Et tu, Bonnie?

[Colin Crow]

There is a piece of tape running most of the length of the bag.
I'm assuming this is where the overlap/seam of the folded paper was stuck down lengthwise.
The long piece of tape is overlapped by two pieces of tape on one of the folds.
The length of all this tape from the closed end is about 30".
From the end of the tape to the open end of the bag there is no tape. I'm assuming the seam is left open.
This strongly indicates to me that whoever constructed the bag did it to carry an object less than 30" long.
I have to conclude this bag was never made to carry a rifle, assembled or disassembled.

Your 37” looks pretty accurate.



These pictures were taken after the bag was opened lengthwise for analysis along one side and refolded. The width of the bag appears to be 8.5” given the tape is 3” wide. Given the width of the paper roll used to manufacture it was 24” it seems the final fold over would be 7”.

Here is a comparison side by side of intact rifle and bag.

[Martin Weidmann]

A witness who knew Oswald saw him on the bus, another witness ID'd him as the person he drove in a cab, another witness saw him leaving the boarding house, several witnesses ID'd Oswald as the person who murdered Tippit but you don't believe them.  Right?  Just Frazier's subjective estimate of the length of a bag that he had himself confirmed that he had little cause to notice and his description of how it was carried from some distance behind Oswald.  Wow.

Another "Richard Smith" strawman based on misrepresentation of the facts. What else is new?

[Martin Weidmann]

The bag is low hanging fruit.

1) Frazier indicates that Oswald carried a long bag that morning that Oswald confirmed to him did not contain his lunch but according to Oswald contained curtain rods.
2) Oswald denied to the DPD that he carried anything other than his lunch.  Completely contradicting the story he told to Frazier. No curtain rods, two foot long bag as described by Frazier or longer bag as found in the TSBD.  Why would he lie if the bag didn't contain the rifle?
3) Oswald's prints are found on the bag next to the SN.  That bag can't be accounted for in any way except as the one Oswald carried.  It had no work-related purpose to be there, no TSBD ever explained its presence, and no one else ever claimed ownership of the bag.  It appears to be a singular type of bag in that building as no other such bag was found or photographed.
4) The bag is discovered next to the SN which had Oswald's prints on the boxes and fired bullet casings from his rifle.
5) If the bag was constructed at the TSBD, then it would have to remain open on one end for Oswald to insert the rifle when he arrived at Irving.  Folding or wrapping the open end of the bag allows him to open the package without having to rip the tape off.  A nice piece of planning if you don't know if anyone else would be on the floor in the moments before assassinating the President.

The best demonstration of a fanatical closed biased mind.

Unwilling to accept or agree with any counter argument, unable or unwilling to answer any question, just regurgitating the same old distorted and misrepresented version of the facts over and over again and jumping to conclusions not supported by the evidence.

[Dan O'meara]

Your 37” looks pretty accurate.



These pictures were taken after the bag was opened lengthwise for analysis along one side and refolded. The width of the bag appears to be 8.5” given the tape is 3” wide. Given the width of the paper roll used to manufacture it was 24” it seems the final fold over would be 7”.

Here is a comparison side by side of intact rifle and bag.

Is it the case, in the above pic, the long length of tape is running along the "seam" and that the part of the seam between the end of the tape and the open end of the bag is untaped/loose.
The "stain" on the other side of the bag is the end of the two short lengths of tape that we can see at the end of the long piece of tape.
There is something very specific about these two short pieces of tape, there is a reason the whole seam isn't taped and is reinforced with the two pieces of tape.

[Colin Crow]

Is it the case, in the above pic, the long length of tape is running along the "seam" and that the part of the seam between the end of the tape and the open end of the bag is untaped/loose.
The "stain" on the other side of the bag is the end of the two short lengths of tape that we can see at the end of the long piece of tape.
There is something very specific about these two short pieces of tape, there is a reason the whole seam isn't taped and is reinforced with the two pieces of tape.

The two pieces seem to be located at a strong fold aboit 27” from the sealed end.

[Dan O'meara]

The two pieces seem to be located at a strong fold about 27” from the sealed end.

I get the impression the two pieces are meant to reinforce the bag at that point.
It isn't coincidental that they are placed where the long length of tape ends. The long length of tape (and the two pieces) reinforce 30.5" of seam.
The end of the long length near the "closed" end of the bag is reinforced by the triangular(ish) fold of paper and the strips of tape that hold it in place.
What is odd is that the seam to the left of the two pieces is not taped. About 6.5 inches of the seam is not taped. The only way the bag would be useful would be if it was folded at the strong fold where the two pieces are when carrying whatever object it was designed to carry.
The distance from this strong fold to the closed-end fold is 27".
The bag appears to be specifically constructed to carry an object (or objects) less than 27" in length.

[Colin Crow]

I get the impression the two pieces are meant to reinforce the bag at that point.
It isn't coincidental that they are placed where the long length of tape ends. The long length of tape (and the two pieces) reinforce 30.5" of seam.
The end of the long length near the "closed" end of the bag is reinforced by the triangular(ish) fold of paper and the strips of tape that hold it in place.
What is odd is that the seam to the left of the two pieces is not taped. About 6.5 inches of the seam is not taped. The only way the bag would be useful would be if it was folded at the strong fold where the two pieces are when carrying whatever object it was designed to carry.
The distance from this strong fold to the closed-end fold (yellow line in the graphic I posted) is 27".
The bag appears to be specifically constructed to carry an object (or objects) less than 27" in length.

From the first day affidavit.

"It must have been about 2' long, and the top of the sack was sort of folded up, and the rest of the sack had been kind offolded under."

[Dan O'meara]

From the first day affidavit.

"It must have been about 2' long, and the top of the sack was sort of folded up, and the rest of the sack had been kind of folded under."

I think when Frazier says "the top of the sack was sort of folded up" he was referring to what we would say was the 'bottom' of the bag where the triangular fold was taped down.
When he says "the rest of the sack had been kind of folded under" he means the open end of the sack is folded at the strong fold and 'folded under' the rest of the sack.

This would make the package (CE 142) about 27" long.
Frazier consistently describes the package being about this long.
In this scenario there is no rifle in the bag,