im?passe
a situation in which no progress is possible.
Martin cites a polygraph over and over and then asks who is relying on a polygraph. He denies there is no work-related explanation for the bag but doesn't provide any or cite to any evidence in the last 50 years that provides any explanation for that bag being on the 6th floor except to carry the rifle. He dismisses Oswald's prints on this bag because they only demonstrate that he touched it at some point (yes, like that morning when he carried it into the building). He takes issue with the characterization that Oswald denied carrying a bag the size estimated by Frazier. Frazier indicated that Oswald carried a long package about two feet long that was not his lunch. Oswald denied carrying a long package but insisted it was his lunch. Somehow Martin apparently believes these are not mutually exclusive claims. He explains away the fact that no two-foot long bag was ever found by suggesting that no one ever searched for it! A ridiculous and dishonest claim. The building was thoroughly searched and a bag was found. He idiotically tries to explain why no one ever came forward to explain the bag found if it had some work-related purpose by dishonestly claiming that no one would understand it's importance. A real lulu. The bag the authorities claimed the assassin brought his rifle. If this bag belonged to someone else or had some work-related purpose for being on the 6th floor someone would have come forward to explain it in the last fifty years. They did not. That is the single dumbest claim since John I. suggested Oswald would not have taken paper from the TSBD to make the bag because that might have got him fired!!! A real concern for the guy who intended to assassinate the president that week. LOL. That one is a keeper. These kooks are all the more humorous because they take themselves so seriously on an Internet forum. Again, if you think you have evidence that proves a conspiracy take it to the NY Times and get back to us on their opinion.
So rather than addressing the points I have made in my previous posts, you just decided to ignore it all and instead completely misrepresent what I have been saying in order to (once again) concoct another strawman rant in which you repeat your own lies and misrepresentations of the evidence as if they haven't already been debunked and proven wrong. Who do you think you are fooling?
But very well, unlike you, I will address all the crap you foolishly consider to be "logic"
Martin cites a polygraph over and over and then asks who is relying on a polygraph. Stop exposing your stupidity and stop lying. I did not cite a polygraph nor did I rely on one. I said that the record shows Frazier was being polygraphed when he was shown the heavy bag and there is no mention of any anomaly. That is a statement of fact, whether you like it or not!
He denies there is no work-related explanation for the bag but doesn't provide any or cite to any evidence in the last 50 years that provides any explanation for that bag being on the 6th floor except to carry the rifle. More dishonesty and stupidity... First of all, I have never denied (or confirmed for that matter) that "there is no work-related explanation for the bag" simply because I don't know if there was one or not (and neither do you) and secondly, the lack of an work-related explanation for that bag does not automatically mean that it's only purpose must have been "to carry the rifle".
He dismisses Oswald's prints on this bag because they only demonstrate that he touched it at some point (yes, like that morning when he carried it into the building).More dishonesty. I don't dismiss the prints on the bag. I dismiss as speculation your claim that those prints somehow prove that the bag ever "was in Oswald's possession". Those prints could have been the result of Oswald simply picking up the bag and moving it that same morning. There is no way of knowing with any kind of certainty how those prints got on the bag, if they actually ever did!
He takes issue with the characterization that Oswald denied carrying a bag the size estimated by Frazier. Indeed, because according to Fritz Oswald was only asked if he had carried a "long" bag, whatever that means. It had nothing to do with a size estimate by Frazier!
Frazier indicated that Oswald carried a long package about two feet long that was not his lunch. Oswald denied carrying a long package but insisted it was his lunch. Somehow Martin apparently believes these are not mutually exclusive claims. Frazier said that Oswald carried a "definitely a thin, flimsy sack like the one purchased in a dime store". He may well have been wrong in his estimate, to the extend that he estimated the bag to be larger than it really was. As for the content, that's an entirely different matter. Frazier allegedly said that Oswald told him the bag contained curtain rods, but that could have been a lie on Oswald's part and the bag could indeed simply have contained Oswald's lunch after all.
Here's the background to that; Oswald wants to go to Irving to make up with Marina after a fight the previous weekend (exactly what Marina and Ruth Paine both said) so he asks this 19 year old kid, Frazier, to take him there. When Frazier asks why, do you really think Oswald would tell him that he is going there to make up with his wife?... Or would he give him some excuse, like "picking up curtain rods"? Having told Frazier the cover story on Thursday, Oswald simply repeated it on Friday when Frazier asked him again about the package.....
He explains away the fact that no two-foot long bag was ever found by suggesting that no one ever searched for it! A ridiculous and dishonest claim. You have not a shred of evidence that DPD officers returned to the TSBD to look for "a thin, flimsy sack like the one purchased in a dime store" after Frazier mentioned it while being polygraphed.
During the initial search on Friday afternoon they had no reason to look for a flimsy sack, because they had already "found" the heavy bag and jumped to the conclusion that this was the bag in which the rifle was brought in.
The building was thoroughly searched and a bag was found. John already replied to this one. No need for me to repeat it again. I can't help it when you are just to dumb to understand it.
He idiotically tries to explain why no one ever came forward to explain the bag found if it had some work-related purpose by dishonestly claiming that no one would understand it's importance. A real lulu. Why is that dishonest? Can you even explain how people even would have known about that paper bag before the WCR was published? You are the one who is living in cuckoo land to believe that everybody would have had instant knowledge about what investigators were looking at.
The bag the authorities claimed the assassin brought his rifle. If this bag belonged to someone else or had some work-related purpose for being on the 6th floor someone would have come forward to explain it in the last fifty years. They did not.Complete BS... After the publication of the WCR there would have been no point in coming forward. The entire argument you are trying to make is pathetic. Just because you can't think of a work-explanation for that bag and just because nobody came forward to claim it (as far as we know) does not automatically justify the conclusion that it must have been Oswald's bag and that he used it to carry a rifle. In fact, the bag found at the TSBD contained no traces of anything to even remotely conclude there had ever been a rifle in it.
These kooks are all the more humorous because they take themselves so seriously on an Internet forum.And you take them seriously enough to constantly reply to them with lies, misrepresentations, strawman, hand waving and a repetitive pattern of stupidity.
And once again, your entire post is the same old crap you have posted time after time. What you have not done (again) is deal with the
FACT that Frazier on day 1 said to Lt Day that the bag Oswald carried was
"definitely a thin, flimsy sack like the one purchased in a dime store" and told polygrapher R.D. Lewis that it was a
?crickly brown paper sack? and that he told Odum and McNeely a few days later that
"the package was wrapped in a cheap, crinkly, thin paper sack, such as that provided by Five and Ten Cent Stores?Why do you keep running away from that, Richard?
