in the Sniper's nest.

[Charles Collins]

Some pictures were taken shortly after the ones taken of the rifle in-situ on Nov. 22nd.

Photo of SN aisle seems to have a different camera setting than photos to right; outer boxes unmoved; could have been taken on the 22nd

Photo of aisle next to SN aisle is darker; photo taken on 25th during SN reconstruction

Photo of aisle two-over from SN aisle is darker; photo taken on 25th during SN reconstruction

The long paper bag was photographed being taken out of the TSBD on 11/22/63 around 2:19. Was it taken to the DPD crime lab and locked up similarly to the way that Day testified the rifle was? If so, is there any evidence that it was taken back to the TSBD for sniper’s nest reconstruction purposes?

[Pat Speer]

If you lived in Kansas during the 1870's it would have been DODGE City: Possibly in CONTRARIAN Street.

a.) His means "his".

b.) Oswald's prints were on the long paper bag found on the 6th floor of the TSBD.

The bag matched the general description of the one Buell Frazier saw Oswald carry into the rear entrance to the TSBD.

The palm-print's position on the paper bag corresponds to the way Oswald carried it--according to Buell Frazier.

This goes back to what I was complaining about on another thread...the slow pace at which new information seeps in. When I went back through the fingerprint evidence in 2015, I discovered that the fingerprint was on the bottom of the bag and the palm print was on the side. I revealed this at that year's Lancer Conference, and demonstrate this in the Shining a Light on the Warren Report section of Chapter 4c at patspeer.com.


P.S. As I crawled through this thread, I was pleasantly surprised to see that John Iaccoletti (and later Michael Walton) had made reference to my discovery. So new information does seep in...sometimes... Yeah, John and Michael.

[Walt Cakebread]

This goes back to what I was complaining about on another thread...the slow pace at which new information seeps in. When I went back through the fingerprint evidence in 2015, I discovered that the fingerprint was on the bottom of the bag and the palm print was on the side. I revealed this at that year's Lancer Conference, and demonstrate this in the Shining a Light on the Warren Report section of Chapter 4c at patspeer.com.


P.S. As I crawled through this thread, I was pleasantly surprised to see that John Iaccoletti had made reference to my discovery. So new information does seep in...sometimes... Yeah, John.

But what is the importance of your discovery?.....Can you prove how the prints got on the bag?..... Doesn't just a couple of prints strike you as a bit suspicious?

If Lee had carried that bag his prints should have been all over the place.

[Martin Weidmann]

But what is the importance of your discovery?.....Can you prove how the prints got on the bag?..... Doesn't just a couple of prints strike you as a bit suspicious?

If Lee had carried that bag his prints should have been all over the place.

Wasn't the LN claim that the palmprint was on the bottom of the bag and that it was significant because Frazier saw Oswald carry the bag in his cupped hand?

Pat's discovery blows that one right out of the water, doesn't it?

[Pat Speer]

Wasn't the LN claim that the palmprint was on the bottom of the bag and that it was significant because Frazier saw Oswald carried the bag in his cupped hand?

Pat's discovery blows that one right out of the water, doesn't it?

That's pretty much it. I have no idea if Oswald actually handled that bag, or if there was a rifle in it when he handled it if he did handle it. But we now know that Latona's testimony and the archives' photos prove that the WC misrepresented Latona's testimony to help sell that the bag was the one seen by Frazier. I mean, they had the photos showing where prints A and B were, and they had Latona's testimony about prints A and B. How hard would it have been to get it right, as opposed to getting it wrong and using that mistake to help support their case against Oswald?

[Richard Smith]

That's pretty much it. I have no idea if Oswald actually handled that bag, or if there was a rifle in it when he handled it if he did handle it. But we now know that Latona's testimony and the archives' photos prove that the WC misrepresented Latona's testimony to help sell that the bag was the one seen by Frazier. I mean, they had the photos showing where prints A and B were, and they had Latona's testimony about prints A and B. How hard would it have been to get it right, as opposed to getting it wrong and using that mistake to help support their case against Oswald?

How can you have "no idea if Oswald actually handled that bag" if his prints were found on it? 

[Martin Weidmann]

That's pretty much it. I have no idea if Oswald actually handled that bag, or if there was a rifle in it when he handled it if he did handle it. But we now know that Latona's testimony and the archives' photos prove that the WC misrepresented Latona's testimony to help sell that the bag was the one seen by Frazier. I mean, they had the photos showing where prints A and B were, and they had Latona's testimony about prints A and B. How hard would it have been to get it right, as opposed to getting it wrong and using that mistake to help support their case against Oswald?

Add to this that Frazier was shown the bag allegedly found on the 6th floor, while he was being polygraphed, on Friday evening, and he denied it was the bag he had seen Oswald carry, describing the latter as a thin flimsy sack like the ones you can get from a dime store.

So, all there really is, is a paper bag, made from TSBD materials and found at the TSBD at a location where Oswald worked and a whole lot of conjecture and assumptions.

[Bill Chapman]

Pat Speer has done a good job about the paper sack and planting of evidence. You might want to read it and learn something:

http://www.patspeer.com/chapter4d%3Asackoflies

His bag comparison re Beers is not in any way scientific and does not convince
And the top flap has fallen forward in Beers, and comparing that to the fully laid out bag in an attempt to manipulate proportions reveals yet even more CTer disingenuousness.