JFK Assassination Forum
JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion & Debate => JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion And Debate => Topic started by: Walt Cakebread on January 07, 2018, 02:07:13 PM
-
Since the tale of the paper bag rests on Buell Frazier's statement that Lee Oswald carried a paper bag on the back seat of the car when he drove them to work on the morning of the murder of President Kennedy. And since the Warren Commission ignored both Frazier and his sister when they testified that the bag they saw Lee Oswald carry was not long enough to have contained the Mannlicher Carcano rifle that was found where it had been carefully hidden beneath boxes of books. The key question becomes ...Was Buell Frazier telling the truth? Can we rely on Frazier's veracity?
-
Since the tale of the paper bag rests on Buell Frazier's statement that Lee Oswald carried a paper bag on the back seat of the car when he drove them to work on the morning of the murder of President Kennedy. And since the Warren Commission ignored both Frazier and his sister when they testified that the bag they saw Lee Oswald carry was not long enough to have contained the Mannlicher Carcano rifle that was found where it had been carefully hidden beneath boxes of books. The key question becomes ...Was Buell Frazier telling the truth? Can we rely on Frazier's veracity?
Actually, the record shows that Frazier was shown the paper bag from the TSBD while he was being polygraphed in the evening hours of 11/22/63. Frazier not only failed to identify the bag but also added that the bag Oswald had carried was "definitely a thin, flimsy sack like the one purchased in a dime store".
A memo from James Anderton to SAC Dallas, dated 11/29/63, reveals the desperation of Lt. Day after Frazier failed to identify the heavy bag found at the TSBD. Anderton writes;
"Lt. Day states that he and other officers have surmised that Oswald, by dismantling the rifle, could have placed it in the thick brown sack folder over, and then placed the entire package in the flimsy paper sack"
The obvious question is why Day was so desperate to explain the discrepancy between the heavy bag allegedly found on the 6th floor of the TSBD and the flimsy bag Frazier had seen that he would come up with this theory. Even more so, if he really had found Oswald's prints on the heavy bag and the MC rifle......
-
Someday, you will figure out that one. Maybe by 2039? Truth will set you free.
-
Since the tale of the paper bag rests on Buell Frazier's statement that Lee Oswald carried a paper bag on the back seat of the car when he drove them to work on the morning of the murder of President Kennedy. And since the Warren Commission ignored both Frazier and his sister when they testified that the bag they saw Lee Oswald carry was not long enough to have contained the Mannlicher Carcano rifle that was found where it had been carefully hidden beneath boxes of books. The key question becomes ...Was Buell Frazier telling the truth? Can we rely on Frazier's veracity?
If Buell Frazier was going to lie about the bag's existence, wouldn't he at least state that the bag was long enough to contain the rifle? Why introduce a bag into the folklore but state that it was not long enough?
Silly conspirators.
-
The bag that Buell Wesley Frazier and Linnie May Randle saw the bag Oswald had is a classic example of, when life hands you a lemon, make lemonade.
Buell and Linnie saw Oswald carrying a long bag to work on the morning of November 22. That is bad. This only makes Oswald look guilty. Why is he carrying a long package into work on that day, of all days?
But, the solution is the focus on some minutiae. Both witnesses remember the bag being a bit too short. If taken as the absolute truth, it means Oswald did not bring his rifle in to work that day.
But can we take this as the absolute truth? Couldn?t the witnesses have been off on the exact length of the bag. Particularly since neither had any reason at the time to carefully note the exact length of the bag?
Also, CTers ignore that both witnesses had reasons for underestimating the length of the bag. Buell was accused of being an accessory to a murder. Because he had driver the accused assassin and his rifle to the plaza. Neither Buell nor Linnie, his sister, wanted this to happen. So naturally, they both have an incentive to underestimate the length of the bag. If the bag is too short to hold the rifle, then Buell cannot be charged.
So, this argument by CTers ignores three points.
1. The witnesses could be off a bit on the exact length of the bag.
2. Both witnesses have an incentive to underestimate the length of the bag.
3. CTers see no need to explain what Oswald was carrying in his long bag, if not his rifle.
-
Actually, the record shows that Frazier was shown the paper bag from the TSBD while he was being polygraphed in the evening hours of 11/22/63. Frazier not only failed to identify the bag but also added that the bag Oswald had carried was "definitely a thin, flimsy sack like the one purchased in a dime store".
A memo from James Anderton to SAC Dallas, dated 11/29/63, reveals the desperation of Lt. Day after Frazier failed to identify the heavy bag found at the TSBD. Anderton writes;
"Lt. Day states that he and other officers have surmised that Oswald, by dismantling the rifle, could have placed it in the thick brown sack folder over, and then placed the entire package in the flimsy paper sack"
The obvious question is why Day was so desperate to explain the discrepancy between the heavy bag allegedly found on the 6th floor of the TSBD and the flimsy bag Frazier had seen that he would come up with this theory. Even more so, if he really had found Oswald's prints on the heavy bag and the MC rifle......
Since the tale of the paper bag rests on Buell Frazier's statement that Lee Oswald carried a paper bag on the back seat of the car when he drove them to work on the morning of the murder of President Kennedy. And since the Warren Commission ignored both Frazier and his sister when they testified that the bag they saw Lee Oswald carry was not long enough to have contained the Mannlicher Carcano rifle that was found where it had been carefully hidden beneath boxes of books. The key question becomes ...Was Buell Frazier telling the truth? Can we rely on Frazier's veracity?
[/quote]
In the book The Day Kennedy Was Shot ( page 432) the author Bishop says that DPD detective Gus Rose had been informed by Linnie Mae Randall that Lee Oswald was carrying a paper sack that contained curtain rods ...
Quote.."A woman neighbor of the Oswalds has said that her brother had driven Oswald to work with curtain rods." unquote This is completely at odds with the official tale in which Buell Frazier is credited with presenting the curtain rod tale at the police station on the night of the murder.
The question is: Who first mentioned the curtain rods ?? IMO It was the Dallas police who told Frazier that Lee claimed that the paper sack contained curtain rods, when in reality Lee Oswald had said nothing of the kind ( just as he denied)
The cops were desperate to present a method by which Lee could have smuggled the Carcano into the TSBD. They needed Frazier to confirm that Lee Oswald had carried a long paper sack that morning. Thus they told Frazier that Lee has admitted that he had carried a long paper sack that contained curtain rods. The police had already tried to implicate Frazier by saying they could charge him as an accessory because he had transported the murder weapon in his car that morning......So when they told Frazier that Lee Oswald had said that the sack contained curtain rods Frazier jumped at the opportunity to clear himself of the charge of being an accessory and said that yes It was true that lee had told him that there were curtain rods in the sack. The wily cops cemented the curtain rod story for all time when they said that Frazier was telling the truth about the curtain rod story because he had passed a lie detector test in which he was questioned about the curtain rods..... In reality any results of a "lie detector" test would have been completely worthless
under the conditions in which it was administered.
-
The bag that Buell Wesley Frazier and Linnie May Randle saw the bag Oswald had is a classic example of, when life hands you a lemon, make lemonade.
Buell and Linnie saw Oswald carrying a long bag to work on the morning of November 22. That is bad. This only makes Oswald look guilty. Why is he carrying a long package into work on that day, of all days?
But, the solution is the focus on some minutiae. Both witnesses remember the bag being a bit too short. If taken as the absolute truth, it means Oswald did not bring his rifle in to work that day.
But can we take this as the absolute truth? Couldn?t the witnesses have been off on the exact length of the bag. Particularly since neither had any reason at the time to carefully note the exact length of the bag?
Also, CTers ignore that both witnesses had reasons for underestimating the length of the bag. Buell was accused of being an accessory to a murder. Because he had driver the accused assassin and his rifle to the plaza. Neither Buell nor Linnie, his sister, wanted this to happen. So naturally, they both have an incentive to underestimate the length of the bag. If the bag is too short to hold the rifle, then Buell cannot be charged.
So, this argument by CTers ignores three points.
1. The witnesses could be off a bit on the exact length of the bag.
2. Both witnesses have an incentive to underestimate the length of the bag.
3. CTers see no need to explain what Oswald was carrying in his long bag, if not his rifle.
You are (perhaps on purpose) ignoring two crucial pieces of information;
1. Frazier was shown the TSBD bag on Friday evening (at around 11.30 pm). This was the first time Frazier was asked about the bag and he would IMO have no way of knowing anything about it's later significance. This was also before the bag was ruined with silver nitrate (by Latona) and thus still had it's original color. So, while he was being polygraphed, Frazier instantly dismissed the bag shown to him as the one he saw Oswald carry.
Are you claiming that Frazier, while being polygraphed, purposely lied about the size of a bag which more than likely was insignificant to him at that time?
2. Frazier told the DPD officers that same night that the bag he had seen Oswald carry was "definitely a thin, flimsy sack like the one purchased in a dime store".
You can believe and argue all you want that Frazier and Randle underestimated the size of the bag, but how do you explain the points I have raised?
Simply by ignoring them, perhaps?
-
The bag that Buell Wesley Frazier and Linnie May Randle saw the bag Oswald had is a classic example of, when life hands you a lemon, make lemonade.
Buell and Linnie saw Oswald carrying a long bag to work on the morning of November 22. That is bad. This only makes Oswald look guilty. Why is he carrying a long package into work on that day, of all days?
But, the solution is the focus on some minutiae. Both witnesses remember the bag being a bit too short. If taken as the absolute truth, it means Oswald did not bring his rifle in to work that day.
But can we take this as the absolute truth? Couldn?t the witnesses have been off on the exact length of the bag. Particularly since neither had any reason at the time to carefully note the exact length of the bag?
Also, CTers ignore that both witnesses had reasons for underestimating the length of the bag. Buell was accused of being an accessory to a murder. Because he had driver the accused assassin and his rifle to the plaza. Neither Buell nor Linnie, his sister, wanted this to happen. So naturally, they both have an incentive to underestimate the length of the bag. If the bag is too short to hold the rifle, then Buell cannot be charged.
So, this argument by CTers ignores three points.
1. The witnesses could be off a bit on the exact length of the bag.
2. Both witnesses have an incentive to underestimate the length of the bag.
3. CTers see no need to explain what Oswald was carrying in his long bag, if not his rifle.
3. CTers see no need to explain what Oswald was carrying in his long bag, if not his rifle.
That's right, Joe.
Also, according to Fritz, Oswald claimed that all he carried that morning was his lunch sack, a sack which in no way can be mistaken for anything described by Randle and Frazier.
-
Since the tale of the paper bag rests on Buell Frazier's statement that Lee Oswald carried a paper bag on the back seat of the car when he drove them to work on the morning of the murder of President Kennedy. And since the Warren Commission ignored both Frazier and his sister when they testified that the bag they saw Lee Oswald carry was not long enough to have contained the Mannlicher Carcano rifle that was found where it had been carefully hidden beneath boxes of books. The key question becomes ...Was Buell Frazier telling the truth? Can we rely on Frazier's veracity?
In the book The Day Kennedy Was Shot ( page 432) the author Bishop says that DPD detective Gus Rose had been informed by Linnie Mae Randall that Lee Oswald was carrying a paper sack that contained curtain rods ...
Quote.."A woman neighbor of the Oswalds has said that her brother had driven Oswald to work with curtain rods." unquote This is completely at odds with the official tale in which Buell Frazier is credited with presenting the curtain rod tale at the police station on the night of the murder.
The question is: Who first mentioned the curtain rods ?? IMO It was the Dallas police who told Frazier that Lee claimed that the paper sack contained curtain rods, when in reality Lee Oswald had said nothing of the kind ( just as he denied)
The cops were desperate to present a method by which Lee could have smuggled the Carcano into the TSBD. They needed Frazier to confirm that Lee Oswald had carried a long paper sack that morning. Thus they told Frazier that Lee has admitted that he had carried a long paper sack that contained curtain rods. The police had already tried to implicate Frazier by saying they could charge him as an accessory because he had transported the murder weapon in his car that morning......So when they told Frazier that Lee Oswald had said that the sack contained curtain rods Frazier jumped at the opportunity to clear himself of the charge of being an accessory and said that yes It was true that lee had told him that there were curtain rods in the sack. The wily cops cemented the curtain rod story for all time when they said that Frazier was telling the truth about the curtain rod story because he had passed a lie detector test in which he was questioned about the curtain rods..... In reality any results of a "lie detector" test would have been completely worthless
under the conditions in which it was administered.
So when they told Frazier that Lee Oswald had said that the sack contained curtain rods Frazier jumped at the opportunity to clear himself of the charge of being an accessory and said that yes It was true that lee had told him that there were curtain rods in the sack.
LOL
-
You are (perhaps on purpose) ignoring two crucial pieces of information;
1. Frazier was shown the TSBD bag on Friday evening (at around 11.30 pm). This was the first time Frazier was asked about the bag and he would IMO have no way of knowing anything about it's later significance. This was also before the bag was ruined with silver nitrate (by Latona) and thus still had it's original color. So, while he was being polygraphed, Frazier instantly dismissed the bag shown to him as the one he saw Oswald carry.
Are you claiming that Frazier, while being polygraphed, purposely lied about the size of a bag which more than likely was insignificant to him at that time?
2. Frazier told the DPD officers that same night that the bag he had seen Oswald carry was "definitely a thin, flimsy sack like the one purchased in a dime store".
You can believe and argue all you want that Frazier and Randle underestimated the size of the bag, but how do you explain the points I have raised?
Simply by ignoring them, perhaps?
Are you claiming that Frazier, while being polygraphed, purposely lied about the size of a bag which more than likely was insignificant to him at that time?
Frazier felt the bag was significant enough to mention it in his affidavit given a couple hours before the polygraph.
-
Addendum:
Michael Shermer has pointed out that the side that argues against the truth focuses on minutiae, whether it is 9/11 truthers, Scientific Creationists or Holocaust deniers. And don?t look at the overall picture.
Holocaust deniers claim presence of ?Prussian Blue? in the in the delousing stations but not in the gas chambers prove that the gas chambers were not used to kill people. Ignoring that insects require a much higher presence of cyanide is needed to kill insects (16,000 parts per million) than people (300 parts per million).
Scientific Creationists claiming human footprints besides dinosaur footprints disprove the Theory of Evolution. Ignoring the possibility of the ?human footprints? being chiseled into the rock by fakers.
9/11 Truthers pointing out that the fires could not have been hot enough to melt steel, and not considering that the steel doesn?t have to be melted, just heated to a high enough temperature long enough, to fail to support the tremendous weight of the building.
And just this weekend we see CTers doing the same thing.
1. The southwest corner of the sixth floor of the TSBD looks like a sniper?s nest, but it is claimed that it is just a bit too cramped to be used to shoot from.
2. The bag Oswald carried with him into work looked like it could have been used to carry his rifle into work that day, but it is claimed that it was just a bit too short to hold the rifle.
-
Re-ashing the old evidence and theories that have been discussed and debated to death. I'm sure you will bring a great contribution to the case.
-
You are (perhaps on purpose) ignoring two crucial pieces of information;
1. Frazier was shown the TSBD bag on Friday evening (at around 11.30 pm). This was the first time Frazier was asked about the bag and he would IMO have no way of knowing anything about it's later significance. This was also before the bag was ruined with silver nitrate (by Latona) and thus still had it's original color. So, while he was being polygraphed, Frazier instantly dismissed the bag shown to him as the one he saw Oswald carry.
Are you claiming that Frazier, while being polygraphed, purposely lied about the size of a bag which more than likely was insignificant to him at that time?
2. Frazier told the DPD officers that same night that the bag he had seen Oswald carry was "definitely a thin, flimsy sack like the one purchased in a dime store".
You can believe and argue all you want that Frazier and Randle underestimated the size of the bag, but how do you explain the points I have raised?
Simply by ignoring them, perhaps?
You wish.
Frazier that being threatened with being charged with being an accessory to the murder. By transporting the assassin and the rifle contained within a bag. This went on for many hours and was still going on at 11:30 pm.
Given this pressure, it is natural that Frazier would:
1. State the bag he saw with Oswald was too short to hold the rifle.
2. State that the bag he saw with Oswald bag was too flimsy to hold the rifle.
3. State that the bag presented to him, which was long enough and not too flimsy, was not the bag he saw Oswald with.
Given the pressure put on Frazier to confess, would it not be natural for Frazier to convince himself of this? If any of claims 1, 2 or 3 are true, the charges of the state against Frazier collapses.
Your airily claim that Frazier would not have known about the significance of the bag at 11:30 pm is false. He had already been questioned about it for hours and strongly urged to sign a written confession. Of course, he knew the significance of the bag presented to him at 11:30 pm.
-
Didn't they attach cables from a car battery to his testicles so he would say that the bag was only 2 feet long? You know, those dirty tactics that cops use.
I'm surprised that Frazier has not added this to his claim that Fritz was going to punch him.
-
That answers my question, I guess.... you deal with the facts by ignoring them!
YOU are ignoring the fact that Frazier felt the bag significant enough to be sure to mention it in his affidavit, which he gave a couple hours BEFORE the polygraph.
-
You wish.
Frazier that being threatened with being charged with being an accessory to the murder. By transporting the assassin and the rifle contained within a bag. This went on for many hours and was still going on at 11:30 pm.
Given this pressure, it is natural that Frazier would:
1. State the bag he saw with Oswald was too short to hold the rifle.
2. State that the bag he saw with Oswald bag was too flimsy to hold the rifle.
3. State that the bag presented to him, which was long enough and not too flimsy, was not the bag he saw Oswald with.
So, without any evidence for it, you are basically accusing Frazier of purposely outright lying about the size and nature of the bag....
That's a far cry from saying that Frazier wasn't paying attention and was simply mistaken.... but if that's the way you want to go....
Btw, for what it's worth, Lt Day clearly believed him, because on 11/29/63 Day was still developing his flawed theory that Oswald could have used the flimsy bag to conceal the heavy bag in which he carried the rifle....
Given the pressure put on Frazier to confess, would it not be natural for Frazier to convince himself of this? If any of claims 1, 2 or 3 are true, the charges of the state against Frazier collapses.
So, Frazier convinced himself that his lies are actually true, thus beating the polygraph.... Is that what you are saying?
Your airily claim that Frazier would not have known about the significance of the bag at 11:30 pm is false. He had already been questioned about it for hours and strongly urged to sign a written confession. Of course, he knew the significance of the bag presented to him at 11:30 pm.
The first question to be answered of course is; when exactly did Frazier give and sign the affidavit? Was it prior to him being polygraphed or after it?
Since when is it police procedure to let a potential suspect first give an affidavit and only then, maybe for the fun of it, apply pressure on him by having him polygraphed?
Secondly, the affidavit clearly shows that Frazier must have been questioned about the events of the day, including the bag, by then, but there is nothing in the affidavit that would suggest that he was made aware why the police was so interested in that bag. It's not normal procedure for police to volunteer information to potential suspects, is it?
-
His sister initially said it was about 3 feet by 6 inches. Then it shrunk.
-
His sister initially said it was about 3 feet by 6 inches. Then it shrunk.
You don't know this for a fact.
It was Bookhout who wrote that in an internal FBI report, which Linny Mae never read or signed.
-
You don't know this for a fact.
It was Bookhout who wrote that in an internal FBI report, which Linny Mae never read or signed.
Well it's unlikely she chose to reveal she had seen Oswald carrying a lunch sack that morning.
-
Well it's unlikely she chose to reveal she had seen Oswald carrying a lunch sack that morning.
It is not really of any importance what you consider to be unlikely....
By the time she testified before the WC Frazier was no longer in danger of being considered a suspect or co-conspirator.
Can you think of one reason for Linnie May to nevertheless lie in her testimony under oath about the size of a paper bag?
-
She lied to protect her brother. Then she lied for the rest of her life to protect her integrity.
-
She lied to protect her brother. Then she lied for the rest of her life to protect her integrity.
Really? And you know this how? You wouldn't just be giving us your biased opinion, would you?
And what about Buell Frazier.... he still stands by his first day testimony to this day. Is he lying also?
-
Call it biased opinion. Call it logic. Whatever. Makes no odds anyway. Unless one chooses to believe Oswald didn't take a rifle into the TSBD.
-
Call it biased opinion. Call it logic. Whatever. Makes no odds anyway. Unless one chooses to believe Oswald didn't take a rifle into the TSBD.
Oh but it makes odds. This is some logic for you;
Without the paper bag being big enough you have no way to demonstrate that Oswald ever took a rifle into the TSBD.
So I guess you just choose to believe that Oswald brought the rifle into the TSBD regardless of the fact that there isn't a shred of evidence for it...
-
Oh but it makes odds. This is some logic for you;
Without the paper bag being big enough you have no way to demonstrate that Oswald ever took a rifle into the TSBD.
So I guess you just choose to believe that Oswald brought the rifle into the TSBD regardless of the fact that there isn't a shred of evidence for it...
They're not allowed to believe otherwise, Martin. Haven't you figured them out yet?
-
They're not allowed to believe otherwise, Martin. Haven't you figured them out yet?
Well, it's surely remarkable how they "deal" with known facts.....
-
Oh but it makes odds. This is some logic for you;
Without the paper bag being big enough you have no way to demonstrate that Oswald ever took a rifle into the TSBD.
So I guess you just choose to believe that Oswald brought the rifle into the TSBD regardless of the fact that there isn't a shred of evidence for it...
I don't need to prove anything. He took it in and he used it. Proving it in a court of law isn't something I need to concern myself with.
OJ Simpson butchered two people. The prosecution didn't do enough to convince the jury but the defence did enough to introduce reasonable doubt in their minds. He still did it though, or at the very least he can be placed at the scene of the crime during or after the crime. Was anyone else involved? Who knows. LAPD didn't seem to consider that so we'll probably never know.
Oswald shot Kennedy and Tippit. Was anyone else involved? Who knows. If there ever was any evidence of that it was destroyed years ago but anyone still claiming Oswald was a Patsy after all these years has a screw loose or they are just misinformed.
-
I don't need to prove anything. He took it in and he used it. Proving it in a court of law isn't something I need to concern myself with.
OJ Simpson butchered two people. The prosecution didn't do enough to convince the jury but the defence did enough to introduce reasonable doubt in their minds. He still did it though, or at the very least he can be placed at the scene of the crime during or after the crime. Was anyone else involved? Who knows. LAPD didn't seem to consider that so we'll probably never know.
Oswald shot Kennedy and Tippit. Was anyone else involved? Who knows. If there ever was any evidence of that it was destroyed years ago but anyone still claiming Oswald was a Patsy after all these years has a screw loose or they are just misinformed.
I don't need to prove anything. He took it in and he used it.
Really?
Proving it in a court of law isn't something I need to concern myself with.
It is of course far easier to just make unsubstantiated claims based on bias....
OJ Simpson butchered two people. The prosecution didn't do enough to convince the jury but the defence did enough to introduce reasonable doubt in their minds. He still did it though, or at the very least he can be placed at the scene of the crime during or after the crime. Was anyone else involved? Who knows. LAPD didn't seem to consider that so we'll probably never know.
I agree with you. I too think he was guilty but I nevertheless agreed with the verdict of the jury because the prosecution failed to make it's case beyond a reasonable doubt.
The problem for you is that the Simpson case has nothing to do with the JFK murder, except of course for the comparison that the WC also failed to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt.
Oswald shot Kennedy and Tippit.
There is the biased opinion again.... Making such a claim without being able to back it up with even a shred of evidence makes you completely insignificant for this forum.
-
....Making such a claim without being able to back it up with even a shred of evidence...
LOL
-
So, without any evidence for it, you are basically accusing Frazier of purposely outright lying about the size and nature of the bag....
That's a far cry from saying that Frazier wasn't paying attention and was simply mistaken.... but if that's the way you want to go....
I do not know if Mr. Frazier was lying about the bag. I see no reason to believe he was lying. More likely, he was honestly mistaken. The threats the police made to him, of charging him with being an accessory to a murder, very likely would influence him into believing that the bag he saw Oswald with could not have contained the rifle. If this is true, Frazier is in the clear and it would be natural for him to fall into this belief.
Btw, for what it's worth, Lt Day clearly believed him, because on 11/29/63 Day was still developing his flawed theory that Oswald could have used the flimsy bag to conceal the heavy bag in which he carried the rifle....
A theory that pretty well falls apart with the failure to find the ?outer? bag. Did Oswald eat the outer bag?
So, Frazier convinced himself that his lies are actually true, thus beating the polygraph.... Is that what you are saying?
Under the best of conditions, the polygraph is not the most reliable way of telling the truth. Courts have found it to be not reliable. Hence, the results of polygraph tests are not allowed in court cases in most states in the country. While fingerprint evidence, which has with proven much more reliable, are allowed in all 50 states.
But if a polygraph test is reliable, it would be on questions the subject knows the answer to. ?Did you murder your wife?. ?Did you steal that man?s wallet?.
In Frazier?s case, his fears and hopes may very well of convinced him that the bag he saw was too short to hold a rifle, too flimsy to hold that rifle and that the bag the police was showing him was not the bag he saw Oswald with earlier in the day. It?s possible Frazier was lying. But it?s also possible he was being honest and thought he was telling the truth. If this is true, naturally we might expect him to pass a polygraph test that the bag he saw earlier was not the same bag the police showed him.
If a subject believes a falsehood, and he is questioned while being polygraphed about this falsehood, naturally the polygraph test will indicate that this statement is true. If a Scientific Creationist is questioned whether Theory of Evolution is true or not, the polygraph test will indicate that it is false. If a Holocaust Denier is question whether Holocaust really occurred or not, the polygraph test will indicate that it did not. Hence, we cannot conclude that the bag Oswald was carrying could not have contained a rifle because of a polygraph test.
In conclusion, I don?t know if Frazier was lying about the bag. I see no reason to believe he was lying, even if the bag presented to him was the same one he saw Oswald carrying. I see no reason not to give Mr. Frazier the benefit of the doubt. I believe that Mr. Frazier was probably honestly mistaken. His mistakes likely originated with the threats the police made to him.
The first question to be answered of course is; when exactly did Frazier give and sign the affidavit? Was it prior to him being polygraphed or after it?
Since when is it police procedure to let a potential suspect first give an affidavit and only then, maybe for the fun of it, apply pressure on him by having him polygraphed?
Secondly, the affidavit clearly shows that Frazier must have been questioned about the events of the day, including the bag, by then, but there is nothing in the affidavit that would suggest that he was made aware why the police was so interested in that bag. It's not normal procedure for police to volunteer information to potential suspects, is it?
I don?t know what police procedures were back then. I imagine it varied from office to office. Some police might use a polygraph test. Others might not. Let alone a standard procedure on the order affidavits are signed and polygraph tests are given. If they get a confession after the polygraph test, they can always have the subject sign a different affidavit.
-
Really? And you know this how? You wouldn't just be giving us your biased opinion, would you?
And what about Buell Frazier.... he still stands by his first day testimony to this day. Is he lying also?
Yes, I believe that Fazier is lying about Lee telling him that there were curtain rods in the bag.....
At the time he first told that lie ( the night of 11/22/63 ) he saw it as a way of supporting Lee Oswald , who the cops said had told them the paper sack contained curtain rods ( though Lee never made any such claim) Frazier saw it as a way of escaping the charge of being an accessory and at the same supporting Lee's alleged statement.
This is the prime reason that they called Frazier back to the police station to take a lie detector test....(a worthless test under the conditions that existed) They wanted Frazier to believe that the machine had supported him in saying that Lee told him that the bag contained curtain rods..... And Frazier still believes that the lie detector test was legitmate. So to this very day he spews the lie that Lee told him the bag held curtain rods.
-
I do not know if Mr. Frazier was lying about the bag. I see no reason to believe he was lying. More likely, he was honestly mistaken. The threats the police made to him, of charging him with being an accessory to a murder, very likely would influence him into believing that the bag he saw Oswald with could not have contained the rifle. If this is true, Frazier is in the clear and it would be natural for him to fall into this belief.
You don't know if Frazier was lying or not, but you make the case anyway that police threats could have influenced him to deviate from the truth and make an "honest mistake" altering not only the size of the bag but also the description of the type of bag.
Sounds like you want your cake and eat it too....
A theory that pretty well falls apart with the failure to find the ?outer? bag. Did Oswald eat the outer bag?
Oh I agree... Day's theory only shows his desperation to explain the large discrepancy between the heavy bag he had and the flimsy bag Frazier had described. But that wasn't the point.... Day took Frazier's description seriously enough to look for an explanation, no matter how silly... In other words; he believed Frazier. That was the point.
Under the best of conditions, the polygraph is not the most reliable way of telling the truth. Courts have found it to be not reliable. Hence, the results of polygraph tests are not allowed in court cases in most states in the country. While fingerprint evidence, which has with proven much more reliable, are allowed in all 50 states.
But if a polygraph test is reliable, it would be on questions the subject knows the answer to. ?Did you murder your wife?. ?Did you steal that man?s wallet?.
It is of little significance if the polygraph is actually reliable or not. Police know full well that polygraphs are not admissible in court, yet they still use them to intimidate suspects to this day. What would be significant is what Frazier, as a 19 year old, would know about polygraphs and if that knowledge would be sufficient to attempt to lie about the bag.
In Frazier?s case, his fears and hopes may very well of convinced him that the bag he saw was too short to hold a rifle, too flimsy to hold that rifle and that the bag the police was showing him was not the bag he saw Oswald with earlier in the day. It?s possible Frazier was lying. But it?s also possible he was being honest and thought he was telling the truth. If this is true, naturally we might expect him to pass a polygraph test that the bag he saw earlier was not the same bag the police showed him.
That's a highly convoluted, speculative, far reaching and self-serving assumption to make. I don't believe it for a second that Frazier convinced himself in only a few hours time that he saw something different from what he actually saw and thus in doing so fooled the polygraph. A far more logical and honest conclusion would be that he simply told the truth..... but I can understand why that would be a problem for you.
If a subject believes a falsehood, and he is questioned while being polygraphed about this falsehood, naturally the polygraph test will indicate that this statement is true. If a Scientific Creationist is questioned whether Theory of Evolution is true or not, the polygraph test will indicate that it is false. If a Holocaust Denier is question whether Holocaust really occurred or not, the polygraph test will indicate that it did not. Hence, we cannot conclude that the bag Oswald was carrying could not have contained a rifle because of a polygraph test.
You are giving over the top examples about the creation and holocaust involving die hard believers with deeply rooted convictions that have absolutely nothing to do with a polygraph test being taken from a 19 year old kid.
In conclusion, I don?t know if Frazier was lying about the bag. I see no reason to believe he was lying, even if the bag presented to him was the same one he saw Oswald carrying. I see no reason not to give Mr. Frazier the benefit of the doubt. I believe that Mr. Frazier was probably honestly mistaken. His mistakes likely originated with the threats the police made to him.
This is so funny... and sad at the same time. You are willing to give Frazier the benefit of the doubt and in the next sentence you proclaim that he was probably mistaken..... Sorry Joe, but you're all over the place on this one. Try telling this to your best friends and see how they react.
I don?t know what police procedures were back then. I imagine it varied from office to office. Some police might use a polygraph test. Others might not. Let alone a standard procedure on the order affidavits are signed and polygraph tests are given. If they get a confession after the polygraph test, they can always have the subject sign a different affidavit.
Let's for argument's sake assume that the DPD had indeed a procedure where they would let a suspect first give an affidavit and then question him.... then, where is Oswald's affidavit?
In any event, since you admit that you do not know, you are only speculating here. But I have to conceed that - unlike others - at least you are trying.
-
I don't need to prove anything. He took it in and he used it.
Really?
Proving it in a court of law isn't something I need to concern myself with.
It is of course far easier to just make unsubstantiated claims based on bias....
OJ Simpson butchered two people. The prosecution didn't do enough to convince the jury but the defence did enough to introduce reasonable doubt in their minds. He still did it though, or at the very least he can be placed at the scene of the crime during or after the crime. Was anyone else involved? Who knows. LAPD didn't seem to consider that so we'll probably never know.
I agree with you. I too think he was guilty but I nevertheless agreed with the verdict of the jury because the prosecution failed to make it's case beyond a reasonable doubt.
The problem for you is that the Simpson case has nothing to do with the JFK murder, except of course for the comparison that the WC also failed to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt.
Oswald shot Kennedy and Tippit.
There is the biased opinion again.... Making such a claim without being able to back it up with even a shred of evidence makes you completely insignificant for this forum.
All the evidence was contained within the archives of this Forum before they were recently lost. Shame you didn't bother to read through it all. I'm only insignificant to you because you'll never believe Oswald murdered two people.
-
That's a highly convoluted, speculative, far reaching and self-serving assumption to make. I don't believe it for a second that Frazier convinced himself in only a few hours time that he saw something different from what he actually saw and thus in doing so fooled the polygraph. A far more logical and honest conclusion would be that he simply told the truth..... but I can understand why that would be a problem for you.
I am not being highly speculative.
The evidence is clear that Oswald brought his rifle into work that day.
1. He got a ride to the Paine?s house on a Thursday night. He had never done that before. He always got a ride on a Friday night, so he can visit with his wife and children the whole weekend. Why come home on a Thursday night when he can only stay overnight? CTers don?t even try to answer that one.
2. He was seen by two witnesses bringing to work a long paper bag that seemed to contain something. CTers don?t even try to answer what could have been in that bag.
3. Oswald denied to the police bringing in a long bag with him at all that day.
The simple, straight forward, Occam?s Razor?s answer is, that Oswald was smuggling in his rifle.
Counter argument arguments require a lot of people lying, a Large-Secret-Enduring Conspiracy. Something that skeptics don?t believe in.
Your beliefs are highly speculative. And require a lot of unreasonable assumptions.
The police were lying when they said Oswald claimed he did not bring in a long package that day. The police made the package that could have contained a rifle and snuck the original out of the building.
Perhaps Mr. Frazier and Mrs. Randle were lying when they told the police that Oswald carried a long package into work that day. If so, the police repaid them in a funny way, threating Mr. Frazier with a charge of being an accessory to the murder. Getting his sister, Mrs. Randle, all upset.
Maybe the police are lying about Mr. Frazier and Mrs. Randle saying they saw Oswald with a long package. Maybe they both lied for the rest of their lives for fear of this Large-Secret-Enduring Conspiracy.
Maybe Mr. Frazier and the others are lying when they claim that Oswald never came to the Paine?s home on a Thursday night before. Or maybe they are all lying about him coming home that Thursday night at all.
The testimony of Mr. Frazier and Mrs. Randle ?proves? the bag could not have contained the rifle. Never mind the photographs of the police carrying a bag long enough to contain the rifle out of the building. They could have made that bag or tampered with the photographs and films since the news media was in on the conspiracy too.
The bottom line is not that I am being very speculative. I am following simple logical reasoning, coming to the most probable conclusion.
The only apart I am being speculative about, is assuming that Mr. Frazier and Mrs. Randle were honestly mistaken, influenced by their fears of what might happen to Mr. Frazier. Perhaps they were lying. But I see no reason to not give them the benefit of the doubt.
The evidence shows that Oswald did smuggle a rifle into work that day. Or pretended to. So that means that the details of the testimony that Mr. Frazier and Mrs. Randle gave testimony to are false. But there are insufficient reasons to conclude that either was lying.
-
I am not being highly speculative.
The evidence is clear that Oswald brought his rifle into work that day.
1. He got a ride to the Paine?s house on a Thursday night. He had never done that before. He always got a ride on a Friday night, so he can visit with his wife and children the whole weekend. Why come home on a Thursday night when he can only stay overnight? CTers don?t even try to answer that one.
2. He was seen by two witnesses bringing to work a long paper bag that seemed to contain something. CTers don?t even try to answer what could have been in that bag.
3. Oswald denied to the police bringing in a long bag with him at all that day.
The simple, straight forward, Occam?s Razor?s answer is, that Oswald was smuggling in his rifle.
Occam's Razor is about reasoning with as little as possible assumptions. This does not apply here. You can not conclude from a voluntary visit and two witnesses seeing Oswald carrying a paper bag that Oswald went to Irving to collect a rifle and brought it to the TSBD.
Instead, what you are saying is circular logic...based on the assumption that there was indeed a rifle in Ruth Paine's garage and that it was the MC rifle later found at the TSBD.
I am not being highly speculative.
You may have been so involved in this case for so long that you truly do realize that you are, but this doesn't alter the fact that you are being exactly that.
Counter argument arguments require a lot of people lying, a Large-Secret-Enduring Conspiracy. Something that skeptics don?t believe in.
That's a hyperbole
Your beliefs are highly speculative. And require a lot of unreasonable assumptions.
I have not told you what my beliefs are, so you don't know what (if any) my assumptions are and how reasonable or unreasonable they are.
The police were lying when they said Oswald claimed he did not bring in a long package that day. The police made the package that could have contained a rifle and snuck the original out of the building.
Who said that?
Perhaps Mr. Frazier and Mrs. Randle were lying when they told the police that Oswald carried a long package into work that day. If so, the police repaid them in a funny way, threating Mr. Frazier with a charge of being an accessory to the murder. Getting his sister, Mrs. Randle, all upset.
Maybe the police are lying about Mr. Frazier and Mrs. Randle saying they saw Oswald with a long package. Maybe they both lied for the rest of their lives for fear of this Large-Secret-Enduring Conspiracy.
Maybe Mr. Frazier and the others are lying when they claim that Oswald never came to the Paine?s home on a Thursday night before. Or maybe they are all lying about him coming home that Thursday night at all.
And maybe you are just hand waving
The testimony of Mr. Frazier and Mrs. Randle ?proves? the bag could not have contained the rifle. Never mind the photographs of the police carrying a bag long enough to contain the rifle out of the building. They could have made that bag or tampered with the photographs and films since the news media was in on the conspiracy too.
Nobody said that Frazier's and Randle's testimony "proved" that... The rest is more hand waving
The mere fact that a bag is large enough to possibly hold a rifle does not automatically mean that it did hold a rifle.
The bottom line is not that I am being very speculative. I am following simple logical reasoning, coming to the most probable conclusion.
I think you simply have convinced yourself that you are not being speculative. Instead of following "simple logical reasoning" why don't you try to look at the available evidence objectively and base your conclusion on that rather than concentrating on a possible non-related bag that was potentially big enough to possibly conceal a rifle?
The only apart I am being speculative about, is assuming that Mr. Frazier and Mrs. Randle were honestly mistaken, influenced by their fears of what might happen to Mr. Frazier. Perhaps they were lying. But I see no reason to not give them the benefit of the doubt.
Already answered.
The evidence shows that Oswald did smuggle a rifle into work that day. Or pretended to. So that means that the details of the testimony that Mr. Frazier and Mrs. Randle gave testimony to are false. But there are insufficient reasons to conclude that either was lying.
The evidence shows that Oswald did smuggle a rifle into work that day. Or pretended to.
Actually, as far as I can tell, the evidence does not show anything of the kind, but for argument's sake, why don't you produce that evidence so we can discuss it?
So that means that the details of the testimony that Mr. Frazier and Mrs. Randle gave testimony to are false.
There you go again basing a assumptive conclusion on another assumption.
-
If Buell Frazier was going to lie about the bag's existence, wouldn't he at least state that the bag was long enough to contain the rifle? Why introduce a bag into the folklore but state that it was not long enough?
Silly conspirators.
That's a great question. CTers deal in multiple and often mutually exclusive realities. One in which Frazier's estimate of the bag must be 100% accurate and others in which he is an outright liar trying to frame Oswald for some unspecified reason. It seems pretty obvious from the totality of facts what happened. Oswald carried a long bag that morning. Frazier honestly but ERRONEOUSLY estimated its length. We know he was incorrect on its length because the actual bag was found and measured. It had Oswald's prints on it, was found next to the SN (also with Oswald's prints and fired bullet casings from his rifle), the bag had no apparent work related purpose for being there, was never explained or claimed by anyone else who worked in the TSBD, and no bag matching Frazier's size estimate was ever found. If there were any doubt, Oswald himself denied carrying any bag the length estimated by Frazier. In effect, CTers are claiming Oswald is lying about the bag. This would be inexplicable if it contained some innocuous item like curtain rods. Oswald only has cause to deny carrying such a bag if it is in his self-interest to do so because it contained the rifle. This is all so simple and obvious to any person with a functioning brain that it humorous to see the lengths CTers will go to spin a contrarian fable.
-
That's a great question. CTers deal in multiple and often mutually exclusive realities. One in which Frazier's estimate of the bag must be 100% accurate and others in which he is an outright liar trying to frame Oswald for some unspecified reason. It seems pretty obvious from the totality of facts what happened. Oswald carried a long bag that morning. Frazier honestly but ERRONEOUSLY estimated its length. We know he was incorrect on its length because the actual bag was found and measured. It had Oswald's prints on it, was found next to the SN (also with Oswald's prints and fired bullet casings from his rifle), the bag had no apparent work related purpose for being there, was never explained or claimed by anyone else who worked in the TSBD, and no bag matching Frazier's size estimate was ever found. If there were any doubt, Oswald himself denied carrying any bag the length estimated by Frazier. In effect, CTers are claiming Oswald is lying about the bag. This would be inexplicable if it contained some innocuous item like curtain rods. Oswald only has cause to deny carrying such a bag if it is in his self-interest to do so because it contained the rifle. This is all so simple and obvious to any person with a functioning brain that it humorous to see the lengths CTers will go to spin a contrarian fable.
One in which Frazier's estimate of the bag must be 100% accurate and others in which he is an outright liar trying to frame Oswald for some unspecified reason.
Why are you jumping in with mindless comments without actually having read the thread?
Had you read the thread, you would have known that we are not talking about size estimates at all. And the only one who so far implied that Frazier (and Randle) could have been lying is Joe Elliott.
So all your hand waving is completely beside the point. It only reveals your inability to think beyond the borders of your own faith driven bias.
This is all so simple and obvious to any person with a functioning brain
This is all so simple and obvious to any person without a functioning brain.
There, I fixed it for you, Richard
-
One in which Frazier's estimate of the bag must be 100% accurate and others in which he is an outright liar trying to frame Oswald for some unspecified reason.
Why are you jumping in with mindless comments without actually having read the thread?
Had you read the thread, you would have known that we are not talking about size estimates at all. And the only one who so far implied that Frazier (and Randle) could have been lying is Joe Elliott.
So all your hand waving is completely beside the point. It only reveals your inability to think beyond the borders of your own faith driven bias.
Several CTers including the original OP in this thread have implied or questioned whether Frazier was lying about the bag (Walt: "The key question becomes ...Was Buell Frazier telling the truth? Can we rely on Frazier's veracity?"). So you might pay more attention before lecturing others on the topic under discussion and embarrassing yourself. If you are conceding the absurdity of that position, then congratulations. It is a rare, perhaps singular example that you have a functional brain. But don't blame me for the claims of your nutty kindred CTers. Also this may highlight an important distinction. I believe Frazier was telling the truth to the best of his ability about the bag. He honestly but erroneously thought that the bag was shorter than it was. He was wrong but not lying. CTers seem to believe that witnesses must either be absolutely correct in their testimony or intentionally lying. There is no room for honest but incorrect statements.
-
Several CTers including the original OP in this thread have implied or questioned whether Frazier was lying about the bag (Walt: "The key question becomes ...Was Buell Frazier telling the truth? Can we rely on Frazier's veracity?"). So you might pay more attention before lecturing others on the topic under discussion and embarrassing yourself. If you are conceding the absurdity of that position, then congratulations. It is a rare, perhaps singular example that you have a functional brain. But don't blame me for the claims of your nutty kindred CTers. Also this may highlight an important distinction. I believe Frazier was telling the truth to the best of his ability about the bag. He honestly but erroneously thought that the bag was shorter than it was. He was wrong but not lying. CTers seem to believe that witnesses must either be absolutely correct in their testimony or intentionally lying. There is no room for honest but incorrect statements.
Several CTers including the original OP in this thread have implied or questioned whether Frazier was lying about the bag (Walt: "The key question becomes ...Was Buell Frazier telling the truth? Can we rely on Frazier's veracity?"). So you might pay more attention before lecturing others on the topic under discussion and embarrassing yourself.
Had you read the entire thread you would have known that the question Walt asked in the opening post was not the topic of discussion in the remainder of the thread.
Also this may highlight an important distinction. I believe Frazier was telling the truth to the best of his ability about the bag. He honestly but erroneously thought that the bag was shorter than it was. He was wrong but not lying.
Ah.. the classic LN default position.... Frazier and Randle were simply mistaken about the size of the bag....
But what of the fact that Frazier was being polygraphed when he was shown the TSBD bag In it's original state) for the first time. The polygraph didn't register a lie, because we would have heard about if it did. Yet Frazier instantly dismissed the TSBD bag as the one he had seen Oswald carry that same morning. And not only that, but (according to James Anderson's memo to SAC Dallas) he also described Oswald's bag as "definitely a thin, flimsy sack like the one purchased in a dime store"..... and guess what Lt Day believed him!
None of this has anything to do whatsoever with size estimates... so how do you explain that, Richard?
-
Several CTers including the original OP in this thread have implied or questioned whether Frazier was lying about the bag (Walt: "The key question becomes ...Was Buell Frazier telling the truth? Can we rely on Frazier's veracity?"). So you might pay more attention before lecturing others on the topic under discussion and embarrassing yourself.
Had you read the entire thread you would have known that the question Walt asked in the opening post was not the topic of discussion in the remainder of the thread.
Also this may highlight an important distinction. I believe Frazier was telling the truth to the best of his ability about the bag. He honestly but erroneously thought that the bag was shorter than it was. He was wrong but not lying.
Ah.. the classic LN default position.... Frazier and Randle were simply mistaken about the size of the bag....
But what of the fact that Frazier was being polygraphed when he was shown the TSBD bag In it's original state) for the first time. The polygraph didn't register a lie, because we would have heard about if it did. Yet Frazier instantly dismissed the TSBD bag as the one he had seen Oswald carry that same morning. And not only that, but (according to James Anderson's memo to SAC Dallas) he also described Oswald's bag as "definitely a thin, flimsy sack like the one purchased in a dime store"..... and guess what Lt Day believed him!
None of this has anything to do whatsoever with size estimates... so how do you explain that, Richard?
I've been studying the paper bag aspect ( as it first emerged) pretty thoroughly recently.....
I am now of the opinion that It was Buell Frazier's sister Linnie Mae Randle who first mentioned "curtain rods"
Linnie Mae saw the police cars gathered around the Paine residence and by her own statement she said that she had been following evens on the TV and radio, when she heard that the suspect's name was Lee Harvey Oswald ... That's when she went the half block to the Paine residence and reported to Detective Adamcik that she had sen Lee Oswald carrying a long paper sack like the sacks that are used for curtain rods.....
-
If Buell Frazier was going to lie about the bag's existence, wouldn't he at least state that the bag was long enough to contain the rifle? Why introduce a bag into the folklore but state that it was not long enough?
Silly conspirators.
Frazier never lied about the bag's existence...... He knew hat his sister had told the police that lee was carrying a curtain rod type bag when she saw him walking i the rain that morning. Frazier wasn't about to cal his sister a liar... so he went along with that idea while having absolute knowledge that the bag could NOT have held that rifle. Frazier grossly underestimated the perfidy and treachery of the DPD..... He wasn't bright enough to understand that the were going to present the results of his so called "lie detector test" in which he said they had told him the test showed that he was telling the truth. Of course if Frazier was telling the truth then Lee Oswald had to be lying.....
The whole thing was a charade.....
-
Several CTers including the original OP in this thread have implied or questioned whether Frazier was lying about the bag (Walt: "The key question becomes ...Was Buell Frazier telling the truth? Can we rely on Frazier's veracity?"). So you might pay more attention before lecturing others on the topic under discussion and embarrassing yourself.
Had you read the entire thread you would have known that the question Walt asked in the opening post was not the topic of discussion in the remainder of the thread.
Also this may highlight an important distinction. I believe Frazier was telling the truth to the best of his ability about the bag. He honestly but erroneously thought that the bag was shorter than it was. He was wrong but not lying.
Ah.. the classic LN default position.... Frazier and Randle were simply mistaken about the size of the bag....
But what of the fact that Frazier was being polygraphed when he was shown the TSBD bag In it's original state) for the first time. The polygraph didn't register a lie, because we would have heard about if it did. Yet Frazier instantly dismissed the TSBD bag as the one he had seen Oswald carry that same morning. And not only that, but (according to James Anderson's memo to SAC Dallas) he also described Oswald's bag as "definitely a thin, flimsy sack like the one purchased in a dime store"..... and guess what Lt Day believed him!
None of this has anything to do whatsoever with size estimates... so how do you explain that, Richard?
The totality of evidence confirms that Frazier described the bag to the best of his ability but got it wrong. What is so difficult to understand about that? The bag was found. We therefore know exactly how long it was without estimates or speculation. You appear to suggest that it was somehow impossible for Frazier to get it wrong but imagine the counter narrative that you are implying in accepting that premise. You have a planted bag, Oswald denying for some inexplicable reason carrying a bag the size estimated by Frazier, the complete disappearance of the two foot long bag, the bizarre notion that the conspirators forgot to plant the bag found, the coincidence of Oswald making an unexpected trip to the Paine home on Thursday and then carrying a long bag to work on Friday (how did the fantasy conspirators depend upon that?), somehow getting Oswald's prints on the bag. It's very clear what happened from the facts and evidence. No serious historian disputes that the bag found on the 6th floor was used by Oswald to carry the rifle. Only in fantasy-land does this type of discussion happen. But if you disagree, please send your evidence of a conspiracy to the NY Times and ask for their opinion. Let us know how that works out.
-
The totality of evidence confirms that Frazier described the bag to the best of his ability but got it wrong. What is so difficult to understand about that? The bag was found. We therefore know exactly how long it was without estimates or speculation. You appear to suggest that it was somehow impossible for Frazier to get it wrong but imagine the counter narrative that you are implying in accepting that premise. You have a planted bag, Oswald denying for some inexplicable reason carrying a bag the size estimated by Frazier, the complete disappearance of the two foot long bag, the bizarre notion that the conspirators forgot to plant the bag found, the coincidence of Oswald making an unexpected trip to the Paine home on Thursday and then carrying a long bag to work on Friday (how did the fantasy conspirators depend upon that?), somehow getting Oswald's prints on the bag. It's very clear what happened from the facts and evidence. No serious historian disputes that the bag found on the 6th floor was used by Oswald to carry the rifle. Only in fantasy-land does this type of discussion happen. But if you disagree, please send your evidence of a conspiracy to the NY Times and ask for their opinion. Let us know how that works out.
So, you can not answer my questions.... I figured as much!
The totality of evidence confirms that Frazier described the bag to the best of his ability but got it wrong.
No.. The totality of the available evidence is partly based on the assumption that Oswald brought a rifle into the TSBD. Without that a large part of the case would instantly collapse. And so Frazier and Randle had to be "mistaken" as a matter of necessity.
Have you ever wondered why Frazier is today still saying the same thing as he was saying on day 1? He has nothing to gain or lose by saying that he could have been mistaken, but he never did. He always maintained that he did not see Oswald carry the bag that is now in evidence! The reason for that IMO is that he knows beyond any doubt that he is right!
The bag was found. We therefore know exactly how long it was without estimates or speculation.
No... A bag was found.... and as far as estimates go, you seem to have a reading problem because nobody is talking about that, except you of course.
You appear to suggest that it was somehow impossible for Frazier to get it wrong but imagine the counter narrative that you are implying in accepting that premise. You have a planted bag, Oswald denying for some inexplicable reason carrying a bag the size estimated by Frazier, the complete disappearance of the two foot long bag, the bizarre notion that the conspirators forgot to plant the bag found, the coincidence of Oswald making an unexpected trip to the Paine home on Thursday and then carrying a long bag to work on Friday (how did the fantasy conspirators depend upon that?), somehow getting Oswald's prints on the bag.
More hand waving! I don't suggest anything of the kind. That's just you looking for an argument you think you can crush with pathetic rhetoric.
I am saying that the record shows that Frazier was being polygraphed when he was shown the TSBD bag and he instantly denied that it was the bag he had seen Oswald carry. The polygraph did not prove him wrong! Frazier also told investigators, that the bag he had seen Oswald carry in the morning of the same day was "definitely a thin, flimsy sack like the one purchased in a dime store".
You seem to be unable or unwilling to deal with these facts... Why is that?
No serious historian disputes that the bag found on the 6th floor was used by Oswald to carry the rifle.
Pathetic argument to make. ... Let me guess; any historian who disagrees with you is not serious, right?
Only in fantasy-land does this type of discussion happen.
As you are taking part in the discussion, do you like being in fantasy-land by choice?
-
So, you can not answer my questions.... I figured as much!
The totality of evidence confirms that Frazier described the bag to the best of his ability but got it wrong.
No.. The totality of the available evidence is partly based on the assumption that Oswald brought a rifle into the TSBD. Without that a large part of the case would instantly collapse. And so Frazier and Randle had to be "mistaken" as a matter of necessity.
Have you ever wondered why Frazier is today still saying the same thing as he was saying on day 1? He has nothing to gain or lose by saying that he could have been mistaken, but he never did. He always maintained that he did not see Oswald carry the bag that is now in evidence! The reason for that IMO is that he knows beyond any doubt that he is right!
The bag was found. We therefore know exactly how long it was without estimates or speculation.
No... A bag was found.... and as far as estimates go, you seem to have a reading problem because nobody is talking about that, except you of course.
You appear to suggest that it was somehow impossible for Frazier to get it wrong but imagine the counter narrative that you are implying in accepting that premise. You have a planted bag, Oswald denying for some inexplicable reason carrying a bag the size estimated by Frazier, the complete disappearance of the two foot long bag, the bizarre notion that the conspirators forgot to plant the bag found, the coincidence of Oswald making an unexpected trip to the Paine home on Thursday and then carrying a long bag to work on Friday (how did the fantasy conspirators depend upon that?), somehow getting Oswald's prints on the bag.
More hand waving! I don't suggest anything of the kind. That's just you looking for an argument you think you can crush with pathetic rhetoric.
I am saying that the record shows that Frazier was being polygraphed when he was shown the TSBD bag and he instantly denied that it was the bag he had seen Oswald carry. The polygraph did not prove him wrong! Frazier also told investigators, that the bag he had seen Oswald carry in the morning of the same day was "definitely a thin, flimsy sack like the one purchased in a dime store".
You seem to be unable or unwilling to deal with these facts... Why is that?
No serious historian disputes that the bag found on the 6th floor was used by Oswald to carry the rifle.
Pathetic argument to make. ... Let me guess; any historian who disagrees with you is not serious, right?
Only in fantasy-land does this type of discussion happen.
As you are taking part in the discussion, do you like being in fantasy-land by choice?
Painful. Doesn't it bother you that no bag matching Frazier's size estimate was ever found or accounted for in any way? And that your hero Oswald himself denied carrying such a bag? That's a rhetorical question since I know the answer. Why would a polygraph matter if Frazier was honestly answering the question but got it wrong? LOL Good grief. You can't possibly be that dense. Frazier was being honest but got it wrong. He did not lie. Whew. This goes back to the CTer inability to distinguish a lie from an honest mistake. Very humorous. Of course if the polygraph had suggested that Frazier was lying then you would be lecturing us on how they are unreliable. Like handwriting analysis or any evidence that links Oswald to this crime.
-
Painful. Doesn't it bother you that no bag matching Frazier's size estimate was ever found or accounted for in any way? And that your hero Oswald himself denied carrying such a bag? That's a rhetorical question since I know the answer. Why would a polygraph matter if Frazier was honestly answering the question but got it wrong? LOL Good grief. You can't possibly be that dense. I was trying to have some mercy on you but you are too stupid to understand. Frazier was being honest but got it wrong. He did not lie. Whew. This goes back to the CTer inability to distinguish a lie from an honest mistake. Very humorous. Of course if the polygraph had suggested that Frazier was lying then you would be lecturing us on how they are unreliable. Like handwriting analysis or any evidence that links Oswald to this crime.
Doesn't it bother you that no bag matching Frazier's size estimate was ever found or accounted for in any way?
No... because there is no record of anybody ever looking for such a bag or that Oswald was even asked where he left the bag he had brought his lunch in. And absence of evidence is no evidence of absence! All there is, is a comment by R.D. Lewis, who took Frazier's polygraph, that Oswald could simply have thrown away such a flimsy bag and he was right.
Doesn't it bother you that Fritz told Detective Montgomery to guard the sniper's nest until the Crime Scene officers (Day and Studebaker) arrived, yet when these men got there the bag was not in the position it allegedly was found in? It was never photographed in situ and according to Montgomery the paper bag was actually sitting on a box in folded up condition?
And that your hero Oswald himself denied carrying such a bag?
Oswald is not my hero, so cut the pathetic dramatics. And we don't know what Oswald really said, do we now?
Why would a polygraph matter if Frazier was honestly answering the question but got it wrong?
What did Frazier get wrong? That the heavy bag shown to him was not the "thin, flimsy sack like the one purchased in a dime store" he had seen Oswald carry?
Good grief. You can't possibly be that dense. I was trying to have some mercy on you but you are too stupid to understand.Frazier was being honest but got it wrong. He did not lie. Whew. This goes back to the CTer inability to distinguish a lie from an honest mistake. Very humorous. Of course if the polygraph had suggested that Frazier was lying then you would be lecturing us on how they are unreliable. Like handwriting analysis or any evidence that links Oswald to this crime.
.
Ah... here come the usual insults and more hand waving.... Always a sign of weakness!
What exactly did Frazier get wrong?
Frazier saw Oswald carry a thin, flimsy dime store bag and when he was shown a heavy bag made from wrapping materials he denied that this was Oswald's bag.
Can you imagine how this would play out in a court with Frazier on the stand as a witness?
Prosecutor: Mr. Frazier I show you a paper bag found at the TSBD. Do you recognize this bag?
Frazier: No, I had never seen it before until DPD officers showed it to me on 11/22/63
Prosecutor: Are you absolutely sure you have never seen this bag before?
Frazier: Yes
Prosecutor: Let me ask you in a different way; Did you see Lee Harvey Oswald carry this bag at any time?
Frazier: No
Prosecutor: How can you be so sure?
Frazier: Well, for one, this bag is too large to be the bag I saw Oswald carry. His bag was much smaller. It was so small that he could carry it in the palm of his hand and tucked under his armpit. But that's not all. The bag I saw Oswald carry was definitely a thin, flimsy sack like the one purchased in a dime store. The bag you show me is made of heavy duty wrapping paper. There is no way this is the bag I saw Oswald carry....
Prosecutor: No further questions....
-
The bag that Buell Wesley Frazier and Linnie May Randle saw the bag Oswald had is a classic example of, when life hands you a lemon, make lemonade.
Buell and Linnie saw Oswald carrying a long bag to work on the morning of November 22. That is bad. This only makes Oswald look guilty. Why is he carrying a long package into work on that day, of all days?
But, the solution is the focus on some minutiae. Both witnesses remember the bag being a bit too short. If taken as the absolute truth, it means Oswald did not bring his rifle in to work that day.
But can we take this as the absolute truth? Couldn?t the witnesses have been off on the exact length of the bag. Particularly since neither had any reason at the time to carefully note the exact length of the bag?
Also, CTers ignore that both witnesses had reasons for underestimating the length of the bag. Buell was accused of being an accessory to a murder. Because he had driver the accused assassin and his rifle to the plaza. Neither Buell nor Linnie, his sister, wanted this to happen. So naturally, they both have an incentive to underestimate the length of the bag. If the bag is too short to hold the rifle, then Buell cannot be charged.
So, this argument by CTers ignores three points.
1. The witnesses could be off a bit on the exact length of the bag.
2. Both witnesses have an incentive to underestimate the length of the bag.
3. CTers see no need to explain what Oswald was carrying in his long bag, if not his rifle.
Which rifle was in the bag though? The 7.62 Mauser several police officers saw or the MC held up barehanded for the cameras?
-
I mentioned this before but it looks like a case of people ignoring it or they didn't see it.
Harold Weisburg, who is held in high esteem in the CT community, gave this presentation below on the Church Committee.
At around the 1 hour and 20 second mark Weisburg makes a statement that the reason that the DPD gave Frazier a polygraph
test was to see if Frazier was, as Weisburg puts it, laying Marina Oswald. Weisburg goes on to state that Frazier said yes and
the polygraph proved him as telling the truth. Any comments?
Any comments?
Yes.....You've clearly got some weird obsession with sex..... Many of your posts contain sex ....
-
Which rifle was in the bag though? The 7.62 Mauser several police officers saw or the MC held up barehanded for the cameras?
Neither.....Buell Frazier and Linnie Mae Randall said that the paper sack that Lee carried was too small......
-
Doesn't it bother you that no bag matching Frazier's size estimate was ever found or accounted for in any way?
No... because there is no record of anybody ever looking for such a bag or that Oswald was even asked where he left the bag he had brought his lunch in. And absence of evidence is no evidence of absence! All there is, is a comment by R.D. Lewis, who took Frazier's polygraph, that Oswald could simply have thrown away such a flimsy bag and he was right.
Doesn't it bother you that Fritz told Detective Montgomery to guard the sniper's nest until the Crime Scene officers (Day and Studebaker) arrived, yet when these men got there the bag was not in the position it allegedly was found in? It was never photographed in situ and according to Montgomery the paper bag was actually sitting on a box in folded up condition?
And that your hero Oswald himself denied carrying such a bag?
Oswald is not my hero, so cut the pathetic dramatics. And we don't know what Oswald really said, do we now?
Why would a polygraph matter if Frazier was honestly answering the question but got it wrong?
What did Frazier get wrong? That the heavy bag shown to him was not the "thin, flimsy sack like the one purchased in a dime store" he had seen Oswald carry?
Good grief. You can't possibly be that dense. I was trying to have some mercy on you but you are too stupid to understand.Frazier was being honest but got it wrong. He did not lie. Whew. This goes back to the CTer inability to distinguish a lie from an honest mistake. Very humorous. Of course if the polygraph had suggested that Frazier was lying then you would be lecturing us on how they are unreliable. Like handwriting analysis or any evidence that links Oswald to this crime.
.
Ah... here come the usual insults and more hand waving.... Always a sign of weakness!
What exactly did Frazier get wrong?
Frazier saw Oswald carry a thin, flimsy dime store bag and when he was shown a heavy bag made from wrapping materials he denied that this was Oswald's bag.
Can you imagine how this would play out in a court with Frazier on the stand as a witness?
Prosecutor: Mr. Frazier I show you a paper bag found at the TSBD. Do you recognize this bag?
Frazier: No, I had never seen it before until DPD officers showed it to me on 11/22/63
Prosecutor: Are you absolutely sure you have never seen this bag before?
Frazier: Yes
Prosecutor: Let me ask you in a different way; Did you see Lee Harvey Oswald carry this bag at any time?
Frazier: No
Prosecutor: How can you be so sure?
Frazier: Well, for one, this bag is too large to be the bag I saw Oswald carry. His bag was much smaller. It was so small that he could carry it in the palm of his hand and tucked under his armpit. But that's not all. The bag I saw Oswald carry was definitely a thin, flimsy sack like the one purchased in a dime store. The bag you show me is made of heavy duty wrapping paper. There is no way this is the bag I saw Oswald carry....
Prosecutor: No further questions....
Ugh. So many wasted words. You have suggested that Frazier must be correct in his estimate of the bag's length citing the polygraph that he did not indicate lie. As though the polygraph is the hand of God determining the truth. This is simple. Pay attention for once. If Frazier truly believed the bag he was shown was not the bag, then the polygraph would indicate he was not lying EVEN if he was wrong. It determines - when accurate - whether a person is lying not whether what they are saying is accurate. Thus, if Frazier believed it, then it would not register as a "lie" in the polygraph even if he was wrong. A person can testify honestly but erroneously. So if you believe that little green men are visiting you and take a polygraph test to that effect it will show that you are not lying. That does not mean that little green mean are visiting you though. Can you comprehend that obvious distinction? I have never disputed that Frazier believed it was a shorter bag. That is his testimony. But the totality of evidence proves he is wrong.
-
Ugh. So many wasted words. You have suggested that Frazier must be correct in his estimate of the bag's length citing the polygraph that he did not indicate lie. As though the polygraph is the hand of God determining the truth. This is simple. Pay attention for once. If Frazier truly believed the bag he was shown was not the bag, then the polygraph would indicate he was not lying EVEN if he was wrong. It determines - when accurate - whether a person is lying not whether what they are saying is accurate. Thus, if Frazier believed it, then it would not register as a "lie" in the polygraph even if he was wrong. A person can testify honestly but erroneously. So if you believe that little green men are visiting you and take a polygraph test to that effect it will show that you are not lying. That does not mean that little green mean are visiting you though. Can you comprehend that obvious distinction? I have never disputed that Frazier believed it was a shorter bag. That is his testimony. But the totality of evidence proves he is wrong.
And more ramblings about the size estimate of the bag..... Try reading the post first before you reply with your standard crap!
-
Frazier that being threatened with being charged with being an accessory to the murder. By transporting the assassin and the rifle contained within a bag. This went on for many hours and was still going on at 11:30 pm.
Given this pressure, it is natural that Frazier would:
1. State the bag he saw with Oswald was too short to hold the rifle.
If he fudged his story to avoid being pegged as an accomplice, why would he mention the bag at all?
-
I don't need to prove anything. He took it in and he used it.
So says John Anderson's crystal ball.
-
We know he was incorrect on its length because the actual bag was found and measured.
This relies on the assumption (with absolutely no evidence whatsoever to support it) that the bag allegedly found near the 6th floor SE window was the same bag that Frazier and Randle saw.
-
If he was worried about being pegged as an accomplice, why would he mention the bag at all?
Well duh, if somebody else saw Oswald carrying an excessively large bag and Buell failed to mention the obviously excessive large bag then even Frazier would realize that would be suspicious.
JohnM
-
Like his sister for example.
3 feet by 6 inches.
-
Well duh, if somebody else saw Oswald carrying an excessively large bag and Buell failed to mention the obviously excessive large bag then even Frazier would realize that would be suspicious.
You mean like Dougherty? Oh wait...
"excessively large". LOL.
-
Like his sister for example.
3 feet by 6 inches.
James Bookhout is the one who said that.
-
FBI Report, 11/23/63
by Special Agent James Bookhout
"RANDLE stated that about 7:15 a.m., November 22, 1963, she looked out of a window of her residence and observed LEE HARVEY OSWALD walking up her driveway and saw him put a long brown package, approximately 3 feet by 6 inches, in the back seat area of WESLEY FRAZIER's 1954 black Chevrolet four door automobile."
Can anyone provide any sort of proof that Bookhout lied about what Randle told him?
-
FBI Report, 11/23/63
by Special Agent James Bookhout
"RANDLE stated that about 7:15 a.m., November 22, 1963, she looked out of a window of her residence and observed LEE HARVEY OSWALD walking up her driveway and saw him put a long brown package, approximately 3 feet by 6 inches, in the back seat area of WESLEY FRAZIER's 1954 black Chevrolet four door automobile."
Can anyone provide any sort of proof that Bookhout lied about what Randle told him?
"Can anyone provide any sort of proof that Bookhout lied about what Randle told him?"
(http://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/rifle2713.jpg)
(http://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/rifle27.jpg)
-
"Can anyone provide any sort of proof that Bookhout lied about what Randle told him?"
(http://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/rifle2713.jpg)
(http://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/rifle27.jpg)
Explain how Randle's later estimation is supposed to prove that Bookhout lied about Randle originally telling him that the bag was three feet long?
-
This relies on the assumption (with absolutely no evidence whatsoever to support it) that the bag allegedly found near the 6th floor SE window was the same bag that Frazier and Randle saw.
Again with wildly overstating your nutty claims - "no evidence whatsover"! LOL Well, except for Oswald's prints being found on that bag. The location of the bag next to bullet casings fired from his rifle. No accounting for this bag except as the bag Oswald carried the rifle in that morning. No other bag matching the size estimate of Frazier ever being found or accounted for in any way. And Oswald himself denying he carried any bag as described by Frazier. It's amusing that you dismiss all evidence against Oswald as the product of "assumptions" which implies outlandish baseless counter-possibilities like this bag being planted and all the implications that entails none of which are supported by any evidence at all. Very humorous.
-
FBI Report, 11/23/63
by Special Agent James Bookhout
"RANDLE stated that about 7:15 a.m., November 22, 1963, she looked out of a window of her residence and observed LEE HARVEY OSWALD walking up her driveway and saw him put a long brown package, approximately 3 feet by 6 inches, in the back seat area of WESLEY FRAZIER's 1954 black Chevrolet four door automobile."
Can anyone provide any sort of proof that Bookhout lied about what Randle told him?
There are many versions of what LM Randle said.....The version that you have posted is 90% BS....Perhaps you should do a little research.
-
Again with wildly overstating your nutty claims - "no evidence whatsover"! LOL Well, except for Oswald's prints being found on that bag. The location of the bag next to bullet casings fired from his rifle. No accounting for this bag except as the bag Oswald carried the rifle in that morning. No other bag matching the size estimate of Frazier ever being found or accounted for in any way. And Oswald himself denying he carried any bag as described by Frazier. It's amusing that you dismiss all evidence against Oswald as the product of "assumptions" which implies outlandish baseless counter-possibilities like this bag being planted and all the implications that entails none of which are supported by any evidence at all. Very humorous.
Well, except for Oswald's prints being found on that bag.
According to Latona, a parcial palm print and a parcial finger print on the bag could be identified as belonging to Oswald. Other prints, also on the bag and thus potentially belonging to others, could not be identified. Unfortunately, as so often in this case, we have to take the word of one person for it, since the silver nitrate used on the bag destroyed the evidence to the extend that no second opinion could even be obtained.
Having said that, the presence of two parcial prints of a TSBD employee on a bag made from TSBD materials and found inside the TSBD does not even begin to prove that this was the bag Oswald carried that morning.
Even worse for your narrative, which is why you have ignored it so far, is that Wesley Buell Frazier was shown the TSBD bag the same day and he, while being polygraphed, denied that it was the bag he had seen Oswald carry that morning. He added that the bag he had actually seen was "definitely a thin, flimsy sack like the one purchased in a dime store".
The location of the bag next to bullet casings fired from his rifle.
Wrong again. The devil is, as always, in the details! Fritz told Detective Montgomery to guard and preserve the sniper's nest until Day and Studebaker got there. Montgomery is on record as saying that the bag he saw was sitting on top of a box, which contradicts completely where Studebaker claimed it was.
And as far as "fired from his rifle" goes; "wildly overstating your nutty claims" decribes it well!
No accounting for this bag except as the bag Oswald carried the rifle in that morning.
BS. What is this self serving speculation supposed to prove, other than your own narrowmindedness?
No other bag matching the size estimate of Frazier ever being found or accounted for in any way.
Proves nothing. Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence. Besides, there is no evidence whatsoever that they actually ever searched for another bag to begin with. They already had a bag, simply looked no further and just jumped to a conclusion....
And Oswald himself denying he carried any bag as described by Frazier.
This is simply not true. It is at best a misrepresentation of the facts. Frazier described the bag to DPD officers as "definitely a thin, flimsy sack like the one purchased in a dime store". Can you show me where and when Oswald was asked about such a flimsy bag? I know that it is reported that they asked him about a long or large bag, but that is clearly not how Frazier described it.
It's amusing that you dismiss all evidence against Oswald as the product of "assumptions" which implies outlandish baseless counter-possibilities like this bag being planted
So, basically what you are saying is that your assumption must be correct simply because you dismiss all other possibilities as "outlandish" and "baseless"..... Now that's really funny!
Btw why would that bag have been planted? It was made of TSBD materials and allegedly found at the TSBD!
-
"Can anyone provide any sort of proof that Bookhout lied about what Randle told him?"
(http://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/rifle2713.jpg)
(http://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/rifle27.jpg)
Recently a poster mentioned a book entitled The Assassination Tapes by George O'Toole ....I had read that book several years ago but after i was reminded of the book I read it again. The book is based on subjecting taped conversation to a machine that can detect when a speaker voice is stressed due to lying....
O'Toole used tape recordings from radio and TV broadcasts and presented the sound of the speaker's voice to stress analysis.... It probably sounds like witch craft to some .....but I believe that PSE is a real way to detect stress in the voice of a speaker.
O'Toole subjected a TV interview of Buell Frazier telling a newsman about the morning of 11/22/63 and what Frazier had seen and heard that morning.
When Frazier talked about going to the car and starting it .....O'Toole reported that Frazier's voice revealed little stress as would be expected....But when Frazier told the newsman about seeing a paper sack on the rear seat of the car....The stress in Frazier's voice went to maximum..... Which indicates that Frazier probably was lying about some aspect of that paper sack.
(http://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/rifle27.jpg)
"He stated that he only glanced at this package, at the time, over his shoulder, and said something to Oswald about the package, and Oswald explained that it was curtain rods"
In some reports Frazier says that when he saw the paper sack he simply asked..."What's that?"
But in other versions Frazier says he asked "What's in the sack, Lee?" ...
But no matter which version was subjected to PSE evaluation Frazier's voice indicated severe stress .....
At one point O'Toole wanted to get a second opinion about Frazier's recorded casual conversation with newsmen ao he sent the tape recording to an expert for his opinion .....
After evaluating the tape the expert reported that Frazier's chart was a text book example of a person lying...He said that on a scale of one to ten.... Frazier was at eleven.....
-
Can anyone provide any sort of proof that Bookhout lied about what Randle told him?
Can anyone provide any sort of proof that Randle actually said that?
-
Again with wildly overstating your nutty claims - "no evidence whatsover"! LOL Well, except for Oswald's prints being found on that bag.
Oswald's prints being on a bag somehow equates to it being the same bag in your mind? Not suprising, given your usual process of "logic".
The location of the bag next to bullet casings fired from his rifle.
"his rifle". LOL. What evidence do you have that CE142 was "next to bullet casings"?
No accounting for this bag except as the bag Oswald carried the rifle in that morning.
What evidence do you have that there was a rifle in the bag that Oswald carried. Or in CE142 for that matter?
No other bag matching the size estimate of Frazier ever being found or accounted for in any way.
You're like a broken record. For the umpteenth time, when was there ever a search done for a bag matching the size estimate of Frazier?
And Oswald himself denying he carried any bag as described by Frazier.
Please cite.
It's amusing that you dismiss all evidence against Oswald as the product of "assumptions"
It's amusing that you consider assumptions to be evidence.
-
Recently a poster mentioned a book entitled The Assassination Tapes by George O'Toole ....I had read that book several years ago but after i was reminded of the book I read it again. The book is based on subjecting taped conversation to a machine that can detect when a speaker voice is stressed due to lying....
O'Toole used tape recordings from radio and TV broadcasts and presented the sound of the speaker's voice to stress analysis.... It probably sounds like witch craft to some .....but I believe that PSE is a real way to detect stress in the voice of a speaker.
O'Toole subjected a TV interview of Buell Frazier telling a newsman about the morning of 11/22/63 and what Frazier had seen and heard that morning.
When Frazier talked about going to the car and starting it .....O'Toole reported that Frazier's voice revealed little stress as would be expected....But when Frazier told the newsman about seeing a paper sack on the rear seat of the car....The stress in Frazier's voice went to maximum..... Which indicates that Frazier probably was lying about some aspect of that paper sack.
(http://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/rifle27.jpg)
"He stated that he only glanced at this package, at the time, over his shoulder, and said something to Oswald about the package, and Oswald explained that it was curtain rods"
In some reports Frazier says that when he saw the paper sack he simply asked..."What's that?"
But in other versions Frazier says he asked "What's in the sack, Lee?" ...
But no matter which version was subjected to PSE evaluation Frazier's voice indicated severe stress .....
At one point O'Toole wanted to get a second opinion about Frazier's recorded casual conversation with newsmen ao he sent the tape recording to an expert for his opinion .....
After evaluating the tape the expert reported that Frazier's chart was a text book example of a person lying...He said that on a scale of one to ten.... Frazier was at eleven.....
Frazier was given the choice of being charged as an accomplice of LHO or conveying a
recollection that tended to put a Carcano in a sack in a dead man's hands on 11/22/63.
His story was full of holes. Once Ozzie was murdered by Ruby it didn't matter. Frazier's story
gave LE and the WC what they needed at the time. IMO of course
-
(http://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/down%20the%20rabbit%20hole.jpg)
-
O'Toole used tape recordings from radio and TV broadcasts and presented the sound of the speaker's voice to stress analysis.... It probably sounds like witch craft to some .....but I believe that PSE is a real way to detect stress in the voice of a speaker.
Not any more witchy than handwriting "analysis" and identifying unique rifle gouges via moon craters.
-
At around the 1 hour and 20 second mark Weisburg makes a statement that the reason that the DPD gave Frazier a polygraph test was to see if Frazier was, as Weisburg puts it, laying Marina Oswald.
Interesting. What is Weisberg's source for this?
-
Oswald's prints being on a bag somehow equates to it being the same bag in your mind? Not suprising, given your usual process of "logic".
"his rifle". LOL. What evidence do you have that CE142 was "next to bullet casings"?
What evidence do you have that there was a rifle in the bag that Oswald carried. Or in CE142 for that matter?
You're like a broken record. For the umpteenth time, when was there ever a search done for a bag matching the size estimate of Frazier?
Please cite.
It's amusing that you consider assumptions to be evidence.
It amuses me no end that you claim Oswald carried a bag the size estimated by Frazier into the TSBD but then dismiss as unimportant that no such bag was ever found or accounted for in any manner as though that is not important. Dismissing this on the basis that there is no evidence that anyone search for it. LOL. Don't you believe the DPD searched that building? The most logical explanation for such a bag never being found is that it wasn't there because - as Oswald himself confirmed - he never carried a bag the size estimated by Frazier. Why would Oswald lie if he carried some shorter bag that contained a non-incriminatory item like curtain rods? He would seemingly have every incentive not only to admit that but direct the DPD to it to exonerate himself. But here we are supposed to believe he lied against his own self interest.
Mr. BALL. Now, did you tell him what Frazier had told you?
Mr. FRITZ. I don't know that I told him what Frazier had told me but I told him someone had told me.
Mr. BALL. What did you tell him?
Mr. FRITZ. I told him he had a package and put it in the back seat and it was a package about that long and it was curtain rods. He said he didn't have any kind of a package but his lunch. He said he had his lunch and that is all he had, and Mr. Frazier told me that he got out of the car with that package, he saw him go toward the building with this long package.
I asked him, I said, "Did you go toward the building carrying a long package?"
He said, "No. I didn't carry anything but my lunch."
There is further confirmation in Fritz's notes (which I assume you believe are the product of lies and fakery like all evidence against Oswald).
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=29103#relPageId=7&tab=page
-
Frazier was given the choice of being charged as an accomplice of LHO or conveying a
recollection that tended to put a Carcano in a sack in a dead man's hands on 11/22/63.
His story was full of holes. Once Ozzie was murdered by Ruby it didn't matter. Frazier's story
gave LE and the WC what they needed at the time. IMO of course
Frazier was given the choice of being charged as an accomplice of LHO or conveying a
recollection that tended to put a Carcano in a sack in a dead man's hands on 11/22/63.
On Friday 11/22/63 Buell Frazier told the DPD that he had seen a paper sack on the back seat of his car that Lee had placed there. Frazier said that Lee told him the sack contained curtain rods.
About 14 hours later on SaPersonay afternoon, 11/23/63, Lee was asked if he has placed a long paper sack on the rear seat of Frazier's car and told Frazier that the package contained curtain rods. Lee denied that he ever said anything to Frazier about curtain rods.
Since the DPD said that Frazier told them that Lee had carried a long paper sack and Lee had stated that the sack contained curtain rods on Friday evening ( about 9:00pm) why wasn't Lee confronted with Frazier's statement until SaPersonay afternoon?
Did either Linnie Randle or Frazier say anything about curtain rods in their affidavits?
Lee had been asked if he told anybody that the sack he carried that morning contained curtain rods.....
-
Frazier was given the choice of being charged as an accomplice of LHO or conveying a
recollection that tended to put a Carcano in a sack in a dead man's hands on 11/22/63.
His story was full of holes. Once Ozzie was murdered by Ruby it didn't matter. Frazier's story
gave LE and the WC what they needed at the time. IMO of course
Good grief. Do you not see the enormous flaw in that absurd narrative which has been pointed out several times? If Frazier were somehow coerced to lie about the long bag, then he would obviously be told to estimate its size as long enough to carry the rifle. That being the entire objective of such a lie to put the rifle in Oswald's hands that morning. It would make absolutely no sense for the fantasy conspirators to coerce Frazier into lying about a bag that he would claim is too short to contain the rifle. Whew.
-
Good grief. Do you not see the enormous flaw in that absurd narrative which has been pointed out several times? If Frazier were somehow coerced to lie about the long bag, then he would obviously be told to estimate its size as long enough to carry the rifle. That being the entire objective of such a lie to put the rifle in Oswald's hands that morning. It would make absolutely no sense for the fantasy conspirators to coerce Frazier into lying about a bag that he would claim is too short to contain the rifle. Whew.
They tried!
FBI Report, 11/23/63
by Special Agent James Bookhout
"RANDLE stated that about 7:15 a.m., November 22, 1963, she looked out of a window of her residence and observed LEE HARVEY OSWALD walking up her driveway and saw him put a long brown package, approximately 3 feet by 6 inches, in the back seat area of WESLEY FRAZIER's 1954 black Chevrolet four door automobile."
Once Ozzie was murdered by Ruby, since there would be no trial, the details weren't important.
2 witnesses saw the perp with a bag that the cops said he used to carry the rifle to work on
11/22/63. And we all know cops don't lie or fudge evidence.
-
They tried!
FBI Report, 11/23/63
by Special Agent James Bookhout
"RANDLE stated that about 7:15 a.m., November 22, 1963, she looked out of a window of her residence and observed LEE HARVEY OSWALD walking up her driveway and saw him put a long brown package, approximately 3 feet by 6 inches, in the back seat area of WESLEY FRAZIER's 1954 black Chevrolet four door automobile."
Once Ozzie was murdered by Ruby, since there would be no trial, the details weren't important.
2 witnesses saw the perp with a bag that the cops said he used to carry the rifle to work on
11/22/63. And we all know cops don't lie or fudge evidence.
Try to follow along. If the fantasy conspirators had some power over Frazier to coerce him to lie about the long bag, then they would force him to say it was long enough to carry the rifle. That would be the entire point of such a lie. Having him claim the bag was too short to carry the rifle would actually be counter-productive to that objective as shown by decades of CTers who cite this as evidence that Oswald did not carry the rifle that morning. Frazier's testimony, therefore, makes absolutely no sense as the product of a lie to frame Oswald as you imply. Oswald carried a long bag that morning and it was either the size estimated by Frazier or he was honestly but erroneously off in his estimate and it was the bag found on the 6th floor.
-
It amuses me no end that you claim Oswald carried a bag the size estimated by Frazier into the TSBD but then dismiss as unimportant that no such bag was ever found or accounted for in any manner as though that is not important.
It amuses me no end that you think that it's significant that a bag that was never looked for was never found.
Dismissing this on the basis that there is no evidence that anyone search for it. LOL. Don't you believe the DPD searched that building?
They searched the upper floors for a rifle. Do you have some reason to believe that they searched anywhere for a bag?
The most logical explanation for such a bag never being found is that it wasn't there
Only in Richard-land where handwaving is called "logic".
because - as Oswald himself confirmed - he never carried a bag the size estimated by Frazier.
You still haven't substantiated this. Nowhere in your excerpt of Fritz's testimony does he say that Oswald denied carrying a bag the size estimated by Frazier.
Why would Oswald lie if he carried some shorter bag that contained a non-incriminatory item like curtain rods? He would seemingly have every incentive not only to admit that but direct the DPD to it to exonerate himself. But here we are supposed to believe he lied against his own self interest.
On what basis do you assume he lied?
There is further confirmation in Fritz's notes
You're a hoot. If Oswald really "denied bringing a package to work" then that would include a lunch package. So what did Oswald actually say? The notes don't say "size estimated by Frazier". Maybe writing one's interrogation notes several days later isn't the best way to ensure accuracy...
-
Good grief. Do you not see the enormous flaw in that absurd narrative which has been pointed out several times? If Frazier were somehow coerced to lie about the long bag, then he would obviously be told to estimate its size as long enough to carry the rifle.
When did Gary ever say anything about Frazier being "coerced to lie about the long bag", Mr. Strawman?
-
Try to follow along. If the fantasy conspirators had some power over Frazier to coerce him to lie about the long bag, then they would force him to say it was long enough to carry the rifle. That would be the entire point of such a lie. Having him claim the bag was too short to carry the rifle would actually be counter-productive to that objective as shown by decades of CTers who cite this as evidence that Oswald did not carry the rifle that morning. Frazier's testimony, therefore, makes absolutely no sense as the product of a lie to frame Oswald as you imply. Oswald carried a long bag that morning and it was either the size estimated by Frazier or he was honestly but erroneously off in his estimate and it was the bag found on the 6th floor.
Once Ozzie's dead and there is no trial the details don't really matter.
All they needed was a witness or two who could verify that he was carrying a bag to work on
11/22/63. The cops and the WC provided the rest.
You catching on yet?
-
Good grief. Do you not see the enormous flaw in that absurd narrative which has been pointed out several times? If Frazier were somehow coerced to lie about the long bag, then he would obviously be told to estimate its size as long enough to carry the rifle. That being the entire objective of such a lie to put the rifle in Oswald's hands that morning. It would make absolutely no sense for the fantasy conspirators to coerce Frazier into lying about a bag that he would claim is too short to contain the rifle. Whew.
If Frazier were somehow coerced to lie about the long bag, then he would obviously be told to estimate its size as long enough to carry the rifle.
Who says that Frazier was " coerced"..... Perhaps his sister had got herself involved by telling Adamcik that Lee carried a paper sack like those curtain rod sacks....... ( IMO this is exactly what happened)
Frazier would have wanted to support his sister and saw no harm in confirming what she had said.
-
It amuses me no end that you claim Oswald carried a bag the size estimated by Frazier into the TSBD but then dismiss as unimportant that no such bag was ever found or accounted for in any manner as though that is not important. Dismissing this on the basis that there is no evidence that anyone search for it. LOL. Don't you believe the DPD searched that building? The most logical explanation for such a bag never being found is that it wasn't there because - as Oswald himself confirmed - he never carried a bag the size estimated by Frazier. Why would Oswald lie if he carried some shorter bag that contained a non-incriminatory item like curtain rods? He would seemingly have every incentive not only to admit that but direct the DPD to it to exonerate himself. But here we are supposed to believe he lied against his own self interest.
Mr. BALL. Now, did you tell him what Frazier had told you?
Mr. FRITZ. I don't know that I told him what Frazier had told me but I told him someone had told me.
Mr. BALL. What did you tell him?
Mr. FRITZ. I told him he had a package and put it in the back seat and it was a package about that long and it was curtain rods. He said he didn't have any kind of a package but his lunch. He said he had his lunch and that is all he had, and Mr. Frazier told me that he got out of the car with that package, he saw him go toward the building with this long package.
I asked him, I said, "Did you go toward the building carrying a long package?"
He said, "No. I didn't carry anything but my lunch."
There is further confirmation in Fritz's notes (which I assume you believe are the product of lies and fakery like all evidence against Oswald).
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=29103#relPageId=7&tab=page
Mr. FRITZ. I don't know that I told him what Frazier had told me but I told him someone had told me.
On page 604 of WR Captain Fritz writes.....
Quote..."I asked him if he had told Buell Wesley Frazier why he had gone home a different night, and if he had told him anything about bringing back some curtain rods. He denied it." ...unquote
Looks like Ol Cap was a damned liar!......
-
When did Gary ever say anything about Frazier being "coerced to lie about the long bag", Mr. Strawman?
Notice that Frazier's affidavit is almost entirely about the paper bag.....( Strange!) I believe that someone wrote this affidavit for Frazier..... He was not this articulate...
BEFORE ME, Mary Rattan, a Notary Public in and for said County, State of Texas, on this day personally appeared Buell Wesley Frazier, Age 19, 2439 West 5th Street, Irving, Texas WE 3-8965 who, after being by me duly sworn, on oath deposes and says:
I work at Texas School Book Depository, Corner Elm and Houston. I have worked there since September 13, 1963. I fill orders. About a month ago, I met Lee Harvey Oswald at work. I saw that he was a new man, and I walked up to him and asked him if he was Lee. I figured he must be Lee as my sister had told me about him. I asked him if he would like to ride back and forth with me as I knew his wife lived with Ruth Paine near my house, and he said he would, but only on week ends as he had an apartment of his own in Oak Cliff. After that every Friday evening Lee would ride home with me and then ride back to work with me on Monday morning. He has only rode home from work with me on Fridays, but yesterday morning, Thursday, November 21, 1963, Lee told me that he wanted to ride home with me that evening. I was surprised, and I asked him if he was going with me Friday also, and he said, "No". He told me that he was going home to get some curtain rods. Thursday afternoon Lee rode to Irving with me to Ruth Paine's house, where his wife is staying. I let him out of my car in front of Ruth's house, then I went on. This morning, Friday, November 22, 1963, I got up between 6:00 - 6:30 AM, and got ready to go to work, and then sit down to eat breakfast, about 7:15 AM, me, my mother, and my two little neices [sic] were at the table, and my sister was at the sink. My mother looked up and said, "Who is that looking in the window?" I looked up and said, "That's Lee." I got up and finished getting ready and got my lunch and went to the door and met Lee on the car port. We then walked to my car, it was parked backed up at the side of the car port. Before I got in the car, I glanced in the back seat, and saw a big sack. 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 asked Lee what was in the sack, and he said "curtain rods", and I remembered that he had told me the day before that he was going to bring some curtain rods. We drove to work the same way that I usually go. We came into town on Stemmons Freeway to Main and Main to Record, and then on across the McKinney and by the warehouse to the parking lot. I parked the car and sit there awhile and run the motor to charge the battery, and while I was doing that, Lee got out and opened the back door and got the package out of the back seat and walked behind the car, then I got out of the car and started walking toward the building where I work. I noticed that Lee had the package in his right hand under his arm, and the package was straight up and down, and he had his arm down, and you could not see much of the package. When we started walking, Lee was just a few feet ahead of me, but he kept waking faster than me, and finally got way ahead of me. I saw him go in the back door at the Loading Dock of the building that we work in, and he still had the package under his arm. I did not see him anymore for about 30 minutes, and then we were both working. Lee did not carry his lunch today. He told me this morning he was going to buy his lunch today. I was standing on the front steps of the building when the Parade came by, and I watched the Parade go by. After President Kennedy had got out of my sight, I heard three shots. I stood there, then people started running by, and I turned, and went back in the building and got my lunch and eat it. I did not see Lee anymore after about 11:00 AM today, and at that time, we were both working, and we were on the first floor.
Wesley Frazier
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN BEFORE ME THIS 22 DAY OF November A.D. 1963
/s/Mary Rattan
Notary Public, Dallas County, Texas
-
Notice that Frazier's affidavit is almost entirely about the paper bag.....( Strange!) I believe that someone wrote this affidavit for Frazier..... He was not this articulate...
BEFORE ME, Mary Rattan, a Notary Public in and for said County, State of Texas, on this day personally appeared Buell Wesley Frazier, Age 19, 2439 West 5th Street, Irving, Texas WE 3-8965 who, after being by me duly sworn, on oath deposes and says:
I work at Texas School Book Depository, Corner Elm and Houston. I have worked there since September 13, 1963. I fill orders. About a month ago, I met Lee Harvey Oswald at work. I saw that he was a new man, and I walked up to him and asked him if he was Lee. I figured he must be Lee as my sister had told me about him. I asked him if he would like to ride back and forth with me as I knew his wife lived with Ruth Paine near my house, and he said he would, but only on week ends as he had an apartment of his own in Oak Cliff. After that every Friday evening Lee would ride home with me and then ride back to work with me on Monday morning. He has only rode home from work with me on Fridays, but yesterday morning, Thursday, November 21, 1963, Lee told me that he wanted to ride home with me that evening. I was surprised, and I asked him if he was going with me Friday also, and he said, "No". He told me that he was going home to get some curtain rods. Thursday afternoon Lee rode to Irving with me to Ruth Paine's house, where his wife is staying. I let him out of my car in front of Ruth's house, then I went on. This morning, Friday, November 22, 1963, I got up between 6:00 - 6:30 AM, and got ready to go to work, and then sit down to eat breakfast, about 7:15 AM, me, my mother, and my two little neices [sic] were at the table, and my sister was at the sink. My mother looked up and said, "Who is that looking in the window?" I looked up and said, "That's Lee." I got up and finished getting ready and got my lunch and went to the door and met Lee on the car port. We then walked to my car, it was parked backed up at the side of the car port. Before I got in the car, I glanced in the back seat, and saw a big sack. 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 asked Lee what was in the sack, and he said "curtain rods", and I remembered that he had told me the day before that he was going to bring some curtain rods. We drove to work the same way that I usually go. We came into town on Stemmons Freeway to Main and Main to Record, and then on across the McKinney and by the warehouse to the parking lot. I parked the car and sit there awhile and run the motor to charge the battery, and while I was doing that, Lee got out and opened the back door and got the package out of the back seat and walked behind the car, then I got out of the car and started walking toward the building where I work. I noticed that Lee had the package in his right hand under his arm, and the package was straight up and down, and he had his arm down, and you could not see much of the package. When we started walking, Lee was just a few feet ahead of me, but he kept waking faster than me, and finally got way ahead of me. I saw him go in the back door at the Loading Dock of the building that we work in, and he still had the package under his arm. I did not see him anymore for about 30 minutes, and then we were both working. Lee did not carry his lunch today. He told me this morning he was going to buy his lunch today. I was standing on the front steps of the building when the Parade came by, and I watched the Parade go by. After President Kennedy had got out of my sight, I heard three shots. I stood there, then people started running by, and I turned, and went back in the building and got my lunch and eat it. I did not see Lee anymore after about 11:00 AM today, and at that time, we were both working, and we were on the first floor.
Wesley Frazier
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN BEFORE ME THIS 22 DAY OF November A.D. 1963
/s/Mary Rattan
Notary Public, Dallas County, Texas
The Assassination Tapes
In 1975 Penthouse Press published George O?Toole?s The Assassination Tapes. Douglas Horne praised this volume as ?a delightful gem of a book? and ?the evidence he presented is just as relevant?and just as valid?today, as it was in 1975.?(40) Harold Weisberg criticized the book for two reasons: (a) He felt O?Toole had borrowed way too much from Whitewash IV (bordering on plagiarism) without giving him credit, and (b) he thought some of his wild speculation was too much for him to handle. Weisberg did not impugn the actual technology and methodology O?Toole had used, however.(41) Mark Lane totally embraced the technology and wished he had it when he was seeing and recording witnesses in Dallas. It would have sent him in other directions of investigation.(42)
Despite the controversy, O?Toole?s investigation, which is based upon voice stress analysis, is full of intrigue. The Psychological Stress Evaluator was invented in 1971 (43) and patented in 1976 by Bell, McQuiston and Ford.(44) Their model PSE 1000 was marketed by the Dektor Counterintelligence and Security Co.(45) According to O?Toole, this device opened up a whole new playing field for investigators. He was now able to use recorded exchanges to chart the degree of stress in voice recordings no matter how old or far away.(46) O?Toole went back and retroactively analyzed voice recordings of Oswald and determined he had been telling the truth about ?not shooting anyone.?(47)
Next, O?Toole also analyzed Frazier?s CBS interview (YouTube video below) shortly after the assassination, however, and determined his degree of deception had gone through the roof during the entire 42 second exchange: (48)
?Judging from the PSE charts, when Buell Wesley Frazier made that statement, he was in a condition of sheer terror.?(49)
Now O?Toole was ready to deal with Frazier by interviewing him himself. His first order of business was, of course, to find him. After failing to find him in Dallas he visited Linnie Mae who quickly brushed him off. The only thing he could get out of her was the fact that Frazier was in the Army and could not be contacted.(50)
While in Dallas he called Paul Bentley, senior polygraph examiner at the time (of the assassination). Bentley claimed not to have been on duty that night because of a sprained ankle that was in a cast. (He detected hard stress in his voice.)(51) Next, he decided to talk to R.D. Lewis, who, according to DPD documents, was the technician who administered the polygraph to Frazier. Lewis denied administering any polygraph ?connected to Oswald? that night (hard stress).(52) Furthermore, O?Toole established that R.D. Lewis never signed the DPD report, which had Rose and Stovall?s name on it, and ?Lewis had not gone on record anywhere to the effect that Frazier had passed the test.?(53) Lewis would not testify before the Warren Commission.
For his next interview, he spoke to Detective Gerald Hill at his home. Hill advised O?Toole that Fritz could not have ordered the polygraph: ? ?cause Fritz didn?t believe in polygraphs. He wouldn?t use ?em ? (near maximum stress).(54) He returned and spoke to Bentley again, who told him that was not true, he had run ?many, many? examinations for Captain Fritz.(55)
He decided to see Detective Richard Stovall, who was with Frazier most of the early evening and night of 11/22 until he dropped him off after midnight.(56) The first thing he found out from Stovall was that he had not been present for Frazier?s polygraph. (Hard stress appeared.)(57) This directly contradicted his WCVIIH192 testimony.(58)
He also spoke to Guy F. Rose, the detective who was with Stovall and Adamcik that day. Rose now contradicted Hill regarding Fritz?s confidence in the polygraph test.(59)
O?Toole then contacted R.D. Lewis again, armed with information contained in Jim Bishop?s 1967 book, The Day Kennedy was Shot, and Warren Commission references that mentioned the polygraph. He now started to vaguely remember maybe giving Frazier a polygraph test that night. Finally, O?Toole concluded that there was no credibility to Frazier having passed the polygraph test.(60)
It was now time to get serious about finding Frazier. He checked with an Army contact and was told there had never been anyone by that name in the Army.(61) From there, he heard from another contact with ?very good FBI connections? that Frazier was working at the Boeing Corporation, in Renton, who was not the only source. Then he went chasing him through most of the bases he had been in the south, sometimes just missing him.(62)
On a visit to Dektor, he happened to meet Tony Pellicano, an expert at finding people.(63) With the help of Pellicano, O?Toole at last located Frazier in December 1973 in Texas, stationed at Fort Hood, only 100 miles south of Dallas. Frazier was living on the base and commuting back and forth to Irving on weekends.(64) When he finally recorded his interview with Frazier, it was no less than stunning. Pellicano caught Frazier repeatedly lying about just about everything. The following questions produced maximum hard stress or good to hard stress:(65)
1. Did he (Oswald) take that package up with him into the building?
2. Did he tell you he was going to go home with you that night?
3. There was nobody else in the (polygraph) room with you?
4. Did he (the examiner) tell you that you passed the test?
5. Do you know Paul Bently?
6. You never knew he (Oswald) had this gun then?
In closing this chapter, O?Toole wrote:
?The midnight polygraph examination of Buel Wesley Frazier lies at the very heart of the mystery of November 22, 1963. Why does it provoke hard stress, false statements, and curious lapses of memory among the Dallas police officers who should be the most familiar with it? ?the answer to these questions can only be the darkest speculation.? (66)
Frazier and the HSCA
While he was being discharged from the Army in 1977, the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) was forming to reinvestigate the JFK and MLK assassinations. Again, Frazier offered stiff opposition to testifying. ?Frazier continues to procrastinate. Definite resistance.?(67) Frazier was finally interviewed by Investigators Moriarity and Day of the HSCA, but never testified under oath. The reason is pretty obvious when one reads the transcripts. Four audio tapes were made of these interviews, which lingered in oblivion at the National Archives until Greg Parker decided to transcribe them. Tapes one and two were useless because of time deterioration.(68)
Tape number three described how he stayed put on the steps:
?I continued to stay right on the steps where I was. I didn?t move from there, I didn?t talk with someone who was sitting there that, uh, was ? was on the stairs, as I said earlier. With the same two people. And the shots came from ? apparently now ? they came from around in a group of people scrambling.? Later on the same topic, ?And I moved to the right. ?Cause I was very interested in staying ? there is no way to get caught. Standing there in the middle.?(69)
Then Day asked him a very simple, important and relevant question:
DAY: Are you in any pictures?
FRAZIER: No ? I don?t remember. What, uh-what I was gonna say is that it sounded ? sounded like they were taken in the fall. It was then that was, you know, perfect. But being there at that time I didn?t know.(70)
This tape also contains what seem to be other incoherent statements from Frazier. However, they seem incoherent if you do not know about his induction into the Army. His references to ?military? and ?Seattle? are not a coincidence. Had this man been mentally tormented, with the spectre of being sent to Vietnam at the whim of the people who were running this operation? It was crucial that they keep a lid on Frazier. This was the star witness who helped to ?convict? Lee Oswald in the public eye.
Consider the following exchange from page six:
?And anyways they terminated asking questions and when I answered back I tried to?I tried to tell them the truth. And that made them very angry.?(71) The only thing we can think of that could elicit this type of reaction would have been that he told them that perhaps his friend Lee Oswald was right next to him at the front entrance.
On tape four he talked about the advantage the TSBD employees had being on the steps at a higher level and in the sunlight to avoid the crowded curbs, and how he kept going from the doorway to the sunshine and again, confirming his position when the motorcade drove by, next to the ?big heavy set lady?.(72) These details are very important because they refute the argument that he was in the shadows of the doorway when the motorcade drove by:(73)
?So we stepped back out then down on?out on to the steps. ?so we stepped back into the sunlight then where actually we could see better. Because that?s you know its not every day that you can see the President of the United States come by in a motorcade a few feet away.?
FRAZIER: OK, I know some of the girls that worked in the uh offices above and they stepped out into the sunlight with me there and I know the big heavy set woman she was right there.(74)
Take a look at the same area, but from the angle of Dave Weigman, who was traveling in a press cars, the 7th car in the motorcade, 1 or 2 seconds after the last shots. The three people shielding their eyes are still there, right? Now focus on the man sandwiched in between these three.
These images confirm this is a young, tall, slim, long-limbed man with long neck, black hair, triangular shaped combination of head and hair. He is wearing a long sleeved dark colored shirt rolled up right below the elbow.Why is this man not seen in Altgens6? The three people in Altgens6 who are shielding their eyes with their hands are accounted for. Doorman is also accounted for as well as the black man who is at his lower right.
When we flip the 11/22/63 photograph taken of Buell Frazier and compare it to the figure in Weigman, we get a perfect match. He happens to be standing exactly on the stairs where he said he was in his own hand written statement the night of 11/22/63.(75)
His Warren Commission testimony was taken 3/11/64 by Mr. Joseph (?I won?t drop the ball?) Ball. In his testimony, Frazier confirmed his position stating he was ?one step down from the top there?, and ?Yes sir, standing by the rail.? He was shown CE-362, which is a only a schematic drawing of the first floor as seen from above to establish his position at the time.(76)
Down the road of deception, lies and duress
Here is where things get dicey. We just proved Frazier was standing on the steps, which was documented as early as the night of the assassination. (77) In his Warren Commission testimony, he was asked if he would take a look at CE-369, a version of Altgens6 that is severely cropped. Quoting from page 242 of his testimony:
BALL. We have got a picture taken the day of the parade and it shows the President?s car going by. Now, take a look at that picture. Can you see your picture any place there?
Mr. FRAZIER. No, sir; I don?t, because I was back up in this more or less black area here.
Mr. BALL. I see.
Mr. FRAZIER. Because Billy, like I say, is two or three steps down in front of me.
Mr. BALL. Do you recognize this fellow?
Mr. FRAZIER. That is Billy, that is Billy Lovelady.
Mr. BALL. Billy?
Mr. FRAZIER. Right
Mr. BALL. Let?s take a marker and make an arrow down that way. That mark is Billy Lovelady?
Mr. FRAZIER. Right.
Mr. BALL. That is where you told us you were standing a moment ago.
Mr. FRAZIER. Right.
Mr. BALL. In front of you to the right over to the wall?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes.
Changes at the Entrance
These images are from the Warren Commission. Below left is a schematic drawing of the first floor of the building, the area where Lee Oswald and Wesley Frazier worked side by side filling orders. According to Frazier?s testimony, the only reason for order fillers to have gone up to the sixth floor would have been to process book returns. This was a very simple procedure which required very little time. That morning it was Frazier who had been to the sixth floor at least once. When asked if he had seen Oswald on the sixth floor of the building at any time that morning, he answered, ?No?.(78)
The second image below is the Elm Street main entrance of the building as seen from inside. Notice how restricted the top landing of the entrance was in those days?it could not have been more than 3 feet of horizontal space towards Elm Street, which probably could only accommodate one row of people. Moreover, the radiator against the wall allows us to estimate the space on the other side of the door. The schematic drawing also confirms the door opened both ways and was right in the middle of the landing. This is where Frazier supposedly was, ?in the shadows more or less?.
Years later the entire doorway was replaced with thick, ornate wooden frames, and the door itself pushed further inside the entrance, which greatly increased the area of the landing as we see today at right.
In 1986, Frazier testified at Lee Oswald?s mock trial. At 9:57 into his testimony:
SPENCE: You recall these 23 years later that Mr. Lovelady was standing in front of you at that precise moment ? about 4 steps in front of you, is that correct?
FRAZIER: Yes sir, that is.
SPENCE: Have you ever said that to anybody in the world prior to today?
FRAZIER: I don?t know whether anyone asked me that or not.
SPENCE: But my question is did you ever tell that to anyone in the world ? prior to today?
FRAZIER: Not that I know of, sir.
SPENCE: But you did tell that to Mr. Bugliosi, with the ?g? silent, didn?t you.
FRAZIER: Well I asked this question, awhile ago sir. (nervously chewing gum)
There are major problems with this. Again, Frazier was right in the middle of the group that was on the stairs, one or two steps from the top. The deception orchestrated by Joseph Ball in his Warren Commission testimony is pathetic. It is rife with contradictions. Every time Frazier testified about his position at the stairs of the entrance of the TSBD, no matter in which forum, he gave a different story. In his WC testimony, he gave two different positions (as seen above) within the same session! Doorman is obviously above him, not 2, 3 or 4 steps in front of him! Thanks to Gerry Spence, we have videotaped testimony which shows Frazier lying with impunity under oath. By 1986 he had apparently gotten used to the libretto and did not need any more coaching.
The image to the right is from Ralph Cinque?s Altgens6 re-enactment conducted on 11/7/12 and 11/13/12, the first time this was ever done. It is presented here to confirm the position of doorman at the top step of the stairway. Again, this is also confirmed by Altgens6 and Weigman 658. This image only shows the top 3 of the 7 steps that comprise the stairway itself.
YouTube - Veterans Today -
Alterations of our own
Using 21st century technology, when we reverse engineer the alterations of the doorway of Altgens6 we come up with this. Once we match Frazier?s head size, rotate him, blur him up a bit and transfer him back to where he used to be, it is a perfect fit! Even Special Agent Jack Ready returns to his original, correct size, as seen when compared to his partner right next to him and this inset.
After careful analysis of all of the evidence presented here, there is an extremely high probability that Buell Wesley Frazier and possibly Sarah Stanton were both removed from the Altgens6 photograph. Once we come to terms with this concept, we begin to understand the terrible life of duress Buell Wesley Frazier has lived. He may live well and comfortable today, but he will always know in the back of his mind what really happened and how he helped frame an innocent man
Discussion
Why was Frazier removed from Altgens6? That?s a very good question. Until he and his sister Linnie Mae come clean, all we can do is speculate. When Altgens6 was viewed on 11/22 at 1:00PM, there was a group of TSBD employees spilling out from the top landing area down into the seven doorway steps as seen in Weigman 658, including Frazier and possibly Sarah Stanton. Both were in Altgens line of sight. Thanks to the Warren Commission we know the landing area of the doorway was much smaller then than it is today. Despite the difference in distance, and much like we see in this Skaggs image at right, Hughes right below, and very faintly in Weigman 658, part of the glass divider and silver metal frame should have been visible in the background of Altgens6. Today, this area is mostly obscured. Years later the entrance was retrofitted and remodeled to match Frazier?s ?back in the shadows? story.
Notice how faint the light fixture and the horizontal frame seem in Altgens6 when compared to this Hughes image.
The fact that Lee Oswald and Buell Wesley Frazier knew each other (albeit for only a couple of months), worked side by side filling orders, and car pooled on weekends was too clear and solid a connection. Once the legend of Oswald as a loner, communist and malcontent was established immediately after the assassination, Oswald being with Frazier at the doorway could not be permitted.
Over the years Frazier has misstated his position on at least five or six different occasions, sometimes under oath. He was caught lying by O?Toole quite a few times and the results of his supposed ?midnight polygraph test? have never surfaced.
If Frazier was complicit in setting up Oswald, even in a passive way, his role could have been to deliver the rifle from the Paine?s garage. This could easily have been accomplished by putting the Carcano in the trunk of his car in the early hours of 11/22 or the night before. Being only half a block away either of the Paines could have facilitated this exchange and, with a spare copy of Frazier?s car key, he would not even have had to get out of the couch he slept in. Perhaps the true reason for Frazier lagging behind was to make sure Oswald did not see him bringing a rifle into the TSBD. If he was passively involved, he may have left the rifle in the trunk of his car and allowed others to retrieve it.
They would have had all morning to plant it. Notice on page one how far and isolated from the TSBD his car was parked. Those three blocks seem to be close to half a mile distance to the building as shown in CE-361 below. The distance from his car to the TSBD, according to the scale shown was approximately 2,250 feet. While we are on this topic, another unmentioned possibility, if he was actively involved, could have been used as a chauffeur or a getaway driver for any one of the real participants. His five to six hour absence now starts to look pretty suspicious. By taking McKinney Avenue or Munger Street, he could have left the scene of the crime without being noticed.
When we consider Frazier?s comment about remaining at the steps, ?Cause I was very interested in staying ? there is no way to get caught. Standing there in the middle?, this scenario now takes on new meaning. It was imperative that Frazier be erased from his actual location to the shadows of the doorway, where?by insisting he say, ?I was back up in this more or less black area here? and the power of suggestion?he could become Black Hole Man. Instead of Tinkers to Evers to Chance, we have Frazier to Lovelady to Oswald.
We now present the entire Altgens6, rendered with the person we believe was removed from the photo the day of the assassination, Buell Wesley Frazier.
Larry Rivera, the son of a career military man who served as CID officer in the Army and a Certified Network Engineer, has made a lifelong study of the JFK assassination. He has given interviews on the assassination to Spanish media and has the most complete dossier on Billy Nolan Lovelady ever done.
References:
1. CE 1381, NPRC report
2. WC2H211
3. Ibid
4. Dallas Morning News 11/16/08 Aynesworth, ?Oswald co-worker no longer silent about JFK assassination role?
5. WC2H212
6. Ibid
7. WC2H246 ?When you live in a place you know some places that someone with, you know, not much of an education can find work?
8. DMN 11/16/08 Aynesworth, ?Oswald co-worker no longer silent about JFK assassination role?
9. DPD handwritten statement pg 1 and affidavit 11/22/63
10. WC2H214
11. WC2H227
12. WC2H228
13. DPD Affidavit 11/22/63 p2 by Mary Rattan
14. DPD handwritten statement and affidavit 11/22/63
15. WC2H235
16. CE 1381 1:00-2:00PM was quite a generous time frame
17. Greg Parker article,9/22/09 ?Whose line is it anyhow?? Buell Wesley Frazier, Linnie Mae and Bill Randle
18. DMN 11/16/08 Aynesworth, ?Oswald co-worker no longer silent about JFK assassination role?
19. DPD Rose/Stovall/Adamcik
20. Ibid
21. DPD 148-001
22. DPD Rose/Stovall/Adamcik
23. DPD Rose/Stovall/Adamcik Report and Cover-Up, Shaw 90-91
24. DPD Rose/Stovall/Adamcik pg 4
25. HSCA Tape 4 pg, 2 NPRC report
26. NPRC FOIA report pg 2
27. Ibid
28. GI?s Diary http://www.174ahc.org/diary01.htm by SP4 Horace Cassels
29. NPRC report pg 2
30. NPRC, HSCA Tape 4 pg 2
31. HSCA tape 4 pg 2
32. GI?s Diary http://www.174ahc.org/diary01.htm by SP4 Horace Cassels
33. Armstrong Box 16 Notebook 3, Tab 28 pg 7
34. Shaw trial 1969 BWF pg 26
35. NPRC pg 3
36. NPRC pg 4
37. Ibid
38. Ibid pg 1
39. Ibid
40.Horne, Inside the ARRB Vol V, pg 1654
41. Weisberg letter 7/28/75 (Example: Oswald to buy car and meet FBI in Texas Theater to collect the $200.00)
42. Weisberg photocopy ?forward? of The Assassination Tapes paperback edition
43. Horne, Inside the ARRB Vol V, pg 1655
44. Copy of patent available.
45. http://vsa-avsa.blogspot.com/ The first supplier of VSA technology was Dektor. Dektor manufactured the PSE 1000, an analogue machine, that was later replaced by the PSE 2000
46. The Assassination Tapes (TAT) pg 83-84
47. Ibid pg 125
48. Ibid 171
49. Ibid 172
50. Ibid
51. Ibid 173
52. Ibid 174
53. Ibid 181
54. Ibid 175
55. Ibid 177
56. Ibid 177-179, DPD Report, and WCVIIH192
57. Ibid 178
58. WCVIIH192
59. TAT pg 183-184
60. Ibid 187
61. Ibid 190
62. Ibid 196
63. Ibid
64. Ibid 197
65. Ibid 201-203
66. Ibid 206
67. Armstrong HSCA RG233 hand written notes
68. Greg Parker?s web site. www.ReopenKennedyCase.com
69. Tape III-2
70. Ibid
71. Tape III-6
72 Ibid
73. Ibid
74. Tape IV-14
75. DPD handwritten statement and affidavit 11/22/63
76. WC2H233
77. Op Cit
78. WC2H232
79. WC2H244, despite Ball trying his best to confuse him.
80. DMN 11/16/08 Aynesworth, ?Oswald co-worker no longer silent about JFK assassination role? pg 4
81. ?The Trial of Lee Harvey Oswald? Posted by MinM Fri Nov 21st 2008, http://journals.democraticunderground.com/MinM/109 ?Mark Lane would have been a better choice? Spence allowed Bugliosi to lead witnesses at will.
Share this on del.icio.us
Digg this!
Stumble upon something good? Share it on StumbleUpon
Share this on Reddit
Add this to Google Bookmarks
Tweet This!
Share this on Facebook
Share this on Mixx
Subscribe
Buzz up!
Share this on Linkedin
Submit this to DesignFloat
Share this on Technorati
Submit this to Script & Style
Post this to MySpace
Share this on Blinklist
Share this on FriendFeed
Seed this on Newsvine
POSTED BY JIM FETZER AT 12:20 PM
1 COMMENT:
Dubai EscortsAugust 21, 2017 at 3:25 AM
Dubai Escorts
Indian Escorts in Dubai
Pakistani Escorts in Dubai
Call Girls in Dubai
Malaysia Escorts
VIP Dubai Escorts
Reply
Newer Post Older Post Home
Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)
FOLLOWERS
ABOUT ME
My photo
JIM FETZER
McKnight Professor of Philosophy Emeritus, University of Minnesota Duluth; Founder, Scholars for 9/11 Truth; Editor, Assassination Science; Co-Editor, Assassination Research
VIEW MY COMPLETE PROFILE
BLOG ARCHIVE
► 2018 (7)
► 2017 (266)
► 2016 (151)
▼ 2015 (162)
► December (6)
► November (14)
► October (14)
▼ September (78)
► Sep 30 (20)
▼ Sep 29 (30)
JFK at 50: The Assassination of America
Jim Garrison, The Warren Report and the End of the...
The Missing Bullet chicanery of Joseph Ball, Attor...
JFK, the CIA and The New York Times
Did George H.W. Bush coordinate a JFK hit team?
JFK Conspiracy: The Bullet Hole in the Windshield
What happened to JFK's body? A cover-up "on the fl...
Reason and Rationality in Public Debate: The Case ...
Tampering with the JFK Limo in the Altgens6
The James "Ike" Altgens JFK photo timeline
The second JFK limo stop / Holding back the Altgen...
The "grassy knoll" rider and JFK limo back seat
JFK en route to Parkland: Unpacking the Miller pho...
JFK Escort Officers Speak: The Fred Newcomb Interv...
Nix film contradicts Zapruder: More Proof of Faker...
Did Zapruder film "the Zapruder film"?
Two NPIC Zapruder Film Events: Analysis and Implic...
Two NPIC Zapruder Film Events Pointing to its Alte...
Who's telling the truth: Clint Hill or the Zaprude...
US Government Official: JFK Cover-Up, Film Fabrica...
49 years in the Offing: The Altgens Reenactment
Judyth Vary Baker cements Oswald in the Doorway
Lovelady's "arrow" points to conspiracy and cover-...
Why Buell Wesley Frazier was erased from the Altge...
The JFK Altgens6: Bill Shelley's Shrunken Head
Believe it or not: Oswald wasn't even a shooter!
Faking Oswald at the DPD with Ralph Cinque
Oswald Was In Doorway After All! with Richard Hook...
JFK Special: Oswald was in the doorway, after all!...
JFK: What We Know Now that We didn?t Know Then
► Sep 28 (20)
► Sep 21 (1)
► Sep 17 (1)
► Sep 12 (2)
► Sep 11 (1)
► Sep 08 (1)
► Sep 05 (1)
► Sep 01 (1)
► August (11)
► July (12)
► June (11)
► May (10)
► April (6)
► 2013 (30)
► 2012 (24)
► 2011 (50)
► 2010 (79)
► 2009 (18)
SUPPORT US WITH YOUR PURCHASE
GOOGLE VIDEOS
Search
JFKAssasssination ZapruderFakery TheMenWhoKilledKennedy LeeHarveyOswald Falseflags WarOnTerror JamesFetzer 9/11 WTC-7 TwinTowers Pentagon SouthTower NorthTower Guantanamo Bagram Afghanistan Cageprisoners AafiaSiddiqui
upload your own video
-
Can anyone provide any sort of proof that Randle actually said that?
Translation: I cannot prove that Bookhout was lying when he wrote in his report that Randle stated that the bag was three feet long.
It's one thing to run around blowing hot air claiming that evidence is manipulated and FBI reports are lies. Anybody can do that; it takes no special talent. It's another thing entirely to actually prove it.
-
Translation: I cannot prove that Bookhout was lying when he wrote in his report that Randle stated that the bag was three feet long.
I never claimed that Bookhout was lying. What is it with Nutters and their strawman arguments?
You can either prove that Randle told Bookhout that the bag she saw was "approximately 3 feet by 6 inches" or you cannot. Bookhout's account is in direct conflict with Randle's testimony.
-
I never claimed that Bookhout was lying. What is it with Nutters and their strawman arguments?
You can either prove that Randle told Bookhout that the bag she saw was "approximately 3 feet by 6 inches" or you cannot. Bookhout's account is in direct conflict with Randle's testimony.
I've not stated that you claimed Bookhout was lying. I have not made a straw man argument; you simply misunderstood what you read.
I wonder why you always feel the need to point out the very obvious. I asked if anyone can show that Bookhout was lying when he stated (in his report) that Randle told him the bag was three feet long.
All you did was chime in with something insignificant to my question and then later point out what everyone already knows, that Randle's testimony differs with what Bookhout stated she told him.
Bookhout's report states that Randle told him the bag was three feet long. I'll ask again, can anyone prove that Bookhout was lying in his report about what he says Randle told him?
-
I've not stated that you claimed Bookhout was lying. I have not made a straw man argument; you simply misunderstood what you read.
I wonder why you always feel the need to point out the very obvious. I asked if anyone can show that Bookhout was lying when he stated (in his report) that Randle told him the bag was three feet long.
Why are you asking for "anyone" to prove a claim that nobody made? That's exactly what a strawman is, whether you understand it or not.
-
It amuses me no end that you think that it's significant that a bag that was never looked for was never found.
They searched the upper floors for a rifle. Do you have some reason to believe that they searched anywhere for a bag?
Only in Richard-land where handwaving is called "logic".
You still haven't substantiated this. Nowhere in your excerpt of Fritz's testimony does he say that Oswald denied carrying a bag the size estimated by Frazier.
On what basis do you assume he lied?
You're a hoot. If Oswald really "denied bringing a package to work" then that would include a lunch package. So what did Oswald actually say? The notes don't say "size estimated by Frazier". Maybe writing one's interrogation notes several days later isn't the best way to ensure accuracy...
You truly can't be for real. How do I know that they searched the TSBD and would have found any such bag? Wait for it...keep waiting...because they found such a bag. Only it was a bit longer than the one estimated by Frazier. LOL. How about you explain to us why Oswald would not have directed them to any such bag had it existed. It's not being found is not evidence it was there as you stupidly imply but the opposite. Only a CTer would make that insane suggestion.
Nowhere in Fritz's testimony does he say that Oswald denied carrying a bag the size estimated by Frazier? Huh. He very clearly says that Oswald denied carrying a long bag and that he only carried his lunch. Are you claiming Oswald carried a two-foot plus sized lunch bag?
I asked him, I said, "Did you go toward the building carrying a long package?"
He said, "No. I didn't carry anything but my lunch."
-
You truly can't be for real. How do I know that they searched the TSBD and would have found any such bag? Wait for it...keep waiting...because they found such a bag.
It's truly sad and scary what you think passes for logic. You assume that "they" didn't find any other bag than CE142 (even though there's no evidence that they ever looked for one and even though there is no crime scene photo showing such a bag on the 6th floor in the SE corner and even though the first 5 or 6 officers on the scene didn't see such a bag there), so therefore CE142 must have been the bag that Oswald carried, even though the only two people to see the bag that Oswald carried said that it was not.
Nowhere in Fritz's testimony does he say that Oswald denied carrying a bag the size estimated by Frazier? Huh. He very clearly says that Oswald denied carrying a long bag and that he only carried his lunch. Are you claiming Oswald carried a two-foot plus sized lunch bag?
I asked him, I said, "Did you go toward the building carrying a long package?"
He said, "No. I didn't carry anything but my lunch."
Thank you for demonstrating that when you said "Oswald denied carrying a bag the size estimated by Frazier", you just made that part up. You don't know what was in the bag that Frazier saw. You don't even know what if anything was ever in CE142. You just pretend like you do.
-
It's truly sad and scary what you think passes for logic. You assume that "they" didn't find any other bag than CE142 (even though there's no evidence that they ever looked for one and even though there is no crime scene photo showing such a bag on the 6th floor in the SE corner and even though the first 5 or 6 officers on the scene didn't see such a bag there), so therefore CE142 must have been the bag that Oswald carried, even though the only two people to see the bag that Oswald carried said that it was not.
Thank you for demonstrating that when you said "Oswald denied carrying a bag the size estimated by Frazier", you just made that part up. You don't know what was in the bag that Frazier saw. You don't even know what if anything was ever in CE142. You just pretend like you do.
How exactly am I making that up? You are either dishonest or a complete loon. According to Fritz, Oswald said he did not carry a long package but only his lunch sack. There is no way to interpret that in any way to be consist with Frazier's two-foot long package, In fact, Frazier himself indicated that he asked Oswald about his lunch because he noticed that he was not carrying a lunch bag. You should be ashamed for peddling this nonsense.
-
Oswald lied Frazier about what was in the sack and Oswald lied about where is package was in Fraziers car.
(https://s17.postimg.org/q0cf3404v/buellbagest.jpg)
JohnM
-
How exactly am I making that up? You are either dishonest or a complete loon. According to Fritz, Oswald said he did not carry a long package but only his lunch sack.
I thought the bold type would clue you in, but apparently not.
"Oswald denied carrying a bag THE SIZE ESTIMATED BY FRAZIER"
The part you made up was "THE SIZE ESTIMATED BY FRAZIER". Fritz never said that.
Once again:
The part you made up was "THE SIZE ESTIMATED BY FRAZIER"
I hope that clears it up for you.
There is no way to interpret that in any way to be consist with Frazier's two-foot long package
You're a hoot. It's somehow impossible to carry a lunch in a two-foot long package, so therefore it was a rifle? The twisted logic never ends.
-
Oswald lied Frazier about what was in the sack and Oswald lied about where is package was in Fraziers car.
So you claim. Proving that is another matter.
-
So you claim. Proving that is another matter.
Not my claim and if Frazier's word isn't good enough for you then yeah sure throw him under the bus too, that seems to be your modus operandi!
JohnM
-
Not my claim and if Frazier's word isn't good enough for you then yeah sure throw him under the bus too, that seems to be your modus operandi!
I didn't throw Frazier under the bus. Frazier never said Oswald lied, you did. You're the one throwing him under the bus with your "mistaken" song and dance. He said it wasn't the same bag.
And you're a hypocrite too, given the cavalcade of witnesses that you and your ilk regularly throw under the bus:
Arnold Rowland
Roger Craig
Carolyn Walther
Jean Hill
Vickie Adams
Julia Ann Mercer
Acquilla Clemons
Bernard Haire
Sylvia Odio
O.P. Wright
Bardwell Odum
Seth Kantor
Butch Burroughs
W.R. (Dub) Stark
Louis Cortinas
Tom Mullins, Emmett Hollingshead, and J.B. "Shorty" Lewis
James A. Andrews
T. F. White
Fred Moore
John Elrod
Jack Davis
Paul O?Connor
Floyd Riebe
Jerrol Custer
James Curtis Jenkins
Dennis David
Saundra Spencer
Dean Andrews
Carolyn Arnold
Janet Conforto
Charles Crenshaw
Marita Lorenz
Nelson Delgado
Edwin Walker
Nancy Lee Fenner
Albert Bogard
Richard Randolph Carr
Waggoner Carr
Kenneth Croy
John Manchester
Perry Russo
Edith Whitworth
Esther Mash
Delphine Roberts
Roy Eugene Vaughn
Just to name a few.
-
Why are you asking for "anyone" to prove a claim that nobody made? That's exactly what a strawman is, whether you understand it or not.
I asked if anyone can show that Bookhout was lying when he stated (in his report) that Randle told him the bag was three feet long. That is a question and is far from a straw man argument.
-
It's truly sad and scary what you think passes for logic.
Logic, as in... your claim that the "click" that was heard by many during the theater scuffle... could have been a theater seat?
-
Why are you asking for "anyone" to prove a claim that nobody made? That's exactly what a strawman is, whether you understand it or not.
Precisely, because if nobody can prove that Bookhout was lying (the only person who actually could have done that was the late Linnie Mae Randle) the silly argument would be that Bookhout must have been telling the truth because nobody can prove he didn't.
That is the only plausible reason for asking such a pathetic question in the first place.
-
Precisely, because if nobody can prove that Bookhout was lying (the only person who actually could have done that was the late Linnie Mae Randle) the silly argument would be that Bookhout must have been telling the truth because nobody can prove he didn't.
That is the only plausible reason for asking such a pathetic question in the first place.
Speaking of straw man...
I have never stated that Bookhout must be telling the truth since no one can prove he was lying in his report.
I have asked if anyone can prove that Bookhout was lying. Since you obviously cannot, it must be taken into consideration that his report stated that Randle estimated that the bag was three feet long. THAT is the reason for me asking my "pathetic" question in the first place.
-
I asked if anyone can show that Bookhout was lying when he stated (in his report) that Randle told him the bag was three feet long. That is a question and is far from a straw man argument.
...and if nobody can show that Bookhout was lying, then what?
-
Logic, as in... your claim that the "click" that was heard by many during the theater scuffle... could have been a theater seat?
It could have been a lot of things. Hawkins wasn't sure what it was, but somehow you are? If this is such a ridiculous notion then why did Belin ask Walker if the sound he heard was the click of a seat? I guess Belin didn't take the Bill Brown correspondence course in logic either.
-
it must be taken into consideration that his report stated that Randle estimated that the bag was three feet long.
Sure. Taken into consideration and then rejected because it conflicts with what Randle said directly.
-
I thought the bold type would clue you in, but apparently not.
"Oswald denied carrying a bag THE SIZE ESTIMATED BY FRAZIER"
The part you made up was "THE SIZE ESTIMATED BY FRAZIER". Fritz never said that.
Once again:
The part you made up was "THE SIZE ESTIMATED BY FRAZIER"
I hope that clears it up for you.
You're a hoot. It's somehow impossible to carry a lunch in a two-foot long package, so therefore it was a rifle? The twisted logic never ends.
What dishonest, kooky nonsense. Oswald denied carrying a long package but only his lunch sack. Frazier testified that Oswald was carrying a long package and not his lunch. So Oswald denied carrying a bag the size estimated by Frazier. Whew:
Mr. BALL. What did you tell him?
Mr. FRITZ. I told him he had a package and put it in the back seat and it was a package about that long and it was curtain rods. He said he didn't have any kind of a package but his lunch. He said he had his lunch and that is all he had, and Mr. Frazier told me that he got out of the car with that package, he saw him go toward the building with this long package.
I asked him, I said, "Did you go toward the building carrying a long package?"
He said, "No. I didn't carry anything but my lunch."
Mr. BALL - Do you remember whether or not when Oswald came back with you on any Monday morning or any weekend did he pack his lunch?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir; he did.
Mr. BALL - He did?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir. When he rode with me, I say he always brought lunch except that one day on November 22 he didn't bring his lunch that day.
-
What dishonest, kooky nonsense. Oswald denied carrying a long package but only his lunch sack. Frazier testified that Oswald was carrying a long package and not his lunch. So Oswald denied carrying a bag the size estimated by Frazier. Whew:
Mr. BALL. What did you tell him?
Mr. FRITZ. I told him he had a package and put it in the back seat and it was a package about that long and it was curtain rods. He said he didn't have any kind of a package but his lunch. He said he had his lunch and that is all he had, and Mr. Frazier told me that he got out of the car with that package, he saw him go toward the building with this long package.
I asked him, I said, "Did you go toward the building carrying a long package?"
He said, "No. I didn't carry anything but my lunch."
Mr. BALL - Do you remember whether or not when Oswald came back with you on any Monday morning or any weekend did he pack his lunch?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir; he did.
Mr. BALL - He did?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir. When he rode with me, I say he always brought lunch except that one day on November 22 he didn't bring his lunch that day.
I asked him, I said, "Did you go toward the building carrying a long package?"
He said, "No. I didn't carry anything but my lunch."
This statement by lee Oswald does not deny the fact that he was carrying a paper sack..... He said the sack held his lunch.....
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir. When he rode with me, I say he always brought lunch except that one day on November 22 he didn't bring his lunch that day.
Frazier acknowledges that Lee always carried his lunch ..but then acts as if he's Superman with X-ray vision and can see that the paper sack doesn't hold Lee's lunch....incredible!!
Even if Lee had told Frazier that the sack contained curtain rods ( doubtful) it also could have contained his sandwich and fruit....So there is no way that Frazier could know that Lee wasn't carrying a lunch as Fazier himself acknowledged he routinely did .
-
I asked him, I said, "Did you go toward the building carrying a long package?"
He said, "No. I didn't carry anything but my lunch."
This statement by lee Oswald does not deny the fact that he was carrying a paper sack..... He said the sack held his lunch.....
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir. When he rode with me, I say he always brought lunch except that one day on November 22 he didn't bring his lunch that day.
Frazier acknowledges that Lee always carried his lunch ..but then acts as if he's Superman with X-ray vision and can see that the paper sack doesn't hold Lee's lunch....incredible!!
Even if Lee had told Frazier that the sack contained curtain rods ( doubtful) it also could have contained his sandwich and fruit....So there is no way that Frazier could know that Lee wasn't carrying a lunch as Fazier himself acknowledged he routinely did .
Wrong:
Mr. BALL - Did you notice whether or not Lee had a package that looked like a lunch package that morning?
Mr. FRAZIER - You know like I told you earlier, I say, he didn't take his lunch because I remember right when I got in the car I asked him where was his lunch and he said he was going to buy his lunch that day.
Mr. BALL - He told you that that day, did he?
Mr. FRAZIER - Right. That is right. So, I assumed he was going to buy it, you know, from that catering service man like a lot of the boys do. They don't bring their lunch but they go out and buy their lunch there.
-
Wrong:
Mr. BALL - Did you notice whether or not Lee had a package that looked like a lunch package that morning?
Mr. FRAZIER - You know like I told you earlier, I say, he didn't take his lunch because I remember right when I got in the car I asked him where was his lunch and he said he was going to buy his lunch that day.
Mr. BALL - He told you that that day, did he?
Mr. FRAZIER - Right. That is right. So, I assumed he was going to buy it, you know, from that catering service man like a lot of the boys do. They don't bring their lunch but they go out and buy their lunch there.
Frazier states that Lee told him that he was going to buy his lunch......
Frazier....'I remember right when I got in the car I asked him where was his lunch and he said he was going to buy his lunch that day. "
But in the next breath Frazier says that he ASSUMED that lee was going to buy his lunch....
Frazier...I assumed he was going to buy it,
-
What dishonest, kooky nonsense. Oswald denied carrying a long package but only his lunch sack. Frazier testified that Oswald was carrying a long package and not his lunch. So Oswald denied carrying a bag the size estimated by Frazier. Whew:
More Richard Smith twisted logic. How do you know how Fritz described the bag to Oswald? You think he told Oswald about Frazier's estimate? Maybe Oswald didn't consider a 20-inch package to be "long".
-
But in the next breath Frazier says that he ASSUMED that lee was going to buy his lunch....
Frazier...I assumed he was going to buy it,
"I assumed he was going to buy it, you know, from that catering service man like a lot of the boys do."
-
"I assumed he was going to buy it, you know, from that catering service man like a lot of the boys do."
That's not what Frazier said.....He said that Lee told him that he was going to buy his lunch, so he didn't need to ASSUME that Lee was going to buy his lunch....
Mr. FRAZIER - You know like I told you earlier, I say, he didn't take his lunch because I remember right when I got in the car I asked him where was his lunch and he said he was going to buy his lunch that day.
Mr. BALL - He told you that that day, did he?
Mr. FRAZIER - Right. That is right.
-
He didn't assume that Lee was going to buy his lunch. He assumed that Lee was going to buy his lunch from that catering service man.
-
He didn't assume that Lee was going to buy his lunch. He assumed that Lee was going to buy his lunch from that catering service man.
How so you know that is what Frazier ASSUMED??
-
How so you know that is what Frazier ASSUMED??
Because that's what he said.
"So, I assumed he was going to buy it, you know, from that catering service man like a lot of the boys do."
-
Well, Buell is a friend and I know him very well. That being said, friends can lie. Friends can "conveniently" forget. I don't think he's a liar nor has he forgotten anything. He had no reason to lie about anything at all. He was 19. He was threatened with a Decker Hold. He stood up for himself and he told the truth. He has never believed Oswald took a shot.
-
He didn't assume that Lee was going to buy his lunch. He assumed that Lee was going to buy his lunch from that catering service man.
Ok, I dig.... Frazier said that Lee told him that he was going to buy his lunch ......
Mr. BALL - Did you notice whether or not Lee had a package that looked like a lunch package that morning?
Mr. FRAZIER - You know like I told you earlier, I say, he didn't take his lunch because I remember right when I got in the car I asked him where was his lunch and he said he was going to buy his lunch that day.
Mr. BALL - He told you that that day, did he?
Mr. FRAZIER - Right. That is right. So, I assumed he was going to buy it, you know, from that catering service man like a lot of the boys do. They don't bring their lunch but they go out and buy their lunch there.
BUT... This is Warren Commission crap.... In other statements Frazier never mentions anything about Lee saying he was going to buy his lunch.... Initially Frazier said that he noticed the flimsy brown paper sack on the seat and asked "what's that?" Later Frazier changed that to "What's in the sack Lee ?" Frazier said that Lee told him the sack contained curtain rods. Initially Frazier said that he dismissed the sack from his mind when Lee said it was curtain rods, but when he was telling the Warren Commission what they wanted him to say he then says that it wasn't he sack that first caught his attention it was the absence of a lunch .....I remember right when I got in the car I asked him where was his lunch and he said he was going to buy his lunch that day.
Captain Fritz said that on SaPersonay 11 /23/63 he asked Lee if he had told Frazier that there were curtain rod in the sack and Lee said that he never said anything like that to Frazier.
Fritz had ordered Frazier to return to the police station at about 9:00pm 11/22/63 to take a polygraph test which focused on the curtain rods....And yet Fritz never asked Lee about curtain rods until SaPersonay afternoon????
-
Well, Buell is a friend and I know him very well. That being said, friends can lie. Friends can "conveniently" forget. I don't think he's a liar nor has he forgotten anything. He had no reason to lie about anything at all. He was 19. He was threatened with a Decker Hold. He stood up for himself and he told the truth. He has never believed Oswald took a shot.
I believe that Wes Frazier is human..... He was a frightened kid manipulated by unscrupulous ruthless men when this mess was thrust upon him.
He lied....It's as simple as that. Lee never told him that the flimsy paper sack contained curtain rods.....But the cops DID tell him that Lee had denied carrying a rifle in that paper sack, and Lee had claimed that the bag contained curtain rods. Buell being a scared kid saw no harm in supporting Lee so he said that Yes lee had told him that there were curtain rods in that 28 inch long sack. Then the wily conspirators pretended to administer polygraph in which they said that the lie detector showed that he was telling the truth about the curtain rod story....
-
I believe that Wes Frazier is human..... He was a frighten kid manipulated by unscrupulous ruthless men when this mess was thrust upon him.
He lied....It's as simple as that. Lee never told him that the flimsy paper sack contained curtain rods.....But the cops DID tell him that Lee had denied carrying a rifle in that paper sack, and Lee had claimed that the bag contained curtain rods. Buell being a scared kid saw no harm in supporting Lee so he said that Yes lee had told him that there were curtain rods in that 28 inch long sack. Then the wily conspirators pretended to administer polygraph in which they said that the lie detector showed that he was telling the truth about the curtain rod story....
Walt, I really don't understand why you present this as if it is fact, when it is clearly only what you think happened.
-
Walt, I really don't understand why you present this as if it is fact, when it is clearly only what you think happened.
You know it's plausible and that bothers you.... If you think your going to find the truth stamped and certified, you're delusional.... A person has have the ability to sort out the plausible from the implausible....
Most of the Warren Report is implausible and yet many cite the information as if it is the gospel.....
-
You know it's plausible and that bothers you.... If you think your going to find the truth stamped and certified, you're delusional.... A person has have the ability to sort out the plausible from the implausible....
Most of the Warren Report is implausible and yet many cite the information as if it is the gospel.....
No, it doesn't bother me at all that it is plausible in your opinion and by all means try to sort out the plausible from the implausible, but perhaps it would be wise to remember that even if something seems plausible it doesn't mean it is what really happened.
Too many LNs make that mistake constantly. For instance, they can not think of any other way the rifle could have gotten into the TSBD and they think it is plossible that Frazier was mistaken or even lied about the bag, so for them it is plausible that Oswald used that bag to conceal the rifle, when in fact there isn't a shred of evidence for it and it most likely did not happen.
Something being plausible doesn't make it a fact. Mixing up the two only complicates matters IMO
-
Well, Buell is a friend and I know him very well. That being said, friends can lie. Friends can "conveniently" forget. I don't think he's a liar nor has he forgotten anything. He had no reason to lie about anything at all. He was 19. He was threatened with a Decker Hold. He stood up for himself and he told the truth. He has never believed Oswald took a shot.
Buell Frasier suffers a similar guilt complex as Marina Oswald.
Marina refused Lee Oswald's plea (the evening of 21 November 1963) for her and the children to live with him in an apartment near Dallas. Marina intended to agree eventually, but was making Lee suffer a little for the argument (by telephone) they had earlier in the week. She knows that an agreement to reconcile with Lee might have prevented the assassination of President Kennedy.
Buell unknowingly drove the alleged assassin of President Kennedy to work on 22 November 1963. Although Frasier claims the package Oswald carried into the TSBD was too short to contain the Carcano rifle disassembled: This can be seen to be an opinion developed to avoid accepting that he inadvertently and innocently assisted the assassin of JFK. Hence ... Buell Frazier declares that he "believes" that Oswald "never took a shot". He bases that opinion on his perception of Lee Harvey Oswald's personality which he has stated as "nice".
-
I asked him, I said, "Did you go toward the building carrying a long package?"
He said, "No. I didn't carry anything but my lunch."
This statement by lee Oswald does not deny the fact that he was carrying a paper sack..... He said the sack held his lunch.....
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir. When he rode with me, I say he always brought lunch except that one day on November 22 he didn't bring his lunch that day.
Frazier acknowledges that Lee always carried his lunch ..but then acts as if he's Superman with X-ray vision and can see that the paper sack doesn't hold Lee's lunch....incredible!!
Even if Lee had told Frazier that the sack contained curtain rods ( doubtful) it also could have contained his sandwich and fruit....So there is no way that Frazier could know that Lee wasn't carrying a lunch as Fazier himself acknowledged he routinely did .
Frazier acknowledges that Lee always carried his lunch ..but then acts as if he's Superman with X-ray vision and can see that the paper sack doesn't hold Lee's lunch....incredible!!
Buell Frazier estimated the package--that Oswald carried into the TSBD--was 2 feet give or take a few inches. That means a package 21 to 27 inches long. That's a long package to contain lunch.
Tell me: What was the lunch? Celery sticks or french bread?
-
Frazier acknowledges that Lee always carried his lunch ..but then acts as if he's Superman with X-ray vision and can see that the paper sack doesn't hold Lee's lunch....incredible!!
Buell Frazier estimated the package--that Oswald carried into the TSBD--was 2 feet give or take a few inches. That means a package 21 to 27 inches long. That's a long package to contain lunch.
Tell me: What was the lunch? Celery sticks or french bread?
Maybe it contained his lunch and laundry. After all he regularly collected his laundry after visiting Marina. Yet Buell only remembered Oswald carrying his lunch.....a dual purpose bag....there's an option.
-
Maybe it contained his lunch and laundry. After all he regularly collected his laundry after visiting Marina. Yet Buell only remembered Oswald carrying his lunch.....a dual purpose bag....there's an option.
Maybe it contained his lunch and laundry. After all he regularly collected his laundry after visiting Marina.
Marina mentioned nothing about Lee's laundry (on 21/22 November 1963) in her testimony before the Warren Commission. Same goes for the House Select Committee on Assassinations.
Yet Buell only remembered Oswald carrying his lunch.....a dual purpose bag....there's an option.
Maybes are not evidence. Options are not evidence.
-
Maybes are not evidence. Options are not evidence.
I was engaging in justified speculation ... based on an assessment of Marina Oswald's and Buell Frazier's illogical reasons for believing Lee Oswald was not involved willingly and knowingly in the assassination of President Kennedy.
-
Maybe it contained his lunch and laundry. After all he regularly collected his laundry after visiting Marina.
Marina mentioned nothing about Lee's laundry (on 21/22 November 1963) in her testimony before the Warren Commission. Same goes for the House Select Committee on Assassinations.
Yet Buell only remembered Oswald carrying his lunch.....a dual purpose bag....there's an option.
Maybes are not evidence. Options are not evidence.
Lee used to regularly get his laundry done at the Paine's. Yet Buell only ever noticed his lunch. How else might Oswald have transported his laundry then? Seems logical that he used one bag to contain both lunch and laundry then.
-
Maybe it contained his lunch and laundry. After all he regularly collected his laundry after visiting Marina.
Marina mentioned nothing about Lee's laundry (on 21/22 November 1963) in her testimony before the Warren Commission. Same goes for the House Select Committee on Assassinations.
Yet Buell only remembered Oswald carrying his lunch.....a dual purpose bag....there's an option.
Maybes are not evidence. Options are not evidence.
Absence of a statement in her testimony is not evidence either.
Earlier today I had to testify in a case as a witness. I wanted to tell the court about a particular observation, which I thought was relevant, but I never got to say it.... why? Because they did not ask me!
-
Frazier acknowledges that Lee always carried his lunch ..but then acts as if he's Superman with X-ray vision and can see that the paper sack doesn't hold Lee's lunch....incredible!!
Buell Frazier estimated the package--that Oswald carried into the TSBD--was 2 feet give or take a few inches. That means a package 21 to 27 inches long. That's a long package to contain lunch.
Tell me: What was the lunch? Celery sticks or french bread?
I simply used the available facts to provide you with an option that you requested.
Oswald regularly took his laundry. Oswald regularly took his lunch. Frazier only remembers Oswald carrying his lunch......ergo the bag regularly contained his laundry and lunch.
-
Frazier acknowledges that Lee always carried his lunch ..but then acts as if he's Superman with X-ray vision and can see that the paper sack doesn't hold Lee's lunch....incredible!!
Buell Frazier estimated the package--that Oswald carried into the TSBD--was 2 feet give or take a few inches. That means a package 21 to 27 inches long. That's a long package to contain lunch.
Tell me: What was the lunch? Celery sticks or french bread?
Tell me: What was the lunch? Celery sticks or french bread?
Nobody could apprise you about anything Mr Lidell..... Clearly you believe that an object in a paper sack must fill the dimensions of the sack. Clearly you are too obtuse to understand that a two foot long sack can be used to carry a sandwich and an orange or apple.....
-
Tell me: What was the lunch? Celery sticks or french bread?
Nobody could apprise you about anything Mr Lidell..... Clearly you believe that an object in a paper sack must fill the dimensions of the sack. Clearly you are too obtuse to understand that a two foot long sack can be used to carry a sandwich and an orange or apple.....
Or a broken down rifle. Oh wait.........
-
Or a broken down rifle. Oh wait.........
A 35 inch long rifle stock in a 27 inch sack??..... How's that possible?
-
Buell Frasier suffers a similar guilt complex as Marina Oswald.
Marina refused Lee Oswald's plea (the evening of 21 November 1963) for her and the children to live with him in an apartment near Dallas. Marina intended to agree eventually, but was making Lee suffer a little for the argument (by telephone) they had earlier in the week. She knows that an agreement to reconcile with Lee might have prevented the assassination of President Kennedy.
Buell unknowingly drove the alleged assassin of President Kennedy to work on 22 November 1963. Although Frasier claims the package Oswald carried into the TSBD was too short to contain the Carcano rifle disassembled: This can be seen to be an opinion developed to avoid accepting that he inadvertently and innocently assisted the assassin of JFK. Hence ... Buell Frazier declares that he "believes" that Oswald "never took a shot". He bases that opinion on his perception of Lee Harvey Oswald's personality which he has stated as "nice".
I saw Frazier speak at the TSBD a couple years ago. He said something along the lines that Oswald couldn't have done it because he often played with the neighborhood kids and they liked him. He said kids have a special sense about people and apparently wouldn't have liked Oswald if he had been capable of murder. I sort of felt sorry for him because he clearly does not want to be remembered as the guy who drove the assassin and his rifle on that day.
-
I saw Frazier speak at the TSBD a couple years ago. He said something along the lines that Oswald couldn't have done it because he often played with the neighborhood kids and they liked him. He said kids have a special sense about people and apparently wouldn't have liked Oswald if he had been capable of murder. I sort of felt sorry for him because he clearly does not want to be remembered as the guy who drove the assassin and his rifle on that day.
You should feel sorry for yourself..... They have played you for a gullible sucker.....
-
Maybe it contained his lunch and laundry. After all he regularly collected his laundry after visiting Marina. Yet Buell only remembered Oswald carrying his lunch.....a dual purpose bag....there's an option.
Well, it's lucky for the conspirators that their patsy, on the day of the events, just happened to decide to place his lunch inside a twenty-four inch long bag that contained his laundry. This fit perfectly with their need to have it appear that the patsy carried his rifle into the building.
I'd rather be lucky than good.
-
I simply used the available facts to provide you with an option that you requested.
Oswald regularly took his laundry. Oswald regularly took his lunch. Frazier only remembers Oswald carrying his lunch......ergo the bag regularly contained his laundry and lunch.
Fritz said that Oswald stated that he carried only his lunch.
Frazier said that Oswald stated that he didn't have his lunch, that he was just going to buy lunch that day.
Who's lying? Fritz? Frazier? Oswald?
-
Buell Frasier suffers a similar guilt complex as Marina Oswald.
Marina refused Lee Oswald's plea (the evening of 21 November 1963) for her and the children to live with him in an apartment near Dallas. Marina intended to agree eventually, but was making Lee suffer a little for the argument (by telephone) they had earlier in the week. She knows that an agreement to reconcile with Lee might have prevented the assassination of President Kennedy.
Buell unknowingly drove the alleged assassin of President Kennedy to work on 22 November 1963. Although Frasier claims the package Oswald carried into the TSBD was too short to contain the Carcano rifle disassembled: This can be seen to be an opinion developed to avoid accepting that he inadvertently and innocently assisted the assassin of JFK. Hence ... Buell Frazier declares that he "believes" that Oswald "never took a shot". He bases that opinion on his perception of Lee Harvey Oswald's personality which he has stated as "nice".
I saw Frazier speak at the TSBD a couple years ago. He said something along the lines that Oswald couldn't have done it because he often played with the neighborhood kids and they liked him. He said kids have a special sense about people and apparently wouldn't have liked Oswald if he had been capable of murder. I sort of felt sorry for him because he clearly does not want to be remembered as the guy who drove the assassin and his rifle on that day.
(https://i.imgur.com/7Fp3t2Q.jpg)
-
(http://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/grocerysack.jpg)
(http://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/grocerysack1.jpg)
(http://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/grocerysack2.png)
-
Fritz said that Oswald stated that he carried only his lunch.
Frazier said that Oswald stated that he didn't have his lunch, that he was just going to buy lunch that day.
Who's lying? Fritz? Frazier? Oswald?
Buell Frazier....after being coercered by Fritz....
-
Fritz said that Oswald stated that he carried only his lunch.
Frazier said that Oswald stated that he didn't have his lunch, that he was just going to buy lunch that day.
Who's lying? Fritz? Frazier? Oswald?
Ruth said Oswald took his laundry after visiting on weekends. Frazier said Oswald only ever took his lunch except for the 22nd.
Who?s lying Ruth or Buell? Your call.
-
I simply used the available facts to provide you with an option that you requested.
Oswald regularly took his laundry. Oswald regularly took his lunch. Frazier only remembers Oswald carrying his lunch......ergo the bag regularly contained his laundry and lunch.
Fritz said that Oswald stated that he carried only his lunch.
Frazier said that Oswald stated that he didn't have his lunch, that he was just going to buy lunch that day.
Who's lying? Fritz? Frazier? Oswald?
Ruth said Oswald took his laundry after visiting on weekends. Frazier said Oswald only ever took his lunch except for the 22nd.
Who?s lying Ruth or Buell? Your call.
Your point is completely invalid. This Thursday night visit was not on a weekend; it was out of the norm. Therefore, Lee could have visited without taking his laundry afterwards.
I ask again, who's lying? Fritz? Frazier? Oswald?
-
Your point is completely invalid. This Thursday night visit was not on a weekend; it was out of the norm. Therefore, Lee could have visited without taking his laundry afterwards.
I ask again, who's lying? Fritz? Frazier? Oswald?
I am talking about any of the previous visits. Lee took laundry......Ruth. Lee only took his lunch.....Buell.
Who is right?
-
I am talking about any of the previous visits. Lee took laundry......Ruth. Lee only took his lunch.....Buell.
Who is right?
Unless you have a statement by Ruth or Marina saying that Lee's laundry was tended to on that Thursday night and he left with the laundry on Friday morning, then again, you're going off into la-la land.
This Thursday night visit (one night) does NOT fall into the category of Ruth's statement that Lee left with his laundry after visiting on weekends (three nights).
-
I am talking about any of the previous visits. Lee took laundry......Ruth. Lee only took his lunch.....Buell.
Who is right?
On any previous Monday did Ruth Paine ever see Oswald leave her house carrying a bag of laundry? A simple yes or no will suffice?
Who knows, Oswald may have only washed the clothes he was wearing?
Mr. JENNER - Now, the same question with respect to laundry. That would be laundry largely. I take it from your telling us about you and Marina hanging up clothes in your backyard on the 22d of November that neither you nor she ever sent any laundry out for cleaning or washing.
Mrs. PAINE - No; and Lee brought his underwear and shirts to be washed at my house, and then Marina ironed his things and he would take clean things with him on Monday.
JohnM
-
I am talking about any of the previous visits. Lee took laundry......Ruth. Lee only took his lunch.....Buell.
Who is right?
Your (plural) inability to answer the question raised is obvious. I feel your pain in trying to twist the argument. The issue here is simple.
Ruth testified that Oswald took his fresh laundry when leaving the house after the weekend. This is a fact.
Buell testified that Oswald only ever took a package that contained his lunch. This is a fact.
Please reconcile.
-
Your (plural) inability to answer the question raised is obvious. I feel your pain in trying to twist the argument. The issue here is simple.
Ruth testified that Ruth took his fresh laundry when leaving the house after the weekend. This is a fact.
Buell testified that Oswald only ever took a package that contained his lunch. This is a fact.
Please reconcile.
Who's twisting anything, it seems you have no proof that Ruth Paine saw Oswald carry any laundry on any Monday? Who knows, Oswald may have only washed the clothes he was wearing and this is what Ruth saw being washed?
Mr. JENNER - Now, the same question with respect to laundry. That would be laundry largely. I take it from your telling us about you and Marina hanging up clothes in your backyard on the 22d of November that neither you nor she ever sent any laundry out for cleaning or washing.
Mrs. PAINE - No; and Lee brought his underwear and shirts to be washed at my house, and then Marina ironed his things and he would take clean things with him on Monday.
Btw wasn't there a laundromat close to the Beckley Street Rooming house and wasn't Oswald reported to be there at least on one occasion?
JohnM
-
Your (plural) inability to answer the question raised is obvious. I feel your pain in trying to twist the argument. The issue here is simple.
Ruth testified that Ruth took his fresh laundry when leaving the house after the weekend. This is a fact.
Buell testified that Oswald only ever took a package that contained his lunch. This is a fact.
Please reconcile.
Ruth testified that Ruth took his fresh laundry when leaving the house after the weekend. This is a fact.
What don't you understand about this? Lee's Thursday night visit was not on a weekend. This does not qualify for Ruth's statement that Lee left with his laundry after weekend visits. This is a fact.
-
Who's twisting anything, it seems you have no proof that Ruth Paine saw Oswald carry any laundry on any Monday? Who knows, Oswald may have only washed the clothes he was wearing and this is what Ruth saw being washed?
Mr. JENNER - Now, the same question with respect to laundry. That would be laundry largely. I take it from your telling us about you and Marina hanging up clothes in your backyard on the 22d of November that neither you nor she ever sent any laundry out for cleaning or washing.
Mrs. PAINE - No; and Lee brought his underwear and shirts to be washed at my house, and then Marina ironed his things and he would take clean things with him on Monday.
Btw wasn't there a laundromat close to the Beckley Street Rooming house and wasn't Oswald reported to be there at least on one occasion?
JohnM
So we have established that the "low-life" Oswald would bring his underwear and shirts for the week to be washed and ironed by Marina. He took them with him on Mondays and presumably on the one Tuesday when he stayed an extra day for the holiday weekend.
There certainly was a washateria across the street from his roominghouse. He was seen there until closing on Wed 20th. Probably as he had not been able to go to the Paine?s to get his washing done for the 10 days or so since he had been there. From memory Bertha Cheek also thought he went on a SaPersonay. Likely the weekend he did not visit the Paine?s.
So it would appear that he liked his clothes laundered and not to be in a state of uncleanliness.
Perhaps he wore all his weekly freshly laundered clothing on the trip to the TSBD. Wore it all day and then took it off until he got home. Maybe he put it in some package or bag and Frazier just didn?t ever notice it.
-
What don't you understand about this? Lee's Thursday night visit was not on a weekend. This does not qualify for Ruth's statement that Lee left with his laundry after weekend visits. This is a fact.
I understand exactly Bill. step back and look at the statements. I am not referring at this point at the Thursday visit. We will get back to that later. Frazier said that Oswald never had anything but his lunch. Correct? Where was the laundry secreted from his gaze after any visit?
-
So we have established that the "low-life" Oswald would bring his underwear and shirts for the week to be washed and ironed by Marina. He took them with him on Mondays and presumably on the one Tuesday when he stayed an extra day for the holiday weekend.
There certainly was a washateria across the street from his roominghouse. He was seen there until closing on Wed 20th. Probably as he had not been able to go to the Paine?s to get his washing done for the 10 days or so since he had been there. From memory Bertha Cheek also thought he went on a SaPersonay. Likely the weekend he did not visit the Paine?s.
So it would appear that he liked his clothes laundered and not to be in a state of uncleanliness.
Perhaps he wore all his weekly freshly laundered clothing on the trip to the TSBD. Wore it all day and then took it off until he got home. Maybe he put it in some package or bag and Frazier just didn?t ever notice it.
Colin, did Ruth Paine ever see Oswald carry anything on any Monday morning that wasn't his lunch?
Perhaps he wore all his weekly freshly laundered clothing on the trip to the TSBD
Exactly, Oswald may have just washed the work clothes off his back and wore the same clothes back to work after they were washed.
And I'm sure Oswald had something nice he could wear from his stuff in Ruth's garage.
Btw Ruth said underwear and shirts, what sort of wash is that??? Where's the socks, shorts, pants, etc etc????
JohnM
-
I am talking about any of the previous visits. Lee took laundry......Ruth. Lee only took his lunch.....Buell.
Who is right?
Who is right?
Why can't they both be right?
Ruth saw Marina do Oswald's laundry that seems to be quite small, which was clearly just the clothes he was wearing.
Frazier only saw a small standard sandwich bag because Oswald was wearing his laundry.
JohnM
-
Ruth testified that Ruth took his fresh laundry when leaving the house after the weekend. This is a fact.
Cite?
JohnM
-
Cite?
JohnM
Of course the second Ruth above should be Oswald.
Mrs. PAINE - No; and Lee brought his underwear and shirts to be washed at my house, and then Marina ironed his things and he would take clean things with him on Monday
Ruth who seemed to be very careful with her words with regards to accuracy when testifying tells us that "Lee brought his underwear and shirts". To me that implies his weekly requirements, not just the clothes for the Friday. Seems that Marina ironed more than one shirt.
"He would take things with him on Monday" indicates exactly that. A bit pointless otherwise. If it was just the clothing he arrived in I think Ruth would have specified that. Ie .....Marina washed his work clothes that he came in on Friday and he left with them on the Monday...
-
Of course the second Ruth above should be Oswald.
Mrs. PAINE - No; and Lee brought his underwear and shirts to be washed at my house, and then Marina ironed his things and he would take clean things with him on Monday
Ruth who seemed to be very careful with her words with regards to accuracy when testifying tells us that "Lee brought his underwear and shirts". To me that implies his weekly requirements, not just the clothes for the Friday. Seems that Marina ironed more than one shirt.
"He would take things with him on Monday" indicates exactly that. A bit pointless otherwise. If it was just the clothing he arrived in I think Ruth would have specified that. Ie .....Marina washed his work clothes that he came in on Friday and he left with them on the Monday...
Yes you're right, Ruth was very specific and if she saw Oswald carrying laundry surely she would provide some sort of description of how it was carried? I can't find any words from Ruth where she ever saw Oswald carry anything on any of the respective Monday mornings. Ruth simply saw Marina do a small wash for Oswald which must have been his current work clothes, which leads to Frazier having nothing to see, so your original premise that one of them must be lying is a provable unjust accusation.
Seems that Marina ironed more than one shirt.
Yeah, his singlet, his t shirt, his button up shirt and maybe even his jacket.
Oswald's work shirt shows heavy signs of wear and was worn a lot perhaps multiple times a week.
(https://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/The-Oswald-shirt.jpg)
Btw Ruth said that Oswald took his clean clothes with him on a Monday and she was right.
JohnM
-
Yes you're right, Ruth was very specific and if she saw Oswald carrying laundry surely she would provide some sort of description of how it was carried? I can't find any words from Ruth where she ever saw Oswald carry anything on any of the respective Monday mornings. Ruth simply saw Marina do a small wash for Oswald which must have been his current work clothes, which leads to Frazier having nothing to see, so your original premise that one of them must be lying is a provable unjust accusation.
Yeah, his singlet, his t shirt, his button up shirt and maybe even his jacket.
Oswald's work shirt shows heavy signs of wear and was worn a lot perhaps multiple times a week.
(https://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/The-Oswald-shirt.jpg)
Btw Ruth said that Oswald took his clean clothes with him on a Monday and she was right.
JohnM
There is nothing that would make us believe the was was "small". As I said Ruth was clear with her words and if Marina merely washed the clothes he was wearing when he arrived I believe she would have said that.
Packages were a matter of interest to the commission and Ruth and Marina should have been quizzed further.
My original premise was that neither were lying.....but provided an answer that accommodated both for those days excluding the 22nd.
-
There is nothing that would make us believe the was was "small". As I said Ruth was clear with her words and if Marina merely washed the clothes he was wearing when he arrived I believe she would have said that.
Packages were a matter of interest to the commission and Ruth and Marina should have been quizzed further.
My original premise was that neither were lying.....but provided an answer that accommodated both for those days excluding the 22nd.
There is nothing that would make us believe the was was "small".
"Underwear and shirts" sounds like what Oswald would be wearing, a possible singlet, a t shirt, a button shirt, a jacket, pants, undies and socks.
Packages were a matter of interest to the commission and Ruth and Marina should have been quizzed further.
No, packages are a disproportionate matter of interest to CTs. ;D
JohnM
-
"Underwear and shirts" sounds like what Oswald would be wearing, a possible singlet, a t shirt, a button shirt, a jacket, pants, undies and socks.
No, packages are a disproportionate matter of interest to CTs. ;D
JohnM
As I said Ruth was clear with her words and if Marina merely washed only the clothes he was wearing when he arrived I believe she would have said that. She would not likely have used "shirts".
Packages were certainly of interest to the WC.....Frazier was quizzed regarding Oswald's habits when leaving and going to the Paine's. Unfortunately we can add that question to the many that were unasked.
-
As I said Ruth was clear with her words and if Marina merely washed only the clothes he was wearing when he arrived I believe she would have said that. She would not likely have used "shirts".
Packages were certainly of interest to the WC.....Frazier was quizzed regarding Oswald's habits when leaving and going to the Paine's. Unfortunately we can add that question to the many that were unasked.
As I said Ruth was clear with her words
And as you have been told, Oswald's t shirt, button shirt and jacket can certainly be defined as multiple and thus satisfies Ruth's observation of "shirts".
and if Marina merely washed only the clothes he was wearing when he arrived I believe she would have said that.
Why?
She would not likely have used "shirts".
Oswald was known to wear multiple "shirts" simultaneously, how about that!.
(http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/07/22/article-2373793-1AED2DED000005DC-431_634x541.jpg)
JohnM
-
Walt, I really don't understand why you present this as if it is fact, when it is clearly only what you think happened.
Because that's what Walt does.
Walt's Fabrications (https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,99.0.html)
-
Maybes are not evidence. Options are not evidence.
You mean like the position that maybe the bag Frazier saw contained a rifle?
-
Wesley said that the bag he saw Oswald carry was not CE 142.
CE 142 was touched by Oswald.
CE 142 was found in the sniper's nest.
Oswald denied carrying a long package, Frazier and Linnie confirm Oswald carried a long package.
Oswald denied carrying curtain rods, Frazier says Oswald told him the bag contained curtain rods.
JohnM
-
CE 142 was touched by Oswald.
So?
CE 142 was found in the sniper's nest.
Arguable. The first 5 or 6 officers on the scene didn't see it, it doesn't show in any crime scene photographs and Day, Studebaker, Johnson, and Montgomery didn't agree on where it was found, who found it, or how it was folded.
Oswald denied carrying a long package, Frazier and Linnie confirm Oswald carried a long package.
How does that prove that CE 142 was the bag that Frazier saw?
Oswald denied carrying curtain rods, Frazier says Oswald told him the bag contained curtain rods.
How does that prove that CE 142 was the bag that Frazier saw?
-
Since the tale of the paper bag rests on Buell Frazier's statement that Lee Oswald carried a paper bag on the back seat of the car when he drove them to work on the morning of the murder of President Kennedy. And since the Warren Commission ignored both Frazier and his sister when they testified that the bag they saw Lee Oswald carry was not long enough to have contained the Mannlicher Carcano rifle that was found where it had been carefully hidden beneath boxes of books. The key question becomes ...Was Buell Frazier telling the truth? Can we rely on Frazier's veracity?
Does anybody know how to contact Wes Frazier? I'd like to talk to him.... Perhaps he could contact me through a message on this forum.
-
Wesley said that the bag he saw Oswald carry was not CE 142. Do you see a reason for him (then or now) to lie about that?
Yes. To avoid being prosecuted as an accessory to murder.
The Dallas Police spent hours grilling Frazier, trying to get him to confess to knowingly transporting Oswald and his rifle, in that bag.
Under the circumstances, it was natural for Frazier to convince himself that the bag he was presented with could not have been the bag he saw earlier that day. That indeed, the bag he saw was actually too short to carry a rifle at all.
Of course, I don?t think that Frazier was lying. But it would be natural for someone in his position to convince himself that this was not the bag and the bag he saw was too short. And the same goes for his sister who was, I imagine, upset to learn that the information she provided to the police was now being used to try to get her brother to confess.
If this does not count as a reason, what would count as a reason?
-
Walt, I really don't understand why you present this as if it is fact, when it is clearly only what you think happened.
it is clearly only what you think happened.
You and most readers understand that.....So why do I have to post a disclaimer??
When you get to the bottom line ....EVERYTHING in this case is based on what someone accepts as a fact.....
Unfortunately..... Far too many believe that simply because someone has the badge of authority pinned on their lapel, then that persons word is the gospel truth.
Time after time folks post information that is verified in the WC testimony.... The problem is: The Warren Commission was created by LBJ ....and he intended for it to be a cover up committee.
This is a KNOWN FACT!
-
Interesting to reread this thread. The beatdown of the strawman brothers was merciless. There are a couple of options here:
1) Buell and his sister made up the long bag story. Oswald told the truth that he carried only his lunch sack.
Problems: no logical explanation for Buell and his sister to intentionally lie about Oswald carrying a long bag and the curtain rod story. If anything, this makes Buell look like he might have some reason to be suspicious of a guy making an unexpected trip and carrying a long, rifle shaped bag to his workplace on the morning that the president was going to drive by his building. A bag would also have to be planted and Oswald's prints somehow added to it. Odds of this scenario = zero.
2) Oswald carried a long bag along the size estimated by Buell.
Problems: Oswald denied this. If this long bag had contained something exculpatory, then Oswald would have had every incentive to direct the DPD to his bag. He didn't. No bag matching Buell's estimate was ever found or otherwise accounted for in the TSBD. The longer bag would have to be planted etc. Odds of this = near zero.
3) Oswald carried the long bag found on the 6th floor. His prints are on that bag, it is found next to the SN where Oswald's prints were found along with fired bullet casings from his rifle. There is no other accounting for that bag being on the 6th floor except in association with the assassination.
Problems: Oswald denied carrying such a bag. But he has every reason to lie if it contained the rifle. Buell and his sister indicated the bag was too short to contain the rifle. But they didn't have a great look or any reason to take much notice. They made an honest but erroneous estimate. The bag itself is the best evidence of its length. Odds = 99.99 percent that the bag found on the 6th floor is the one Oswald carried to work that morning.
-
Interesting to reread this thread. The beatdown of the strawman brothers was merciless. There are a couple of options here:
1) Buell and his sister made up the long bag story. Oswald told the truth that he carried only his lunch sack.
Problems: no logical explanation for Buell and his sister to intentionally lie about Oswald carrying a long bag and the curtain rod story. If anything, this makes Buell look like he might have some reason to be suspicious of a guy making an unexpected trip and carrying a long, rifle shaped bag to his workplace on the morning that the president was going to drive by his building. A bag would also have to be planted and Oswald's prints somehow added to it. Odds of this scenario = zero.
2) Oswald carried a long bag along the size estimated by Buell.
Problems: Oswald denied this. If this long bag had contained something exculpatory, then Oswald would have had every incentive to direct the DPD to his bag. He didn't. No bag matching Buell's estimate was ever found or otherwise accounted for in the TSBD. The longer bag would have to be planted etc. Odds of this = near zero.
3) Oswald carried the long bag found on the 6th floor. His prints are on that bag, it is found next to the SN where Oswald's prints were found along with fired bullet casings from his rifle. There is no other accounting for that bag being on the 6th floor except in association with the assassination.
Problems: Oswald denied carrying such a bag. But he has every reason to lie if it contained the rifle. Buell and his sister indicated the bag was too short to contain the rifle. But they didn't have a great look or any reason to take much notice. They made an honest but erroneous estimate. The bag itself is the best evidence of its length. Odds = 99.99 percent that the bag found on the 6th floor is the one Oswald carried to work that morning.
Richard,
1) LHO's lunch sack may have been the sack described by Buell and his sister. Oswald was poor, staying at some else house. He would have grabbed anything available to reuse. As I have previously pointed out, the sack may have been one that orignally contained curtain rods, which Oswald reused for his lunch. When asked about the lunch sack, he may have responded to Buell with an answer as to its origins (explaining the unusual length) not its current contents.
2) Beull saw the bag on multile occassions, not a single glance. Oswald waited, not far from he car, whilst Buell charged the battery and only proceeded to the TSBD once Buell was on his way. Buell description of Oswald's method of carying the bag does not match either a longer bag nor a bag with the elongated weight distribution of a hidden rifle.
3) You ignored the failure of the DPD to photograph the bag in situ at the crime scene, along with the failure of the earliest DPD members to notice the bag. Surely that warrants a greater degree of uncertainty greater than the 0.01% that you have speculated.
-
Richard,
1) LHO's lunch sack may have been the sack described by Buell and his sister. Oswald was poor, staying at some else house. He would have grabbed anything available to reuse. As I have previously pointed out, the sack may have been one that orignally contained curtain rods, which Oswald reused for his lunch. When asked about the lunch sack, he may have responded to Buell with an answer as to its origins (explaining the unusual length) not its current contents.
Frazier's testimony is clear. He asked Oswald about his lunch. Oswald indicated to him that he was going to buy it that day. Oswald did not carry his lunch that morning. He certainly did not carry his lunch that morning in a two-foot plus long bag.
Mr. BALL - Did you notice whether or not Lee had a package that looked like a lunch package that morning?
Mr. FRAZIER - You know like I told you earlier, I say, he didn't take his lunch because I remember right when I got in the car I asked him where was his lunch and he said he was going to buy his lunch that day.
Mr. BALL - He told you that that day, did he?
Mr. FRAZIER - Right. That is right. So, I assumed he was going to buy it, you know, from that catering service man like a lot of the boys do. They don't bring their lunch but they go out and buy their lunch there.
-
Frazier's testimony is clear. He asked Oswald about his lunch. Oswald indicated to him that he was going to buy it that day. Oswald did not carry his lunch that morning. He certainly did not carry his lunch that morning in a two-foot plus long bag.
Mr. BALL - Did you notice whether or not Lee had a package that looked like a lunch package that morning?
Mr. FRAZIER - You know like I told you earlier, I say, he didn't take his lunch because I remember right when I got in the car I asked him where was his lunch and he said he was going to buy his lunch that day.
Mr. BALL - He told you that that day, did he?
Mr. FRAZIER - Right. That is right. So, I assumed he was going to buy it, you know, from that catering service man like a lot of the boys do. They don't bring their lunch but they go out and buy their lunch there.
Strange you believe Frazier when he talks about his lunch but not when he describes the length of the bag.
-
Strange you believe Frazier when he talks about his lunch but not when he describes the length of the bag.
That's because there is an obvious distinction between estimating the size of an object with specificity and a general matter like whether he asked Oswald about his lunch. I think Frazier was telling the truth to the best of his abilities in both instances but simply got his estimate off. But if you find something odd in this, then how would you reconcile believing Frazier about the size of the bag but not his discussion of Oswald's lunch? Or do you not apply the same "logic" to conspiracy theories?
-
That's because there is an obvious distinction between estimating the size of an object with specificity and a general matter like whether he asked Oswald about his lunch. I think Frazier was telling the truth to the best of his abilities in both instances but simply got his estimate off. But if you find something odd in this, then how would you reconcile believing Frazier about the size of the bag but not his discussion of Oswald's lunch? Or do you not apply the same "logic" to conspiracy theories?
When Frazier said the bag he saw fitted between the cup of Oswald?s hand and his armpit, there is no estimate. It?s merely a statement of fact about what he observed. So, Richard... tell us, did he tell the truth?
-
When Frazier said the bag he saw fitted between the cup of Oswald?s hand and his armpit, there is no estimate. It?s merely a statement of fact about what he observed. So, Richard... tell us, did he tell the truth?
His estimate was honest but erroneous. I think he believes his estimate is correct, but we have the bag. So there is no need to speculate on its size. It can be measured. If Oswald carried a long bag along the size estimated by Frazier, then why would he deny that? He would have every incentive to not only acknowledge it, but direct the police to it to show that it contained something other than a rifle. Instead he lies about it and says he carried only his lunch in direct contradiction of Frazier's testimony. That tells us all we need to know. Oswald's prints are found on such a long bag. No bag matching Frazier's estimate was ever found or otherwise accounted for because no such bag existed. End of story.
-
His estimate was honest but erroneous. I think he believes his estimate is correct, but we have the bag.
Note the circular argument here. It's the same bag because it's the same bag.
Also note that "Richard" invents completely fabricated odds that favor his speculated version of events and actually considers that a compelling argument.
If we are going to just invoke "honest but erroneous" when it's convenient then how about Frazier being "honest but erroneous" when he thought that Oswald said he was going to buy his lunch that day?
-
Frazier's testimony is clear. He asked Oswald about his lunch. Oswald indicated to him that he was going to buy it that day. Oswald did not carry his lunch that morning. He certainly did not carry his lunch that morning in a two-foot plus long bag.
Mr. BALL - Did you notice whether or not Lee had a package that looked like a lunch package that morning?
Mr. FRAZIER - You know like I told you earlier, I say, he didn't take his lunch because I remember right when I got in the car I asked him where was his lunch and he said he was going to buy his lunch that day.
Mr. BALL - He told you that that day, did he?
Mr. FRAZIER - Right. That is right. So, I assumed he was going to buy it, you know, from that catering service man like a lot of the boys do. They don't bring their lunch but they go out and buy their lunch there.
Richard,
Maybe Oswald only bought some things in the bag and was going to buy the rest of his lunch (we know he purchased at least 1 coke),
-
Richard,
Maybe Oswald only bought some things in the bag and was going to buy the rest of his lunch (we know he purchased at least 1 coke),
So he didn't even have his full lunch in a two-foot plus long bag? You can't really believe that. Oswald denied carrying any long bag that morning.
-
LOL, concluding that 2+2=4 because 4 equals 2+2 is a circular argument. So I guess we can discount it and conclude that 2+2 could be equal to anything. Of course the bag found in the TSBD is relevant to the issue. It has Oswald's prints on it. It is found in a location that associates it with the assassination. It is a long, brown paper bag of the type described by Frazier. It exists. Conversely, no bag matching Frazier's size estimate is ever found. It can't be accounted for in any way. Oswald denied carrying it. Something he only has an incentive to do if the bag contains something incriminatory. I wonder what that might be?
-
So he didn't even have his full lunch in a two-foot plus long bag? You can't really believe that. Oswald denied carrying any long bag that morning.
Oswald denied carrying any long bag that morning.
Perhaps you should review the interrogation reports.... Lee DID NOT deny carrying a long bag that morning. Because...
He wasn't asked about the LENGTH ...He was told that he'd been seen carrying a large bag, and Lee replied that He didn't remember the size of his lunch sack...He said that it might have been larger than necessary to hold his lunch and he elaborated..." ya know you can't always find a sack that is just the right size for your lunch." ( paraphrased)
-
Oswald denied carrying any long bag that morning.
Perhaps you should review the interrogation reports.... Lee DID NOT deny carrying a long bag that morning. Because...
He wasn't asked about the LENGTH ...He was told that he'd been seen carrying a large bag, and Lee replied that He didn't remember the size of his lunch sack...He said that it might have been larger than necessary to hold his lunch and he elaborated..." ya know you can't always find a sack that is just the right size for your lunch." ( paraphrased)
Mr. BALL. What did you tell him?
Mr. FRITZ. I told him he had a package and put it in the back seat and it was a package about that long and it was curtain rods. He said he didn't have any kind of a package but his lunch. He said he had his lunch and that is all he had, and Mr. Frazier told me that he got out of the car with that package, he saw him go toward the building with this long package.
I asked him, I said, "Did you go toward the building carrying a long package?"
He said, "No. I didn't carry anything but my lunch."
-
Mr. BALL. What did you tell him?
Mr. FRITZ. I told him he had a package and put it in the back seat and it was a package about that long and it was curtain rods. He said he didn't have any kind of a package but his lunch. He said he had his lunch and that is all he had, and Mr. Frazier told me that he got out of the car with that package, he saw him go toward the building with this long package.
I asked him, I said, "Did you go toward the building carrying a long package?"
He said, "No. I didn't carry anything but my lunch."
If you've read the reports that were written at the time . you'd then know that what was pulled from the witnesses mouths by the LBJ's cover up committee lawyers often conflicts with what the witness said in the 48 hours following the coup d e'tat.
What you've posted is an excellent example of one of those lawyers leading the witness.
-
Mr. BALL. What did you tell him?
Mr. FRITZ. I told him he had a package and put it in the back seat and it was a package about that long and it was curtain rods. He said he didn't have any kind of a package but his lunch. He said he had his lunch and that is all he had, and Mr. Frazier told me that he got out of the car with that package, he saw him go toward the building with this long package.
I asked him, I said, "Did you go toward the building carrying a long package?"
He said, "No. I didn't carry anything but my lunch."
Richard,
Firstly these answers are not from recordings or accurate at the time transcriptions but the memories of officers, who were keen to defend the built case.
He answered that he carried his lunch, but his lunch was in something, he may have had the lunch in a large sack not when asked about package thought they meant something more substantive.
As to what he brought, he may have put a piece of fruit or cake for morning tea or as part of his lunch but planned get something more. You always assume that Wesley and Linnie under estimated the length, they may have over estimated it.
-
His estimate was honest but erroneous. I think he believes his estimate is correct, but we have the bag. So there is no need to speculate on its size. It can be measured. If Oswald carried a long bag along the size estimated by Frazier, then why would he deny that? He would have every incentive to not only acknowledge it, but direct the police to it to show that it contained something other than a rifle. Instead he lies about it and says he carried only his lunch in direct contradiction of Frazier's testimony. That tells us all we need to know. Oswald's prints are found on such a long bag. No bag matching Frazier's estimate was ever found or otherwise accounted for because no such bag existed. End of story.
Where in this rant do you address the point I raised about Frazier stating that the package fitted between Oswald's cupped hand and his armpit?
-
Mr. BALL. What did you tell him?
Mr. FRITZ. I told him he had a package and put it in the back seat and it was a package about that long and it was curtain rods. He said he didn't have any kind of a package but his lunch. He said he had his lunch and that is all he had, and Mr. Frazier told me that he got out of the car with that package, he saw him go toward the building with this long package.
I asked him, I said, "Did you go toward the building carrying a long package?"
He said, "No. I didn't carry anything but my lunch."
Mr Smith, You seem to be unable to understand a simple point that an elementary school kid can understand...
The Warren Commission was nothing but a white wash, cover up committee.....
Your citing of the testimony that the shyster lawyers drew from the witnesses is worthless. Often the testimony is completely contradictory to the witnesses sworn affidavit.
-
Mr Smith, You seem to be unable to understand a simple point that an elementary school kid can understand...
The Warren Commission was nothing but a white wash, cover up committee.....
Your citing of the testimony that the shyster lawyers drew from the witnesses is worthless. Often the testimony is completely contradictory to the witnesses sworn affidavit.
Let's revisit. You stated: "Lee DID NOT deny carrying a long bag that morning." Here is the testimony:
I asked him, I said, "Did you go toward the building carrying a long package?"
He said, "No. I didn't carry anything but my lunch."
Instead of doing the honest thing and acknowledging your error, we get this silly nonsense.
-
Richard,
Firstly these answers are not from recordings or accurate at the time transcriptions but the memories of officers, who were keen to defend the built case.
He answered that he carried his lunch, but his lunch was in something, he may have had the lunch in a large sack not when asked about package thought they meant something more substantive.
As to what he brought, he may have put a piece of fruit or cake for morning tea or as part of his lunch but planned get something more. You always assume that Wesley and Linnie under estimated the length, they may have over estimated it.
Oswald denied carrying a long bag that morning. Frazier asked him about his lunch and he said he intended to buy it that day (i.e. he was not carrying a lunch). Those are just facts. There is zero possibility of the scenario that you are suggesting in which Oswald carries a partial lunch in a two-foot plus long bag, tells Frazier it is curtain rods, lies to Frazier for some unknown reason about buying his lunch that day, and then lies to the police about carrying a long bag. Particularly when Oswald would have every incentive to direct the police to this long bag if it contained something non-incriminatory. Add on that no bag matching Frazier's size estimate was ever found in the TSBD while a bag with Oswald's prints was found and it is a slam dunk. No serious historian entertains even the possibility that the bag found on the 6th floor was not the one used by Oswald to carry his rifle.
-
Let's revisit. You stated: "Lee DID NOT deny carrying a long bag that morning." Here is the testimony:
I asked him, I said, "Did you go toward the building carrying a long package?"
He said, "No. I didn't carry anything but my lunch."
Instead of doing the honest thing and acknowledging your error, we get this silly nonsense.
Mr Smith....On page 626 of the WR there is a copy of FBI agent James Bookhout report of the 10:30 am 11/23/63.interrogation of Lee Oswald. This is the first time a package was mentioned to Lee Oswald. Bookhout wrote:...
"He denied that he had brought a package to work on that day and he denied that he ever had any conversation about curtain rods with this boy named Wesley who drove him to his employment."
On December 17th Postal Inspector ( And FBI informant) Harry Holmes wrote a memo ( page 636) in which he mentions the paper sack....
Holmes wrote:......Quote... "When asked if he didn't bring a sack with him the next morning to work, he stated that he did , and when asked as to the contents of the sack, he stated that it contained his lunch. Then, when asked on the size or shape of the sack, he said "Oh I don't recall it may have been a small sack or a large sack, you don't always find one that just fits your sandwiches" ...unquote
Referring to the paper sack .....Do you see the word LONG in either of the reports , Mr Smith.....??
-
Mr Smith....On page 626 of the WR there is a copy of FBI agent James Bookhout report of the 10:30 am 11/23/63.interrogation of Lee Oswald. This is the first time a package was mentioned to Lee Oswald. Bookhout wrote:...
"He denied that he had brought a package to work on that day and he denied that he ever had any conversation about curtain rods with this boy named Wesley who drove him to his employment."
On December 17th Postal Inspector ( And FBI informant) Harry Holmes wrote a memo ( page 636) in which he mentions the paper sack....
Holmes wrote:......Quote... "When asked if he didn't bring a sack with him the next morning to work, he stated that he did , and when asked as to the contents of the sack, he stated that it contained his lunch. Then, when asked on the size or shape of the sack, he said "Oh I don't recall it may have been a small sack or a large sack, you don't always find one that just fits your sandwiches" ...unquote
Referring to the paper sack .....Do you see the word LONG in either of the reports , Mr Smith.....??
I asked him, I said, "Did you go toward the building carrying a long package?"
He said, "No. I didn't carry anything but my lunch."
-
I asked him, I said, "Did you go toward the building carrying a long package?"
He said, "No. I didn't carry anything but my lunch."
If you've read the reports that were written at the time . you'd then know that what was pulled from the witnesses mouths by the LBJ's cover up committee lawyers often conflicts with what the witness said in the 48 hours following the coup d e'tat.
What you've posted is an excellent example of one of those lawyers leading the witness.
What was the purpose of the Warren Commission?.....
LBJ created the WC to convince the American suckers that Lee Harrrrrrvey Osssssswald was the arch villain who murdered President Kennedy for no reason and he had no accomplices.
IOW... The WC was a whitewash and a cover up.... Isn't that true Mr Smith? So why do you persist in citing that BS.
-
I asked him, I said, "Did you go toward the building carrying a long package?"
He said, "No. I didn't carry anything but my lunch."
If Oswald was telling the truth, then Frazier was lying.
-
If Oswald was telling the truth, then Frazier was lying.
Let's see if we can shed a little light on this aspect....
First of... Was Lee ever asked if he carried the rifle in a paper sack?
I have found NOTHING to indicate that the authorities suggested or even hinted to Lee that he carried the rifle in a paper sack.
If the cops had found a paper sack that was large enough to carry the rifle why wouldn't they have said..."We found the sack that you used to smuggle the rifle into the building.... It has your palm print on it. What we want to know is how did you manage to handle and carry that package without leaving more prints on it?
No wait..... I'm being sarcastic and factitious ... But the fact is, they never suggested to Lee that he'd carried a rifle in a paper sack.
If Oswald was telling the truth, then Frazier was lying.
I believe Lee was telling the truth.....
-
If Oswald was telling the truth, then Frazier was lying.
I believe that Frazier was lying..... And I don't blame him.
He was caught in a quicksand that he'd been lured into by the Dallas Police. The police told him that Lee had admitted carrying a large paper sack in which Lee had said contained curtain rods. Wes Frazier could see no harm in verifing Lee's story so he acknowledged that lee was carrying a sack that was made from flimsy brown paper like the paper that he seen curtain rods wrapped in.
The police then pretended to give him a polygraph test and they said that he passed... so based on Frazier's story Lee was carrying a large paper sack.
The so called lie detector test was a total sham....They could not have obtained any useful results from Frazier because he was in a highly agitated and nervous state at the time....... Frazier being a dumb kid, wouldn't have known that the lie detector test was a sham..... He thought he was on record as telling the truth and he's stood his ground on that idea ......
-
So he didn't even have his full lunch in a two-foot plus long bag? You can't really believe that.
Appeal to personal incredulity fallacy.
Oswald denied carrying any long bag that morning.
False. Fritz said "denied that he had brought the long package described by Mr. Frazier and his sister", not any long bag.
Fritz probably handed CE142 to Oswald and told him that Frazier and his sister said he was carrying this bag.
-
LOL, concluding that 2+2=4 because 4 equals 2+2 is a circular argument. So I guess we can discount it and conclude that 2+2 could be equal to anything. Of course the bag found in the TSBD is relevant to the issue. It has Oswald's prints on it. It is found in a location that associates it with the assassination.
And there is no reason to think a rifle was ever inside it.
It is a long, brown paper bag of the type described by Frazier.
No, Frazier described a shorter bag made out of flimsier paper.
It exists.
So does the soda bottle. Just because something was found on the 6th floor doesn't mean that it's automatically connected to the assassination.
Conversely, no bag matching Frazier's size estimate is ever found.
Was one ever looked for? Was Harold Norman's lunch bag ever found?
It can't be accounted for in any way. Oswald denied carrying it.
False again. Oswald (according to Fritz and Holmes) said he carried some kind of package.
-
I asked him, I said, "Did you go toward the building carrying a long package?"
He said, "No. I didn't carry anything but my lunch."
Oswald denied carrying ANY long package that morning. He claimed that he did carry his lunch. Therefore, Oswald distinguished between the LONG package and his lunch. If there were any doubt about this, Frazier asked Oswald about his LUNCH. Oswald told him he was going to buy it. Good grief. There is zero doubt that the 6th floor bag is the one Oswald carried that morning. It is simply playing the contrarian to suggest there is any doubt about this. Not even most fringe kooks deny this. Comparing a long, narrow rifle shaped bag with Oswald's prints on it and no work-related purpose for being left next to the SN when Oswald is reported to have carried such a bag that morning to a coke bottle is the height of absurdity and a great example of how a dishonest contrarian attempts to discredit the evidence like a disbarred attorney defending a client that he knows is guilty.
-
I asked him, I said, "Did you go toward the building carrying a long package?"
He said, "No. I didn't carry anything but my lunch."
Oswald denied carrying ANY long package that morning. He claimed that he did carry his lunch. Therefore, Oswald distinguished between the LONG package and his lunch. If there were any doubt about this, Frazier asked Oswald about his LUNCH. Oswald told him he was going to buy it. Good grief. There is zero doubt that the 6th floor bag is the one Oswald carried that morning. It is simply playing the contrarian to suggest there is any doubt about this. Not even most fringe kooks deny this. Comparing a long, narrow rifle shaped bag with Oswald's prints on it and no work-related purpose for being left next to the SN when Oswald is reported to have carried such a bag that morning to a coke bottle is the height of absurdity and a great example of how a dishonest contrarian attempts to discredit the evidence like a disbarred attorney defending a client that he knows is guilty.
"If there were any doubt about this, Frazier asked Oswald about his LUNCH. Oswald told him he was going to buy it."
There's your problem, Richard. Good grief, you believe Frazier.
-
If Oswald was telling the truth, then Frazier was lying.
You are on the verge of learning something! So now ask yourself who has the greater incentive to lie about Oswald carrying a long bag that morning? It boils down to this. If the bag contained a rifle used to assassinate the president, then Oswald has every incentive to lie about it. If it contained curtain rods or some non-incriminatory item, then Oswald had every incentive to confirm that he carried such a bag and direct the police to it to clear himself. Good so far? Seems like common sense. Now if Frazier is lying and made up the bag story, what are his incentives? They seem to be non-existent and even contrary to his own interests. If he is somehow being coerced into lying by the authorities to put the rifle in Oswald's hands, then why doesn't he say the bag is long enough to contain the rifle? The entire purpose of such a lie in that scenario. What good would it do the fantasy conspirators to put a bag too short to carry the rifle in Oswald's possession? None. It doesn't add up. So the only other option is that Frazier just made the entire story up. There is no good narrative to explain that. If anything, his incentives would be to distance himself from having driven the assassin and his rifle not make up a story in which Oswald has a long, unexplained package with him that morning. Connect the dots and there is one logical scenario as supported by the evidence. Oswald carried a long package that morning as witnessed by Frazier. Frazier honestly but erroneously estimated its length. We know that because the bag was found. It was used by Oswald to carry the rifle. That is why Oswald lies about it. All the stars align.
-
"If there were any doubt about this, Frazier asked Oswald about his LUNCH. Oswald told him he was going to buy it."
There's your problem, Richard. Good grief, you believe Frazier.
I thought CTers believed Frazier? Are you saying his estimate of the bag's length can't be trusted?
-
I thought CTers believed Frazier? Are you saying his estimate of the bag's length can't be trusted?
Mr "Smith" Why do you hide behind an alias? It simply verifies that you're not an honest person......
I thought CTers believed Frazier? Are you saying his estimate of the bag's length can't be trusted?
I thought CTers believed Frazier?
This statement simply proves that your reasoning is flawed....( Which is something that any intelligent person following these debates is acutely aware of) Ct's are NOT of one accord on every aspect of this case....However I believe that all CT's are bonded together under the knowledge that the Warren report is a CROCK!!.
Are you saying his estimate of the bag's length can't be trusted?
Frazier's estimate of the bag length ( approximately 27 inches) does not have to be "trusted" or accepted without verification. Linnie Mae Randle corroborated the length of the sack that she and Frazier said they saw....Both of them said the sack was no longer than 28 inches long.
You really don't know much about this case do you Mr "Smith" ?
-
I asked him, I said, "Did you go toward the building carrying a long package?"
He said, "No. I didn't carry anything but my lunch."
So you're cherry picking what Fritz recalled 8 months later over what he recalled a few days later. Because of course you are.
There is zero doubt that the 6th floor bag is the one Oswald carried that morning.
This is just your usual false bravado. There is no evidence that CE142 is the bag that Frazier or Randle saw. They said it was not.
Comparing a long, narrow rifle shaped bag with Oswald's prints on it and no work-related purpose for being left next to the SN when Oswald is reported to have carried such a bag that morning to a coke bottle is the height of absurdity and a great example of how a dishonest contrarian attempts to discredit the evidence like a disbarred attorney defending a client that he knows is guilty.
No, it's just another example of how bogus your reasoning is. Some object is found (eventually) on the 6th floor and from that you leap to Oswald carried it in that morning and it had a rifle in it. It's special pleading because you don't leap to the conclusion that other objects on the 6th floor were related to the assassination, just because they were found on the 6th floor.
There's no need to discredit anything since your "evidence" is not actually evidence of anything at all. You have a bag that nobody ever said they saw in Oswald's possession with no sign of a rifle ever having been in it. So what?
-
There's no reason to assume that either Frazier was lying or Oswald was lying. Frazier saw a package. Fritz reported that Oswald said he had a package. The only thing that doesn't align here is that "Richard" wants to just assume that the package was 38 inches long and contained a rifle, despite there being ZERO evidence for that.
-
And there is no reason to think a rifle was ever inside it.
No, Frazier described a shorter bag made out of flimsier paper.
So does the soda bottle. Just because something was found on the 6th floor doesn't mean that it's automatically connected to the assassination.
Was one ever looked for? Was Harold Norman's lunch bag ever found?
False again. Oswald (according to Fritz and Holmes) said he carried some kind of package.
Mr "Smith"... Conversely, no bag matching Frazier's size estimate is ever found.
Mr Iacoletti... Was one ever looked for? Was Harold Norman's lunch bag ever found?
I believe that Detective Day DID find a brown paper sack that was "SHAPED like a gun case".... He said that he folded that sack up and put it in his pocket and only Roy truly had seen the gun case shaped sack.... Where is that sack??
-
When Frazier said the bag he saw fitted between the cup of Oswald?s hand and his armpit, there is no estimate. It?s merely a statement of fact about what he observed. So, Richard... tell us, did he tell the truth?
At what angle did Buell view Oswald with the bag (aside from the back, where he started out before Buell caught up with him and marched along ---and at speed, I might add--- with Buell lollygagging along, well to the rear)... front, side. or both?
Not to forget sis stating, first-day, that the bag was about 3 feet long*
(Sure shrunk real quick after the implications sunk in, huh)
*Thought I'd bring that up, given the CTroll penchant for grasping onto first-day evidence. Except when it's inconvenient to do so, of course.
-
At what angle did Buell view Oswald with the bag (aside from the back, where he started out before Buell caught up with him and marched along at speed, I might add, with Buell lollygagging along, well to the rear)... front, side. or both?
If your goal is to demonstrate that the bags are the same, then it's not sufficient to just postulate that he could have been mistaken. That doesn't actually demonstrate that they were the same.
Not to forget sis stating, first-day, that the bag was about 3 feet long*
Correction: Bookhout recorded (after the fact) a second hand account of her saying that the bag was about 3 feet long.
-
At what angle did Buell view Oswald with the bag (aside from the back, where he started out before Buell caught up with him and marched along at speed, I might add, with Buell lollygagging along, well to the rear)... front, side. or both?
Not to forget sis stating, first-day, that the bag was about 3 feet long*
(Sure shrunk real quick after the implications sunk in, huh)
*Thought I'd bring that up, given the CTroll penchant for grasping onto first-day evidence. Except when it's inconvenient to do so, of course.
Not to forget sis stating, first-day, that the bag was about 3 feet long*
So you think Lee was about 7 foot tall? I'd hasten to remind you Billy Bob that Linnie Mae said that Lee was carrying the sack in his right hand and it nearly touched the ground.....If the sack had been three feet long Lee would have been draggin it behind him....unless you think he was about seven feet tall......
You probably should THINK before you post .....Billy Bob......
-
Addendum:
Michael Shermer has pointed out that the side that argues against the truth focuses on minutiae, whether it is 9/11 truthers, Scientific Creationists or Holocaust deniers. And don?t look at the overall picture.
Holocaust deniers claim presence of ?Prussian Blue? in the in the delousing stations but not in the gas chambers prove that the gas chambers were not used to kill people. Ignoring that insects require a much higher presence of cyanide is needed to kill insects (16,000 parts per million) than people (300 parts per million).
Scientific Creationists claiming human footprints besides dinosaur footprints disprove the Theory of Evolution. Ignoring the possibility of the ?human footprints? being chiseled into the rock by fakers.
9/11 Truthers pointing out that the fires could not have been hot enough to melt steel, and not considering that the steel doesn?t have to be melted, just heated to a high enough temperature long enough, to fail to support the tremendous weight of the building.
And just this weekend we see CTers doing the same thing.
1. The southwest corner of the sixth floor of the TSBD looks like a sniper?s nest, but it is claimed that it is just a bit too cramped to be used to shoot from.
2. The bag Oswald carried with him into work looked like it could have been used to carry his rifle into work that day, but it is claimed that it was just a bit too short to hold the rifle.
Sadly for you, no one ever saw LHO with a bag inside the TSBD. Furthermore, no bag was ever shown to be in the alleged SN either.
-
Only in John's Alice-in-Wonderland world could two people both be telling the truth when one says that the other was carrying a long package and the other says he was not. LOL.
Fritz - "He said he had a cheese sandwich and some fruit and that was the only package he had brought with him to work and denied that he had brought the long package described by Mr. Frazier and his sister"
Holmes - "When asked if he didn't bring a sack with him the next morning to work, he stated that he did, and when asked as to the contents of the sack, he stated that it contained his lunch. Then, when asked as to the size or shape of the sack, he said 'Oh, I don't recall, it may have a small sack or a large sack, you don't always find one that just fits your sandwiches.'"
The claim that Oswald denied carrying any kind of long package is just flat out false.
That one is a keeper. It highlights John's dishonest approach to the evidence. You can't have it both ways simply because there is no other way to reconcile the facts to his desired outcome. Either Oswald or Frazier is lying about the long package.
No, you're being dishonest. Not only by cherry-picking your interpretation of Fritz's testimony from 8 months later and ignoring everything else, but by also imposing your own biased standard of what "long package" does and does not mean. The bottom line is that Frazier said that Oswald carried a bag that was not CE142. Randle said that Oswald carried a bag that was not CE142. Oswald said he carried a bag that could have been small or large.
The choice then becomes whether to accept the obvious, common sense interpretation as supported by the evidence (i.e. the long bag found with Oswald's prints on it is the long bag he carried that morning) or entertain baseless alternative fantasies that make no narrative sense (the bag found was planted, no one "looked" for Frazier's bag even though they searched the building and found a similar long bag, and Frazier acted contrary to his own self interest etc). This is just a devil's advocate game to see how long a contrarian can extend a discussion with his intellectual superiors to feel relevant.
...and it's back to the fantasy conspirators strawman again. Bottom line again: you can't show that Oswald carried in CE 142 that morning, you can't show that CE 142 ever had C2766 (or any rifle) inside it, and you can't even show that CE 142 was in the alleged sniper's nest when it was first discovered.
In addition, John, yet again, dishonestly cites the evidence. Per Dishonest John: "Frazier saw a package. Fritz reported that Oswald said he had a package." John is implying that the long package Frazier saw is the same one Oswald acknowledged carrying (i.e his lunch). But that is not what the evidence suggests.
I think you're confusing your assumptions ("long package") with evidence.
In fact, it is completely to the contrary and excludes this possibility. What Frazier "reported" was a long package over two feet long which he specifically indicated was not Oswald's lunch.
Frazier also reported that CE 142 was not that bag. Cherry-picking again? Frazier's recall is 100% accurate except when you don't want it to be?
Why can't a lunch be in a 2 foot (give or take a few inches) package? Just because you want it to be a rifle?
Thus, there is no possibility whatsoever, as John dishonestly suggests with his selective omissions, that Frazier's package and Oswald's lunch could be one and the same package.
Why? You can't put more than one thing in a package now?
Both Frazier and Oswald confirmed they were two distinct items being discussed - a long package and Oswald's lunch. Common sense also lends itself to the conclusion that no one other than perhaps Fred Flintstone has ever carried his lunch in such a large package.
"Common sense" again. The last refuge of somebody without evidence.
-
If your goal is to demonstrate that the bags are the same, then it's not sufficient to just postulate that he could have been mistaken. That doesn't actually demonstrate that they were the same.
Correction: Bookhout recorded (after the fact) a second hand account of her saying that the bag was about 3 feet long.
Is her affidavit a second-hand account, John?
I didn't say anything here about Buell being mistaken. I asked if Buell had seen Oswald from the front while carrying the bag at any point.
-
Is her affidavit a second-hand account, John?
Interesting. Have you seen an affidavit that mentions the length of the bag she saw?
I didn't say anything here about Buell being mistaken. I asked if Buell had seen Oswald from the front while carrying the bag at any point.
Difficult to say for sure, but possibly when he first got the package out of the car or while he was waiting over by the cyclone fence. Relevance?
-
Is her affidavit a second-hand account, John?
I didn't say anything here about Buell being mistaken. I asked if Buell had seen Oswald from the front while carrying the bag at any point.
That would be question to ask Buell, luckily he is stll alive.
However from the way he described Oswald's action, it would appear likely to me. It would be very odd and memorable, if somebody waited for you and looked away the whole time whilst they did it.
Buell Wesley Frazier: He got out of the car and he was wearing the jacket that has the big sleeves in them and he put the package that he had, you know, that he told me was curtain rods up under his arm, you know, and so he walked down behind the car and standing over there at the end of the cyclone fence waiting for me to get out of the car, and so quick as I cut the engine off and started out of the car, shut the door just as I was starting out just like getting out of the car, he started walking off and so I followed him in.
-
Richard,
Issues with the gun being in the bag Oswald took.
1) Length of gun compared to the length as reported by 2 witnesses
2) Dougherty not seeing it when Oswald entered.
3) Assembling the gun at work during the day (what tool, why connect sling and scope when neither would have helped
Now you seem stuck on defending the WC storyline, but there are other ways to put the story together. How about....
Oswald has moved the gun and has it hidden at his boarding room well before the assassination week. (How else does he practice with it in the tme leading up to the assassination.)
Oswald by himself takes the gun to work (covered in anything handy) and hides in back shed area on Wednesday evening.
Thursday evening trip is not to pick up the gun but to see his kids for possibly last time and give his wife money.
Oswald takes CE142 but folded to work with Buell (thus explaning the length issue) and covers the gun with it and leaves the gun outside. Going inside with nothing in his hands. (Dougherty sees him with nothing)
Oswald was aware that walking in before work with a large packages would look odd, but his job required hm to carry packages during the day, so once working, no one would be suspicious of him with a package. As gun is already assembled, no need for assembling at work, or question of whay attach a useless sling and scope. CE142 was made to look like just another package being moved at TSBD.
Oswald goes back during the work day, and takes the gun to the 6th floor.
I'm sure you wll point out the issues with this, but it covers many of known challenges of the WC story. Unapproveable of course but still a possibility.
-
Interesting. Have you seen an affidavit that mentions the length of the bag she saw?
>>> As it turns out, no.
This will do:
FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION
Date 11/23/63
LINNIE MAE RANDLE, 2439 West Fifth Street, Irving, Texas, phone Blackburn 3-8965, was interviewed at the Dallas Police Department.
RANDLE advised that she is the sister of BUELL WESLEY FRAZIER, who is employed by the Texas School Book Depository and resides at her residence, stated that she met LEE HARVEY OSWALD through her brother, and has known OSWALD and his wife for about six weeks. RANDLE advised that OSWALD's wife is MARINA OSWALD, who resides at 2515 W. Fifth, Irving, Texas, and that OSWALD spends the weekends with his wife at the above mentioned address. Her brother, WESLEY FRAZIER, customarily drives LEE HARVEY OSWALD to 2515 West Fifth, Irving, Texas, on Friday night, and takes him back to work on Monday morning. He stated that OSWALD is also employed at the Texas School Book Depository.
On the night of November 21, 1963, she observed FRAZIER letting LEE HARVEY OSWALD out of FRAZIER's car at 2515 West Fifth. Subsequently, she asked FRAZIER why OSWALD was visiting his wife on Thursday evening, as he usually did not visit her until Friday evening each week. FRAZIER told her that OSWALD claimed he was visiting his wife the night of November 21, 1963, because he is fixing up his apartment and RUTH PAINE, with whom his wife resides at 2515 West Fifth, Irving, was going to give him some curtain rods.
RANDLE stated that about 7:15 a.m., November 22, 1963, she looked out of a window of her residence and observed LEE HARVEY OSWALD walking up her driveway and saw him put a long brown package, approximately 3 feet by 6 inches, in the back seat area of WESLEY FRAZIER's 1954 black Chevrolet four door automobile. Thereafter, she observed OSWALD walk to the front, or entrance area, of her residence where he waited for FRAZIER to come out of the house and give him a ride to work.
RANDLE stated while at the Dallas Police Department on the evening of November 22, 1963, officers of the Dallas Police Department had exhibited to her some brown package paper, however she had not been able to positively identify it as being identical with the above-mentioned brown package, due to the fact she had only observed the brown package from her residence window at a distance.
on 11/22/63 at Dallas, Texas File # DL 89-43
by Special Agent JAMES W. BOOKHOUT/cah/tjd
Date dictated 11/23/63
------------------------------------------------
Difficult to say for sure, but possibly when he first got the package out of the car or while he was waiting over by the cyclone fence. Relevance?
Buell seemed more concerned about his car battery at that point
The relevance of a Buell frontal/non-frontal view of the package being carried is abundantly clear
-
Not forgetting Buell is quite a bit taller than LO.
Or he might have used the left hand to angle the bag over in front of his head
-
Interesting. Have you seen an affidavit that mentions the length of the bag she saw?
>>> As it turns out, no.
This will do:
FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION
Date 11/23/63
LINNIE MAE RANDLE, 2439 West Fifth Street, Irving, Texas, phone Blackburn 3-8965, was interviewed at the Dallas Police Department.
RANDLE advised that she is the sister of BUELL WESLEY FRAZIER, who is employed by the Texas School Book Depository and resides at her residence, stated that she met LEE HARVEY OSWALD through her brother, and has known OSWALD and his wife for about six weeks. RANDLE advised that OSWALD's wife is MARINA OSWALD, who resides at 2515 W. Fifth, Irving, Texas, and that OSWALD spends the weekends with his wife at the above mentioned address. Her brother, WESLEY FRAZIER, customarily drives LEE HARVEY OSWALD to 2515 West Fifth, Irving, Texas, on Friday night, and takes him back to work on Monday morning. He stated that OSWALD is also employed at the Texas School Book Depository.
On the night of November 21, 1963, she observed FRAZIER letting LEE HARVEY OSWALD out of FRAZIER's car at 2515 West Fifth. Subsequently, she asked FRAZIER why OSWALD was visiting his wife on Thursday evening, as he usually did not visit her until Friday evening each week. FRAZIER told her that OSWALD claimed he was visiting his wife the night of November 21, 1963, because he is fixing up his apartment and RUTH PAINE, with whom his wife resides at 2515 West Fifth, Irving, was going to give him some curtain rods.
RANDLE stated that about 7:15 a.m., November 22, 1963, she looked out of a window of her residence and observed LEE HARVEY OSWALD walking up her driveway and saw him put a long brown package, approximately 3 feet by 6 inches, in the back seat area of WESLEY FRAZIER's 1954 black Chevrolet four door automobile. Thereafter, she observed OSWALD walk to the front, or entrance area, of her residence where he waited for FRAZIER to come out of the house and give him a ride to work.
RANDLE stated while at the Dallas Police Department on the evening of November 22, 1963, officers of the Dallas Police Department had exhibited to her some brown package paper, however she had not been able to positively identify it as being identical with the above-mentioned brown package, due to the fact she had only observed the brown package from her residence window at a distance.
on 11/22/63 at Dallas, Texas File # DL 89-43
by Special Agent JAMES W. BOOKHOUT/cah/tjd
Date dictated 11/23/63
------------------------------------------------
Difficult to say for sure, but possibly when he first got the package out of the car or while he was waiting over by the cyclone fence. Relevance?
Buell seemed more concerned about his car battery at that point
The relevance of a Buell frontal/non-frontal view of the package being carried is abundantly clear
RANDLE stated that about 7:15 a.m., November 22, 1963, she looked out of a window of her residence and observed LEE HARVEY OSWALD walking up her driveway and saw him put a long brown package, approximately 3 feet by 6 inches, in the back seat area of WESLEY FRAZIER's 1954 black Chevrolet four door automobile.
What a silly thing to post..... It's obviously totally inaccurate.... A THREE FOOT LONG paper sack??
I would hasten to point out that Mrs Randle DESCRIBED the manner in which Lee carried the paper sack.... She said that Lee had the sack down beside his right leg and his right arm was extended down at his side as he walked along with the sack it nearly touched the ground. ( What was the distance from the sack to the ground.....6 inches? A subjective distance) At any rate Lee was 5'9" and his hand would have been about 26 inches from the ground with his arm down at his side. So the sack could not have been anywhere near 3 foot long.... It was probably about 2 feet long, but it might have been less than 2 feet If "Randle's idea of "nearly touched the ground" was 8 to 10 inches.
-
Or he might have used the left hand to angle the bag over in front of his head
Does the package that Danny The Rat is holding look like CE 142??
LBJ's "Special Blue Ribbon Committee " Told us that CE 142 was the sack that Lee used to carry the rifle .......( of course there wasn't a iota of physical evidence that any rifle had ever been in CE 142 , (but what hell.....They didn't need no stinkin physical evidence)
Danny obviously ignores the WC theory (twisted though it be) and presents the viewers with his idea of the paper sack...
-
Interesting. Have you seen an affidavit that mentions the length of the bag she saw?
>>> As it turns out, no.
This will do:
No, I don't think it will. Linnie Mae always maintained that the bag he saw was shorter. During her testimony they measured how long she estimated it to be with a mockup and came up with 27 inches one time and 28 1/2 inches the other time. FBI agents would conduct their interviews and not take contemporaneous notes. They would finish the interview and then go off and transcribe what they heard. The WC should have asked her about this discrepancy because it very possible that Bookhout misunderstood her or didn't transcribe what she said properly. We also don't know if she gave Bookhout a length herself or if Bookhout estimated it himself from her holding her hands apart or whatever.
-
RANDLE stated that about 7:15 a.m., November 22, 1963, she looked out of a window of her residence and observed LEE HARVEY OSWALD walking up her driveway and saw him put a long brown package, approximately 3 feet by 6 inches, in the back seat area of WESLEY FRAZIER's 1954 black Chevrolet four door automobile.
What a silly thing to post..... It's obviously totally inaccurate.... A THREE FOOT LONG paper sack??
I would hasten to point out that Mrs Randle DESCRIBED the manner in which Lee carried the paper sack.... She said that Lee had the sack down beside his right leg and his right arm was extended down at his side as he walked along with the sack it nearly touched the ground. ( What was the distance from the sack to the ground.....6 inches? A subjective distance) At any rate Lee was 5'9" and his hand would have been about 26 inches from the ground with his arm down at his side. So the sack could not have been anywhere near 3 foot long.... It was probably about 2 feet long, but it might have been less than 2 feet If "Randle's idea of "nearly touched the ground" was 8 to 10 inches.
::)
Only in WallyWorld is 10 inches 'nearly touching' the ground.
-
::)
Only in WallyWorld is 10 inches 'nearly touching' the ground.
On a dark and rainy morning who can say what Mrs Randle saw..... I'll grant you that 10 inches would be the extreme, but I'd hasten to point out that many boots are 10 inches tall......
-
No, I don't think it will. Linnie Mae always maintained that the bag he saw was shorter. During her testimony they measured how long she estimated it to be with a mockup and came up with 27 inches one time and 28 1/2 inches the other time. FBI agents would conduct their interviews and not take contemporaneous notes. They would finish the interview and then go off and transcribe what they heard. The WC should have asked her about this discrepancy because it very possible that Bookhout misunderstood her or didn't transcribe what she said properly. We also don't know if she gave Bookhout a length herself or if Bookhout estimated it himself from her holding her hands apart or whatever.
Show us where the FBI didn't have Randle read over her 11.22.63 statement to confirm her statement as being accurate. And do you have a later denial of that initial bag length? And her later---conveniently, one might argue--- somewhat shrunken bag size appeared after the situation had grown rather onerous for the 'bro.
-
No, I don't think it will. Linnie Mae always maintained that the bag he saw was shorter. During her testimony they measured how long she estimated it to be with a mockup and came up with 27 inches one time and 28 1/2 inches the other time. FBI agents would conduct their interviews and not take contemporaneous notes. They would finish the interview and then go off and transcribe what they heard. The WC should have asked her about this discrepancy because it very possible that Bookhout misunderstood her or didn't transcribe what she said properly. We also don't know if she gave Bookhout a length herself or if Bookhout estimated it himself from her holding her hands apart or whatever.
The WC should have asked her about this discrepancy because it very possible that Bookhout misunderstood her or didn't transcribe what she said properly. We also don't know if she gave Bookhout a length herself or if Bookhout estimated it himself from her holding her hands apart or whatever.
it very possible that Bookhout misunderstood her or didn't transcribe what she said properly.
You're being waaaaay too magnanimous ...... Bookhout is one of Hoover's agents who created a "replica bag" and then took it to the Randle residence in a transparent attempt to confuse Linnie Mae and her brother BWF and get them on record as confirming the "replica bag" was exactly like the bag that Lee carried that morning.
We also don't know if she gave Bookhout a length herself or if Bookhout estimated it himself from her holding her hands apart
THINK about that.....Linnie held up her hands and indicated a length of about two feet..... Three feet is considerably greater than two feet. Bookhout could not have thought the distance between her hands was thee feet
-
Show us where the FBI didn't have Randle read over her 11.22.63 statement to confirm her statement as being accurate.
Really, Bill?
Show us where they did.
-
Really, Bill?
Show us where they did.
I wonder if Bill even knows what a FD 302 is, so perhaps this is useful?.
What is a 302?
FBI form FD-302 has space to list the name of the agents, the date of the interview, the name of the interviewee, the place of the interview and so forth. Then it allows the agent to draft a memo?in paragraph form?of what the witness said. It can be one page long or twenty pages long, depending on the length of the interview.
The memo section of a 302 is the key part. This is a combination of what the agent was able to write down during the interview and his recollection. It may list the questions and the answers or simply be a narrative of what the witness said.
The witness generally doesn?t see the 302 or get a chance to correct any mistakes he thinks are in it before it is finalized.
https://grandjurytarget.com/2017/05/18/what-is-an-fbi-302-the-problematic-nature-of-fbi-agents-interview-memos/
-
Does the package that Danny The Rat is holding look like CE 142??
LBJ's "Special Blue Ribbon Committee " Told us that CE 142 was the sack that Lee used to carry the rifle .......( of course there wasn't a iota of physical evidence that any rifle had ever been in CE 142 , (but what hell.....They didn't need no stinkin physical evidence)
Danny obviously ignores the WC theory (twisted though it be) and presents the viewers with his idea of the paper sack...
Try to follow along. Rather is demonstrating the 34.8" size, not the exact look of the bag.
I maintain that at that size, the bag wouldn't be all that difficult to fool someone who thinks it contained curtain rods, and another who saw Oswald only out of the corner of his eye... especially wearing a baggy-sleeved jacket, allowing for extra concealment.
-
Really, Bill?
Show us where they did.
Seems Randle stated the size was 3ft long, given that Bookout didn't say anything about her physically indicating the size of the bag.
-
Seems Randle stated the size was 3ft long, given that Bookout didn't say anything about her physically indicating the size of the bag.
No. It seems that Bookhout wrote in his FD 302 that Randle had stated that. There is a difference!
-
Randle "Mrs. RANDLE. He was carrying a package in a sort of a heavy brown bag, heavier than a grocery bag it looked to me. It was about, if I might measure, about this long, I suppose, and he carried it in his right hand, had the top sort of folded down and had a grip like this, and the bottom, he carried it this way, you know, and it almost touched the ground as he carried it. "
If it the package had been 3.6" long, he would have to been holding the package in the middle not at the top as she says he was.
-
Try to follow along. Rather is demonstrating the 34.8" size, not the exact look of the bag.
I maintain that at that size, the bag wouldn't be all that difficult to fool someone who thinks it contained curtain rods, and another who saw Oswald only out of the corner of his eye... especially wearing a baggy-sleeved jacket, allowing for extra concealment.
Try to follow along. Rather is demonstrating the 34.8" size, not the exact look of the bag.
Yes, he knew that he was talking to suckers who wouldn't know that the sack he was showing them was NOT like the bag in evidence ( CE 142) He knew he could dupe fools...... And it looks like he succeeded. He duped at least one fool, didn't he Chappie?
-
No, I don't think it will. Linnie Mae always maintained that the bag he saw was shorter. During her testimony they measured how long she estimated it to be with a mockup and came up with 27 inches one time and 28 1/2 inches the other time. FBI agents would conduct their interviews and not take contemporaneous notes. They would finish the interview and then go off and transcribe what they heard. The WC should have asked her about this discrepancy because it very possible that Bookhout misunderstood her or didn't transcribe what she said properly. We also don't know if she gave Bookhout a length herself or if Bookhout estimated it himself from her holding her hands apart or whatever.
What we do know is that Bookout reported that Randle stated the bag was approximately 3', no matter how many Bookout-might-have-done-this, Bookout-might-have-done-thatisms you lot can cook up.
-
Try to follow along. Rather is demonstrating the 34.8" size, not the exact look of the bag.
Yes, he knew that he was talking to suckers who wouldn't know that the sack he was showing them was NOT like the bag in evidence ( CE 142) He knew he could dupe fools...... And it looks like he succeeded. He duped at least one fool, didn't he Chappie?
The whole point is to first demonstrate that the bag profile (at 34.8") was small enough to be concealed. Tony and others always used CE142 in its flattened, spread out version, so as to make the profile appear as large as possible.
The real dupes are you lot.
-
What we do know is that Bookout reported that Randle stated the bag was approximately 3', no matter how many Bookout-might-have-done-this, Bookout-might-have-done-thatisms you lot can cook up.
What is also known is that Randle never stated that size whenever we heard from her directly?...
-
What is also known is that Randle never stated that size whenever we heard from her directly?...
Smart lady...
;)
-
(http://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/rifle27.jpg)
(http://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/rifle2713.jpg)
-
(http://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/rifle27.jpg)
(http://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/rifle2713.jpg)
He said. She said. People think the assassination included a conspiracy. People think Oswald the killer. Buell is forever remembered as the driver of the car that delivered Oswald to work.
BSing about the bag size would be the smart move.
I'm 6' tall. I can hold a 35" pole by my side, grasped as described by Randle. The bottom of the pole reaches to just above my ankle bone. Including my shoes, that leaves 5" to the ground. Knock 3.5" off my height and one finds a match for the Randle near-the-ground description. One is left with the possibility of the package carrying a broken-down, to a 34.8" length, Mannlicher Carcano.
-
I'm 6' tall. I can hold a 35" pole by my side, grasped as described by Randle. The bottom of the pole reaches to just above my ankle bone. Including my shoes, that leaves 5" to the ground. Knock 3.5" off my height and one finds a match for the Randle near-the-ground description. One is left with the possibility of the package carrying a broken-down, to a 34.8" length, Mannlicher Carcano.
I'm the same height as Oswald and I can hold a 27" stick between my armpit and my cupped hand. When holding it the bottom of the stick is about four inches above the ground.
-
I'm the same height as Oswald and I can hold a 27" stick between my armpit and my cupped hand. When holding it the bottom of the stick is about four inches above the ground.
Is 4" 'almost touching the ground' to you? Not to me.
Randle: "He was carrying a package in a sort of a heavy brown bag, heavier than a grocery bag it looked to me. It was about, if I might measure, about this long, I suppose, and he carried it in his right hand, had the top sort of folded down and had a grip like this, and the bottom, he carried it this way, you know, and it almost touched the ground as he carried it."
-
I'm the same height as Oswald and I can hold a 27" stick between my armpit and my cupped hand.
Are you sure Ray? I'm 6'2" and a 27" stick goes from my armpit down past my cupped hand?
JohnM
-
Is 4" 'almost touching the ground' to you? Not to me.
Randle: "He was carrying a package in a sort of a heavy brown bag, heavier than a grocery bag it looked to me. It was about, if I might measure, about this long, I suppose, and he carried it in his right hand, had the top sort of folded down and had a grip like this, and the bottom, he carried it this way, you know, and it almost touched the ground as he carried it."
What a pity we don't have photos or drawing to show what she meant. Seems that, like me, you disbelieve what she said. Difference is I believe Linnie and Buell were lying about the bag. You seem to believe that they both saw the bag but don't believe their estimates of the size.
-
Are you sure Ray? I'm 6'2" and a 27" stick goes from my armpit down past my cupped hand?
JohnM
Tell you what, I'll try to post a photo tomorrow. Too busy to sort it tonight.
Just thought on, though, you probably won't think that the stick is 27", and that I'm cheating. You'll just have to take my word for it. I've actually tried this before so I'm not inventing it.
-
Isn't there a photo of Buell holding the package like he said Oswald held it? I'm sure I've see one somewhere.
Just remembered, it's on a previous page.
-
Tell you what, I'll try to post a photo tomorrow. Too busy to sort it tonight.
Just thought on, though, you probably won't think that the stick is 27", and that I'm cheating. You'll just have to take my word for it. I've actually tried this before so I'm not inventing it.
Huh? How about you use a tape measure and then the dimensions will be beyond dispute.
JohnM
-
What a pity we don't have photos or drawing to show what she meant. Seems that, like me, you disbelieve what she said. Difference is I believe Linnie and Buell were lying about the bag. You seem to believe that they both saw the bag but don't believe their estimates of the size.
Oswald put his long package on the back seat and lied to the DP when he said his rifle lunch was on his lap.
Oswald told the DP that his long package contained his lunch.
Buell said that Oswald told him that the package contained curtain rods.
Here's Linnie and Buell demonstrating their guesstimates for Oswald's "lunch" package.
(https://i.postimg.cc/xj7s18fK/buell_linnie_est.jpg)
JohnM
-
What a pity we don't have photos or drawing to show what she meant. Seems that, like me, you disbelieve what she said. Difference is I believe Linnie and Buell were lying about the bag. You seem to believe that they both saw the bag but don't believe their estimates of the size.
Actually it's easy to understand what Randle meant, at least with how the bag was gripped. A few months ago I thought the bag might have been carried with a choke grip, and slightly bent arm. I tested that myself at the time... but, that doesn't make sense if he was trying to reduce the package profile. Seems Randle's carry-description would keep the bag right beside him.
Based on Randle's first-day report of an approximate 36" bag length, her brother's rather aggressive handling in interrogation, and then the incredible shrinking bag popping up, one can reasonably argue that FBI/Dallas weren't the only folks taking a CYA stance. So I'm not unreservedly calling them liars in the nasty sense that Johnny666 and others here use. I'm more inclined to place them in the 'white lie' category, as there was never going to be a trial anyway, and Buell had to live down the fact that he drove the potential killer to work that day.
Alternately, as JohnM has just posted, the approximations are in the ballpark as compared to the Rather demo.
-
Actually it's easy to understand what Randle meant, at least with how the bag was gripped. A few months ago I thought the bag might have been carried with a choke grip, and slightly bent arm. I tested that myself at the time... but, that doesn't make sense if he was trying to reduce the package profile. Seems Randle's carry-description would keep the bag right beside him.
Based on Randle's first-day report of an approximate 36" bag length, her brother's rather aggressive handling in interrogation, and then the incredible shrinking bag popping up, one can reasonably argue that FBI/Dallas weren't the only folks taking a CYA stance. So I'm not unreservedly calling them liars in the nasty sense that Johnny666 and others here use. I'm more inclined to place them in the 'white lie' category, as there was never going to be a trial anyway, and Buell had to live down the fact that he drove the potential killer to work that day.
Alternately, as JohnM has just posted, the approximations are in the ballpark as compared to the Rather demo.
the approximations are in the ballpark as compared to the Rather demo.
The problem is;.... Rather's package not only doesn't look like CE 142 that Detective Montgomery carried from the TSBD...It doesn't fit the description of the sack that Linnie Mae Randle and BWF said they saw Lee carry that morning.
-
the approximations are in the ballpark as compared to the Rather demo.
The problem is;.... Rather's package not only doesn't look like CE 142 that Detective Montgomery carried from the TSBD...It doesn't fit the description of the sack that Linnie Mae Randle and BWF said they saw Lee carry that morning.
Let's just forget about Rather and focus on the WC investigation. If I remember correctly they showed both witnesses the original and the replica bag and both denied it was the bag they had seen. They asked Frazier and Randle to reproduce multiple copies of the bag that none of them came close to the size the WC needed to conceal a broken down MC rifle.
When they couldn't get Frazier and Randle on board on the size they just said they were mistaken..... What more does anybody else need to know, when investigators start making up their own truth and dismissing the only witnesses who actually saw the bag?
-
Let's just forget about Rather and focus on the WC investigation. If I remember correctly they showed both witnesses the original and the replica bag and both denied it was the bag they had seen. They asked Frazier and Randle to reproduce multiple copies of the bag that none of them came close to the size the WC needed to conceal a broken down MC rifle.
When they couldn't get Frazier and Randle on board on the size they just said they were mistaken..... What more does anybody else need to know, when investigators start making up their own truth and dismissing the only witnesses who actually saw the bag?
34.8" broken down
Randle estimates 36" package first-day
Buell gets raked over the coals in first-day interrogation
xxxx these xxxxxxxxx for threatening me, figures Buell
Cool sister says lets bs these d-bags and cover our butts
It's every man for himself. The bag shrinks.
-
Randle estimates 36" package first-day
Nope.. Bookhout wrote that this was Randle's estimate. Prove she actually said it!
Futhermore, if what Bookhout wrote in his FB 302 is true, Randle committed perjury in her WC testimony. Was she ever prosecuted?
Make up your own reality as much as you like, but the only two witnesses who ever saw the bag Oswald carried say your reality is wrong, regardless of what Bookhout wrote!
-
Huh? How about you use a tape measure and then the dimensions will be beyond dispute.
JohnM
Holding a metal tape in my hand, it's 30" of tape below my hand.
Happy now?
-
Oswald put his long package on the back seat and lied to the DP when he said his rifle lunch was on his lap.
Oswald told the DP that his long package contained his lunch.
Buell said that Oswald told him that the package contained curtain rods.
Here's Linnie and Buell demonstrating their guesstimates for Oswald's "lunch" package.
(https://i.postimg.cc/xj7s18fK/buell_linnie_est.jpg)
JohnM
Cheating again, John. Make both Dan and Linnie about the same size. Go on, you know you can do it.
Don't bother.I posted this years ago when you posted your dubious comparison then.
(https://i.postimg.cc/CKYc2Szj/bag_comparison.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)
Linnie's package looks a lot smaller in comparison that photo, doesn't it?
-
Let's just forget about Rather and focus on the WC investigation. If I remember correctly they showed both witnesses the original and the replica bag and both denied it was the bag they had seen. They asked Frazier and Randle to reproduce multiple copies of the bag that none of them came close to the size the WC needed to conceal a broken down MC rifle.
When they couldn't get Frazier and Randle on board on the size they just said they were mistaken..... What more does anybody else need to know, when investigators start making up their own truth and dismissing the only witnesses who actually saw the bag?
If I remember correctly they showed both witnesses the original and the replica bag and both denied it was the bag they had seen. They asked Frazier and Randle to reproduce multiple copies of the bag that none of them came close to the size the WC needed to conceal a broken down MC rifle.
I believe the police displayed a large paper sack to BWF and LMR at the police station on the night of 11 /22/63. This sack was the bag that reporters photographed Detective L.D. Montgomery carrying from the TSBD at about 2:00 pm that afternoon.
On Sunday 11/24/ 63 Roy Truly manufactured a paper sack that was reputed to be an "exact replica" of the sack that L.D. Montgomery was photographed carrying. ( How did they create an "exact replica" when the original sack was a thousand miles away...In Washington DC?) The FBI agents then took the "exact replica" out to Irving and displayed it to LMR and BWF and asked them if it was the sack that Lee carried on Friday morning.... Both LMR and BWF stated very clearly that the sack that they were being shown was MUCH LARGER than the sack that Lee Oswald carried.
-
Randle estimates 36" package first-day
Nope.. Bookhout wrote that this was Randle's estimate. Prove she actually said it!
Futhermore, if what Bookhout wrote in his FB 302 is true, Randle committed perjury in her WC testimony. Was she ever prosecuted?
Make up your own reality as much as you like, but the only two witnesses who ever saw the bag Oswald carried say your reality is wrong, regardless of what Bookhout wrote!
Bookhout wrote that this was Randle's estimate. Prove she actually said it!
Based on the fact that there are photos that show LMR holding her hands about two feet apart....It's highly unlikely that she ever said the sack was about three feet long..... And many witnesses were shocked to read what FBI agents recorded of statements they had given the FBI .... Many witnesses said their statements as recorded by the FBI were totally inaccurate and complete distortions of what they had actually told the FBI.
-
All this discussion about the size of the bag when the WC failed to support their claim that a bag was ever found in the alleged SN.
What bag?
-
All this discussion about the size of the bag when the WC failed to support their claim that a bag was ever found in the alleged SN.
What bag?
It doesn't matter whether you or I like the invention of the bag..... The authorities created it as part of the tale (aka cover up) and that garbage has taken firm root in the legend.
There definitely was a bag found ....Day spotted it because it was SHAPED LIKE A GUN CASE.... And it probably was constructed from a different paper than the book wrappers, which drew Day's attention to it. At the time he spotted the gun case shaped paper sack Roy Truly was at his side. Day turned to Truly and asked if he'd ever seen the gun case shaped paper sack before.....Naturally, Truly denied ever having seen the sack.
Day said that after he displayed the gun case shaped sack to Roy Truly he folded it up and put it in his pocket and never displayed it to anybody else. I 've long believed that Day showed that sack to Fritz and they realized it was too small to hold the Carcano.... Fritz was reported to have said..." Well he must have broke it down then, and I'm sure he did" after it was pointed out that the bag was too small to have been used to smuggle the Carcano into the TSBD.
It was probably at this point that Detective Day decided to create the huge paper sack that Detective LD Montgomery carried from the TSBD.
-
Randle estimates 36" package first-day
Nope.. Bookhout wrote that this was Randle's estimate. Prove she actually said it!
Futhermore, if what Bookhout wrote in his FB 302 is true, Randle committed perjury in her WC testimony. Was she ever prosecuted?
Make up your own reality as much as you like, but the only two witnesses who ever saw the bag Oswald carried say your reality is wrong, regardless of what Bookhout wrote!
We'll never know if Randle's estimate was a spoken one or not. Bookout did not make that distinction as far as I know. Where you there?
People say a lot of things. Especially a person who drove the eventual prime suspect to the eventual murder scene. And was the person who apparently underwent a lengthy interrogation in which he was threatened with fisticuffs unless he 'fessed up.
Under those circumstances, I contend that the smart move would have been to sling-the-bull about the bag size.
That's my reality.
-
We'll never know if Randle's estimate was a spoken one or not. Bookout did not make that distinction as far as I know. Where you there?
People say a lot of things. Especially a person who drove the eventual prime suspect to the eventual murder scene. And was the person who apparently underwent a lengthy interrogation in which he was threatened with fisticuffs unless he 'fessed up.
Under those circumstances, I contend that the smart move would have been to sling-the-bull about the bag size.
That's my reality.
We'll never know if Randle's estimate was a spoken one or not. Bookout did not make that distinction as far as I know
Exactly right. And that's why you don't get to assume that what Bookhout wrote in his FD 302 was indeed correct.
People say a lot of things. Especially a person who drove the eventual prime suspect to the eventual murder scene. And was the person who apparently underwent a lengthy interrogation in which he was threatened with fisticuffs unless he 'fessed up.
Under those circumstances, I contend that the smart move would have been to sling-the-bull about the bag size.
What kind of weird "logic" is this? When you are innocent and uninvolved there is no reason to lie about anything. Lying under such circumstances could only make you look guilty and get you into trouble.
-
We'll never know if Randle's estimate was a spoken one or not. Bookout did not make that distinction as far as I know
Exactly right. And that's why you don't get to assume that what Bookhout wrote in his FD 302 was indeed correct.
People say a lot of things. Especially a person who drove the eventual prime suspect to the eventual murder scene. And was the person who apparently underwent a lengthy interrogation in which he was threatened with fisticuffs unless he 'fessed up.
Under those circumstances, I contend that the smart move would have been to sling-the-bull about the bag size.
What kind of weird "logic" is this? When you are innocent and uninvolved there is no reason to lie about anything. Lying under such circumstances could only make you look guilty and get you into trouble.
'You don't get to assume that what Bookhout wrote in his FD 302 was indeed correct'
>>> Using that measure, you don't get to assume that what Bookout wrote in his report wasn't correct
'What kind of weird "logic" is this? When you are innocent and uninvolved there is no reason to lie about anything. Lying under such circumstances could only make you look guilty and get you into trouble'
>>> Exactly what would Randle and/or Buell be charged with? Underestimating the bag size?
-
'You don't get to assume that what Bookhout wrote in his FD 302 was indeed correct'
>>> Using that measure, you don't get to assume that what Bookout wrote in his report wasn't correct
'What kind of weird "logic" is this? When you are innocent and uninvolved there is no reason to lie about anything. Lying under such circumstances could only make you look guilty and get you into trouble'
>>> Exactly what would Randle and/or Buell be charged with? Underestimating the bag size?
Using that measure, you don't get to assume that what Bookout wrote in his report wasn't correct
That would possibly be true if Randle had not made several other statements, including one under oath, that differ completely from what Bookhout wrote. As it stands all her known statements back up the conclusion that what Bookhout wrote was incorrect.
Exactly what would Randle and/or Buell be charged with? Underestimating the bag size?
You are not making any sense. First you suggest that Frazier and Randle may have lied about the bag to avoid Frazier being regarded as complicit in the murder.
People say a lot of things. Especially a person who drove the eventual prime suspect to the eventual murder scene. And was the person who apparently underwent a lengthy interrogation in which he was threatened with fisticuffs unless he 'fessed up.
Under those circumstances, I contend that the smart move would have been to sling-the-bull about the bag size.
That's my reality.
and now you seem to suggest that Frazier could easily have told a lie because of the limited consequence that would have. So, here is my question for you;
If Frazier had nothing to fear to begin with, why would he lie in the first place?
-
Using that measure, you don't get to assume that what Bookout wrote in his report wasn't correct
That would possibly be true if Randle had not made several other statements, including one under oath, that differ completely from what Bookhout wrote. As it stands all her known statements back up the conclusion that what Bookhout wrote was incorrect.
Exactly what would Randle and/or Buell be charged with? Underestimating the bag size?
You are not making any sense. First you suggest that Frazier and Randle may have lied about the bag to avoid Frazier being regarded as complicit in the murder.
and now you seem to suggest that Frazier could easily have told a lie because of the limited consequence that would have. So, here is my question for you;
If Frazier had nothing to fear to begin with, why would he lie in the first place?
I believe that BWF lied to avoid becoming a accessory ....( because he had transported the weapon to the site) I believe the police told BFW that Lee Oswald had told them that the sack he carried that morning contained curtain rods. ( In reality Lee had said nothing of the kind) BWF could see no harm in confirming Lee's story (which was not Lee's story, but a tale invented by the police) So BWF confirmed that Lee had told him the sack held curtain rods. Thereby supporting his friend Lee, and clearing himself of any accessory charge.
The police submitted BWF to a phony "lie dector test and told him that he'd passed the test because the machine indicated that he was telling the truth about the paper sack. ( even though the lie detector test was a complete scam)
The cops now knew they had a witness who would swear that Lee carried a long paper sack that morning........
-
Using that measure, you don't get to assume that what Bookout wrote in his report wasn't correct
That would possibly be true if Randle had not made several other statements, including one under oath, that differ completely from what Bookhout wrote. As it stands all her known statements back up the conclusion that what Bookhout wrote was incorrect.
Exactly what would Randle and/or Buell be charged with? Underestimating the bag size?
You are not making any sense. First you suggest that Frazier and Randle may have lied about the bag to avoid Frazier being regarded as complicit in the murder.
and now you seem to suggest that Frazier could easily have told a lie because of the limited consequence that would have. So, here is my question for you;
If Frazier had nothing to fear to begin with, why would he lie in the first place?
He had the rest of his life to be worried about. That was borne out in the problems he had with the busybodies giving him static about driving the killer to work.
How many times do you hear people say they are innocent and have nothing to fear? Ask the innocent people who Henry Wade got in his clutches how that went, first time around.
Best to hedge one's bets given that atmosphere.
-
He had the rest of his life to be worried about. That was borne out in the problems he had with the busybodies giving him static about driving the killer to work.
How many times do you hear people say they are innocent and have nothing to fear? Ask the innocent people who Henry Wade got in his clutches how that went, first time around.
Best to hedge one's bets given that atmosphere.
Once again you are not making any sense. An innocent and uninvolved Frazier had no incentive to lie. And most certainly he did not have an incentive to lie and tell the DPD something they didn't want to hear!
The DPD found a bag that was big enough to have contained a broken down rifle. Early on, with Oswald having been arrested, they were convinced they had their man. They also knew that Frazier drove Oswald to work that morning. So, the DPD wanted to hear from Frazier that they had the correct bag and that it was indeed big enough to contain a rifle, right? Telling them exactly that would have gotten Frazier out of trouble, but that would have been a lie!
But he did not tell them that. Instead he claimed, like an innocent person would do, that they had the wrong bag and that Oswald's bag was much smaller. Now, if that was a lie, it was a pretty stupid one, because the DPD could conclude that he was lying to protect Oswald and maybe himself as a complicit.
How many times do you hear people say they are innocent and have nothing to fear? Ask the innocent people who Henry Wade got in his clutches how that went, first time around.
Could that possibly include Oswald as well?
-
Once again you are not making any sense. An innocent and uninvolved Frazier had no incentive to lie. And most certainly he did not have an incentive to lie and tell the DPD something they didn't want to hear!
The DPD found a bag that was big enough to have contained a broken down rifle. Early on, with Oswald having been arrested, they were convinced they had their man. They also knew that Frazier drove Oswald to work that morning. So, the DPD wanted to hear from Frazier that they had the correct bag and that it was indeed big enough to contain a rifle, right? Telling them exactly that would have gotten Frazier out of trouble, but that would have been a lie!
But he did not tell them that. Instead he claimed, like an innocent person would do, that they had the wrong bag and that Oswald's bag was much smaller. Now, if that was a lie, it was a pretty stupid one, because the DPD could conclude that he was lying to protect Oswald and maybe himself as a complicit.
How many times do you hear people say they are innocent and have nothing to fear? Ask the innocent people who Henry Wade got in his clutches how that went, first time around.
Could that possibly include Oswald as well?
Oswald denied carrying curtain rods. Buell said otherwise.
Oswald said he carried his lunch to work. Buell said he didn't.
Who do you believe?
Buell kept proclaiming that he wasn't really paying attention to the bag. That oft-repeated statement alone could raise investigator eyebrows; suggesting a kind of 'methinks the Bueller doth protesteth too much'
You ignore the threat of fisticuffs Buell faced in interrogation. You can sanitize his situation as much as you want, but he had to know he was in deep crap.
I stand by my point that Randle & Buell could have decided to hedge their bets. It would have been the smart move.
-
They should have asked LMR about it when she testified. It could be as simple as she said two feet and Bookhout misheard or misremembered three feet.
-
Oswald denied carrying curtain rods. Buell said otherwise.
Oswald said he carried his lunch to work. Buell said he didn't.
Who do you believe?
Buell kept proclaiming that he wasn't really paying attention to the bag. That oft-repeated statement alone could raise investigator eyebrows; suggesting a kind of 'methinks the Bueller doth protesteth too much'
You ignore the threat of fisticuffs Buell faced in interrogation. You can sanitize his situation as much as you want, but he had to know he was in deep crap.
Wow ...that was actually a Chap-post?
BWF was a 19 yr old kid at the time. His affidavit was drafted by the Dallas Police [all you have to do is read it] https://www.google.com/search?q=affidavit+buell+wesley+frazier&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiLgoX60_rdAhUqjFQKHWtJC1QQsAR6BAgFEAE&biw=1024&bih=646
As you can see from the link there seems to be different versions of the same affidavit.
How did the police appear to have keyed in on Frazier so quickly? Almost like it was in the script.
Police...Tell us about the curtain rods.
BWF.....What curtain rods?
Police...The curtain rods that Oswald brought to work.
BWF.....He did?
-
Nice work Jerry Freeman. Never saw that. Still reading this whole thing... I don't want to be premature.
-
Oswald denied carrying curtain rods. Buell said otherwise.
Oswald said he carried his lunch to work. Buell said he didn't.
Who do you believe?
Buell kept proclaiming that he wasn't really paying attention to the bag. That oft-repeated statement alone could raise investigator eyebrows; suggesting a kind of 'methinks the Bueller doth protesteth too much'
You ignore the threat of fisticuffs Buell faced in interrogation. You can sanitize his situation as much as you want, but he had to know he was in deep crap.
I stand by my point that Randle & Buell could have decided to hedge their bets. It would have been the smart move.
Oswald denied carrying curtain rods. Buell said otherwise.
Oswald said he carried his lunch to work. Buell said he didn't.
Who do you believe?
There is no verbatim record of what Oswald said!
Buell kept proclaiming that he wasn't really paying attention to the bag. That oft-repeated statement alone could raise investigator eyebrows; suggesting a kind of 'methinks the Bueller doth protesteth too much'
Why would that raise eyebrows for an investigator? It's fairly common for people not to pay much attention to most what is around them. More than anything else it sounds like a build in safety measure to me, as it gave Frazier some protection to being pinned down too solidly to a statement. And, of course, it could well be true.
You ignore the threat of fisticuffs Buell faced in interrogation. You can sanitize his situation as much as you want, but he had to know he was in deep crap.
No, I didn't ignore that at all. A 19 year old kid who knows he hasn't done anything wrong, has no reason to lie to police. An innocent indivual doesn't usually lie to try and get out of trouble. Besides, if he was going to lie, why not tell investigators what they wanted to hear; i.e. that the bag they had was indeed the bag he saw Oswald carry?
I stand by my point that Randle & Buell could have decided to hedge their bets. It would have been the smart move.
I disagree. The move would have been just as stupid as you standing by that point!
-
Once again you are not making any sense. An innocent and uninvolved Frazier had no incentive to lie. And most certainly he did not have an incentive to lie and tell the DPD something they didn't want to hear!
The DPD found a bag that was big enough to have contained a broken down rifle. Early on, with Oswald having been arrested, they were convinced they had their man. They also knew that Frazier drove Oswald to work that morning. So, the DPD wanted to hear from Frazier that they had the correct bag and that it was indeed big enough to contain a rifle, right? Telling them exactly that would have gotten Frazier out of trouble, but that would have been a lie!
But he did not tell them that. Instead he claimed, like an innocent person would do, that they had the wrong bag and that Oswald's bag was much smaller. Now, if that was a lie, it was a pretty stupid one, because the DPD could conclude that he was lying to protect Oswald and maybe himself as a complicit.
How many times do you hear people say they are innocent and have nothing to fear? Ask the innocent people who Henry Wade got in his clutches how that went, first time around.
Could that possibly include Oswald as well?
Could that possibly include Oswald as well?
There's not a shred of doubt in my mind that Henry Wade was a key cretin in the framing of Lee Oswald....
-
Wow ...that was actually a Chap-post?
BWF was a 19 yr old kid at the time. His affidavit was drafted by the Dallas Police [all you have to do is read it] https://www.google.com/search?q=affidavit+buell+wesley+frazier&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiLgoX60_rdAhUqjFQKHWtJC1QQsAR6BAgFEAE&biw=1024&bih=646
As you can see from the link there seems to be different versions of the same affidavit.
How did the police appear to have keyed in on Frazier so quickly? Almost like it was in the script.
Police...Tell us about the curtain rods.
BWF.....What curtain rods?
Police...The curtain rods that Oswald brought to work.
BWF.....He did?
Citation for this please:
Police...Tell us about the curtain rods.
BWF.....What curtain rods?
Police...The curtain rods that Oswald brought to work.
BWF....He did?
In the meantime:
Buell Wesley Frazier Affidavit
THE STATE OF TEXAS
COUNTY OF DALLAS
BEFORE ME, Mary Rattan, a Notary Public in and for said County, State of Texas, on this day personally appeared Buell Wesley Frazier, Age 19, 2439 West 5th Street, Irving, Texas WE 3-8965 who, after being by me duly sworn, on oath deposes and says:
I work at Texas School Book Depository, Corner Elm and Houston. I have worked there since September 13, 1963. I fill orders. About a month ago, I met Lee Harvey Oswald at work. I saw that he was a new man, and I walked up to him and asked him if he was Lee. I figured he must be Lee as my sister had told me about him. I asked him if he would like to ride back and forth with me as I knew his wife lived with Ruth Paine near my house, and he said he would, but only on week ends as he had an apartment of his own in Oak Cliff. After that every Friday evening Lee would ride home with me and then ride back to work with me on Monday morning. He has only rode home from work with me on Fridays, but yesterday morning, Thursday, November 21, 1963, Lee told me that he wanted to ride home with me that evening. I was surprised, and I asked him if he was going with me Friday also, and he said, "No". He told me that he was going home to get some curtain rods. Thursday afternoon Lee rode to Irving with me to Ruth Paine's house, where his wife is staying. I let him out of my car in front of Ruth's house, then I went on. This morning, Friday, November 22, 1963, I got up between 6:00 - 6:30 AM, and got ready to go to work, and then sit down to eat breakfast, about 7:15 AM, me, my mother, and my two little neices [sic] were at the table, and my sister was at the sink. My mother looked up and said, "Who is that looking in the window?" I looked up and said, "That's Lee." I got up and finished getting ready and got my lunch and went to the door and met Lee on the car port. We then walked to my car, it was parked backed up at the side of the car port. Before I got in the car, I glanced in the back seat, and saw a big sack. 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 asked Lee what was in the sack, and he said "curtain rods", and I remembered that he had told me the day before that he was going to bring some curtain rods. We drove to work the same way that I usually go. We came into town on Stemmons Freeway to Main and Main to Record, and then on across the McKinney and by the warehouse to the parking lot. I parked the car and sit there awhile and run the motor to charge the battery, and while I was doing that, Lee got out and opened the back door and got the package out of the back seat and walked behind the car, then I got out of the car and started walking toward the building where I work. I noticed that Lee had the package in his right hand under his arm, and the package was straight up and down, and he had his arm down, and you could not see much of the package. When we started walking, Lee was just a few feet ahead of me, but he kept waking faster than me, and finally got way ahead of me. I saw him go in the back door at the Loading Dock of the building that we work in, and he still had the package under his arm. I did not see him anymore for about 30 minutes, and then we were both working. Lee did not carry his lunch today. He told me this morning he was going to buy his lunch today. I was standing on the front steps of the building when the Parade came by, and I watched the Parade go by. After President Kennedy had got out of my sight, I heard three shots. I stood there, then people started running by, and I turned, and went back in the building and got my lunch and eat it. I did not see Lee anymore after about 11:00 AM today, and at that time, we were both working, and we were on the first floor.
Wesley Frazier
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN BEFORE ME THIS 22 DAY OF November A.D. 1963
/s/Mary Rattan
Notary Public, Dallas County, Texas
-
Nice work Jerry Freeman. Never saw that. Still reading this whole thing... I don't want to be premature.
Note that at least one of those are from Ripley's Believe it or Not
BTW, they claim to have Oswald's toe tag, along with the machine & tools used to embalm him
-
Note that at least one of those are from Ripley's Believe it or Not
BTW, they claim to have Oswald's toe tag, along with the machine & tools used to embalm him
Note that at least one of those are from Ripley's Believe it or Not
It's still an affidavit signed by a notary public, so what exactly is your point?
-
Oswald denied carrying curtain rods. Buell said otherwise.
Oswald said he carried his lunch to work. Buell said he didn't.
Who do you believe?
There is no verbatim record of what Oswald said!
Buell kept proclaiming that he wasn't really paying attention to the bag. That oft-repeated statement alone could raise investigator eyebrows; suggesting a kind of 'methinks the Bueller doth protesteth too much'
Why would that raise eyebrows for an investigator? It's fairly common for people not to pay much attention to most what is around them. More than anything else it sounds like a build in safety measure to me, as it gave Frazier some protection to being pinned down too solidly to a statement. And, of course, it could well be true.
You ignore the threat of fisticuffs Buell faced in interrogation. You can sanitize his situation as much as you want, but he had to know he was in deep crap.
No, I didn't ignore that at all. A 19 year old kid who knows he hasn't done anything wrong, has no reason to lie to police. An innocent indivual doesn't usually lie to try and get out of trouble. Besides, if he was going to lie, why not tell investigators what they wanted to hear; i.e. that the bag they had was indeed the bag he saw Oswald carry?
I stand by my point that Randle & Buell could have decided to hedge their bets. It would have been the smart move.
I disagree. The move would have been just as stupid as you standing by that point!
There is no verbatim record of what Oswald said!
>>>He said the bag he was carrying contained his lunch. Buell says different. You can't have it both ways. Either Buell or Oswald lied about that. Again, who do you think was lying about curtain rods: Buell or Oswald?
Why would that raise eyebrows for an investigator?
>>> Did I say would, or could? You need to stop misrepresenting what I said.
No, I didn't ignore that at all. A 19 year old kid who knows he hasn't done anything wrong, has no reason to lie to police.
>>> This particular 19yo 'kid' was sharp enough to recognize a fist being raised by an apparently irate officer who seemed intent on getting Buell's signature on a confession.
An innocent indivual doesn't usually lie to try and get out of trouble
>>> An innocent individual who is physically threatened by police?
Besides, if he was going to lie, why not tell investigators what they wanted to hear; i.e. that the bag they had was indeed the bag he saw Oswald carry?
>>> It would be folly to admit that. He would then have to explain why he never considered the package seemed big enough to carry a broken down rifle, on a day when the POTUS would be driving right past their workplace.
I disagree. The move would have been just as stupid as you standing by that point!
>>> So because you disagree with me I'm stupid, huh. You must have all the answers. Can't wait for your press conference.
-
There is no verbatim record of what Oswald said!
>>>He said the bag he was carrying contained his lunch. Buell says different. You can't have it both ways. Either Buell or Oswald lied about that. Again, who do you think was lying about curtain rods: Buell or Oswald?
Why would that raise eyebrows for an investigator?
>>> Did I say would, or could? You need to stop misrepresenting what I said.
No, I didn't ignore that at all. A 19 year old kid who knows he hasn't done anything wrong, has no reason to lie to police.
>>> This particular 19yo 'kid' was sharp enough to recognize a fist being raised by an apparently irate officer who seemed intent on getting Buell's signature on a confession.
An innocent indivual doesn't usually lie to try and get out of trouble
>>> An innocent individual who is physically threatened by police?
Besides, if he was going to lie, why not tell investigators what they wanted to hear; i.e. that the bag they had was indeed the bag he saw Oswald carry?
>>> It would be folly to admit that. He would then have to explain why he never considered the package seemed big enough to carry a broken down rifle, on a day when the POTUS would be driving right past their workplace.
I disagree. The move would have been just as stupid as you standing by that point!
>>> So because you disagree with me I'm stupid, huh. You must have all the answers. Can't wait for your press conference.
He said the bag he was carrying contained his lunch.
Did you hear Oswald say that? Since there is no verbatim record of what Oswald said, you must have heard him say that yourself, right?
Did I say would, or could? You need to stop misrepresenting what I said.
There was no misrepresentation. You said; "That oft-repeated statement alone could raise investigator eyebrows" and I asked you why it would. In other words, I was asking you why you feel it "could raise investigator eyebrows" It is not my problem if you don't comprehend what is written.
But let's see if you understand this; by saying "could raise" you implicitely leave the possibility open that it could also be "couldn't raise", which in turn makes your entire argument completely invalid and useless.
This particular 19yo 'kid' was sharp enough to recognize a fist being raised by an apparently irate officer who seemed intent on getting Buell's signature on a confession.
First of all, as far as I can recall, nowhere in Frazier's story is there a fist being raised, so I have no idea where you got that bit of information from. Secondly, Frazier claims that when Fritz presented him with a written confession for him to sign, he stood up to Fritz and said "no", which clearly shows he was not letting Fritz intimidate him.
And yet you basically say that Frazier would have felt intimidated and that's why he lied and told them what they did not want to hear? BS: Do you see the flaw in this "logic"?
It would be folly to admit that. He would then have to explain why he never considered the package seemed big enough to carry a broken down rifle, on a day when the POTUS would be driving right past their workplace.
This is just plain stupid. You've got two guys driving to work on a regular basis and just because the President comes to town, one of those guys is supposed to suspect the other of carrying a concealed weapon for the purpose of killing Kennedy? Are you for real?
So because you disagree with me I'm stupid, huh.
Nope. Where did I say that? Do you have a comprehension problem? The fact that I disagree with you has nothing to do with you being stupid. Your argument being stupid has to do with your argument being stupid.
-
Just because their alleged accounts differ, that doesn't necessarily mean that one of them is lying.
-
Blah Blah
Why suck up a bunch of web space quoting the affidavit that the police wrote?
I provided the link and we've all read it.
Now it is/or is it? obvious that BWF was grilled before Fritz [according to his notes] asked Oswald about curtain rods...
I can't find a better photo of RATher holding the curtain rods----
(http://i1233.photobucket.com/albums/ff394/dhjosephs/Ratherbagtoobigtoo_zps7e00bda8.jpg)
Again---
Mr. BALL - Did he come in with anybody?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - No.
Mr. BALL - He was alone?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - Yes; he was alone.
Mr. BALL - Do you recall him having anything in his hand?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - Well, I didn't see anything, if he did.
Mr. BALL - Did you pay enough attention to him, you think, that you would remember whether he did or didn't?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - Well, I believe I can---yes, sir---I'll put it this way; I didn't see anything in his hands at the time.
Mr. BALL - In other words, your memory is definite on that is it?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL - In other words, you would say positively he had nothing in his hands?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - I would say that---yes, sir.
In other words, there was no package ;)
-
Why suck up a bunch of web space quoting the affidavit that the police wrote?
I provided the link and we've all read it.
Now it is/or is it? obvious that BWF was grilled before Fritz [according to his notes] asked Oswald about curtain rods...
I can't find a better photo of RATher holding the curtain rods----
(http://i1233.photobucket.com/albums/ff394/dhjosephs/Ratherbagtoobigtoo_zps7e00bda8.jpg)
Again--- In other words, there was no package ;)
Tell us why Rather showing that the 34.8" bag cannot be held in the palm and under the armpit is the only aspect of the Rather bag demo you seem interested in.
-
Just because their alleged accounts differ, that doesn't necessarily mean that one of them is lying.
Yes it does
-
First of all, as far as I can recall, nowhere in Frazier's story is there a fist being raised, so I have no idea where you got that bit of information from.
Buell Wesley Frazier and his interrogation by Will Fritz
-
Buell Wesley Frazier and his interrogation by Will Fritz
Hang on a minute. You claimed;
People say a lot of things. Especially a person who drove the eventual prime suspect to the eventual murder scene. And was the person who apparently underwent a lengthy interrogation in which he was threatened with fisticuffs unless he 'fessed up.
The video shows that Fritz presented Frazier with a written confession to sign early on and got angry when Frazier stood up to him and refused to sign it.
Only after Fritz left (and Frazier said he never saw him again) was Frazier being interrogated for hours!
What I don't understand and you likely can not explain is why would Frazier feel so intimidated during the later interrogation that he lied about the bag, when he had already shown no sign of being intimidated by Fritz?
-
Hang on a minute. You claimed;
The video shows that Fritz presented Frazier with a written confession to sign early on and got angry when Frazier stood up to him and refused to sign it.
Only after Fritz left (and Frazier said he never saw him again) was Frazier being interrogated for hours!
What I don't understand and you likely can not explain is why would Frazier feel so intimidated during the later interrogation that he lied about the bag, when he had already shown no sign of being intimidated by Fritz?
The video shows that Fritz presented Frazier with a written confession to sign early on and got angry when Frazier stood up to him and refused to sign it.
Yes, that's right.... Unfortunately Frazier's later statement cast a pall over his veracity.....I'm referring to Frazier saying " they would have a "hell of a fight" if Fritz struck him.... That's pure unadulterated Bull stuff.....
-
Quote from: Martin Weidmann on October 11, 2018, 03:32:33 PM
First of all, as far as I can recall, nowhere in Frazier's story is there a fist being raised, so I have no idea where you got that bit of information from.
WELL?
-
Quote from: Martin Weidmann on October 11, 2018, 03:32:33 PM
First of all, as far as I can recall, nowhere in Frazier's story is there a fist being raised, so I have no idea where you got that bit of information from.
WELL?
Well nothing, Now I recall.
How about you addressing the points I have raised?
-
Tell us why Rather showing that the 34.8" bag cannot be held in the palm and under the armpit is the only aspect of the Rather bag demo you seem interested in.
By 'you' ...I guess you mean me?
1) I don't know how long the paper sack Rat is holding and neither do you.
2) WBF testified....
Mr. BALL - When you saw him get out of the car, when you first saw him when he was out of the car before he started to walk, you noticed he had the package under the arm?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL - One end of it was under the armpit and the other he had to hold it in his right hand. Did the package extend beyond the right hand?
Mr. FRAZIER - No, sir. Like I say if you put it under your armpits and put it down normal to the side.
Mr. BALL - But the right hand on, was it on the end or the side of the package?
Mr. FRAZIER - No; he had it cupped in his hand.
Mr. BALL - Cupped in his hand?
Mr. FRAZIER - Right.
3) So the Rat was off and so are you.
-
By 'you' ...I guess you mean me?
1) I don't know how long the paper sack Rat is holding and neither do you.
2) WBF testified....3) So the Rat was off and so are you.
A) You're assuming Buell was telling the truth.
B) You assume that Rather was lying about the size of the demo bag. Rather was 1.78m tall. One can compare the demo bag to Rather's height to confirm the demo bag size.
-
Well nothing, Now I recall.
How about you addressing the points I have raised?
How about you doing some quick 'brush up' research before crafting your answers in such a way as to cast doubt on the veracity of myself and other LNers? I'd be willing to bet that you knew all along about the Fritz physical threat re Buell, and wanted to sanitize that issue in order to minimize my suggestion that Fritz's threat might have alerted Buell to the possibility that he might be in deeper crap than he had expected.
Re the other questions in your post, how about you not misrepresenting what I said?
-
A) You're assuming Buell was telling the truth.
B) You assume that Rather was lying about the size of the demo bag. Rather was 1.78m tall. One can compare the demo bag to Rather's height to confirm the demo bag size.
I say old Chap...I assumed nothing really. I only noted testimony before the Worn Commission. Because the case is 'worn' out. I care nothing about Rather...he lied too.
Yes Frazier did lie. He lied about the paper bag..the curtain rods.. everything.
-
How about you doing some quick 'brush up' research before crafting your answers in such a way as to cast doubt on the veracity of myself and other CTers? I'd be willing to bet that you knew all along about the Fritz physical threat re Buell, and wanted to sanitize that issue in order to minimize my suggestion that Fritz's threat might have alerted Buell to the possibility that he might be in deeper crap than he had expected.
Re the other questions in your post, how about you not misrepresenting what I said?
How about you doing some quick 'brush up' research before crafting your answers in such a way as to cast doubt on the veracity of myself and other CTers?
Hang on, the comment I made began with "as far as I can recall"!
First of all, as far as I can recall, nowhere in Frazier's story is there a fist being raised, so I have no idea where you got that bit of information from.
Asking for an explanation or a cite isn't casting doubt on anybody, but the fact that you percieve it to be is very telling. Btw, as far as you go, your contributions to this forum make it abundantly clear that nothing you say can ever be taken at face value.
myself and other CTers
You are a CTer now?
Re the other questions in your post, how about you not misrepresenting what I said?
Pray tell, what did I misrepresent this time? And, even worse, how could I even have misrepresented what you said when I actually quoted your own words in my post?
-
How about you doing some quick 'brush up' research before crafting your answers in such a way as to cast doubt on the veracity of myself and other CTers?
Hang on, the comment I made began with "as far as I can recall"!
Asking for an explanation or a cite isn't casting doubt on anybody, but the fact that you percieve it to be is very telling. Btw, as far as you go, your contributions to this forum make it abundantly clear that nothing you say can ever be taken at face value.
myself and other CTers
You are a CTer now?
Re the other questions in your post, how about you not misrepresenting what I said?
Pray tell, what did I misrepresent this time? And, even worse, how could I even have misrepresented what you said when I actually quoted you own words in my post?
You are a CTer now?
Oh, I hope not.... He would definitely not be an asset to the CT team....Too dishonest.
-
You are a CTer now?
Oh, I hope not.... He would definitely not be an asset to the CT team....Too dishonest.
Point out where I'm 'dishonest'
-
Point out where I'm 'dishonest'
Version 1;
How about you doing some quick 'brush up' research before crafting your answers in such a way as to cast doubt on the veracity of myself and other CTers?
Version 2;
How about you doing some quick 'brush up' research before crafting your answers in such a way as to cast doubt on the veracity of myself and other LNers?
-
Just because their alleged accounts differ, that doesn't necessarily mean that one of them is lying.
Yes it does
No it doesn't.
-
Version 1;
Version 2;
LOL
You lot know darned well that I'm an LNer. You're so desperate to minimize me that you have to attack a late night slip-of-the-tongue. That speaks volumes, puts into question your true reason for posting here.
-
Yes it does
No it doesn't.
My dad can beat up your dad
-
LOL
You lot know darned well that I'm an LNer. You're so desperate to minimize me that you have to attack a late night slip-of-the-tongue. That speaks volumes, puts into question your true reason for posting here.
a late night slip-of-the-tongue.
I figured that it was that, but what was dishonest about it is that you did not own the mistake!
Instead you just went back and changed it from CT to LN, hoping nobody would notice. That was dishonest!
-
a late night slip-of-the-tongue.
I figured that it was that, but what was dishonest about it is that you did not own the mistake!
Instead you just went back and changed it from CT to LN, hoping nobody would notice. That was dishonest!
Is this all you can come up with in an attempt to show I'm somehow 'dishonest' Martin? Quite a reach...
Instead you just went back and changed it from CT to LN, hoping nobody would notice. That was dishonest!
>>> I corrected it because it was inaccurate. Is that dishonest somehow? You're trying to make it sound sneaky.
-
Is this all you can come up with in an attempt to show I'm somehow 'dishonest' Martin? Quite a reach...
Instead you just went back and changed it from CT to LN, hoping nobody would notice. That was dishonest!
>>> I corrected it because it was inaccurate. Is that dishonest somehow? You're trying to make it sound sneaky.
All you had to do was admit you made an error, but you probably couldn't bring yourself to say it.
-
All you had to do was admit you made an error, but you probably couldn't bring yourself to say it.
Exactly!
-
Is this all you can come up with in an attempt to show I'm somehow 'dishonest' Martin? Quite a reach...
Instead you just went back and changed it from CT to LN, hoping nobody would notice. That was dishonest!
>>> I corrected it because it was inaccurate. Is that dishonest somehow? You're trying to make it sound sneaky.
You asked;
Point out where I'm 'dishonest'
I did.
Deal with it!
-
All you had to do was admit you made an error, but you probably couldn't bring yourself to say it.
My late night slip-of-the-tongue is self-explanatory, given that regulars here know full well that I'm an LN
-
You asked;
I did.
Deal with it!
I find it odd that you think I wouldn't want anyone to notice my correction.
On the contrary, I wanted people to notice my correction, and ASAP. Thus, my prompt action was timely. In addition, my late night slip-of-the tongue is self-explanatory, given that regulars here know full-well that I'm a WC supporter.
-
I find it odd that you think I wouldn't want anyone to notice my correction.
On the contrary, I wanted people to notice my correction, and ASAP. Thus, my prompt action was timely. In addition, my late night slip-of-the tongue is self-explanatory, given that regulars here know full-well that I'm a WC supporter.
bla bla bla..... whatever.
Stop protesting so much!
-
I find it odd that you think I wouldn't want anyone to notice my correction.
On the contrary, I wanted people to notice my correction, and ASAP. Thus, my prompt action was timely. In addition, my late night slip-of-the tongue is self-explanatory, given that regulars here know full-well that I'm a WC supporter.
When you are in a hole stop digging. We all KNOW what you are.
-
Version 1;
Version 2;
Very interesting.
-
LOL
You lot know darned well that I'm an LNer. You're so desperate to minimize me that you have to attack a late night slip-of-the-tongue. That speaks volumes, puts into question your true reason for posting here.
A Freudian slip?
-
I find it odd that you think I wouldn't want anyone to notice my correction.
On the contrary, I wanted people to notice my correction, and ASAP. Thus, my prompt action was timely. In addition, my late night slip-of-the tongue is self-explanatory, given that regulars here know full-well that I'm a WC supporter.
What does time have to do with this? No matter what time it is I know that I believe in a conspiracy. Just typing CTer should have caused you pain. How did you not notice this?
-
A Freudian slip?
No, that's not a Freudian slip, or a faux pas.... Chappie is definitely not a CT....so it can't be a Freudian slip.
We should thank God that Chappie is on the other team.... He certainly is no asset to the LNer contingent....And he certainly would not be an asset to the CT side....
-
bla bla bla..... whatever.
Stop protesting so much!
So 'whatever' is your retreat. Got it.
-
So 'whatever' is your retreat. Got it.
Now you really show everybody that you are a true LN.... Thumb1:
Let me guess; you really think you are good at this stuff, don't you? :D
-
No, that's not a Freudian slip, or a faux pas.... Chappie is definitely not a CT....so it can't be a Freudian slip.
We should thank God that Chappie is on the other team.... He certainly is no asset to the LNer contingent....And he certainly would not be an asset to the CT side....
Take your meds, Waldo
-
Now you really show everybody that you are a true LN.... Thumb1:
Another non-answer...
-
Another non-answer...
to a non-question, perhaps?
But be happy, at least now there can't be any misunderstanding about you being an LN.
It might even have convinced yourself to such an extend that you will never confuse yourself with being a CT again.
-
to a non-question, perhaps?
But be happy, at least now there can't be any misunderstanding about you being an LN.
It might even have convinced yourself to such an extend that you will never confuse yourself with being a CT again.
On October 16 I explained the CT typo as a late night slip-of-the-tongue and you said you figured that's what it was.
Now you are foolishly attempting to save face.
-
On October 16 I explained the CT typo as a late night slip-of-the-tongue and you said you figured that's what it was.
Now you are foolishly attempting to save face.
On October 16 I explained the CT typo as a late night slip-of-the-tongue and you said you figured that's what it was.
Yes, you did explain that, but only one day after I had asked you;
myself and other CTers
You are a CTer now?
and after you went back to your original post and changed the wording from CT to LN, and never said a word.
You only "explained" the obvious after your dishonest behavior had been caught out.
Btw the Original CT post can still be seen, as it was quoted in my reply (#296 on page 30 of this thread)!
Now you are foolishly attempting to save face.
Looking in the mirror, are you?
You really are living in a world of your own, aren't you?
-
B.W.F back then was a redneck KKK hillbilly thick unread and in his in his own words and unwordly soul, who was easily manipulated by elders, he lied through his racist Texas teeth. No doubts about it
-
On October 16 I explained the CT typo as a late night slip-of-the-tongue and you said you figured that's what it was.
Yes, you did explain that, but only one day after I had asked you; and after you went back to your original post and changed the wording from CT to LN, and never said a word'
>>> Every veteran here knows full well that I'm an LNer. Why wait to inform newbies? And pretty sure I don't need anyone's permission on when to correct my own typos.
You only "explained" the obvious after your dishonest behavior had been caught out.
>>> How is correcting my own typo 'dishonest'?
'Btw the Original CT post can still be seen, as it was quoted in my reply (#296 on page 30 of this thread)!'
>>> Exactly, no need for me to announce anything.
You really are living in a world of your own, aren't you?
>>> Did you figure my CT typo a late night slip of the tongue or didn't you? You did... yet you said in a recent post that "It might even have convinced yourself to such an extend that you will never confuse yourself with being a CT again".
You seem the dishonest party here.
-
Yes, you did explain that, but only one day after I had asked you; and after you went back to your original post and changed the wording from CT to LN, and never said a word'
>>> Every veteran here knows full well that I'm an LNer. Why wait to inform newbies? And pretty sure I don't need anyone's permission on when to correct my own typos.
You only "explained" the obvious after your dishonest behavior had been caught out.
>>> How is correcting my own typo 'dishonest'?
'Btw the Original CT post can still be seen, as it was quoted in my reply (#296 on page 30 of this thread)!'
>>> Exactly, no need for me to announce anything.
You really are living in a world of your own, aren't you?
>>> Did you figure my CT typo a late night slip of the tongue or didn't you? You did... yet you said in a recent post that "It might even have convinced yourself to such an extend that you will never confuse yourself with being a CT again".
You seem the dishonest party here.
Again you show yourself to be a true LN. You just can't let go, can you now?
-
On October 16 I explained the CT typo as a late night slip-of-the-tongue and you said you figured that's what it was.
Yes, you did explain that, but only one day after I had asked you;
and after you went back to your original post and changed the wording from CT to LN, and never said a word.
You only "explained" the obvious after your dishonest behavior had been caught out.
Btw the Original CT post can still be seen, as it was quoted in my reply (#296 on page 30 of this thread)!
Now you are foolishly attempting to save face.
Looking in the mirror, are you?
You really are living in a world of your own, aren't you?
Wow, why all these attacks on the LNers, it's not a war, we are simply having a debate about the evidence in the JFK case but it seems that since you can't support your JFK arguments you're reduced to these endless and entirely worthless ad-hom attacks.
Maybe you need to take a break Weidmann and spend some time to analyse what's motivating you and then see a shrink and try and get rid of it!
JohnM
-
Again you show yourself to be a true LN. You just can't let go, can you now?
Put aside your gaslighting for a moment and answer this: Did you say you knew my 'CT' thing was a slip-of-the-tongue, or didn't you?
You're the one who can't let go
-
... my 'CT' thing was a slip-of-the-tongue ....
You type with your tongue? :P
-
Wow, why all these attacks on the LNers, it's not a war, we are simply having a debate about the evidence in the JFK case but it seems that since you can't support your JFK arguments you're reduced to these endless and entirely worthless ad-hom attacks.
Maybe you need to take a break Weidmann and spend some time to analyse what's motivating you and then see a shrink and try and get rid of it!
JohnM
Says the guy who claims that others are thrown off other boards, claims that they have no credibility constantly and mocks their supposed job. Sure, you're Mr. Nice Guy.
-
Put aside your gaslighting for a moment and answer this: Did you say you knew my 'CT' thing was a slip-of-the-tongue, or didn't you?
You're the one who can't let go
How does one make that kind of "slip of the tongue" anyway?
-
Says the guy who claims that others are thrown off other boards, claims that they have no credibility constantly and mocks their supposed job. Sure, you're Mr. Nice Guy.
Says the guy who claims that others are thrown off other boards
Go and share your knowledge and post at these other boards.
claims that they have no credibility
If you want credibility then earn it.
and mocks their supposed job.
I have no idea what you do and I don't care.
Sure, you're Mr. Nice Guy.
Where did I say I was "Mr Nice Guy"?
JohnM
-
Says the guy who claims that others are thrown off other boards, claims that they have no credibility constantly and mocks their supposed job. Sure, you're Mr. Nice Guy.
No point in responding to Mytton's crap.
When he starts like that, you've already won the argument and, although he most likely will never admit it, he knows it nevertheless. That's good enough for me!
-
You type with your tongue? :P
You ought to stop trying to be witty... you're just not good at it.
-
You ought to stop trying to be witty... you're just not good at it.
You got no sense of humor?
-
You got no sense of humor?
I believe he's a laughing stock ....Does that count as a sense of humor?
-
No point in responding to Mytton's crap.
When he starts like that, you've already won the argument and, although he most likely will never admit it, he knows it nevertheless. That's good enough for me!
No point in responding to Mytton.....
Is that a promise?
When he starts like that, you've already won the argument
What's to win? I didn't use "quotations" and you misunderstood what I was saying but since then I've cleared it up.
although he most likely will never admit it
What, a word game about my use of grammar, ok, whatever floats your boat.
he knows it nevertheless.
I know that to next time to use "quotations" so as to make the obvious clearer for people who are looking only to win.
That's good enough for me!
OK.
JohnM
-
Is that a promise?
What's to win? I didn't use "quotations" and you misunderstood what I was saying but since then I've cleared it up.
What, a word game about my use of grammar, ok, whatever floats your boat.
I know that to next time to use "quotations" so as to make the obvious clearer for people who are looking only to win.
OK.
JohnM
See what I mean?
-
See what I mean?
:D
No point in responding to Mytton...
JohnM
-
Go and share your knowledge and post at these other boards.
If you want credibility then earn it.
I have no idea what you do and I don't care.
Where did I say I was "Mr Nice Guy"?
JohnM
I gather that I would never earn any credibility with you as I post the evidence and that is a no-no for you. Why do you fear the evidence so much?
-
You ought to stop trying to be witty... you're just not good at it.
Sez u
-
No point in responding to Mytton's crap.
When he starts like that, you've already won the argument and, although he most likely will never admit it, he knows it nevertheless. That's good enough for me!
No point in responding to Mytton's crap.
You're right.... Knowledgeable CT's recognize Mytton for the disinformation cretin that he is..... But many feel that they have to expose Mytton's BS so others wont be deceived by it.
-
If Buell Frazier was going to lie about the bag's existence, wouldn't he at least state that the bag was long enough to contain the rifle? Why introduce a bag into the folklore but state that it was not long enough?
Silly conspirators.
So, are you saying that Frazier isn't capable of making up a false story? Frazier claimed he was standing with Sarah Stanton, but Sarah Stanton never even mentioned Frazier in her FBI testimony.
Lee Harvey Oswald himself denied that the bag contained curtain rods on two separate occasions. So, Harvey is refuting Frazier's story of the bag containing curtain rods.
Captain Will Fritz interrogated Oswald. According to Fritz's account: “He said he didn’t have any kind of a package but his lunch. He said he had his lunch and that is all he had. He said, ‘No. I didn’t carry anything but my lunch."
So, Oswald said he only had his lunch when he was interrogated by Fritz.
Also, Oswald denied Frazier's story a second time when Harry Holmes a postal inspector and FBI informer questioned Oswald about Frazier's story of a long package that he claimed Oswald had in the car.
Harry Holmes : "Asked him if he brought a sack out when he got in the car with this young fellow that hauled him and he said, “Yes.”
“What was in the sack?”
Oswald: “Well, my lunch.”
“What size sack did you have?”
He said, “Oh, I don’t know what size sack. You don’t always get a sack that fits your sandwiches. It might be a big sack.”
Holmes: “Was it a long sack?”
Oswald: “Well, it could have been.”
Holmes: “What did you do with it?”
Oswald: “Carried it in my lap.”
Holmes: “You didn’t put it over in the back seat?”
“No.” He said he wouldn’t have done that.
“Well, someone said the fellow that hauled you said you had a long package which you said was curtain rods you were taking to somebody at work and you laid it over on the back seat.”
He said, “Well, they was just mistaken. That must have been some other time he picked me up.”
That’s all he said about it.
So, that's twice Oswald was questioned about a curtain rods and he denied it twice. If the bag did contain curtain rods, Oswald wouldn't deny it on two separate occasions when being interrogated.
-
So, are you saying that Frazier isn't capable of making up a false story? Frazier claimed he was standing with Sarah Stanton, but Sarah Stanton never even mentioned Frazier in her FBI testimony.
Lee Harvey Oswald himself denied that the bag contained curtain rods on two separate occasions. So, Harvey is refuting Frazier's story of the bag containing curtain rods.
Captain Will Fritz interrogated Oswald. According to Fritz's account: “He said he didn’t have any kind of a package but his lunch. He said he had his lunch and that is all he had. He said, ‘No. I didn’t carry anything but my lunch."
So, Oswald said he only had his lunch when he was interrogated by Fritz.
Also, Oswald denied Frazier's story a second time when Harry Holmes a postal inspector and FBI informer questioned Oswald about Frazier's story of a long package that he claimed Oswald had in the car.
Harry Holmes : "Asked him if he brought a sack out when he got in the car with this young fellow that hauled him and he said, “Yes.”
“What was in the sack?”
Oswald: “Well, my lunch.”
“What size sack did you have?”
He said, “Oh, I don’t know what size sack. You don’t always get a sack that fits your sandwiches. It might be a big sack.”
Holmes: “Was it a long sack?”
Oswald: “Well, it could have been.”
Holmes: “What did you do with it?”
Oswald: “Carried it in my lap.”
Holmes: “You didn’t put it over in the back seat?”
“No.” He said he wouldn’t have done that.
“Well, someone said the fellow that hauled you said you had a long package which you said was curtain rods you were taking to somebody at work and you laid it over on the back seat.”
He said, “Well, they was just mistaken. That must have been some other time he picked me up.”
That’s all he said about it.
So, that's twice Oswald was questioned about a curtain rods and he denied it twice. If the bag did contain curtain rods, Oswald wouldn't deny it on two separate occasions when being interrogated.
If the bag had the gun in it, why did Oswald wait for Buell to finish with the car, before proceeding into the building? Surely you would want to get into the building and hide the gun ASAP?
-
If the bag had the gun in it, why did Oswald wait for Buell to finish with the car, before proceeding into the building? Surely you would want to get into the building and hide the gun ASAP?
On page one Martin posted.....
A memo from James Anderton to SAC Dallas, dated 11/29/63, reveals the desperation of Lt. Day after Frazier failed to identify the heavy bag found at the TSBD. Anderton writes;
"Lt. Day states that he and other officers have surmised that Oswald, by dismantling the rifle, could have placed it in the thick brown sack folder over, and then placed the entire package in the flimsy paper sack"
The obvious question is why Day was so desperate to explain the discrepancy between the heavy bag allegedly found on the 6th floor of the TSBD and the flimsy bag Frazier had seen that he would come up with this theory. Even more so, if he really had found Oswald's prints on the heavy bag and the MC rifle......
-
if he did he would compromise his Russia false defector work...
Yes, and jeopardize the lives of other agents who were still "out in the cold".....
That's what I thought after reading Michael Paine's comments in his manuscript about Lee, when he stated what he felt about the assumptions people had about Lee being a government or federal agent. I read the manuscript about a month ago in Sean DeGrilla's book Malcontent. I believe it's the first publication of the manuscript, I don't know/haven't seen if Paine's writing is online, so out of respect to author's new work I wont copy it here.
-
That's what I thought after reading Michael Paine's comments in his manuscript about Lee, when he stated what he felt about the assumptions people had about Lee being a government or federal agent. I read the manuscript about a month ago in Sean DeGrilla's book Malcontent. I believe it's the first publication of the manuscript, I don't know/haven't seen if Paine's writing is online, so out of respect to author's new work I wont copy it here.
Robert, Can you flesh that out a bit?.... What did Michael Paine say about Lee Oswald, with respect to Lee being a agent of the US government?
There's no doubt in my mind that Lee was sent to Russia by the US government. The Russians had recruited Lee while he was a Marine on a secret U-2 base in Japan. The CIA knew that the Russians were enticing Lee Oswald, and they contacted the Marines and encouraged Lee to play along with the Russians. They even sent Lee to foreign language school where he learned to understand and speak Russian.
-
Robert, Can you flesh that out a bit?.... What did Michael Paine say about Lee Oswald, with respect to Lee being a agent of the US government?
There's no doubt in my mind that Lee was sent to Russia by the US government. The Russians had recruited Lee while he was a Marine on a secret U-2 base in Japan. The CIA knew that the Russians were enticing Lee Oswald, and they contacted the Marines and encouraged Lee to play along with the Russians. They even sent Lee to foreign language school where he learned to understand and speak Russian.
Michael Paine wrote in the 2013 manuscript that if in fact Lee Oswald was associated CIA or FBI it would only be because that would be in Lee's view a way to infiltrate the Government.
Both Paine and Oswald attended left and right wing events, I just think that statement is being deceptive/protective.
The book is a great read, and has its position of course, not too many writings on the topic waver back and forth.
Walt, I've read so much on Oswald but can no longer find this reference, I've looked online: a claim that part of Oswald's intelligence training he was observed walking sidewalks backward. Not that I believe that claim, I don't know if that was in a book or online if anyone knows.
-
Michael Paine wrote in the 2013 manuscript that if in fact Lee Oswald was associated CIA or FBI it would only be because that would be in Lee's view a way to infiltrate the Government.
Both Paine and Oswald attended left and right wing events, I just think that statement is being deceptive/protective.
The book is a great read, and has its position of course, not too many writings on the topic waver back and forth.
Walt, I've read so much on Oswald but can no longer find this reference, I've looked online: a claim that part of Oswald's intelligence training he was observed walking sidewalks backward. Not that I believe that claim, I don't know if that was in a book or online if anyone knows.
Lee was a junior grade agent....His mission to Russia was to give him in the field training. ( experience) He surprised his handlers at his resourcefulness. When his mother went to Washington ( immediately after JFK's inauguration) she got the new President's attention. In his checking on momma Oswald's son he learned that the kid was a US agent. He was astonished to learn that someone so young was a spy and had successfully penetrated the Iron Curtain. He ordered the State Department to go to work and bring the young spy in from the cold. (Figuratively and actually....Brrrrr...Those Russian winters.)
-
Ruth said Oswald took his laundry after visiting on weekends. Frazier said Oswald only ever took his lunch except for the 22nd.
Who's lying Ruth or Buell? Your call.
Colin,
Why would Russophile Ruthie lie?
I mean I mean I mean If she was a liar, why would probable long-term KGB illegal George DeMohrenschildt (according to CI/SIG analyst Clare Edward Petty in TMWKTM) hand off Oswald and his probable (according to KGB true-defector Pyotr Deriabin) KGB-agent wife over to a person like that?
It makes no sense.
(LOL)
-- MWT ;)
PS I think Ruthie's story about how she found, and hid, and oh yeah copied (while Oswald was taking what must have been AT LEAST A FORTY-FIVE MINUTE SHOWER) the "Comrade Kostin" draft is totally believable, don't you?
/s
-
Addendum:
Michael Shermer has pointed out that the side that argues against the truth focuses on minutiae, whether it is 9/11 truthers, Scientific Creationists or Holocaust deniers. And don?t look at the overall picture.
Holocaust deniers claim presence of ?Prussian Blue? in the in the delousing stations but not in the gas chambers prove that the gas chambers were not used to kill people. Ignoring that insects require a much higher presence of cyanide is needed to kill insects (16,000 parts per million) than people (300 parts per million).
Scientific Creationists claiming human footprints besides dinosaur footprints disprove the Theory of Evolution. Ignoring the possibility of the ?human footprints? being chiseled into the rock by fakers.
9/11 Truthers pointing out that the fires could not have been hot enough to melt steel, and not considering that the steel doesn?t have to be melted, just heated to a high enough temperature long enough, to fail to support the tremendous weight of the building.
And just this weekend we see CTers doing the same thing.
1. The southwest corner of the sixth floor of the TSBD looks like a sniper?s nest, but it is claimed that it is just a bit too cramped to be used to shoot from.
2. The bag Oswald carried with him into work looked like it could have been used to carry his rifle into work that day, but it is claimed that it was just a bit too short to hold the rifle.
I know that Shermer is an idiot (from my reading over the years).
I dont know who came up with that stuff re the concentration of cyanide needed to kill insects versus to kill humans --- chemists tell us that insects need much less than humans (from my reading over the years).
-
If Buell Frazier was going to lie about the bag's existence, wouldn't he at least state that the bag was long enough to contain the rifle? Why introduce a bag into the folklore but state that it was not long enough?
Silly conspirators.
IMHO, Frazier realized how long the bag was and intuited that it contained a broken-down rifle, but lied about it later because he was afraid he might incriminate himself as an accessory to the murder of the President of the United States if he told the truth.
-
IMHO, Frazier realized how long the bag was and intuited that it contained a broken-down rifle, but lied about it later because he was afraid he might incriminate himself as an accessory to the murder of the President of the United States if he told the truth.
I think you're probably right, a package that was about "2 feet long, give and take a few inches" could easily be kept comfortably with you in the front seat and especially if it was Oswald's lunch like he says, but regardless, Oswald first goes beyond where he later waited and went straight to Frazier's car, opens the back door up and immediately hides the package in the car on the back seat. If indeed it was relatively light curtain rods, wouldn't anyone else just keep the package on their person till Frazier came out? instead of hiding the evidence as quickly as possible!
Also what's pretty funny is that in the first photo below it's claimed by some extreme Ct's that Linnie Mae couldn't see through the open slats to see Oswald, Hilarious!
(https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/pages/WH_Vol17_0097a.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/Dwkmmh6S/oswald-walks-to-frazier-car.gif)
Linnie Mae Randall told the FBI on the day after that the package was approximately three feet long.
RANDLE stated that about 7:15 a.m., November 22, 1963, she looked out of a window of her residence and observed LEE HARVEY OSWALD walking up her driveway and saw him put a long brown package, approximately 3 feet by 6 inches, in the back seat area of WESLEY FRAZIER's 1954 black Chevrolet four door automobile. Thereafter, she observed OSWALD walk to the front, or entrance area, of her residence where he waited for FRAZIER to come out of the house and give him a ride to work.
Frazier says the package was around "two feet, give and take a few inches."
Mr. BALL - From the side of the seat over to the center, is that the way you would measure it?
Mr. FRAZIER - If, if you were going to measure it that way from the end of the seat over toward the center, right. But I say like I said I just roughly estimate and that would be around two feet, give and take a few inches.
Mr. BALL - How wide was the package?
Mr. FRAZIER - Well, I would say the package was about that wide.
Mr. BALL - How wide would you say that would be?
Mr. FRAZIER - Oh, say, around 5 inches, something like that. 5, 6 inches or there. I don't--
And Linnie in her testimony folds a sample bag and the length was 28 and a half inches then she quickly corrects this guess by saying another sample bag was 27 when it was measured once before, she was trying her best to shrink the bag. Which was most likely after she colluded with her brother to keep Oswald's rifle sack as small as reasonably possible.
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.
Mr. BALL - All right.
When you got in the car did you say anything to him or did he say anything to you?
Mr. FRAZIER - Let's see, when I got in the car I have a kind of habit of glancing over my shoulder and so at that time I noticed there was a package laying on the back seat, I didn't pay too much attention and I said, "What's the package, Lee?"
And he said, "Curtain rods," and I said, "Oh, yes, you told me you was going to bring some today."
That is the reason, the main reason he was going over there that Thursday afternoon when he was to bring back some curtain rods, so I didn't think any more about it when he told me that.
Also worth noting is Frazier's constant assertion that he never payed much attention to the bag, which could mean that he really didn't give a stuff about Oswald's sack which means any size guess is worthless, or he perfectly knew in hindsight that Oswald had a rifle so Frazier tried his utmost to paint himself as innocent?
Mr. BALL - Did it look to you as if there was something heavy in the package?
Mr. FRAZIER - Well, I will be frank with you, I didn't pay much attention to the package because like I say before and after he told me that it was curtain rods and I didn't pay any attention to it, and he never had lied to me before so I never did have any reason to doubt his word.
Mr. BALL - Well, from the way he carried it, the way he walked, did it appear he was carrying something that had more than the weight of a paper?
Mr. FRAZIER - Well, I say, you know like I say, I didn't pay much attention to the package other than I knew he had it under his arm and I didn't pay too much attention the way he was walking because I was walking along there looking at the railroad cars and watching the men on the diesel switch them cars and I didn't pay too much attention on how he carried the package at all.
Mr. BALL - You will notice that this bag which is the colored bag, FBI Exhibit No. 10, is folded over. Was it folded over when you saw it the first time, folded over to the end?
Mr. FRAZIER - I will say I am not sure about that, whether it was folded over or not, because, like I say, I didn't pay that much attention to it.
Mr. BALL - But are you sure that his hand was at the end of the package or at the side of the package?
Mr. FRAZIER - Like I said, I remember I didn't look at the package very much, paying much attention, but when I did look at it he did have his hands on the package like that.
Mr. BALL - Mr. Frazier, we have here this Exhibit No. 364 which is a sack and in that we have put a dismantled gun. Don't pay any attention to that. Will you stand up here and put this under your arm and then take a hold of it at the side?
Now, is that anywhere near similar to the way that Oswald carried the package?
Mr. FRAZIER - Well, you know, like I said now, I said I didn't pay much attention--
-
I think you're probably right, a package that was about "2 feet long, give and take a few inches" could easily be kept comfortably with you in the front seat and especially if it was Oswald's lunch like he says, but regardless, Oswald first goes beyond where he later waited and went straight to Frazier's car, opens the back door up and immediately hides the package in the car on the back seat. If indeed it was relatively light curtain rods, wouldn't anyone else just keep the package on their person till Frazier came out? instead of hiding the evidence as quickly as possible!
Also what's pretty funny is that in the first photo below it's claimed by some extreme Ct's that Linnie Mae couldn't see through the open slats to see Oswald, Hilarious!
(https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/pages/WH_Vol17_0097a.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/Dwkmmh6S/oswald-walks-to-frazier-car.gif)
Linnie Mae Randall told the FBI on the day after that the package was approximately three feet long.
RANDLE stated that about 7:15 a.m., November 22, 1963, she looked out of a window of her residence and observed LEE HARVEY OSWALD walking up her driveway and saw him put a long brown package, approximately 3 feet by 6 inches, in the back seat area of WESLEY FRAZIER's 1954 black Chevrolet four door automobile. Thereafter, she observed OSWALD walk to the front, or entrance area, of her residence where he waited for FRAZIER to come out of the house and give him a ride to work.
Frazier says the package was around "two feet, give and take a few inches."
Mr. BALL - From the side of the seat over to the center, is that the way you would measure it?
Mr. FRAZIER - If, if you were going to measure it that way from the end of the seat over toward the center, right. But I say like I said I just roughly estimate and that would be around two feet, give and take a few inches.
Mr. BALL - How wide was the package?
Mr. FRAZIER - Well, I would say the package was about that wide.
Mr. BALL - How wide would you say that would be?
Mr. FRAZIER - Oh, say, around 5 inches, something like that. 5, 6 inches or there. I don't--
And Linnie in her testimony folds a sample bag and the length was 28 and a half inches then she quickly corrects this guess by saying another sample bag was 27 when it was measured once before, she was trying her best to shrink the bag. Which was most likely after she colluded with her brother to keep Oswald's rifle sack as small as reasonably possible.
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.
Mr. BALL - All right.
When you got in the car did you say anything to him or did he say anything to you?
Mr. FRAZIER - Let's see, when I got in the car I have a kind of habit of glancing over my shoulder and so at that time I noticed there was a package laying on the back seat, I didn't pay too much attention and I said, "What's the package, Lee?"
And he said, "Curtain rods," and I said, "Oh, yes, you told me you was going to bring some today."
That is the reason, the main reason he was going over there that Thursday afternoon when he was to bring back some curtain rods, so I didn't think any more about it when he told me that.
Also worth noting is Frazier's constant assertion that he never payed much attention to the bag, which could mean that he really didn't give a stuff about Oswald's sack which means any size guess is worthless, or he perfectly knew in hindsight that Oswald had a rifle so Frazier tried his utmost to paint himself as innocent?
Mr. BALL - Did it look to you as if there was something heavy in the package?
Mr. FRAZIER - Well, I will be frank with you, I didn't pay much attention to the package because like I say before and after he told me that it was curtain rods and I didn't pay any attention to it, and he never had lied to me before so I never did have any reason to doubt his word.
Mr. BALL - Well, from the way he carried it, the way he walked, did it appear he was carrying something that had more than the weight of a paper?
Mr. FRAZIER - Well, I say, you know like I say, I didn't pay much attention to the package other than I knew he had it under his arm and I didn't pay too much attention the way he was walking because I was walking along there looking at the railroad cars and watching the men on the diesel switch them cars and I didn't pay too much attention on how he carried the package at all.
Mr. BALL - You will notice that this bag which is the colored bag, FBI Exhibit No. 10, is folded over. Was it folded over when you saw it the first time, folded over to the end?
Mr. FRAZIER - I will say I am not sure about that, whether it was folded over or not, because, like I say, I didn't pay that much attention to it.
Mr. BALL - But are you sure that his hand was at the end of the package or at the side of the package?
Mr. FRAZIER - Like I said, I remember I didn't look at the package very much, paying much attention, but when I did look at it he did have his hands on the package like that.
Mr. BALL - Mr. Frazier, we have here this Exhibit No. 364 which is a sack and in that we have put a dismantled gun. Don't pay any attention to that. Will you stand up here and put this under your arm and then take a hold of it at the side?
Now, is that anywhere near similar to the way that Oswald carried the package?
Mr. FRAZIER - Well, you know, like I said now, I said I didn't pay much attention--
If indeed it was relatively light curtain rods, wouldn't anyone else just keep the package on their person till Frazier came out?
Another one of those crappy "Oswald didn't do what I would have done, so he must be guilty" arguments.
instead of hiding the evidence as quickly as possible!
What makes you think Oswald did that?
Btw, isn't it just too bad that, on Friday evening, Frazier was shown the bag found at the TSBD and instantly denied it was the bag he had seen Oswald carry that morning?
-
Isn't it just too bad that, on Friday evening, Frazier was shown the bag found at the TSBD and instantly denied it was the bag he had seen Oswald carry that morning?
See my previous post.
Maybe Frazier, Lee-Enfield rifle owner that he was, intuited right away that morning that there was probably a broken-down rifle in the package.
If so, since he didn't tell any of his bosses at the TSBD about his suspicion when they arrived, he surely wouldn't want to fess up to it now.
D'oh
-
Btw, isn't it just too bad that, on Friday evening, Frazier was shown the bag found at the TSBD and instantly denied it was the bag he had seen Oswald carry that morning?
What, the bag found with Oswald's prints? Hahahaha!
JohnM
-
What, the bag found with Oswald's prints? Hahahaha!
JohnM
This is what happens when somebody doesn't know the evidence.
-
This is what happens when somebody doesn't know the evidence.
Oswald's prints on the bag.
(https://i.postimg.cc/tgtbNQtS/Oswaldsprintsonthebag.jpg)
Oswald's rifle was an exact fit for Oswald's rifle bag.
(https://i.postimg.cc/CK6NtdNz/Oswalds-Rifle-Paper-Bag.jpg)
Care to try again!
JohnM
-
Was it ever established when Oswald actually made the bag?
I was always under the impression that the bag would have to be made at the wrapping table because the tape that was used had to be wet and this would be done through a little machine at the wrapping table. Troy West was the wrapping guy, it was basically his thing, he got help now and then when times were busy but he was the full-time mail wrapper:
Mr. Belin.
If I wanted to use any of that tape, you know that tape that you use to seal it, is there a way to make tape wet so I don't have to lick it myself with my tongue to make it wet and sticky? Or how did you get it to be sticky and stick together?
Mr. West.
Well, we have those machines with the little round ball that we fill them up with water, and so we set them up. In to other words, I got a rack that we set them in, and so we put out tape in a machine, and whenever we pull the tape through, why then the water gets, you know, it gets water on it as we pull it through.
Mr. Belin.
If I wanted to pull the tape, pull off a piece without getting water on it, would I just lift it up without going over the wet roller and get the tape without getting it wet?
Mr. West.
You would have to take it out. You would have to take it out of the machine. See, it's put on there and then run through a little clamp that holds it down, and you pull it, well, then the water, it gets water on it.
The problem with this is that West was always at his table. As soon as he walked in the building he would go straight to the wrapping table where he had everything set up:
Mr. BELIN. Did you first go to the domino room and leave your lunch or hang up your coat or anything?
Mr. WEST. No, sir. I just always go right there first. Sometime I pull my coat off and lay it over on the table and go right on.
Mr. BELIN. How long did you stay about making coffee when you got there? How long did you stay around that place when you first got there?
Mr. WEST. Well, let's see, it didn't take me too long. I mean, you know, to make the coffee. After I got it made, I went right on and went right on at my work wrapping mail.
Other than going to the toilet or washing cups, West would stay at his station through the whole day.
So, when did Oswald make the bag?
-
Oswald's prints on the bag.
(https://i.postimg.cc/tgtbNQtS/Oswaldsprintsonthebag.jpg)
Oswald's rifle was an exact fit for Oswald's rifle bag.
(https://i.postimg.cc/CK6NtdNz/Oswalds-Rifle-Paper-Bag.jpg)
Care to try again!
JohnM
Oswald's prints on the bag.
(https://i.postimg.cc/tgtbNQtS/Oswaldsprintsonthebag.jpg)
Another Rorschach test?
Oswald's rifle was an exact fit for Oswald's rifle bag.
(https://i.postimg.cc/CK6NtdNz/Oswalds-Rifle-Paper-Bag.jpg)
Too bad it's just an assumption that it is "Oswald's rifle bag" or for that matter "Oswald's rifle".
Btw, how would that broken down rifle fit between the cup of Oswald's hand and underneath his armpit?
Let me guess, Frazier never actually saw him carry the package that way, right? HAHAHAHAHAHAHA
-
Was it ever established when Oswald actually made the bag?
I was always under the impression that the bag would have to be made at the wrapping table because the tape that was used had to be wet and this would be done through a little machine at the wrapping table. Troy West was the wrapping guy, it was basically his thing, he got help now and then when times were busy but he was the full-time mail wrapper:
Mr. Belin.
If I wanted to use any of that tape, you know that tape that you use to seal it, is there a way to make tape wet so I don't have to lick it myself with my tongue to make it wet and sticky? Or how did you get it to be sticky and stick together?
Mr. West.
Well, we have those machines with the little round ball that we fill them up with water, and so we set them up. In to other words, I got a rack that we set them in, and so we put out tape in a machine, and whenever we pull the tape through, why then the water gets, you know, it gets water on it as we pull it through.
Mr. Belin.
If I wanted to pull the tape, pull off a piece without getting water on it, would I just lift it up without going over the wet roller and get the tape without getting it wet?
Mr. West.
You would have to take it out. You would have to take it out of the machine. See, it's put on there and then run through a little clamp that holds it down, and you pull it, well, then the water, it gets water on it.
The problem with this is that West was always at his table. As soon as he walked in the building he would go straight to the wrapping table where he had everything set up:
Mr. BELIN. Did you first go to the domino room and leave your lunch or hang up your coat or anything?
Mr. WEST. No, sir. I just always go right there first. Sometime I pull my coat off and lay it over on the table and go right on.
Mr. BELIN. How long did you stay about making coffee when you got there? How long did you stay around that place when you first got there?
Mr. WEST. Well, let's see, it didn't take me too long. I mean, you know, to make the coffee. After I got it made, I went right on and went right on at my work wrapping mail.
Other than going to the toilet or washing cups, West would stay at his station through the whole day.
So, when did Oswald make the bag?
Lunch break?
-
Lunch break?
The problem with that is West - it appears he never leaves his station from the moment he arrives and all through the lunch break.
I don't know how long it would take to make such a bag. I reckon it would take me ten minutes at least but I've never tried to make one so I'm guessing.
Why even make one, he had a perfectly good homemade rifle bag back at the Paine house.
Why not make it to carry a 40" assembled rifle instead of a 36" disassembled rifle. It hardly disguises the length of a rifle as Oswald actually bought a 36" rifle. It's a pity Oswald didn't get the rifle he actually bought as the bag would've been the perfect length.
Maybe there was a window of opportunity on the Thursday lunch break.
-
The problem with that is West - it appears he never leaves his station from the moment he arrives and all through the lunch break.
I don't know how long it would take to make such a bag. I reckon it would take me ten minutes at least but I've never tried to make one so I'm guessing.
Why even make one, he had a perfectly good homemade rifle bag back at the Paine house.
Why not make it to carry a 40" assembled rifle instead of a 36" disassembled rifle. It hardly disguises the length of a rifle as Oswald actually bought a 36" rifle. It's a pity Oswald didn't get the rifle he actually bought as the bag would've been the perfect length.
Maybe there was a window of opportunity on the Thursday lunch break.
What makes you think West stayed at his station during lunch breaks?
Also, LHO could have pretended to be wrapping some books at the other end of the table (helping West) and made the bag right under his nose when West wasn’t paying close attention to exactly what LHO was actually doing. Who knows? It appears that LHO found a way to sneak while making it and sneak it out of the TSBD. Not impossible in my opinion.
Why even make one, he had a perfectly good homemade rifle bag back at the Paine house.
My guess is that LHO had noticed the curtain rods that the Paines had stored in the garage that were stored in a similar looking brown bag. The idea for the curtain rods lie and for making a bag out of TSBD wrapping paper could have developed from his having noticed the ones that the Paines already had stored in the garage.
Why not make it to carry a 40" assembled rifle instead of a 36" disassembled rifle.
My guess is that he remembered the length of the rifle that he ordered (from the advertisement). He might not have actually measured the length of the rifle he received. And I am not convinced that he disassembled the rifle to get it all the way inside the bag. He could have left a short section of the muzzle end of the barrel sticking out and just positioned it so it would not be easily seen. Who knows? It really doesn’t matter.
-
There is nothing he could do to that rifle to make it look like curtain rods.
Mr. CADIGAN (FBI). "There were no marks on this bag that I could say were caused by that rifle or any other rifle or any other given instrument."
-
The problem with that is West - it appears he never leaves his station from the moment he arrives and all through the lunch break.
I don't know how long it would take to make such a bag. I reckon it would take me ten minutes at least but I've never tried to make one so I'm guessing.
Why even make one, he had a perfectly good homemade rifle bag back at the Paine house.
Why not make it to carry a 40" assembled rifle instead of a 36" disassembled rifle. It hardly disguises the length of a rifle as Oswald actually bought a 36" rifle. It's a pity Oswald didn't get the rifle he actually bought as the bag would've been the perfect length.
Maybe there was a window of opportunity on the Thursday lunch break.
Presumably he left at the end of the day and went home. He did not literally "never leave" his station. My recollection is that he was mostly asked about 11.22 not the days preceding the assassination. Do we even know if he went to work on those days leading up to the assassination? Regardless, Oswald could have made the bag on any day from the first day he started at the TSBD. He didn't necessarily make it that week - although I think that is most likely. His prints are on the bag. It is connected to him. It was found next to the SN boxes with his prints on the same floor as his rifle.
-
Presumably he left at the end of the day and went home. He did not literally "never leave" his station. My recollection is that he was mostly asked about 11.22 not the days preceding the assassination. Do we even know if he went to work on those days leading up to the assassination? Regardless, Oswald could have made the bag on any day from the first day he started at the TSBD. He didn't necessarily make it that week - although I think that is most likely. His prints are on the bag. It is connected to him. It was found next to the SN boxes with his prints on the same floor as his rifle.
Roy Lewis, one of the manual workers at the TSBD: "We had order pickers and packers. Order pickers would get their assignment orders, take a clipboard, go up on the floors to pick their orders then bring them back down....The packers would then pack them, wrap them, and ship them out. Occasionally the packers would go up to the upper floors if they had a mistake or if they couldn't find us, in which case they would go up and straighten it out themselves.
Mr. BELIN - Are you the only one that wraps the books for mailing, or wraps them up for mailing?
Mr. WEST - Well, no, sir; I am not the only one, but mine is that way just every day.
So Oswald took the paper from another machine/packer? Who had left the machine to check on an order. I would suggest that sometimes West had to check an order and left. He said he never did but is that possible?
-
Roy Lewis, one of the manual workers at the TSBD: "We had order pickers and packers. Order pickers would get their assignment orders, take a clipboard, go up on the floors to pick their orders then bring them back down....The packers would then pack them, wrap them, and ship them out. Occasionally the packers would go up to the upper floors if they had a mistake or if they couldn't find us, in which case they would go up and straighten it out themselves.
Mr. BELIN - Are you the only one that wraps the books for mailing, or wraps them up for mailing?
Mr. WEST - Well, no, sir; I am not the only one, but mine is that way just every day.
So Oswald took the paper from another machine/packer? Who had left the machine to check on an order. I would suggest that sometimes West had to check an order and left. He said he never did but is that possible?
Yes, there would have been opportunities including days West might have taken off from work for Oswald to obtain the materials to make the bag. The literal interpretation that he never left his station is not realistic to preclude Oswald from having done so. My recollection is that West wasn't have asked if he was at work on Mon-Thursday that week but I haven't read his testimony in a long while. Most of the questions were about 11.22. Maybe there is some type of payroll sheet for that week which would confirm his presence on those days?
-
What makes you think West stayed at his station during lunch breaks?
Also, LHO could have pretended to be wrapping some books at the other end of the table (helping West) and made the bag right under his nose when West wasn’t paying close attention to exactly what LHO was actually doing. Who knows? It appears that LHO found a way to sneak while making it and sneak it out of the TSBD. Not impossible in my opinion.
Why even make one, he had a perfectly good homemade rifle bag back at the Paine house.
My guess is that LHO had noticed the curtain rods that the Paines had stored in the garage that were stored in a similar looking brown bag. The idea for the curtain rods lie and for making a bag out of TSBD wrapping paper could have developed from his having noticed the ones that the Paines already had stored in the garage.
Why not make it to carry a 40" assembled rifle instead of a 36" disassembled rifle.
My guess is that he remembered the length of the rifle that he ordered (from the advertisement). He might not have actually measured the length of the rifle he received. And I am not convinced that he disassembled the rifle to get it all the way inside the bag. He could have left a short section of the muzzle end of the barrel sticking out and just positioned it so it would not be easily seen. Who knows? It really doesn’t matter.
LHO could have pretended to be wrapping some books
Could have?
It appears that LHO found a way to sneak while making it and sneak it out of the TSBD.
Appears? Based on what?
Not impossible in my opinion.
Your opinion?
My guess is that LHO had noticed the curtain rods that the Paines had stored in the garage
Your guess?
The idea for the curtain rods lie and for making a bag out of TSBD wrapping paper could have developed from his having noticed the ones that the Paines already had stored in the garage.
Could have developed?
My guess is that he remembered the length of the rifle that he ordered
Your guess?
He could have left a short section of the muzzle end of the barrel sticking out and just positioned it so it would not be easily seen.
Could have?
You haven't thought this through. Oswals leaves the muzzle end of the barrel sticking out, puts the package on Frazier's backseat and when Frazier looks at the package and asks him about it, he just says "curtain rods".
Really?
-
LHO could have pretended to be wrapping some books
Could have?
It appears that LHO found a way to sneak while making it and sneak it out of the TSBD.
Appears? Based on what?
Not impossible in my opinion.
Your opinion?
My guess is that LHO had noticed the curtain rods that the Paines had stored in the garage
Your guess?
The idea for the curtain rods lie and for making a bag out of TSBD wrapping paper could have developed from his having noticed the ones that the Paines already had stored in the garage.
Could have developed?
My guess is that he remembered the length of the rifle that he ordered
Your guess?
He could have left a short section of the muzzle end of the barrel sticking out and just positioned it so it would not be easily seen.
Could have?
You haven't thought this through. Oswals leaves the muzzle end of the barrel sticking out, puts the package on Frazier's backseat and when Frazier looks at the package and asks him about it, he just says "curtain rods".
Really?
Yes really. These are only my opinions on possibilities. You are not required to agree.
Set the package on the back seat so that the end of the barrel is away from Frazier and towards the seat back and not obvious from Frazier’s point of view. Then hurry in to the TSBD with it (well ahead of Frazier) with the end of the barrel in front of him so that Frazier cannot see the end of the barrel. Or perhaps he had something else to cover that small section. It really doesn’t matter how he did it. Taking the gun apart is one possibility, I am just not convinced that he actually did that. That’s all. You are free to disagree.
-
Yes really. These are only my opinions on possibilities. You are not required to agree.
Set the package on the back seat so that the end of the barrel is away from Frazier and towards the seat back and not obvious from Frazier’s point of view. Then hurry in to the TSBD with it (well ahead of Frazier) with the end of the barrel in front of him so that Frazier cannot see the end of the barrel. Or perhaps he had something else to cover that small section. It really doesn’t matter how he did it. Taking the gun apart is one possibility, I am just not convinced that he actually did that. That’s all. You are free to disagree.
Isn't it nice that you can make up your own story?
-
Isn't it nice that you can make up your own story?
All I am saying is there are other possibilities. Anyone who thinks that LHO had to have taken the rifle apart just hasn’t thought about the other possibilities. I am not saying that I know exactly how he did these things. I am only pointing out some other possibilities.
-
All I am saying is there are other possibilities. Anyone who thinks that LHO had to have taken the rifle apart just hasn’t thought about the other possibilities. I am not saying that I know exactly how he did these things. I am only pointing out some other possibilities.
You are assuming his guilt in order to imagine these possibilities.
-
Proof comes from corroboration of conclusive evidence. The rifle on the floor is not proof that he brought it in.
No matter how much the nutters would like that to be true, it is only proof of a rifle on the floor. By itself, that's it.
There are only about 4-6 things that can be conclusive evidence of the bag belonging to Oswald. Yet, no two corroborate.
Forget about proof
There is absolutely NO EVIDENCE, Lee went anywhere near the shipping room for paper or tape.
There is absolutely NO EVIDENCE, he took a break from his work to make the bag.
There is absolutely NO EVIDENCE, he carried the bag home on his person Thursday afternoon.
Witness observations
Frazier saw a package carried in, from the palm of his hand to his armpit. Unless Lee was carrying in the smallest
portion of the rifle (trigger housing) he otherwise was NOT carrying the gun. This cannot be assumed.
His sister Linne Mae described a package, that was not consistent with what was found, and was not carried in a
manner that would support the 8 pounds of rifle, as well has having left no fingerprints by the way he carried it.
Both witnesses were retained at FBI and told to make the bag they saw. Frazier said he and Linne spent 2 1/2 hours
making bags for the FBI - All were rejected. Why? Too small.
Other witnesses are the cops that were supposed to have found the bag. The first 11 officers never saw it.
And the first four told the Commission there was no bag when they arrive 20 MINUTES after the shooting.
The only known picture of the bag are dotted lines near a box in the snipers nest.
Evidence appears to conclude, what Frazier and Linne Mae saw, was not the same bag allegedly found upstairs.
Fingerprints on the bag
Prints on the bag are garbage. The pictures Mytton keeps trolling out don't mean anything if you can't see the print.
A mosh of indistinguishable marks on a gray or black background having been left for the record, can only be intentional.
One officer said, they are a portion of the right hand palm, and the left hand index finger. They are not together.
The other officer (Studebaker) said they were nothing more than a smudge. Cherry picking is not conclusive evidence.
The bag didn't go to Washington that weekend, and was probably brought into interrogations and Lee touched it.
Prints are scant. Push something away from you on a table, what portion of your right hand did you use?
If he made the bag he could have had work gloves, cardboard all day can dry out your hands. But there were no gloves when
he carried the bag that morning. Where are all the prints from all the handling of the bag until he allegedly discarded it in the nest?
Markings on the bag
Mr. EISENBERG. Now, was there an absence of markings which would be inconsistent with the rifle having been carried in the bag?
Mr. CADIGAN. (FBI) "No; I don't see actually, I don't know the condition of the rifle. If it were in fact contained in this bag,
it could have been wrapped in cloth or just the metal parts wrapped in a thick layer of cloth, or if the gun was in the bag,
perhaps it wasn't moved too much. I did observe some scratch marks and abrasions but was unable to associate them with this gun.
The scratch marks in the paper could come from any place. They could have come from many places. There were no marks on this bag that
I could say were caused by that rifle or any other rifle or any other given instrument."
Not only that a well oiled rifle with exposed oil parts would leave a residue in the bag that would not evaporate or dissipate.
Fibers in the bag
Although fibers were found in the mouth of the bag they were possible but not consistent as a match with fibers on the blanket.
An officer is seen with his hand and and suit jacket up into the bag as he shows it to photographers. A picture of the bag in evidence
shows the mouth unfolded down against the blanket. Therefore, any fibers are not conclusive evidence that the rifle was ever in the container.
Building the rifle
At some point on Friday morning, Lee is supposed to have taken a break to assemble the rifle. There was no tool left and no evidence of
any instrument having been packed to do this. The Commission had a witness do it with a dime, but I don't believe he hit all the screws
One in particular, right at the trigger would be extremely difficult if not impossible. Anybody would bring the screwdriver knowing he'd have
to re assemble the gun. Regardless, there is NO EVIDENCE of any tool that was used.
There is no reason to believe that rife was ever broken down and put into that bag. What else is there?
-
Placing a small brown lunch bag over the exposed end of the barrel seems to me to be a very easy solution. The little brown lunch bag would not look out of place if left most anywhere in the TSBD. This would be much easier to do than taking the rifle apart and re-assembling it. Just a possibility that comes to mind.
-
Yes really. These are only my opinions on possibilities. You are not required to agree.
Set the package on the back seat so that the end of the barrel is away from Frazier and towards the seat back and not obvious from Frazier’s point of view. Then hurry in to the TSBD with it (well ahead of Frazier) with the end of the barrel in front of him so that Frazier cannot see the end of the barrel. Or perhaps he had something else to cover that small section. It really doesn’t matter how he did it. Taking the gun apart is one possibility, I am just not convinced that he actually did that. That’s all. You are free to disagree.
You are being taken down the contrarian rabbit hole by our resident CTers. The bag exists. It has Oswald's prints on it. It was left next to the SN (where Oswald also left his prints). It had no apparent work-related purpose for being there. No other employee in the TSBD ever indicated that the bag belonged to them or otherwise explained its presence. Oswald carried a long bag that morning that no one ever accounted for in any way other than the bag left on the 6th floor. Based on those facts, no one has to confirm beyond all doubt how and when Oswald constructed the bag to conclude that the bag found on the 6th floor was the same one he carried that morning and that it contained his rifle.
-
Proof comes from corroboration of conclusive evidence. The rifle on the floor is not proof that he brought it in.
No matter how much the nutters would like that to be true, it is only proof of a rifle on the floor. By itself, that's it.
There are only about 4-6 things that can be conclusive evidence of the bag belonging to Oswald. Yet, no two corroborate.
Forget about proof
There is absolutely NO EVIDENCE, Lee went anywhere near the shipping room for paper or tape.
There is absolutely NO EVIDENCE, he took a break from his work to make the bag.
There is absolutely NO EVIDENCE, he carried the bag home on his person Thursday afternoon.
Witness observations
Frazier saw a package carried in, from the palm of his hand to his armpit. Unless Lee was carrying in the smallest
portion of the rifle (trigger housing) he otherwise was NOT carrying the gun. This cannot be assumed.
His sister Linne Mae described a package, that was not consistent with what was found, and was not carried in a
manner that would support the 8 pounds of rifle, as well has having left no fingerprints by the way he carried it.
Both witnesses were retained at FBI and told to make the bag they saw. Frazier said he and Linne spent 2 1/2 hours
making bags for the FBI - All were rejected. Why? Too small.
Other witnesses are the cops that were supposed to have found the bag. The first 11 officers never saw it.
And the first four told the Commission there was no bag when they arrive 20 MINUTES after the shooting.
The only known picture of the bag are dotted lines near a box in the snipers nest.
Evidence appears to conclude, what Frazier and Linne Mae saw, was not the same bag allegedly found upstairs.
Fingerprints on the bag
Prints on the bag are garbage. The pictures Mytton keeps trolling out don't mean anything if you can't see the print.
A mosh of indistinguishable marks on a gray or black background having been left for the record, can only be intentional.
One officer said, they are two portions of the right hand a partial palm and thumb. They are not together. The other
officer (Studebaker) said they were nothing more than a smudge. Cherry picking is not conclusive evidence.
The bag didn't go to Washington that weekend, and was probably brought into interrogations and Lee touched it.
Prints are scant. Push something away from you on a table, what portion of your right hand did you use?
If he made the bag he could have had work gloves, cardboard all day can dry out your hands. But there were no gloves when
he carried the bag that morning. Where are all the prints from all the handling of the bag until he allegedly discarded it in the nest?
Markings on the bag
Mr. EISENBERG. Now, was there an absence of markings which would be inconsistent with the rifle having been carried in the bag?
Mr. CADIGAN. (FBI) "No; I don't see actually, I don't know the condition of the rifle. If it were in fact contained in this bag,
it could have been wrapped in cloth or just the metal parts wrapped in a thick layer of cloth, or if the gun was in the bag,
perhaps it wasn't moved too much. I did observe some scratch marks and abrasions but was unable to associate them with this gun.
The scratch marks in the paper could come from any place. They could have come from many places. There were no marks on this bag that
I could say were caused by that rifle or any other rifle or any other given instrument."
Not only that a well oiled rifle with exposed oil parts would leave a residue in the bag that would not evaporate or dissipate.
Fibers in the bag
Although fibers were found in the mouth of the bag they were possible but not consistent as a match with fibers on the blanket.
An officer is seen with his hand and and suit jacket up into the bag as he shows it to photographers. A picture of the bag in evidence
shows the mouth unfolded down against the blanket. Therefore, any fibers are not conclusive evidence that the rifle was ever in the container.
Building the rifle
At some point on Friday morning, Lee is supposed to have taken a break to assemble the rifle. There was no tool left and no evidence of
any instrument having been packed to do this. The Commission had a witness do it with a dime, but I don't believe he hit all the screws
One in particular, right at the trigger would be extremely difficult if not impossible. Anybody would bring the screwdriver knowing he'd have
to re assemble the gun. Regardless, there is NO EVIDENCE of any tool that was used.
There is no reason to believe that rife was ever broken down and put into that bag. What else is there?
The prints match with Linnie May’s description of how LHO carried the bag, and the rifle did not have to be broken down to be carried in the bag without being seen.
-
All I am saying is there are other possibilities. Anyone who thinks that LHO had to have taken the rifle apart just hasn’t thought about the other possibilities. I am not saying that I know exactly how he did these things. I am only pointing out some other possibilities.
Yeah, that was obvious. Let me give you another possibility.
Oswald went to Irving on Thursday to make up with his wife and there was no rifle in Ruth Paine's garage.
That's all I need to eliminate all your assumptions
-
You are being taken down the contrarian rabbit hole by our resident CTers. The bag exists. It has Oswald's prints on it. It was left next to the SN (where Oswald also left his prints). It had no apparent work-related purpose for being there. No other employee in the TSBD ever indicated that the bag belonged to them or otherwise explained its presence. Oswald carried a long bag that morning that no one ever accounted for in any way other than the bag left on the 6th floor. Based on those facts, no one has to confirm beyond all doubt how and when Oswald constructed the bag to conclude that the bag found on the 6th floor was the same one he carried that morning and that it contained his rifle.
I agree with everything you said. Reasonable inferences from the totality of the evidence tell us what happened. Discussing the possibilities for all the little details (that will never be known with any certainty) is about all there is left.
-
Yeah, that was obvious. Let me give you another possibility.
Oswald went to Irving on Thursday to make up with his wife and there was no rifle in Ruth Paine's garage.
That's all I need to eliminate all your assumptions
Isn’t it nice that you can make up your own story?
-
Isn’t it nice that you can make up your own story?
Of course, but, unlike you, I would never claim that my story (= assumptions) are "Reasonable inferences from the totality of the evidence" that "tell us what happened".
-
Of course, but, unlike you, I would never claim that my story (= assumptions) are "Reasonable inferences from the totality of the evidence" that "tell us what happened".
The little details that will never be known with any certainty are not a part of what the inferences from the totality of the evidence tell us. I was just making a point that there are some alternate possibilities to taking the rifle apart and re-assembling it. That’s all.
-
I agree with everything you said. Reasonable inferences from the totality of the evidence tell us what happened. Discussing the possibilities for all the little details (that will never be known with any certainty) is about all there is left.
CTers try to frame the evidence in this case as to have a similar effect as looking into the wrong end of telescope. Just because we do not have a time machine that allows us to witness Oswald obtaining the materials and constructing the bag, that does not negate the bags existence, its connection to Oswald, its presence on the 6th floor next to the SN, and the obvious conclusions that can be drawn from this evidence.
-
The prints match with Linnie May’s description of how LHO carried the bag...
How do u prove that?
...the rifle did not have to be broken down to be carried in the bag without being seen.
Really? Rifle is 40 inches long - how long is the bag?
Mr. BALL - When you cupped the bottom of your package in the hands, will you stand up, again, please,
and the upper part of the package is not under the armpit, the top of the package extends almost up to the level of your ear.
Mr. FRAZIER - Right
-
CTers try to frame the evidence in this case as to have a similar effect as looking into the wrong end of telescope. Just because we do not have a time machine that allows us to witness Oswald obtaining the materials and constructing the bag, that does not negate the bags existence, its connection to Oswald, its presence on the 6th floor next to the SN, and the obvious conclusions that can be drawn from this evidence.
It's a shame you can't put two things together to prove that.
-
CTers try to frame the evidence in this case as to have a similar effect as looking into the wrong end of telescope. Just because we do not have a time machine that allows us to witness Oswald obtaining the materials and constructing the bag, that does not negate the bags existence, its connection to Oswald, its presence on the 6th floor next to the SN, and the obvious conclusions that can be drawn from this evidence.
I can't think of any event, any other constroversial incident where we try and reconstruct what happened, where these types of demands are made. At least in good faith. We don't have these standards in a court of law. Historians don't use them. If we did then we'd have to empty our prisons and our libraries.
Meanwhile, every bizarre conspiracy claim in the world - the films were altered, the evidence planted, Oswald impersonated - is thrown out without the slightest examination.
These people are making me root for that asteroid.
-
The little details that will never be known with any certainty are not a part of what the inferences from the totality of the evidence tell us. I was just making a point that there are some alternate possibilities to taking the rifle apart and re-assembling it. That’s all.
Yeah, but calling the inferences from the totality of the evidence "reasonable" is in fact not reasonable at all, as there is not a shred of evidence that there was a rifle in Ruth Paine's garage on 11/21/63.
All we really know is that Marina said she saw a rifle about a week after her return from New Orleans, which means that nobody saw that rifle for nearly two months before the assassination.
As for the paper bag, all we know is that an FBI expert said there were two prints belonging to Oswald on the bag, which, if you think about it, is by itself already strange, because he is supposed to have made the bag and have taken it to Irving.
His prints should have been all over that bag. Add to this that Frazier was shown the TSBD bag on Friday evening and instantly denied it was the bag he had seen.
What kind of "reasonable inference" can you make from that "evidence"?
-
It's a shame you can't put two things together to prove that.
This is some type of incomplete sentence fragment. What are you taking issue with? The bag exists. It had Oswald's prints on it. It was found next to the SN which also had Oswald's prints. No other person in the TSBD ever explained a work-related purpose for that homemade bag to be left next to the SN or otherwise claimed ownership of it. Oswald carried a long bag to work that morning. No such bag other than the one found with his prints on it was ever found in the TSBD. Oswald's rifle was left on the same floor. Oswald lied about carrying any long bag and instead said he had his lunch. Why lie if it contained curtain rods or anything other than the rifle? And on and on. The totality of facts and circumstances lends itself to the conclusion that Oswald carried this bag that morning and that it contained his rifle.
-
It had Oswald's prints on it.
but not consistent with how he carried the bag.
It was found next to the SN which also had Oswald's prints.
No photo of it where it was actually found
It was found next to the SN which also had Oswald's prints.
Oswald's prints are expected on boxes - he picks orders all day
No other person in the TSBD ever explained a work-related purpose for that homemade bag to be left next to the SN or otherwise claimed ownership of it.
I'm not aware of any TSBD employee that saw the bag.
No such bag other than the one found with his prints on it was ever found in the TSBD.
Still, not proof this was the bag Frazier saw
Oswald's rifle was left on the same floor.
a rifle was left on the floor
Oswald lied about carrying any long bag and instead said he had his lunch.
Assumption that cannot be confirmed based on incomplete interrogation notes.
Why lie if it contained curtain rods or anything other than the rifle?
I don't know. Those are the stories you like to make up.
The totality of facts and circumstances lends itself to the conclusion that Oswald carried this bag that morning and that it contained his rifle.
Actually it lends itself to the conclusion that, the evidence against Lee Harvey Oswald is broken and inconsistent.
-
How do u prove that?
Really? Rifle is 40 inches long - how long is the bag?
Mr. BALL - When you cupped the bottom of your package in the hands, will you stand up, again, please,
and the upper part of the package is not under the armpit, the top of the package extends almost up to the level of your ear.
Mr. FRAZIER - Right
How do u prove that?
Linnie's description of how LHO was held the bag and location of prints on the bag.
Mr. BALL.. What was he carrying?
Mrs. RANDLE. He was carrying a package in a sort of a heavy brown bag, heavier than a grocery bag it looked to me. It was about, if I might measure, about this long, I suppose, and he carried it in his right hand, had the top sort of folded down and had a grip like this, and the bottom, he carried it this way, you know, and it almost touched the ground as he carried it.
Mr. BALL. Let me see. He carried it in his right hand, did he?
Mrs. RANDLE. That is right.
Mr. BALL. And where was his hand gripping the middle of the package?
Mrs. RANDLE. No, sir; the top with just a little bit sticking up. You know just like you grab something like that.
Mr. BALL. And he was grabbing it with his right hand at the top of the package and the package almost touched the ground?
Mrs. RANDLE. Yes, sir.
Really? Rifle is 40 inches long - how long is the bag?
Tony and Colin had that right.
38" bag and 4" flap. Left open at the bottom. The rifle does not need to be disassembled.
-
38" bag and 4" flap. Left open at the bottom. The rifle does not need to be disassembled.
Tony Fratini: The size of the taped flap at one end was approximately 3 inches, meaning the paper was initially long enough (41 inches)
to completely conceal a fully assembled CE 139 with the scope. - Tony's thread is at JFK Boards: https://jfk.boards.net/post/153/thread
Just as it was on this forum 7 years ago. Some of the pictures have fallen down, bit it is still an excellent reference.
The problem is Frazier saw a bag tucked under the arm. The two men had to walk from the auxiliary lot to the building
Frazier said at one point, Lee was about 50 feet ahead of him. How does one carry a 41 inch package (I assume is what you mean)
with a bit of pipe sticking out the top? >>>and have it tucked under his arm.
He didn't pay attention to the bag? blah blah blah?
Frazier: "Well, I will be frank with you, I didn't pay much attention to the package because like I say before and after he told me
that it was curtain rods and I didn't pay any attention to it, and he never had lied to me before so I never did have any reason to doubt his word."
...because the size of the package he saw did NOT rise above the shoulder, and gave him no reason to think of anything otherwise.
How about the figure of a soldier carrying what obviously would have looked like a rifle. In the palm of his hand, it would be rested on his shoulder and up to his ear.
-
Oswald's rifle was an exact fit for Oswald's rifle bag.
(https://i.postimg.cc/CK6NtdNz/Oswalds-Rifle-Paper-Bag.jpg)
Too bad it's just an assumption that it is "Oswald's rifle bag" or for that matter "Oswald's rifle".
Btw, how would that broken down rifle fit between the cup of Oswald's hand and underneath his armpit?
Let me guess, Frazier never actually saw him carry the package that way, right? HAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Let me get this straight, are you trying to say that the rifle bag which was found in the sniper's nest with Oswald's prints and was an exact fit for Oswald's rifle is somehow not connected with this crime? Really?
This is yet another example of what any sane person would consider to be "Conclusive Evidence" being waved away without even the flimsiest of excuses.
I keep presenting powerfully incriminating evidence and surely even you must realize that at some point, trying to explain this MOUNTAIN of individual pieces of evidence with an alleged unseen unknown conspiratorial source can only lead to a MASSIVE conspiracy that is not only untenable but laughable!
Btw, how would that broken down rifle fit between the cup of Oswald's hand and underneath his armpit?
Let me guess, Frazier never actually saw him carry the package that way, right? HAHAHAHAHAHAHA
• For a start who carries their lunch under their armpit? Because you know, Ewwwww!
• And secondly, there was no curtain rods ever reportedly found within the Depository.
• And thirdly, for the first time ever on that particular morning Oswald walked ahead up to 50 feet away, I wonder why?
Mr. BALL - Did you usually walk up there together.
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir; we did.
Mr. BALL - Is this the first time that he had ever walked ahead of you?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir; he did.
• And finally Frazier says repeatedly that he never payed attention to the bag.
Mr. BALL - All right.
When you got in the car did you say anything to him or did he say anything to you?
Mr. FRAZIER - Let's see, when I got in the car I have a kind of habit of glancing over my shoulder and so at that time I noticed there was a package laying on the back seat, I didn't pay too much attention and I said, "What's the package, Lee?"
And he said, "Curtain rods," and I said, "Oh, yes, you told me you was going to bring some today."
That is the reason, the main reason he was going over there that Thursday afternoon when he was to bring back some curtain rods, so I didn't think any more about it when he told me that.
Mr. BALL - Did it look to you as if there was something heavy in the package?
Mr. FRAZIER - Well, I will be frank with you, I didn't pay much attention to the package because like I say before and after he told me that it was curtain rods and I didn't pay any attention to it, and he never had lied to me before so I never did have any reason to doubt his word.
Mr. BALL - Well, from the way he carried it, the way he walked, did it appear he was carrying something that had more than the weight of a paper?
Mr. FRAZIER - Well, I say, you know like I say, I didn't pay much attention to the package other than I knew he had it under his arm and I didn't pay too much attention the way he was walking because I was walking along there looking at the railroad cars and watching the men on the diesel switch them cars and I didn't pay too much attention on how he carried the package at all.
Mr. BALL - You will notice that this bag which is the colored bag, FBI Exhibit No. 10, is folded over. Was it folded over when you saw it the first time, folded over to the end?
Mr. FRAZIER - I will say I am not sure about that, whether it was folded over or not, because, like I say, I didn't pay that much attention to it.
Mr. BALL - But are you sure that his hand was at the end of the package or at the side of the package?
Mr. FRAZIER - Like I said, I remember I didn't look at the package very much, paying much attention, but when I did look at it he did have his hands on the package like that.
Mr. BALL - Mr. Frazier, we have here this Exhibit No. 364 which is a sack and in that we have put a dismantled gun. Don't pay any attention to that. Will you stand up here and put this under your arm and then take a hold of it at the side?
Now, is that anywhere near similar to the way that Oswald carried the package?
Mr. FRAZIER - Well, you know, like I said now, I said I didn't pay much attention--
JohnM
-
How do u prove that?
Linnie's description of how LHO was held the bag and location of prints on the bag.
Mr. BALL.. What was he carrying?
Mrs. RANDLE. He was carrying a package in a sort of a heavy brown bag, heavier than a grocery bag it looked to me. It was about, if I might measure, about this long, I suppose, and he carried it in his right hand, had the top sort of folded down and had a grip like this, and the bottom, he carried it this way, you know, and it almost touched the ground as he carried it.
Mr. BALL. Let me see. He carried it in his right hand, did he?
Mrs. RANDLE. That is right.
Mr. BALL. And where was his hand gripping the middle of the package?
Mrs. RANDLE. No, sir; the top with just a little bit sticking up. You know just like you grab something like that.
Mr. BALL. And he was grabbing it with his right hand at the top of the package and the package almost touched the ground?
Mrs. RANDLE. Yes, sir.
The prints are on two different long sides of the bag. Here's Tony again;
(https://preview.ibb.co/mmL2Gw/Slide58.gif)
How do you know that was where he carried it? - 41 inches would drag on the ground - and are not near the same edge.
What makes you think the bag could hold an 8lb rifle with no bottom support?
-
Let me get this straight, are you trying to say that the rifle bag which was found in the sniper's nest with Oswald's prints and was an exact fit for Oswald's rifle is somehow not connected with this crime? Really?
This is yet another example of what any sane person would consider to be "Conclusive Evidence" being waved away without even the flimsiest of excuses.
I keep presenting powerfully incriminating evidence and surely even you must realize that at some point, trying to explain this MOUNTAIN of individual pieces of evidence with an alleged unseen unknown conspiratorial source can only lead to a MASSIVE conspiracy that is not only untenable but laughable!
• For a start who carries their lunch under their armpit? Because you know, Ewwwww!
• And secondly, there was no curtain rods ever reportedly found within the Depository.
• And thirdly, for the first time ever on that particular morning Oswald walked ahead up to 50 feet away, I wonder why?
Mr. BALL - Did you usually walk up there together.
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir; we did.
Mr. BALL - Is this the first time that he had ever walked ahead of you?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir; he did.
• And finally Frazier says repeatedly that he never payed attention to the bag.
Mr. BALL - All right.
When you got in the car did you say anything to him or did he say anything to you?
Mr. FRAZIER - Let's see, when I got in the car I have a kind of habit of glancing over my shoulder and so at that time I noticed there was a package laying on the back seat, I didn't pay too much attention and I said, "What's the package, Lee?"
And he said, "Curtain rods," and I said, "Oh, yes, you told me you was going to bring some today."
That is the reason, the main reason he was going over there that Thursday afternoon when he was to bring back some curtain rods, so I didn't think any more about it when he told me that.
Mr. BALL - Did it look to you as if there was something heavy in the package?
Mr. FRAZIER - Well, I will be frank with you, I didn't pay much attention to the package because like I say before and after he told me that it was curtain rods and I didn't pay any attention to it, and he never had lied to me before so I never did have any reason to doubt his word.
Mr. BALL - Well, from the way he carried it, the way he walked, did it appear he was carrying something that had more than the weight of a paper?
Mr. FRAZIER - Well, I say, you know like I say, I didn't pay much attention to the package other than I knew he had it under his arm and I didn't pay too much attention the way he was walking because I was walking along there looking at the railroad cars and watching the men on the diesel switch them cars and I didn't pay too much attention on how he carried the package at all.
Mr. BALL - You will notice that this bag which is the colored bag, FBI Exhibit No. 10, is folded over. Was it folded over when you saw it the first time, folded over to the end?
Mr. FRAZIER - I will say I am not sure about that, whether it was folded over or not, because, like I say, I didn't pay that much attention to it.
Mr. BALL - But are you sure that his hand was at the end of the package or at the side of the package?
Mr. FRAZIER - Like I said, I remember I didn't look at the package very much, paying much attention, but when I did look at it he did have his hands on the package like that.
Mr. BALL - Mr. Frazier, we have here this Exhibit No. 364 which is a sack and in that we have put a dismantled gun. Don't pay any attention to that. Will you stand up here and put this under your arm and then take a hold of it at the side?
Now, is that anywhere near similar to the way that Oswald carried the package?
Mr. FRAZIER - Well, you know, like I said now, I said I didn't pay much attention--
JohnM
He never said he was mistaken.
-
He never said he was mistaken.
Frazier did say that Oswald told him the package contained curtain rods yet the interrogators said that Oswald told them that the package contained his lunch, why would Oswald lie? Whenever the rifle or evidence connected to the rifle, came up, Oswald lied!
And don't give me the old excuse that the interrogations weren't recorded therefore invalid, because in at the end of the day, the CT's use these records much more than the LNers. If the interrogators wanted to paint Oswald in a really bad light they could have said Oswald admitting he owned the rifle, Oswald admitting he was in the backyard photo, ETC ETC.
JohnM
-
Presumably he left at the end of the day and went home. He did not literally "never leave" his station. My recollection is that he was mostly asked about 11.22 not the days preceding the assassination. Do we even know if he went to work on those days leading up to the assassination? Regardless, Oswald could have made the bag on any day from the first day he started at the TSBD. He didn't necessarily make it that week - although I think that is most likely. His prints are on the bag. It is connected to him. It was found next to the SN boxes with his prints on the same floor as his rifle.
We were discussing what West did during his lunch break you utter moron.
-
The prints are on two different long sides of the bag. Here's Tony again;
(https://preview.ibb.co/mmL2Gw/Slide58.gif)
How do you know that was where he carried it? - 41 inches would drag on the ground - and are not near the same edge.
What makes you think the bag could hold an 8lb rifle with no bottom support?
]The prints are on two different long sides of the bag. Here's Tony again;
Right palm print on one side, the left index finger on the other.
How do you know that was where he carried it? - 41 inches would drag on the ground - and are not near the same edge.
What makes you think the bag could hold an 8lb rifle with no bottom support?
He was not holding it by the sack.
The prints would not be on the same side. He had a hold of the rifle barrel on the top. Held the stock with the other hand with the sack somewhat angling across his body.
LHO was 5 feet 9 inches tall. The rifle was 2 inches off the ground.
-
We were discussing what West did during his lunch break
The Dallas route was published on Tuesday, so Oswald had plenty of time to plan how he was going to smuggle his rifle to work.
West got to work a "little early", and according to Givens, Oswald's routine was to get to work and read the previous days newspaper, a time span which he never says. But never the less, Oswald window of opportunity was not only limited to lunch.
Mr. BELIN - What time did you get to work?
Mr. WEST - Well, we always get to work - we are supposed to be there at 8 in the morning.
Mr. BELIN - You got there at 8 that morning?
Mr. WEST - Yes, I always, most of the time I got there a little early.
Mr. BELIN - Do you remember what time you got to work that particular morning?
Mr. WEST - It was about 10 minutes to 8. I always be 5 or 10 minutes early.
Mr. BELIN - Where did you go when you got to work?
Mr. BELIN. Did you see him reading the newspaper?
Mr. GIVENS. No; not that day. I did--he generally sit in there every morning. He would come to work and sit in there and read the paper, the next day paper, like if the day was Tuesday, he would read Monday's paper in the morning when he would come to work, but he didn't that morning because he didn't go in the domino room that morning. I didn't see him in the domino room that morning.
West also says he went and washed up at the start of his lunch break.
Mr. WEST - Well, I went in and washed my hands and face and then got ready to put my coffee on. I always made coffee at 12. Make it in the morning, and then I make it about 12, between 12 and 12:30.
Oswald had windows of opportunity to construct his bag, before, during the start of lunch and after work. All he had to do was either grab some scrap from the bin because the paper bag did look to be pretty beat up, or unroll some from the fixed roll, fold it and apply some tape, a minute or two max!
JohnM
-
Right palm print on one side, the left index finger on the other.
Both are right - How wide was his hand? - They are not even at the same level :D
He was not holding it by the sack.
I don't know what this means.
The prints would not be on the same side. He had a hold of the rifle barrel on the top. Held the stock with the other hand with the sack somewhat angling across his body.
When did she say other hand?
LHO was 5 feet 9 inches tall. The rifle was 2 inches off the ground.
You're just making it up as you go.
-
How wide was his hand? - They are not at the same level :D
I don't know what this means.
When did she say other hand?
You're just making it up as you go.
Facts;
Linnie Mae described a long brown paper bag.
Frazier described a long brown paper bag.
Oswald lied about where in Frazier's car he put the package.
Oswald lied about the contents of the bag to the Police
Oswald's prints were on the bag.
The bag was an exact fit for the rifle.
(https://i.postimg.cc/fyX6J4tY/buell-linnie-bag-est.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/CK6NtdNz/Osw-alds-Rifle-Paper-Bag.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/tgtbNQtS/Osw-aldsprintsonthebag.jpg)
JohnM
-
We were discussing what West did during his lunch break you utter moron.
LOL. Comedy gold. Your profoundly stupid point was that West "never" left his workstation questioning how Oswald could have made the bag. Of course, West left at the end of the day to go home. Anyone could have obtained the materials after he left for the day. The WC questions mostly related to 11.22. Obviously, Oswald made the bag before 11.22.
-
(https://i.postimg.cc/fyX6J4tY/buell-linnie-bag-est.jpg)
I doubt that Buell was so bad at estimating short measurements that he was trying to show us in the photo his concept of 25 or 26 inches ("two feet plus-or-minus an inch or two," iirc).
To reiterate, I think Buell intuited that morning that the package contained a rifle, and he lied about having that intuition later in order to keep from being charged as an accomplice in the murder of the President of the United States.
-
To reiterate, I think Buell intuited that morning that the package contained a rifle, and he lied about having that intuition later in order to keep from being charged as an accomplice in the murder of the President of the United States.
I suspect you are right, Linnie on the second day did say that Oswald's package was 3 feet long and as time went on her estimates of the package size got smaller, because most likely Linnie and Frazier got together and Frazier realizing that he drove the Assassin to work did his best to deny knowledge. Frazier was a simple man who had no reason to doubt Oswald because what are the chances that Oswald who he barely knew, would go full on psycho?
I think more workers than only Frazier saw Oswald with a long package but they didn't dare say anything. But one clue reinforcing this suspicion came in Dougherty's testimony;
Mr. BALL - Did you ever see Lee Oswald carry any sort of large package?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - Well, I didn't, but some of the fellows said they did.
Mr. BALL - Who said that?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - Well, Bill Shelley, he told me that he thought he saw him carrying a fairly good-sized package.
JohnM
-
I suspect you are right, Linnie on the second day did say that Oswald's package was 3 feet long and as time went on her estimates of the package size got smaller, because most likely Linnie and Frazier got together and Frazier realizing that he drove the Assassin to work did his best to deny knowledge. Frazier was a simple man who had no reason to doubt Oswald because what are the chances that Oswald who he barely knew, would go full on psycho?
I think more workers than only Frazier saw Oswald with a long package but they didn't dare say anything. But one clue reinforcing this suspicion came in Dougherty's testimony;
Mr. BALL - Did you ever see Lee Oswald carry any sort of large package?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - Well, I didn't, but some of the fellows said they did.
Mr. BALL - Who said that?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - Well, Bill Shelley, he told me that he thought he saw him carrying a fairly good-sized package.
JohnM
Good point.
Shelley had probably asked Dougherty if he'd seen LHO carrying the package.
I assume this was after the assination?
-
I doubt that Buell was so bad at estimating short measurements that he was trying to show us in the photo his concept of 25 or 26 inches ("two feet plus-or-minus an inch or two," iirc).
To reiterate, I think Buell intuited that morning that the package contained a rifle, and he lied about having that intuition later in order to keep from being charged as an accomplice in the murder of the President of the United States.
Wow. A profound insight for once that doesn't involve the KGB or Putin. I agree. BWF called his much smarter sister from the hospital after the assassination. She must have told him he was in deep spombleprofglidnoctobunse having driven the assassin and his weapon to the TSBD. Better to play Gomer Pyle dumb than acknowledge any suspicion that his passenger had a rifle shape package. So he was just a good old boy doing a good deed. He didn't notice much or suspect anything. He and Oswald didn't even discuss the JFK motorcade going by their workplace that day or hear anything on the radio despite it being the top news story that day. Just driving in the rain in silence.
-
Wow. A profound insight for once that doesn't involve the KGB or Putin. I agree. BWF called his much smarter sister from the hospital after the assassination. She must have told him he was in deep xxxx having driven the assassin and his weapon to the TSBD. Better to play Gomer Pyle dumb than acknowledge any suspicion that his passenger had a rifle shape package. So, he was just a good old boy doing a good deed. He didn't notice much or suspect anything. He and Oswald didn't even discuss the JFK motorcade going by their workplace that day or hear anything on the radio despite it being the top news story that day. Just driving in the rain in silence.
The KGB* and "former" KGB* officer Vladimir Putin took advantage of the anomaly-replete JFKA (can you say Joachim Joesten, Thomas G. Buchanan, Mark Lane, Jim Garrison and Oliver Stone?), the HIV/AIDS pandemic, and the crack cocaine epidemic, etc, to install The Traitorous Orange Xxxx (rhymes with bird) as our "President" in 2017.
*Today's SVR and FSB
-
The KGB* and "former" KGB officer Vladimir Putin took advantage of the anomaly-replete JFKA (can you say Joachim Joesten, Thomas G. Buchanan, Mark Lane, Jim Garrison and Oliver Stone?) and the AIDS epidemic, and the crack cocaine epidemic, etc, to install The Traitorous Orange Xxxx (rhymes with bird) as our "President" in 2017.
*Today's SVR and FSB
You were on the verge of wisdom but have blown it. The AIDS epidemic has something to do with Trump and Putin? “Just when I thought I was out, they pull me back in.”
-
The AIDS epidemic [and the JFKA, and the crack cocaine epidemic, etc] has something to do with Trump and Putin?
How else do you think our body politic became so paranoiac, cynical and/or apathetic over the past sixty years as to enable Putin's professional trolls at the IRA to manipulate it into either voting for The Traitorous Orange Xxxx (rhymes with bird) in 2016, or not voting at all?
PS Haven't you ever heard of Operation Infektion?
Look it up.
-
I think Buell intuited that morning that the package contained a rifle, and he lied about having that intuition later in order to keep from being charged as an accomplice in the murder of the President of the United States.
Bill Chapman !!! - Of course ! - I'd know those lines anywhere !!!
Why the disguise?
-
Bill Chapman !!! - Of course ! - I'd know those lines anywhere !!!
Why the disguise?
Why the ignorance and paranoia?
-
Both are right - How wide was his hand? - They are not even at the same level :D
I don't know what this means.
When did she say other hand?
You're just making it up as you go.
Both are right - How wide was his hand? - They are not even at the same level
No there is a right palm print and a left fingerprint.
"Sebastian F. Latona, supervisor of the FBI's Latent Fingerprint Section, identified these prints as the left index fingerprint and right palmprint of Lee Harvey Oswald."
When did she say other hand?
Mrs. RANDLE. He was carrying a package in a sort of a heavy brown bag, heavier than a grocery bag it looked to me. It was about, if I might measure, about this long, I suppose, and he carried it in his right hand, had the top sort of folded down and had a grip like this, [b]and the bottom, he carried it this way, you know[/b], and it almost touched the ground as he carried it.
I don't know what this means.
LHO was holding the rifle while still in the bag, not just by the paper bag with the rifle inside.
-
Both are right - How wide was his hand? - They are not even at the same level
No there is a right palm print and a left fingerprint.
"Sebastian F. Latona, supervisor of the FBI's Latent Fingerprint Section, identified these prints as the left index fingerprint and right palmprint of Lee Harvey Oswald."
When did she say other hand?
Mrs. RANDLE. He was carrying a package in a sort of a heavy brown bag, heavier than a grocery bag it looked to me. It was about, if I might measure, about this long, I suppose, and he carried it in his right hand, had the top sort of folded down and had a grip like this, [b]and the bottom, he carried it this way, you know[/b], and it almost touched the ground as he carried it.
I don't know what this means.
LHO was holding the rifle while still in the bag, not just by the paper bag with the rifle inside.
Thanks for the correction of both hands...but unfortunately,
"The rifle was sent to the FBI laboratory, where Sebastian Latona found that “there was nothing visible in the way of any latent prints on there” (Warren Commission Hearings, vol.4, p.3). Latona applied silver nitrate to the bag, and discovered two partial prints that were matched to records of Oswald’s prints (ibid., p.6):
a part of a right palm print (Warren Commission Hearings, vol.17, p.286 [Commission Exhibit 632]);
and a part of a left index fingerprint (ibid., p.287 [Commission Exhibit 633]).
Although the bag, or at least the paper that was used to make the bag, appears to have come into contact with Oswald’s hands at some point, the fingerprint and palm print evidence was insufficient to prove that Oswald had carried the bag in the manner described by Randle and Frazier, or that he had assembled the bag by hand."
http://22november1963.org.uk/tsbd-sixth-floor-paper-bag-genuine
-
Thanks for the correction of both hands...but unfortunately,
"The rifle was sent to the FBI laboratory, where Sebastian Latona found that “there was nothing visible in the way of any latent prints on there” (Warren Commission Hearings, vol.4, p.3). Latona applied silver nitrate to the bag, and discovered two partial prints that were matched to records of Oswald’s prints (ibid., p.6):
a part of a right palm print (Warren Commission Hearings, vol.17, p.286 [Commission Exhibit 632]);
and a part of a left index fingerprint (ibid., p.287 [Commission Exhibit 633]).
Although the bag, or at least the paper that was used to make the bag, appears to have come into contact with Oswald’s hands at some point, the fingerprint and palm print evidence was insufficient to prove that Oswald had carried the bag in the manner described by Randle and Frazier, or that he had assembled the bag by hand."
http://22november1963.org.uk/tsbd-sixth-floor-paper-bag-genuine
The bag is being held in the fashion described by Linnie Mae. The right hand grasping the barrel of the rifle. The person who wrote the article seems to think the bag was being held vertical with one hand alone. That is not what she describes and who would carry anything in that manner. The Warren Commission could have done a better job of getting her to describe how it was exactly being held. Buell having it cupped in his hand and jammed into his armpit, no matter what anyone could be carrying does not even remotely seem plausible.
Linnie Mae even gets the length right with 3 feet 6 inches.
It is like Buell is talking about a whole other bag or simply “I never paid attention” is correct.
Mr. LATONA. The palm lay in this fashion here.
Mr. EISENBERG. You are putting your right hand on the paper so that the fingers are pointing in the same direction as the arrow A?
Mr. LATONA. That's right.
Mr. EISENBERG. And it is at approximately right angles to the paper bag?
Mr. LATONA. That's right.
-
The bag is being held in the fashion described by Linnie Mae. The right hand grasping the barrel of the rifle. The person who wrote the article seems to think the bag was being held vertical with one hand alone. That is not what she describes and who would carry anything in that manner. The Warren Commission could have done a better job of getting her to describe how it was exactly being held. Buell having it cupped in his hand and jammed into his armpit, no matter what anyone could be carrying does not even remotely seem plausible.
Linnie Mae even gets the length right with 3 feet 6 inches.
It is like Buell is talking about a whole other bag or simply “I never paid attention” is correct.
Mr. LATONA. The palm lay in this fashion here.
Mr. EISENBERG. You are putting your right hand on the paper so that the fingers are pointing in the same direction as the arrow A?
Mr. LATONA. That's right.
Mr. EISENBERG. And it is at approximately right angles to the paper bag?
Mr. LATONA. That's right.
She also said 28 inches.
Cherry picking conflicting statements isn't conclusive proof of anything.
-
Let me get this straight, are you trying to say that the rifle bag which was found in the sniper's nest with Oswald's prints and was an exact fit for Oswald's rifle is somehow not connected with this crime? Really?
"rifle bag". LOL
"found in the sniper's nest". LOL
"exact fit". LOL
"Oswald's rifle". LOL
-
"rifle bag". LOL
"found in the sniper's nest". LOL
"exact fit". LOL
"Oswald's rifle". LOL
How many bad guys do you figure were involved altogether in the planning, the "patsy-ing," the shooting, and the all-important cover up, Iacoletti?
Couple hundred?
Thousands?
-
How many bad guys do you figure were involved altogether in the planning, the "patsy-ing," the shooting, and the all-important cover up, Iacoletti?
Couple hundred?
Thousands?
Stuff like this makes me wonder where the Nutters shop for bait -- smells at least 15 years old.
-
Stuff like this makes me wonder where the Nutters shop for bait -- smells at least 15 years old.
The "Deep State" / "National Security State" killed JFK, right?
-
Smells at least 15 years old.
At least!
And yet STILL no one can say!
How about you, Tom?
Oodles and gobs, right?
-
She also said 28 inches.
Cherry picking conflicting statements isn't conclusive proof of anything.
The conflicting statement is Linnie Mae's description of LHO holding the bag with her revised estimate of a 27-to-28-inch package.
A 27- or 28-inch-long bag will not work to match Linnie Mae’s description of how LHO carried the rifle. The top of the package where she described him holding it with his right hand, would be slightly above the knee to about mid-thigh with him actually holding it lower, and additionally LHO also held the package with his left hand closer to the bottom of the package. The bottom of the package also was described as being barely above the ground.
To hold the rifle as Linnie Mae described, LHO would have had to have been bent over at the waist as he walked to the vehicle. The same would be true for Buell’s description of the package being held under the armpit. The bag as estimated is simply not long enough to fit Linnie Mae’s description.
Mrs. RANDLE. He was carrying a package in a sort of a heavy brown bag, heavier than a grocery bag it looked to me. It was about, if I might measure, about this long, I suppose, and he carried it in his right hand, had the top sort of folded down and had a grip like this, and the bottom, he carried it this way, you know, and it almost touched the ground as he carried it.
Mr. BALL. I have one question, Mr. Chief Justice.
You used an expression there, that the bag appeared heavy.
Mrs. RANDLE. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. You meant that there was some weight appeared to--
Mrs. RANDLE. To the bottom.
Mr. BALL. To the bottom?
Mrs. RANDLE. Yes. It tapered like this as he hugged it in his hand. It was more bulky toward the bottom than it was this way.
Mr. BELIN. Toward the top? More bulky toward the bottom than toward the top?
Mrs. RANDLE. That is right.
-
At least!
And yet STILL no one can say!
How about you, Tom?
Oodles and gobs, right?
Say what?
-
Say what?
Is English your second language?
-
Is English your second language?
Correct. You needed something from me?
-
Correct. You needed something from me?
Yes -- I could use a good laugh!
Regarding the assassination of President John Fitzgerald Kennedy in Dallas, Texas, on November 22nd, 1963, how many bad guys do you think were involved in the planning, the "patsy-ing," the shooting, and the cover up?
Lots and lots?
-
Yes -- I could use a good laugh!
Regarding the assassination of President John Fitzgerald Kennedy in Dallas, Texas, on November 22nd, 1963, how many bad guys do you think were involved in the planning, the "patsy-ing," the shooting, and the cover up?
Lots and lots?
The Warren report itself, consisting of 888 pages of lies and deception, is the best evidence of a cover-up pinning the murder on Oswald. If Oswald acted alone all along, there would be no need for a cover-up, so we know a conspiracy at some level was real. This is basic stuff.
Seven WC members signed off on the report, plus assistant counsel to the commissions, who were instrumental in putting together the report. LBJ formed the commission to block out any other investigation (he saw Hoover was in panic mode), so I'd say easily 20 in the government cover-up department.
I don't know about the planning and patsy part of the deal. What I can say is that both Frazier and Oswald were planted at the TSBD, as Truly didn't need staff at the time they were hired. I couldn't say if Truly was simply told by management to hire them or if he was part of the setup; Shelley would evidently have known that hiring the two rookies was nuts. At least somebody at this level connected to the TSBD was pulling strings to place Frazier and Oswald there.
-
The Warren report itself, consisting of 888 pages of lies and deception, is the best evidence of a cover-up pinning the murder on Oswald. If Oswald acted alone all along, there would be no need for a cover-up, so we know a conspiracy at some level was real. This is basic stuff.
Seven WC members signed off on the report, plus assistant counsel to the commissions, who were instrumental in putting together the report. LBJ formed the commission to block out any other investigation (he saw Hoover was in panic mode), so I'd say easily 20 in the government cover-up department.
I don't know about the planning and patsy part of the deal. What I can say is that both Frazier and Oswald were planted at the TSBD, as Truly didn't need staff at the time they were hired. I couldn't say if Truly was simply told by management to hire them or if he was part of the setup; Shelley would evidently have known that hiring the two rookies was nuts. At least somebody at this level connected to the TSBD was pulling strings to place Frazier and Oswald there.
It sounds as though you've been fully indoctrinated.
-
It sounds as though you've been fully indoctrinated.
It sounds more as though you should have read the report before replying.
-
Here's a graphic from Dr. Tony Fratini - I consider this proof of Oswald not having carried in the rifle that morning.
It is Frazier - the one and only guy in the whole world that saw Lee carry the package from the palm of his hand to his armpit.
Yes, he claimed he wasn't paying much attention to the bag. But he was sure of how Lee carried it. He never said he was mistaken.
(https://preview.ibb.co/cqGmgw/Slide18.gif)
So what is Frazier's mistake? The rifle is 34.8" long - it can be no shorter. About the length of a lady's nine iron (golf club).
Are we expected to believe that? At the point that Lee was 50 ft. ahead, Frazier mistakenly did not see the package rise above the shoulder.
And if that was all there was wrong with any connection he might have to the bag, then there should be other evidence to build upon.
Witnesses are questionable. - the first 11 officers never saw the bag. Fingerprints and fiber evidence in the bag are garbage.
All that is left are Nutter excuses of "where are the curtain rods?" "where is the lunch?" as some sort of proof.
But evidence after evidence breaks down and fails. LN makes excuses of, we know he must've because of everything else.
"must-a-done-its", the entire case is filled with them, and every one them is based on nothing, but to fill in the broken evidence.
There is no need for any conspiracy theory. Just look at the completely failed case against the accused time after time.
And look for the Nutters excuses when I say, "...there is no reason to believe that rifle was ever broken down or put into that bag...."
https://jfk.boards.net/post/7400/thread
-
Here's a graphic from Dr. Tony Fratini - I consider this proof of Oswald not having carried in the rifle that morning.
It is Frazier - the one and only guy in the whole world that saw Lee carry the package from the palm of his hand to his armpit.
Yes, he claimed he wasn't paying much attention to the bag. But he was sure of how Lee carried it. He never said he was mistaken.
(https://preview.ibb.co/cqGmgw/Slide18.gif)
So what is Frazier's mistake? The rifle is 34.8" long - it can be no shorter. About the length of a lady's nine iron (golf club).
Are we expected to believe that? At the point that Lee was 50 ft. ahead, Frazier mistakenly did not see the package rise above the shoulder.
And if that was all there was wrong with any connection he might have to the bag, then there should be other evidence to build upon.
Witnesses are questionable. - the first 11 officers never saw the bag. Fingerprints and fiber evidence in the bag are garbage.
All that is left are Nutter excuses of "where are the curtain rods?" "where is the lunch?" as some sort of proof.
But evidence after evidence breaks down and fails. LN makes excuses of, we know he must've because of everything else.
"must-a-done-its", the entire case is filled with them, and every one them is based on nothing, but to fill in the broken evidence.
There is no need for any conspiracy theory. Just look at the completely failed case against the accused time after time.
And look for the Nutters excuses when I say, "...there is no reason to believe that rifle was ever broken down or put into that bag...."
https://jfk.boards.net/post/7400/thread
M Capasse: February 22, 2025 “She also said 28 inches.
Cherry picking conflicting statements isn't conclusive proof of anything.”
Nice post except, fortunately, another witness, Linnie Mae Randle, described in detail how LHO carried the package and referenced the package barely clearing the ground. Her description is backed up by fingerprints left by LHO on the package.
The BWF pictures are all very interesting but does not answer the central question about the conflicting statement made by Linnie Mae Randle describing the length of the package and how that would alter the description of how LHO was carrying the bag.
Michael, you must have just missed this piece of information about Linnie Mae's description of how the bag was carried, that was posted earlier.
The conflicting statement is Linnie Mae's description of LHO holding the bag with her revised estimate of a 27-to-28-inch package.
A 27- or 28-inch-long bag will not work to match Linnie Mae’s description of how LHO carried the rifle. The top of the package where she described him holding it with his right hand, would be slightly above the knee to about mid-thigh with him actually holding it lower, and additionally LHO also held the package with his left hand closer to the bottom of the package. The bottom of the package also was described as being barely above the ground.
To hold the rifle as Linnie Mae described, LHO would have had to have been bent over at the waist as he walked to the vehicle. The same would be true for Buell’s description of the package being held under the armpit. The bag as estimated is simply not long enough to fit Linnie Mae’s description.
Mrs. RANDLE. He was carrying a package in a sort of a heavy brown bag, heavier than a grocery bag it looked to me. It was about, if I might measure, about this long, I suppose, and he carried it in his right hand, had the top sort of folded down and had a grip like this, and the bottom, he carried it this way, you know, and it almost touched the ground as he carried it.
Mr. BALL. I have one question, Mr. Chief Justice.
You used an expression there, that the bag appeared heavy.
Mrs. RANDLE. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. You meant that there was some weight appeared to--
Mrs. RANDLE. To the bottom.
Mr. BALL. To the bottom?
Mrs. RANDLE. Yes. It tapered like this as he hugged it in his hand. It was more bulky toward the bottom than it was this way.
Mr. BELIN. Toward the top? More bulky toward the bottom than toward the top?
Mrs. RANDLE. That is right.
-
To hold the rifle as Linnie Mae described, LHO would have had to have been bent over at the waist as he walked to the vehicle. The same would be true for Buell’s description of the package being held under the armpit. The bag as estimated is simply not long enough to fit Linnie Mae’s description.
How is that true for Frazier, when he is the one demonstrating exactly what he saw?
A 27- or 28-inch-long bag will not work to match Linnie Mae’s description of how LHO carried the rifle
Now, you're just making stuff up.
-
How is that true for Frazier, when he is the one demonstrating exactly what he saw?
Now, you're just making stuff up.
How is that true for Frazier, when he is the one demonstrating exactly what he saw?
Maybe they should let BWF try again. This time with new information. There are fingerprints confirming Linnie Mae’s description of how it was held. BWF said he was not paying any attention.
Now, you're just making stuff up.
Making it up? I guess you would have to say that to make up for the fact you have no explanation. Unless this post about BWF holding the bag somehow is being used as an explanation for Linnie Mae’s description of LHO carrying the package.
-
How is that true for Frazier, when he is the one demonstrating exactly what he saw?
Maybe they should let BWF try again. This time with new information. There are fingerprints confirming Linnie Mae’s description of how it was held. BWF said he was not paying any attention.
Now, you're just making stuff up.
Making it up? I guess you would have to say that to make up for the fact you have no explanation. Unless this post about BWF holding the bag somehow is being used as an explanation for Linnie Mae’s description of LHO carrying the package.
Frazier showed you the bag as he saw it. - What try again? - He has no reason to lie.
A shorter length has no restriction as to how LR saw the bag.
The only one without a proper explanation is YOU
-
Frazier showed you the bag as he saw it. - What try again? - He has no reason to lie.
A shorter length has no restriction as to how LR saw the bag.
The only one without a proper explanation is YOU
He has no reason to lie? Really
You have to be kidding. The amazing thing the conspiracy clown show does not have BWF as part of the conspiracy. The same bag he describes as being tucked under his arm, Linnie Mae describes as being carried barely clearing the ground with an approximate 42 inch length. She gets the length dead on. It would have been smarter if he would have changed his estimate to be more like what she stated instead of the other way around.
It has a huge impact. Do you think Oswald walked bent over at the waist? Or better yet his left hand naturally dangled 1 foot off the ground? You are claiming just that.
-
He has no reason to lie? Really
You have to be kidding. The amazing thing the conspiracy clown show does not have BWF as part of the conspiracy. The same bag he describes as being tucked under his arm, Linnie Mae describes as being carried barely clearing the ground with an approximate 42 inch length. She gets the length dead on. It would have been smarter if he would have changed his estimate to be more like what she stated instead of the other way around.
It has a huge impact. Do you think Oswald walked bent over at the waist? Or better yet his left hand naturally dangled 1 foot off the ground? You are claiming just that.
BS: What resaon does he have to lie?
Frazier is showing you exactly what he saw. - a package too short to be the rifle.
-
BS: What resaon does he have to lie?
Frazier is showing you exactly what he saw. - a package too short to be the rifle.
Amazingly, not only do you not know why BWF would not want to own up to a longer bag, you can’t explain how LHO could have carried a 27 inch bag in the manner described by Linnie Mae. Does believing in a conspiracy require the suspension of all rational thinking
Such a mystery. BWF drove the assassin and his rifle to the scene of the assassination. I am sure you do not know why he would want to distance himself from it.
We know BWF's description does not match Linnie's. We know her new bag length estimation does not match her description of how LHO was carrying the bag. We know her description matches the prints of LHO on the bag.
-
Such a mystery. BWF drove the assassin and his rifle to the scene of the assassination. I am sure you do not know why he would want to distance himself from it.
Garbage. Unless BWF has something to do with the assassination, he had absolutely nothing to worry about.
Fritz came in with a confession, Frazier put his fist down with no intention of signing it. Fritz left the room. End of story.
That's a Lame Nutters excuse to make up for the length LMR thought she saw very briefly from a distance.
...you can’t explain how LHO could have carried a 27 inch bag in the manner described by Linnie Mae...
Why do I need to do that? - Frazier showed me exactly what he saw. - and he is definite with the WC as well.
Mr. BALL - You say he had the package under his arm when you saw him?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL - You mean one end of it under the armpit?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir; he had it up just like you stick it right under your arm like that.
Mr. BALL - And he had the lower part--
Mr. FRAZIER - The other part with his right hand.
Mr. BALL - Right hand?
Mr. FRAZIER - Right.
Mr. BALL - He carried it then parallel to his body?
Mr. FRAZIER - Right, straight up and down.
Representative FORD - Under his right arm?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes.
and the bottom:
Mr. FRAZIER - I didn't pay much attention, but when I did, I say, he had this part down here,
like the bottom would be short he had cupped in his hand like that...".
We know BWF's description does not match Linnie's. We know her new bag length estimation does not match her description of how LHO was carrying the bag. We know her description matches the prints of LHO on the bag.
I forgot you have your own theory. He carried in a fully assembled 40 in. rifle? No one else says that.
I guess you need to accommodate Linne Mae, but then you fail at Frazier. - and beyond that the first 11 officers.
Then again, he wouldn't have to re assemble the rifle. The pinch on that is, no evidence of any tool. A real must-a-done-it !
That's how it is throughout this entire case. LNs have to make excuses for what is broken, to fill in the story. (some rewrite the tale where necessary)
That's your dilemma.
-
Mr. BALL. About how long would you think the package would be, just measure it right on there.
Mrs. RANDLE. I would say about like this.
Mr. BALL. You mean from here to here?
Mrs. RANDLE. Yes, sir; with that folded down with this much for him to grip in his hand.
Mr. BALL. This package is about the span of my hand, say 8 inches, is that right? He would have about this much to grip?
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.
Mr. BALL. I see. You figure about 2 feet long, is that right?
Mrs. RANDLE. A little bit more.
Mr. BALL. A little more than 2 feet.
I am 6 feet 3 inches tall. My leg, measured from my hip is 3 feet 1 inch long.
Oswald was 5 feet 8 inches tall. If he carried the parcel next to his leg (as Randle said) there is no way it could have been 3 feet 6 inches
-
No one has to engage in an endless, pedantic exercise to tortuously interpret the generic words of witnesses to reconstruct the bag. That is rabbit hole nonsense with no exit ramp. This is simple. The bag exists. It was found. It has Oswald's prints on it. It was measured to determine its exact size. There is no reason to speculate.
-
No one has to engage in an endless, pedantic exercise to tortuously interpret the generic words of witnesses to reconstruct the bag. That is rabbit hole nonsense with no exit ramp. This is simple. The bag exists. It was found. It has Oswald's prints on it. It was measured to determine its exact size. There is no reason to speculate.
The bag exists. It was found. It has Oswald's prints on it. It was measured to determine its exact size.
Wrong! A bag exists. Several officers claim to have found it, after a number of officers failed to see it in the sniper's nest. There is not a shred of evidence that this bag ever left the TSBD!
And the record shows that Frazier was shown that bag while he was being polygraphed in the evening hours of 11/22/63. Frazier not only failed to identify the bag but also added that the bag Oswald had carried was "definitely a thin, flimsy sack like the one purchased in a dime store".
A memo from James Anderton to SAC Dallas, dated 11/29/63, reveals the desperation of Lt. Day after Frazier failed to identify the heavy bag found at the TSBD. Anderton writes;
"Lt. Day states that he and other officers have surmised that Oswald, by dismantling the rifle, could have placed it in the thick brown sack folder over, and then placed the entire package in the flimsy paper sack"
The obvious question is why Day was so desperate to explain the discrepancy between the heavy bag allegedly found on the 6th floor of the TSBD and the flimsy bag Frazier had seen that he would come up with this pathetic theory. Even more so, if he really had found Oswald's prints on the heavy bag and the MC rifle......
-
No one has to engage in an endless, pedantic exercise to tortuously interpret the generic words of witnesses to reconstruct the bag. That is rabbit hole nonsense with no exit ramp. This is simple. The bag exists. It was found. It has Oswald's prints on it. It was measured to determine its exact size. There is no reason to speculate.
Exactly Richard.
Besides the Mountain of physical evidence let's look at Oswald's actions and/or lies.
1) Oswald asks Frazier to take him to Irving to get "curtain rods".
So automatically I knew it wasn't Friday, I come to think it wasn't Friday and I said, "Why are you going home today?"
And he says, "I am going home to get some curtain rods." He said, "You know, put in an apartment."
He wanted to hang up some curtains and I said, "Very well."
https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/testimony/frazierb1.htm
2) Oswald breaks his usual routine and goes to Irving on a Thursday which just happens to be the day before the Presidential visit, what a coincidence!
3) Oswald goes against standard protocol and doesn't get permission from Ruth Paine for his unexpected visit.
4) Oswald leaves most of his money.
5) Oswald leaves his wedding ring.
6) Oswald never tells Marina he's going to leave with "curtain rods".
7) Oswald never tells Ruth that he's going to leave with "curtain rods".
8} Oswald upon reaching Frazier's house immediately hides the "curtain rods" in Frazier's car.
9) Oswald's package is seen by Frazier on the back seat of Frazier's car and Oswald confirms that it contains "curtain rods", whereas the interrogators recall that Oswald said he carried the package on his lap in the front seat.
10) Oswald is 50 feet ahead of Frazier when entering the Texas School Book Depository, another first.
11) Oswald leaves the Depository not at the start or end of lunch but after about 3 minutes from when the President is assassinated, roughly the time it takes to walk from the 6th floor, be confronted, buy a coke and then exit on the ground floor.
12) Oswald never asks permission to leave work by his immediate superior Shelley, in fact Shelley testifies that he never sees Oswald after 12PM.
13) Oswald made a great effort to get "curtain rods" yet isn't seen by Bledsoe on the bus carrying "curtain rods"
14) Oswald isn't seen in Whaley's cab carrying "curtain rods"
15) Oswald isn't seen by Roberts carrying "curtain rods" into his room at the rooming house.
16) Oswald's room doesn't contain any additional "curtain rods".
17) Oswald's room doesn't even need additional "curtain rods".
18) Oswald was not described by any eyewitnesses at the Tippit crime scene carrying "curtain rods"
19) Oswald was not described by Johnny Brewer as carrying "curtain rods"
20) Oswald didn't hit Officer McDonald over the head in the Texas Theatre with "curtain rods"
21) Oswald told his interrogators a different story that he never had "curtain rods" and only carried his lunch to work.
22) Oswald's prints were found on a brown paper bag recovered in the sniper's nest.
23) Oswald's rifle was a neat fit for the brown paper bag.
24) Oswald's "curtain rods" were never found in the Depository.
(https://i.postimg.cc/d0G8J6Hs/Rifle-Bag-Blanket.jpg)
JohnM
-
Garbage. Unless BWF has something to do with the assassination, he had absolutely nothing to worry about.
Fritz came in with a confession, Frazier put his fist down with no intention of signing it. Fritz left the room. End of story.
That's a Lame Nutters excuse to make up for the length LMR thought she saw very briefly from a distance.
Why do I need to do that? - Frazier showed me exactly what he saw. - and he is definite with the WC as well.
Mr. BALL - You say he had the package under his arm when you saw him?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL - You mean one end of it under the armpit?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir; he had it up just like you stick it right under your arm like that.
Mr. BALL - And he had the lower part--
Mr. FRAZIER - The other part with his right hand.
Mr. BALL - Right hand?
Mr. FRAZIER - Right.
Mr. BALL - He carried it then parallel to his body?
Mr. FRAZIER - Right, straight up and down.
Representative FORD - Under his right arm?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes.
and the bottom:
Mr. FRAZIER - I didn't pay much attention, but when I did, I say, he had this part down here,
like the bottom would be short he had cupped in his hand like that...".
I forgot you have your own theory. He carried in a fully assembled 40 in. rifle? No one else says that.
I guess you need to accommodate Linne Mae, but then you fail at Frazier. - and beyond that the first 11 officers.
Then again, he wouldn't have to re assemble the rifle. The pinch on that is, no evidence of any tool. A real must-a-done-it !
That's how it is throughout this entire case. LNs have to make excuses for what is broken, to fill in the story. (some rewrite the tale where necessary)
That's your dilemma.
The only reason BWF is not part of some conspiracy theory is because of his denial about the bag length. Your view of events is from the present looking back to the assassination. BWF had no idea what the police were thinking.
Your quoting Linnie’s second recounting not her first. Her first is a 42 inch bag, that was being held in a manner that would have LHO bent at the hip to be holding a 27 inch bag in the same manner.
No dilema at all. You might want to check in with Colin Crow about a fully assembled carcano in the bag. His theory made sense to me.
-
The only reason BWF is not part of some conspiracy theory is because of his denial about the bag length. Your view of events is from the present looking back to the assassination. BWF had no idea what the police were thinking.
Your quoting Linnie’s second recounting not her first. Her first is a 42 inch bag, that was being held in a manner that would have LHO bent at the hip to be holding a 27 inch bag in the same manner.
No dilema at all. You might want to check in with Colin Crow about a fully assembled carcano in the bag. His theory made sense to me.
BWF had no idea what the police were thinking.
For once I agree.
But if he didn't know what the police were thinking, why would he lie about the way he saw Oswald carry the bag and why would he deny that the bag they showed them on Friday evening was the bag he saw Oswald carry?
If he was indeed lying, wouldn't that incriminate him?
-
The only reason BWF is not part of some conspiracy theory is because of his denial about the bag length. Your view of events is from the present looking back to the assassination. BWF had no idea what the police were thinking.
That makes no sense. He was not involved and that becomes apparent very quickly. This picture is he himself showing what he saw. It was not the rifle.
(https://preview.ibb.co/cqGmgw/Slide18.gif)
Your quoting Linnie’s second recounting not her first. Her first is a 42 inch bag, that was being held in a manner that would have LHO bent at the hip to be holding a 27 inch bag in the same manner.
You lost all credibility on LMR. A shorter bag does not refute the way she saw the bag held. But it was the glimpse from a distance, and she miss-judged the length. Funny, nutters accept a fleeting glimpse only in their favor.
You might want to check in with Colin Crow about a fully assembled carcano in the bag. His theory made sense to me.
Good for you.
-
The only reason BWF is not part of some conspiracy theory is because of his denial about the bag length. Your view of events is from the present looking back to the assassination. BWF had no idea what the police were thinking.
Your quoting Linnie’s second recounting not her first. Her first is a 42 inch bag, that was being held in a manner that would have LHO bent at the hip to be holding a 27 inch bag in the same manner.
No dilema at all. You might want to check in with Colin Crow about a fully assembled carcano in the bag. His theory made sense to me.
Your quoting Linnie’s second recounting not her first. Her first is a 42 inch bag, that was being held in a manner that would have LHO bent at the hip to be holding a 27 inch bag in the same manner.
Her first description, the November 22 AFFIDAVIT, only says that Lee was "carrying a long brown package." Nothing about its size or how Lee was holding it. The 3 feet by 6 inches was added by Bookhout in his FBI report, and the word "bag" is not used, but nice try.
-
That makes no sense. He was not involved and that becomes apparent very quickly. This picture is he himself showing what he saw. It was not the rifle.
(https://preview.ibb.co/cqGmgw/Slide18.gif)
You lost all credibility on LMR. A shorter bag does not refute the way she saw the bag held. But it was the glimpse from a distance, and she miss-judged the length. Funny, nutters accept a fleeting glimpse only in their favor.
Good for you.
1) In the following video @3:33 Buell Wesley Frazier Under Oath, admits that he hardly paid any attention to the bag and the bag could have been protruding out the front of his body, so in other words Frazier who had had no other choice but to tell the truth, and simply all this time has made a self serving assumption for how he perceived Oswald was holding the bag.
2) In his WC testimony Frazier powerfully reinforces that he "didn't pay too much attention" to the bag!
Mr. BALL - All right.
When you got in the car did you say anything to him or did he say anything to you?
Mr. FRAZIER - Let's see, when I got in the car I have a kind of habit of glancing over my shoulder and so at that time I noticed there was a package laying on the back seat, I didn't pay too much attention and I said, "What's the package, Lee?"
And he said, "Curtain rods," and I said, "Oh, yes, you told me you was going to bring some today."
That is the reason, the main reason he was going over there that Thursday afternoon when he was to bring back some curtain rods, so I didn't think any more about it when he told me that.
Mr. BALL - Did it look to you as if there was something heavy in the package?
Mr. FRAZIER - Well, I will be frank with you, I didn't pay much attention to the package because like I say before and after he told me that it was curtain rods and I didn't pay any attention to it, and he never had lied to me before so I never did have any reason to doubt his word.
Mr. BALL - Well, from the way he carried it, the way he walked, did it appear he was carrying something that had more than the weight of a paper?
Mr. FRAZIER - Well, I say, you know like I say, I didn't pay much attention to the package other than I knew he had it under his arm and I didn't pay too much attention the way he was walking because I was walking along there looking at the railroad cars and watching the men on the diesel switch them cars and I didn't pay too much attention on how he carried the package at all.
Mr. BALL - You will notice that this bag which is the colored bag, FBI Exhibit No. 10, is folded over. Was it folded over when you saw it the first time, folded over to the end?
Mr. FRAZIER - I will say I am not sure about that, whether it was folded over or not, because, like I say, I didn't pay that much attention to it.
Mr. BALL - But are you sure that his hand was at the end of the package or at the side of the package?
Mr. FRAZIER - Like I said, I remember I didn't look at the package very much, paying much attention, but when I did look at it he did have his hands on the package like that.
Mr. BALL - Mr. Frazier, we have here this Exhibit No. 364 which is a sack and in that we have put a dismantled gun. Don't pay any attention to that. Will you stand up here and put this under your arm and then take a hold of it at the side?
Now, is that anywhere near similar to the way that Oswald carried the package?
Mr. FRAZIER - Well, you know, like I said now, I said I didn't pay much attention--
3) Frazier was a little over 6 foot, so wouldn't that make his underarm to cupped hand a different measurement to the much shorter Oswald, and Linnie Mae originally told the FBI that the bag was about 3 feet long, then while testifying she folded a similar bag to be 28 and a half inches, then aggressively blurts out that the bag was 27 inches the last time she estimated, it's obvious that this pair was desperately attempting to decrease the size of the bag.
Mr. BALL - How tall are you?
Mr. FRAZIER - I am 6-foot, a little bit over 6-foot.
4) Oswald made a special mid-week trip to retrieve his "curtain rods" yet leaves the building without the "curtain rods", why would he do this? In fact the only object that closely resembles the brown paper package was the brown paper package found in the sniper's nest with Oswald's prints! Which BTW was a perfect fit for Oswald's rifle found on the same floor.
5) Why would Oswald lie to multiple interrogators that he had his lunch in the package?
6) Why would Oswald lie to multiple interrogators that he carried the package with him on his lap on the front seat?
7) Why did Oswald upon arriving at Frazier's house immediately hide the rifle on the back seat of Frazier's car?
Michael I know you are a devoted Anybody but Oswald freak and you will have a bunch of zany irrational answers to my questions but do you really think that your implausible answers would be enough to sway a sane impartial Jury? I'll give you a hint, your weak attempts at refutation would be met with howls of laughter!
JohnM
-
1) In the following video @3:33 Buell Wesley Frazier Under Oath, admits that he hardly paid any attention to the bag and the bag could have been protruding out the front of his body, so in other words Frazier who had had no other choice but to tell the truth, and simply all this time has made a self serving assumption for how he perceived Oswald was holding the bag.
I know that VB misrepresents the size of the rifle when he gets BWF to say the package could have ended before rising above the shoulder
That is impossible - look at the 2nd picture BWF shows the smallest the rifle can be hidden. What BWF saw was different than allegedly found.
2) In his WC testimony Frazier powerfully reinforces that he "didn't pay too much attention" to the bag!
*yawn*
Not as powerful as demonstrating how sure he was of the size, as well as the end - top and bottom.
Mr. BALL - You say he had the package under his arm when you saw him?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL - You mean one end of it under the armpit?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir; he had it up just like you stick it right under your arm like that.
Mr. BALL - And he had the lower part--
Mr. FRAZIER - The other part with his right hand.
Mr. BALL - Right hand?
Mr. FRAZIER - Right.
Mr. BALL - He carried it then parallel to his body?
Mr. FRAZIER - Right, straight up and down.
Representative FORD - Under his right arm?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes.
and the bottom:
Mr. FRAZIER - I didn't pay much attention, but when I did, I say, he had this part down here,
like the bottom would be short he had cupped in his hand like that...". [/quote]
3) Frazier was a little over 6 foot, so wouldn't that make his underarm to cupped hand a different measurement to the much shorter Oswald, and Linnie Mae originally told the FBI that the bag was about 3 feet long, then while testifying she folded a similar bag to be 28 and a half inches, then aggressively blurts out that the bag was 27 inches the last time she estimated, it obvious that this pair was desperately attempting to decrease the size of the bag.
Mr. BALL - How tall are you?
Mr. FRAZIER - I am 6-foot, a little bit over 6-foot.
Mr. BALL - When you cupped the bottom of your package in the hands, will you stand up, again, please,
and the upper part of the package is not under the armpit, the top of the package extends almost up to the level of your ear.
Mr. FRAZIER - Right.
4) Oswald made a special mid-week trip to retrieve his "curtain rods" yet leaves the building without the "curtain rods", why would he do this? In fact the only object that closely resembles the brown paper package was the brown paper package found in the sniper's nest with Oswald's prints! Which BTW was a perfect fit for Oswald's rifle found on the same floor.
Has no bearing on what Frazier saw Oswald carry.
The first 11 officers never saw the bag on the floor. Here are the first 4 testimony:
Sgt. Gerald Hill, the first DPD officer to arrive:
"The only specifics we discussed were this. You were asking Officer Hicks if either one recalled seeing a sack,
supposedly one that had been made by the suspect, in which he could have possibly carried the weapon into the Depository,
and I at that time told you about the small sack that appeared to be a lunch sack, and that that was the only sack that I saw,
and that I left the Book Depository prior to the finding of the gun."
Deputy Sheriff Luke Mooney
Mr. BALL. Did you see a paper bag at any other window?
Mr. MOONEY. No, sir; I didn't.
Mr. BALL. .....Now, was there anything you saw over in the corner?
Mr. MOONEY. No, sir; I didn't see anything over in the corner.
Deputy Sheriff Roger Craig:
Mr. BELIN. Was there any long sack laying in the floor there that you remember seeing, or not?
Mr. CRAIG. No; I don't remember seeing any.
Detective Boyd, who arrived with Captain Fritz before Day and Studebaker:
Mr. BALL. Did you see any brown wrapping paper near the window where the hulls were found,
near the windows alongside which the hulls were found?
https://jfk.boards.net/post/5176
5) Why would Oswald lie to multiple interrogators that he had his lunch in the package?
Interrogations are incomplete. Context is lost on much of what he said.
6) Why would Oswald lie to multiple interrogators that he carried the package with him on his lap on the front seat?
Interrogations are incomplete. Context is lost on much of what he said.
7) Why did Oswald upon arriving at Frazier's house immediately hide the rifle on the back seat of Frazier's car?
Only you say it was hidden. It was laid on the backseat. DPD measured as Frazier remembered it - at about 28 inches across.
Michael I know you are a devoted Anybody but Oswald freak and you will have a bunch of zany irrational answers to my questions but do you really think that your implausible answers would be enough to sway a sane impartial Jury? I'll give you a hint, your weak attempts at refutation would be met with howls of laughter!
Most of what you posted here, is not even evidence.
-
I know that VB misrepresents the size of the rifle when he gets BWF to say the package could have ended before rising above the shoulder
That is impossible - look at the 2nd picture BWF shows the smallest the rifle can be hidden. What BWF saw was different than allegedly found.
*yawn*
Not as powerful as he demonstrates how sure he was of the size, as well as the end - top and bottom.
Mr. BALL - You say he had the package under his arm when you saw him?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL - You mean one end of it under the armpit?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir; he had it up just like you stick it right under your arm like that.
Mr. BALL - And he had the lower part--
Mr. FRAZIER - The other part with his right hand.
Mr. BALL - Right hand?
Mr. FRAZIER - Right.
Mr. BALL - He carried it then parallel to his body?
Mr. FRAZIER - Right, straight up and down.
Representative FORD - Under his right arm?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes.
and the bottom:
Mr. FRAZIER - I didn't pay much attention, but when I did, I say, he had this part down here,
like the bottom would be short he had cupped in his hand like that...".
Mr. BALL - When you cupped the bottom of your package in the hands, will you stand up, again, please,
and the upper part of the package is not under the armpit, the top of the package extends almost up to the level of your ear.
Mr. FRAZIER - Right.
Has no bearing on what Frazier saw Oswald carry.
Interrogations are incomplete. Context is lost on much of what he said.
Interrogations are incomplete. Context is lost on much of what he said.
Only you say it was hidden. It was laid on the backseat. DPD measured as Frazier remembered it - at about 28 inches across.
Thanks for answering with the typical nonsensical responses, which as I said will in no way sway a sane Jury from the solid evidence I presented.
Anyway I will address this problem.
DPD measured as Frazier remembered it - at about 28 inches across.
So Frazier had a very familiar object to compare and measure the size of the bag which by definition must be the most accurate measurement, yes? So how on Earth could a 28 inch bag fit under Oswald's armpit to his cupped hand when the much taller Frazier himself demonstrates that 24 inches barely fits?? Clearly Frazier was very scared and as I pointed out the main mission of both Linnie and Buell was to keep shrinking the bag!
Btw don't bother responding because your obvious bias won't add anything constructive.
JohnM
-
I know that VB misrepresents the size of the rifle when he gets BWF to say the package could have ended before rising above the shoulder
That is impossible - look at the 2nd picture BWF shows the smallest the rifle can be hidden. What BWF saw was different than allegedly found.
*yawn*
Not as powerful as demonstrating how sure he was of the size, as well as the end - top and bottom.
Mr. BALL - You say he had the package under his arm when you saw him?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL - You mean one end of it under the armpit?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir; he had it up just like you stick it right under your arm like that.
Mr. BALL - And he had the lower part--
Mr. FRAZIER - The other part with his right hand.
Mr. BALL - Right hand?
Mr. FRAZIER - Right.
Mr. BALL - He carried it then parallel to his body?
Mr. FRAZIER - Right, straight up and down.
Representative FORD - Under his right arm?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes.
and the bottom:
Mr. FRAZIER - I didn't pay much attention, but when I did, I say, he had this part down here,
like the bottom would be short he had cupped in his hand like that...".
Mr. BALL - When you cupped the bottom of your package in the hands, will you stand up, again, please,
and the upper part of the package is not under the armpit, the top of the package extends almost up to the level of your ear.
Mr. FRAZIER - Right.
Has no bearing on what Frazier saw Oswald carry.
The first 11 officers never saw the bag on the floor. Here are the first 4 testimony:
Sgt. Gerald Hill, the first DPD officer to arrive:
"The only specifics we discussed were this. You were asking Officer Hicks if either one recalled seeing a sack,
supposedly one that had been made by the suspect, in which he could have possibly carried the weapon into the Depository,
and I at that time told you about the small sack that appeared to be a lunch sack, and that that was the only sack that I saw,
and that I left the Book Depository prior to the finding of the gun."
Deputy Sheriff Luke Mooney
Mr. BALL. Did you see a paper bag at any other window?
Mr. MOONEY. No, sir; I didn't.
Mr. BALL. .....Now, was there anything you saw over in the corner?
Mr. MOONEY. No, sir; I didn't see anything over in the corner.
Deputy Sheriff Roger Craig:
Mr. BELIN. Was there any long sack laying in the floor there that you remember seeing, or not?
Mr. CRAIG. No; I don't remember seeing any.
Detective Boyd, who arrived with Captain Fritz before Day and Studebaker:
Mr. BALL. Did you see any brown wrapping paper near the window where the hulls were found,
near the windows alongside which the hulls were found?
https://jfk.boards.net/post/5176
Interrogations are incomplete. Context is lost on much of what he said.
Interrogations are incomplete. Context is lost on much of what he said.
Only you say it was hidden. It was laid on the backseat. DPD measured as Frazier remembered it - at about 28 inches across.
Most of what you posted here, is not even evidence.
I see you added more to your original post, so I will respond.
• Multiple Police Officers did in fact recall seeing a package in the corner of the 6th floor, a brown paper package that didn't necessarily stand out amongst the sea of brown boxes. So I conclude that nobody lied but that some officers simply paid a little more attention.
Mr. BELIN. Did you find anything else up in the southeast corner of the sixth floor? We have talked about the rifle, we have talked about the shells, we have talked about the chicken bones and the lunch sack and the pop bottle by that second pair of windows. Anything else?
Mr. JOHNSON. Yes, sir. We found this brown paper sack or case. It was made out of heavy wrapping paper. Actually, it looked similar to the paper that those books was wrapped in. It was just a long narrow paper bag.
Mr. BELIN. Where was this found?
Mr. JOHNSON. Right in the corner of the building.
Mr. BELIN. On what floor?
Mr. JOHNSON. Sixth floor.
Mr. BELIN. Which corner?
Mr. JOHNSON. Southeast corner.
Mr. BELIN. Do you know who found it?
Mr. JOHNSON. I know that the first I saw of it, L. D. Montgomery, my partner, picked it up off the floor, and it was folded up, and he unfolded it.
--------------------------------------------------------
Mr. BALL. Where was the paper sack?
Mr. MONTGOMERY. Let's see--the paper sack--I don't recall for sure if it was on the floor or on the box, but I know it was just there----one of those pictures might show exactly where it was.
Mr. BALL. I don't have a picture of the paper sack.
Mr. MONTGOMERY. You don't? Well, it was there--I can't recall for sure if it was on one of the boxes or on the floor there.
Mr. BALL. It was over in what corner?
Mr. MONTGOMERY. It would be the southeast corner of the building there where the shooting was.
Mr. BALL. Did you turn the sack over to anybody or did you pick it up?
Mr. MONTGOMERY. Yes---let's see Lieutenant Day and Detective Studebaker came up and took pictures and everything, and then we took a Dr. Pepper bottle and that sack that we found that looked like the rifle was wrapped up in.
....
Mr. MONTGOMERY. Right over here is where we found that long piece of paper that looked like a sack, that the rifle had been in.
Mr. BALL. Does that have a number--that area--where you found that long piece of paper?
Mr. MONTGOMERY. It's No. 2 right here.
Mr. BALL. You found the sack in the area marked 2 on Exhibit J to the Studebaker deposition. Did you pick the sack up?
Mr. MONTGOMERY. Which sack are we talking about now?
Mr. BALL. The paper sack?
Mr. MONTGOMERY. The small one or the larger one?
Mr. BALL. The larger one you mentioned that was in position 2.
Mr. MONTGOMERY. Yes.
Mr. BALL. You picked it up?
Mr. MONTGOMERY. Wait just a minute no; I didn't pick it up. I believe Mr. Studebaker did. We left it laying right there so they could check it for prints.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. BALL. Now, did you at any time see any paper sack around there?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. Yes sir.
Mr. BALL. Where?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. Storage room there - in, the southeast corner of the building folded.
Mr. BALL. In the southeast corner of the building?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. It was a paper - I don't know what it was.
Mr. BALL. And it was folded, you say?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. Yes.
Mr. BALL. Where was it with respect to the three boxes of which the top two were Rolling Readers?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. Directly east.
Mr. BALL. There is a corner there, isn't it?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. Yes, sir; in the southeast corner.
Mr. BALL. It was in the southeast corner?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. I drew that box in for somebody over at the FBI that said you wanted it. It is in one of those pictures - one of the shots after the duplicate shot.
Mr. BALL. Let's mark this picture "Exhibit F."
(Instrument marked by the reporter as "Studebaker Exhibit F," for identification.)
Mr. BALL. Do you know who took that picture?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. No; I don't.
Mr. BALL. Do you recognize the diagram?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. Did you draw the diagram?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. I drew a diagram in there for the FBI, somebody from the FBI called me down - I can't think of his name, and he wanted an approximate location of where the paper was found.
Mr. BALL. Does that show the approximate location?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. Yes.
Mr. BALL. Where you have the dotted lines?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. Yes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. BALL. Now, how big was this paper.that you saw - you saw the wrapper - tell me about how big that paper bag was - how long was it?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. It was about, I would say, 3 1/2 to 4 feet long.
Mr. BALL. The paper bag?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. Yes.
Mr. BALL. And how wide was it? Approximately 8 inches.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. BELIN. Did you see anything else in the southeast corner?
Mr. BREWER. There was a paper, relatively long paper sack there.
Mr. BELIN. Where was that?
Mr. BREWER. It was there In the southeast corner.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. BELIN. What other kind of a sack was found?
Mr. DAY. A homemade sack, brown paper with 3-inch tape found right in the corner, the southeast corner of the building near where the slugs were found.
Mr. McCLOY. Near where the hulls were found?
Mr. DAY. Near where the hulls. What did I say?
Mr. McCLOY. Slugs.
Mr. DAY. Hulls.
....
Mr. BELIN. Where was the sack found with relation to the pipes and that box?
Mr. DAY. Between the sack and the south wall, which would be the wall at the top of the picture as shown here.
Mr. BELIN. You mean between--you said the sack.
Mr. DAY. I mean the pipe. The sack was between the pipe and the wall at the top of the picture.
Mr. BELIN. That wall at the top of the picture would be the east wall, would it not?
Mr. DAY. Yes, sir; laying parallel to the south wall.
Mr. BELIN. Did the sack--was it folded over in any way or just lying flat, if you remember?
Mr. DAY. It was folded over with the fold next to the pipe, to the best of my knowledge.
Mr. BELIN. I will now hand you what has been marked as Commission Exhibit 626 and ask you to state if you know what this is, and also appears to be marked as Commission Exhibit 142.
Mr. DAY. This is the sack found on the sixth floor in the southeast corner of the building on November 22, 1963.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. BALL. Did you ever see a paper bag?
Mr. SIMS. Well, we saw some wrappings--a brown wrapping there.
Mr. BALL. Where did you see it?
Mr. SIMS. It was there by the hulls.
Mr. BALL. Was it right there near the hulls?
Mr. SIMS. As well as I remember--of course, I didn't pay too much attention at that time, but it was, I believe, by the east side of where the boxes were piled up---that would be a guess--I believe that's where it was.
• Besides, we know the bag was there because in the following crime scene photo with the open dusting kit on the right, we can clearly see the bag sitting on the top of the sniper's nest boxes. We can see the same folds and the same clean folded over bottom and the crumpled top, there is no doubt that this is Oswald's rifle bag!
(https://i.postimg.cc/zXffgMjB/Osw-ald-s-rifle-bag-in-nesta.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/HnsPxpdT/osw-ald-s-bag-in-the-snipers-nest.gif)
• Oswald's bag an exact fit for Oswald's rifle.
(https://i.postimg.cc/SsMnngqv/Rifle-Bag-Blanket.jpg)
• Oswald's prints on the Oswald's rifle bag.
(https://i.postimg.cc/j2YLPySd/Oswald-s-prints-on-the-bag.jpg)
JohnM
-
Studebaker knew where it was.
(https://i.postimg.cc/NMJDYNWX/outline-bag.jpg)
Mr. BALL. Now, did you at any time see any paper sack around there?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. Yes sir.
Mr. BALL. Where?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. Storage room there - in, the southeast corner of the building folded.
Mr. BALL. In the southeast corner of the building?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. It was a paper - I don't know what it was.
Mr. BALL. And it was folded, you say?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. Yes.
Mr. BALL. Where was it with respect to the three boxes of which the top two were Rolling Readers?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. Directly east.
Mr. BALL. There is a corner there, isn't it?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. Yes, sir; in the southeast corner.
Mr. BALL. It was in the southeast corner?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. I drew that box in for somebody over at the FBI that said you wanted it. It is in one of those pictures - one of the shots after the duplicate shot.
Mr. BALL. Let's mark this picture "Exhibit F."
(Instrument marked by the reporter as "Studebaker Exhibit F," for identification.)
Mr. BALL. Do you know who took that picture?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. No; I don't.
Mr. BALL. Do you recognize the diagram?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. Did you draw the diagram?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. I drew a diagram in there for the FBI, somebody from the FBI called me down - I can't think of his name, and he wanted an approximate location of where the paper was found.
Mr. BALL. Does that show the approximate location?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. Yes.
Mr. BALL. Where you have the dotted lines?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. Yes.
....
Mr. BALL. Now, how big was this paper.that you saw - you saw the wrapper - tell me about how big that paper bag was - how long was it?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. It was about, I would say, 3 1/2 to 4 feet long.
Mr. BALL. The paper bag?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. Yes.
Mr. BALL. And how wide was it? Approximately 8 inches.
The bag was photographed leaving the building, the same bag as described by 6 Police Officers.
(https://i.postimg.cc/FH6F00P5/Empty-Paper-Bag-Removed-From-TSBD.jpg)
JohnM
-
The bag exists. It was measured. That's it.
-
That makes no sense. He was not involved and that becomes apparent very quickly. This picture is he himself showing what he saw. It was not the rifle.
(https://preview.ibb.co/cqGmgw/Slide18.gif)
You lost all credibility on LMR. A shorter bag does not refute the way she saw the bag held. But it was the glimpse from a distance, and she miss-judged the length. Funny, nutters accept a fleeting glimpse only in their favor.
Good for you.
MC; “A shorter bag does not refute the way she saw the bag held. But it was the glimpse from a distance, and she miss-judged the length.”
Actual it does refute it. Once again LHO would have to have been bent at the waist to carry the rifle the way Linnie describes it, if the package is only 27 inches long. At no point in time does she describe LHO as walking bent over.
It is obvious you understand the problem. The question is do you have an answer to explain it.
Linnie Mae’s description of LHO carrying the package is backed up by the palmprint and finger print on the bag. Her description is a long way from fleeting.
Mrs. RANDLE. He was carrying a package in a sort of a heavy brown bag, heavier than a grocery bag it looked to me. It was about, if I might measure, about this long, I suppose, and he carried it in his right hand, had the top sort of folded down and had a grip like this, and the bottom, he carried it this way, you know, and it almost touched the ground as he carried it.
MC “I forgot you have your own theory. He carried in a fully assembled 40 in. rifle? No one else says that.
I guess you need to accommodate Linne Mae,“
MC “Good for you.”
It was Colin’s theory and I think he is right. If you did not want to know the answer, you should not have asked the question.
Mr. BALL.. What was he carrying?
Mrs. RANDLE. He was carrying a package in a sort of a heavy brown bag, heavier than a grocery bag it looked to me. It was about, if I might measure, about this long, I suppose, and he carried it in his right hand, had the top sort of folded down and had a grip like this, and the bottom, he carried it this way, you know, and it almost touched the ground as he carried it.
Mr. BALL. Let me see. He carried it in his right hand, did he?
Mrs. RANDLE. That is right.
Mr. BALL. And where was his hand gripping the middle of the package?
Mrs. RANDLE. No, sir; the top with just a little bit sticking up. You know just like you grab something like that.
Mr. BALL. And he was grabbing it with his right hand at the top of the package and the package almost touched the ground?
Mrs. RANDLE. Yes, sir.
-
If the rifle stayed fully assembled, a small lunch sized bag could simply and easily be placed over the exposed muzzle end of the barrel to hide it. That solution would have been much simpler and quicker than disassembling and reassembling the rifle. The small lunch sized bag could have been disposed of anywhere in the TSBD and would not have appeared out of place.
-
BWF had no idea what the police were thinking.
For once I agree.
But if he didn't know what the police were thinking, why would he lie about the way he saw Oswald carry the bag and why would he deny that the bag they showed them on Friday evening was the bag he saw Oswald carry?
If he was indeed lying, wouldn't that incriminate him?
MC “Garbage. Unless BWF has something to do with the assassination, he had absolutely nothing to worry about.”
MC “Fritz came in with a confession, Frazier put his fist down with no intention of signing it. Fritz left the room. End of story.”
Ask Michael. This whole storyline is all his invention. Apparently, BWF thought Fritz wanted to implicate him.
-
If the rifle stayed fully assembled, a small lunch sized bag could simply and easily be placed over the exposed muzzle end of the barrel to hide it. That solution would have been much simpler and quicker than disassembling and reassembling the rifle. The small lunch sized bag could have been disposed of anywhere in the TSBD and would not have appeared out of place.
just make it up as we go.....
-
Linnie Mae’s description of LHO carrying the package is backed up by the palmprint and finger print on the bag. Her description is a long way from fleeting.
backed up by what? - therefore it was the rifle ?
U think the way she saw the bag carried is proof it was a rifle? -wow leaps and bounds - but total BS:!!
Any size within arms length can be carried as she saw it - a shorter length is just as accessible - what she saw does not CONFIRM rifle size.
--You make up stuff a lot.
- from her FBI Statement-
"....she had only observed the brown package from her residence window at a distance."
@ Tom Sorensen - thanx for pointing out the 3 foot length was added by FBI Bookout.
-
MC “Garbage. Unless BWF has something to do with the assassination, he had absolutely nothing to worry about.”
MC “Fritz came in with a confession, Frazier put his fist down with no intention of signing it. Fritz left the room. End of story.”
Ask Michael. This whole storyline is all his invention. Apparently, BWF thought Fritz wanted to implicate him.
It became very clear, very quickly, Frazier had nothing to do with it and he had no reason to lie about anything.
If you doubt the confession story? - You need to learn the evidence.
Buell Wesley Frazier: A commute with Oswald, then a harsh interrogation
“I was interrogated and questioned for many, many hours,” Frazier said. “Interrogators would rotate.”
Dallas police Capt. Will Fritz, who was in charge of the homicide department, came into the room with a typed statement. He handed Frazier a pen and demanded he sign it. It was a confession. Frazier refused.
“This was ridiculous,” he said. “Captain Fritz got very red-faced, and he put up his hand to hit me and I put my arm up to block. I told him we’d have a hell of a fight and I would get some good licks in on him. Then he stormed out the door.”
Frazier never saw him again. At around 3 a.m. the next day, police let Frazier go.
https://richmond.com/buell-wesley-frazier-a-commute-with-oswald-then-a-harsh-interrogation/article_a9be7f2e-fb7f-5357-91c9-605df00641f7.html
-
It became very clear, very quickly, Frazier had nothing to do with it and he had no reason to lie about anything.
If you doubt the confession story? - You need to learn the evidence.
Buell Wesley Frazier: A commute with Oswald, then a harsh interrogation
“I was interrogated and questioned for many, many hours,” Frazier said. “Interrogators would rotate.”
Dallas police Capt. Will Fritz, who was in charge of the homicide department, came into the room with a typed statement. He handed Frazier a pen and demanded he sign it. It was a confession. Frazier refused.
“This was ridiculous,” he said. “Captain Fritz got very red-faced, and he put up his hand to hit me and I put my arm up to block. I told him we’d have a hell of a fight and I would get some good licks in on him. Then he stormed out the door.”
Frazier never saw him again. At around 3 a.m. the next day, police let Frazier go.
https://richmond.com/buell-wesley-frazier-a-commute-with-oswald-then-a-harsh-interrogation/article_a9be7f2e-fb7f-5357-91c9-605df00641f7.html
It became very clear, very quickly, Frazier had nothing to do with it and he had no reason to lie about anything.
You can't possibly be serious? Frazier was a 19 year old kid who drove the President's assassin to work and watched the President's assassin carry the murder weapon into the building where the President's assassin shot John F Kennedy. Throughout this whole process leading up to the Warren Commission's questioning, Frazier would have no possible way of knowing what was going to happen to him but he did know that his initial story of how Oswald carried the murder weapon, which frankly no one believed, had to be continued. And we know that Frazier was lying because Oswald's rifle sized bag does exist and was found to have Oswald's prints on it.
“I was interrogated and questioned for many, many hours,” Frazier said. “Interrogators would rotate.”
Dallas police Capt. Will Fritz, who was in charge of the homicide department, came into the room with a typed statement. He handed Frazier a pen and demanded he sign it. It was a confession. Frazier refused.
“This was ridiculous,” he said. “Captain Fritz got very red-faced, and he put up his hand to hit me and I put my arm up to block. I told him we’d have a hell of a fight and I would get some good licks in on him. Then he stormed out the door.”
Frazier never saw him again. At around 3 a.m. the next day, police let Frazier go.
I don't doubt that Frazier was interrogated at length because that was the reason that Frazier felt compelled to repeat his ludicrous story about how Oswald carried the rifle bag, a bag that supposedly contained "curtain rods" that were never found and these oh so important "curtain rods" that Oswald made a unique mid week trip to Irving for, were just left behind by Oswald??, yeah sure!
But the evidence is that Oswald's rifle bag was left behind on the 6th floor along with Oswald's rifle because Oswald in flight and in a real hurry to leave the scene of his crime.
And as for meek, mild mannered threatening Fritz is a load of old cobblers. Fritz by all accounts iirc was successful because of his calm demeanour and friendly grandfather type approach, so I seriously doubt that he would raise his hand, because if anything he would play good cop and have someone else play bad cop and threaten Frazier.
JohnM
-
You can't possibly be serious? Frazier was a 19 year old kid who drove the President's assassin to work and watched the President's assassin carry the murder weapon into the building where the President's assassin shot John F Kennedy. Throughout this whole process leading up to the Warren Commission's questioning, Frazier would have no possible way of knowing what was going to happen to him but he did know that his initial story of how Oswald carried the murder weapon, which frankly no one believed, had to be continued. And we know that Frazier was lying because Oswald's rifle sized bag does exist and was found to have Oswald's prints on it.
I don't doubt that Frazier was interrogated at length because that was the reason that Frazier felt compelled to repeat his ludicrous story about how Oswald carried the rifle bag, a bag that supposedly contained "curtain rods" that were never found and these oh so important "curtain rods" that Oswald made a unique mid week trip to Irving for, were just left behind by Oswald??, yeah sure!
But the evidence is that Oswald's rifle bag was left behind on the 6th floor along with Oswald's rifle because Oswald in flight and in a real hurry to leave the scene of his crime.
And as for meek, mild mannered threatening Fritz is a load of old cobblers. Fritz by all accounts iirc was successful because of his calm demeanour and friendly grandfather type approach, so I seriously doubt that he would raise his hand, because if anything he would play good cop and have someone else play bad cop and threaten Frazier.
JohnM
He had nothing to be afraid of. He has no reason to lie.
-
- from her FBI Statement-
"....she had only observed the brown package from her residence window at a distance."
@ Tom Sorensen - thanx for pointing out the 3 foot length was added by FBI Bookout.
HUH? How do you or Tom reach that conclusion?
RANDLE stated that about 7:15 a.m., November 22, 1963, she looked out of a window of her residence and observed LEE HARVEY OSWALD walking up her driveway and saw him put a long brown package, approximately 3 feet by 6 inches, in the back seat area of WESLEY FRAZIER's 1954 black Chevrolet four door automobile. Thereafter, she observed OSWALD walk to the front, or entrance area, of her residence where he waited for FRAZIER to come out of the house and give him a ride to work.
The only brown paper package that was found had Oswald's prints, and for the 2 foot "curtain rods" story to be true then they must have been found in the Depository, yet they never were.
(https://i.postimg.cc/j2YLPySd/Osw-ald-s-prints-on-the-bag.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/fyX6J4tY/buell-linnie-bag-est.jpg)
"....she had only observed the brown package from her residence window at a distance."
(https://i.postimg.cc/Dwkmmh6S/osw-ald-walks-to-frazier-car.gif)
JohnM
-
He had nothing to be afraid of. He has no reason to lie.
So Frazier was interrogated for hours and was threatened with violence and he has no reason to be afraid? WOW!
JohnM
-
So Frazier was interrogated for hours and was threatened with violence and he has no reason to be afraid? WOW!
JohnM
He has done nothing wrong. He has no reason to lie.
Be Frazier. "Why do I have to make up a story? I didn't do nothin'."
-
He didn't pay attention to the bag, but what exactly was Frazier's mistake?
-
backed up by what? - therefore it was the rifle ?
U think the way she saw the bag carried is proof it was a rifle? -wow leaps and bounds - but total BS:!!
Any size within arms length can be carried as she saw it - a shorter length is just as accessible - what she saw does not CONFIRM rifle size.
--You make up stuff a lot.
- from her FBI Statement-
"....she had only observed the brown package from her residence window at a distance."
@ Tom Sorensen - thanx for pointing out the 3 foot length was added by FBI Bookout.
You began this posting explaining how LHO never could have carried a package longer than 27 inches. At least you understand a 27 inch package does not match the description of what Linnie Mae saw LHO carrying. It could only be the 42 inches length she originally estimated. If you have convinced yourself that the bag did not contain the rifle LHO bought from Kleins and was matched to the shells, bullet and bullet fragments that killed JFK and was discovered on the 6th floor. So be it, but you have yet to offer anything that even remotely casts doubt on it. In fact, your evasion of the Linnie Mae observation along with numerous attempts to change or alter the subject only serves to prove what is being stated as true. The bag was located on the 6th floor as was the rifle, what other information were you looking for?
Tom Sorenson provided an opinion and nothing else, just background noise. Noticeably, Tom failed, the same as you, to provide any information at all as to how a 27 inch bag could be carried by LHO as described by Linnie Mae.
-
It became very clear, very quickly, Frazier had nothing to do with it and he had no reason to lie about anything.
If you doubt the confession story? - You need to learn the evidence.
Buell Wesley Frazier: A commute with Oswald, then a harsh interrogation
“I was interrogated and questioned for many, many hours,” Frazier said. “Interrogators would rotate.”
Dallas police Capt. Will Fritz, who was in charge of the homicide department, came into the room with a typed statement. He handed Frazier a pen and demanded he sign it. It was a confession. Frazier refused.
“This was ridiculous,” he said. “Captain Fritz got very red-faced, and he put up his hand to hit me and I put my arm up to block. I told him we’d have a hell of a fight and I would get some good licks in on him. Then he stormed out the door.”
Frazier never saw him again. At around 3 a.m. the next day, police let Frazier go.
https://richmond.com/buell-wesley-frazier-a-commute-with-oswald-then-a-harsh-interrogation/article_a9be7f2e-fb7f-5357-91c9-605df00641f7.html
Is there a point to this other than you do not accept BWF's statement that he was just was not paying attention to LHO and what he was carrying? His estimation of the bag does not fit with her description of the package.
-
He has done nothing wrong. He has no reason to lie.
Be Frazier. "Why do I have to make up a story? I didn't do nothin'."
He has done nothing wrong.
I couldn't agree more but being in the wrong place at the wrong time is a big problem.
He has no reason to lie.
Frazier has every reason to lie, he was extensively interrogated and was threatened with violence, all because he drove the assassin to work and witnessed the rifle bag being carried into the building where the rifle was used. So it's clear that in Frazier's mind the best defence is at least to disassociate himself from the package and the best way is to claim that the bag was too small for a rifle, then simpleton Frazier on the fly invented a cockamamie story, which simply doesn't stand up to scrutiny, because we know Oswald didn't need curtain rods, no curtain rods were found, the bag was found with Oswald's prints and the bag was an exact fit for Oswald's rifle.
Another interesting factoid is another simpleton Dougherty testified that some of the fellows and specifically Shelley saw the bag, but obviously Shelley knew better than to admit that he saw Oswald carry the murder weapon. But poor old Frazier had no choice but to slightly twist and admit what he saw, but the best excuse Frazier could come up with, was to introduce a little white lie.
Mr. BALL - Did you ever see Lee Oswald carry any sort of large package?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - Well, I didn't, but some of the fellows said they did.
Mr. BALL - Who said that?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - Well, Bill Shelley, he told me that he thought he saw him carrying a fairly good-sized package.
Mr. BALL - When did Shelley tell you that?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - Well, it was--the day after it happened.
https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/testimony/doughert.htm
Be Frazier. "Why do I have to make up a story? I didn't do nothin'."
That's a Freudian slip, if he "didn't do nothin", then he "must have done somethin"! Hahaha!
Seriously though, Frazier was for all intents and purposes as innocent as a new born, but under these extreme circumstances a man will do what a man's gotta do, to protect himself!
JohnM
-
The bag exists. It was measured. That's it.
On this rare occasion Richard actually makes sense. 38 inches of red herring. The biggest in this case?
-
Studebaker knew where it was.
(https://i.postimg.cc/NMJDYNWX/outline-bag.jpg)
Mr. BALL. Now, did you at any time see any paper sack around there?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. Yes sir.
Mr. BALL. Where?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. Storage room there - in, the southeast corner of the building folded.
Mr. BALL. In the southeast corner of the building?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. It was a paper - I don't know what it was.
Mr. BALL. And it was folded, you say?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. Yes.
Mr. BALL. Where was it with respect to the three boxes of which the top two were Rolling Readers?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. Directly east.
Mr. BALL. There is a corner there, isn't it?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. Yes, sir; in the southeast corner.
Mr. BALL. It was in the southeast corner?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. I drew that box in for somebody over at the FBI that said you wanted it. It is in one of those pictures - one of the shots after the duplicate shot.
Mr. BALL. Let's mark this picture "Exhibit F."
(Instrument marked by the reporter as "Studebaker Exhibit F," for identification.)
Mr. BALL. Do you know who took that picture?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. No; I don't.
Mr. BALL. Do you recognize the diagram?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. Did you draw the diagram?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. I drew a diagram in there for the FBI, somebody from the FBI called me down - I can't think of his name, and he wanted an approximate location of where the paper was found.
Mr. BALL. Does that show the approximate location?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. Yes.
Mr. BALL. Where you have the dotted lines?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. Yes.
....
Mr. BALL. Now, how big was this paper.that you saw - you saw the wrapper - tell me about how big that paper bag was - how long was it?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. It was about, I would say, 3 1/2 to 4 feet long.
Mr. BALL. The paper bag?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. Yes.
Mr. BALL. And how wide was it? Approximately 8 inches.
The bag was photographed leaving the building, the same bag as described by 6 Police Officers.
(https://i.postimg.cc/FH6F00P5/Empty-Paper-Bag-Removed-From-TSBD.jpg)
JohnM
ROFL, the photo shows it's not there. Either Studebaker or Day took the photo. They both took multiple shots of the same scene; only the best was entered into evidence. You need to deal with the facts.
-
Tom Sorenson provided an opinion and nothing else, just background noise. Noticeably, Tom failed, the same as you, to provide any information at all as to how a 27 inch bag could be carried by LHO as described by Linnie Mae.
The information I provided is factual. It's on record. You fell flat on your face again.
-
At least you understand a 27 inch package does not match the description of what Linnie Mae saw LHO carrying. It could only be the 42 inches length she originally estimated.
Sorry I don't - a shorter length does not refute what she saw. I think I said that at least 3 times now.
Actually, I don't know what you are arguing anymore.
-
Sorry I don't - a shorter length does not refute what she saw. I think I said that at least 3 times now.
Actually, I don't know what you are arguing anymore.
Well here let me refresh it for you. We weren’t arguing, at least four times I have explained a 27-inch bag cannot be carried in the manner Linnie Mae Randle described. It is simply true. You side stepped, changed the subject, and evaded the whole issue without ever explaining how LHO could have carried it in the manner she described without having been bent over at the waist. In turn it called into question BWF’s recounting of the length of the package which led you down a dark path about BWF with Fritz being at the center of the story of a conspiracy.
Does that help? If you want to ignore it then ignore it, but it will not make the issue go away. Funny how such a simple little detail, the bag being carried barely above the ground and the left hand supporting it down low, can define the whole event.
-
The information I provided is factual. It's on record. You fell flat on your face again.
Thanks for the update. I did not know you had provided any worthwhile information at all.
-
Well here let me refresh it for you. We weren’t arguing, at least four times I have explained a 27-inch bag cannot be carried in the manner Linnie Mae Randle described. It is simply true. You side stepped, changed the subject, and evaded the whole issue without ever explaining how LHO could have carried it in the manner she described without having been bent over at the waist. In turn it called into question BWF’s recounting of the length of the package which led you down a dark path about BWF with Fritz being at the center of the story of a conspiracy.
Does that help? If you want to ignore it then ignore it, but it will not make the issue go away. Funny how such a simple little detail, the bag being carried barely above the ground and the left hand supporting it down low, can define the whole event.
How is he bent over? - if the package is shorter - he holds in the manner she had seen.
How does a shorter package restrict the way he held it, if he can reach both portions
One hand near the top - the other for support at the bottom. I seriously don't understand your point.
It is certainly is NO proof the package is longer than about 2 feet.
-
Why does Lee have to carry the package in the same manner as seen by LMR?
You are kidding me, right? Was someone else carrying a package that morning?
-
You are kidding me, right? Was someone else carrying a package that morning?
:D It has been corrected.
-
Thanks for the update. I did not know you had provided any worthwhile information at all.
I'm aware that facts don't worry you too much, so how would you have noticed? Carry on. ROFL.
-
ROFL, the photo shows it's not there. Either Studebaker or Day took the photo. They both took multiple shots of the same scene; only the best was entered into evidence. You need to deal with the facts.
You need to deal with the facts.
It looks like I'm the only one dealing with the facts!
1) Oswald makes a trip to Irving for the first time ever mid-week on Thursday.
2) Just by chance?, President Kennedy is passing by Oswald's work place the very next day.
3) Oswald for the first time ever brings a long package to work, he tells Frazier it contains "curtain rods"
4) Oswald immediately upon arrival at Frazier's hides the package in the back seat of Frazier's car then goes back to wait for Frazier.
5) Oswald for the first time ever, walks ahead of Frazier increasing the gap as they walk to the Depository.
6) Oswald's rifle is found on the 6th floor.
7) A long bag is found with Oswald's prints.
8} No "curtain rods" are ever found.
9) Oswald's fresh prints are found in the sniper's nest and Oswald's fresh prints are found on the rifle rest boxes, which were moved half way across the 6th floor. And even though he does indeed work there, it's not his job to touch every box every few days.
10) Oswald for some reason known only to him, decides to leave within 3 minutes of the President being shot.
11) No one who sees Oswald thereafter says that Oswald was carrying a long brown package, odd considering that Oswald specifically made the unscheduled trip to Irving for "curtain rods".
12) "Curtain rods" were not found in Oswald's room and as a matter of fact his room didn't even need "curtain rods"
12) Oswald lies to interrogators about what was in the brown paper package.
13) Oswald lies to interrogators about where in Frazier's car he stored the package.
These Tom my good friend are just some of the facts in this case, and so far not one CT is willing to deal with these facts, why is that?
JohnM
-
How is he bent over? - if the package is shorter - he holds in the manner she had seen.
How does a shorter package restrict the way he held it, if he can reach both portions
One hand near the top - the other for support at the bottom. I seriously don't understand your point.
It is certainly is NO proof the package is longer than about 2 feet.
It is certainly is NO proof the package is longer than about 2 feet.
So Michael, you acknowledge that Oswald carried a long package to work, why didn't anyone who saw Oswald in the immediate aftermath see Oswald with the long package?
Because the package was important enough for Oswald to make a special trip to Irving to collect it, so where is it, what happened to it and why would Oswald leave it behind?
I propose a theory that explains it all, hear me out.
Oswald made a special trip to Irving on a Thursday so he could retrieve his rifle, a rifle that was missing form the Paine garage on the Friday afternoon.
Oswald wrapped the rifle in brown paper that came from the Depository so the rifle sack could be easily smuggled into his work and wouldn't be so conspicuous.
Oswald left the paper sack and the rifle on the 6th floor and got the heck out of there as quickly as possible.
See Michael, no mental gymnastics required, a straight forward assassination explains ALL the evidence and also explains ALL of Oswald's actions.
JohnM
-
It looks like I'm the only one dealing with the facts!
1) Oswald makes a trip to Irving for the first time ever mid-week on Thursday.
2) Just by chance?, President Kennedy is passing by Oswald's work place the very next day.
3) Oswald for the first time ever brings a long package to work, he tells Frazier it contains "curtain rods"
4) Oswald immediately upon arrival at Frazier's hides the package in the back seat of Frazier's car then goes back to wait for Frazier.
5) Oswald for the first time ever, walks ahead of Frazier increasing the gap as they walk to the Depository.
6) Oswald's rifle is found on the 6th floor.
7) A long bag is found with Oswald's prints.
8} No "curtain rods" are ever found.
9) Oswald's fresh prints are found in the sniper's nest and Oswald's fresh prints are found on the rifle rest boxes, which were moved half way across the 6th floor. And even though he does indeed work there, it's not his job to touch every box every few days.
10) Oswald for some reason known only to him, decides to leave within 3 minutes of the President being shot.
11) No one who sees Oswald thereafter says that Oswald was carrying a long brown package, odd considering that Oswald specifically made the unscheduled trip to Irving for "curtain rods".
12) "Curtain rods" were not found in Oswald's room and as a matter of fact his room didn't even need "curtain rods"
12) Oswald lies to interrogators about what was in the brown paper package.
13) Oswald lies to interrogators about where in Frazier's car he stored the package.
These Tom my good friend are just some of the facts in this case, and so far not one CT is willing to deal with these facts, why is that?
JohnM
It's amazing to see what you actually consider to be "facts".
So Michael, you acknowledge that Oswald carried a long package to work, why didn't anyone who saw Oswald in the immediate aftermath see Oswald with the long package?
Because the package was important enough for Oswald to make a special trip to Irving to collect it, so where is it, what happened to it and why would Oswald leave it behind?
I propose a theory that explains it all, hear me out.
Oswald made a special trip to Irving on a Thursday so he could retrieve his rifle, a rifle that was missing form the Paine garage on the Friday afternoon.
Oswald wrapped the rifle in brown paper that came from the Depository so the rifle sack could be easily smuggled into his work and wouldn't be so conspicuous.
Oswald left the paper sack and the rifle on the 6th floor and got the heck out of there as quickly as possible.
See Michael, no mental gymnastics required, a straight forward assassination explains ALL the evidence and also explains ALL of Oswald's actions.
JohnM
Oswald made a special trip to Irving on a Thursday so he could retrieve his rifle,
Speculation not supported by actual evidence. Marina and Ruth Paine both said he came to Irving to make up with Marina and persuade her to live together with him again.
a rifle that was missing form the Paine garage on the Friday afternoon.
More speculation! There is not a shred of evidence that there actually was a rifle in Ruth Paine's garage on 11/21/63
Oswald wrapped the rifle in brown paper that came from the Depository so the rifle sack could be easily smuggled into his work and wouldn't be so conspicuous.
Again, pure speculation. There is no evidence that the paper bag made from TSBD materials ever left the building. Frazier denied, on Friday evening, that the TSBD bag wasn't the one he saw Oswald carry. That's first day evidence!
Oswald left the paper sack and the rifle on the 6th floor and got the heck out of there as quickly as possible.
You just can't help yourself, can you? There is no evidence that Oswald left anything on the 6th floor or that he was even there when the shots were fired. It's all speculation!
See Michael, no mental gymnastics required, a straight forward assassination explains ALL the evidence and also explains ALL of Oswald's actions.
Having a theory is fine as long as it supported by actual evidence. Your theory is nothing more than a made up fairytale.
-
It's amazing to see what you actually consider to be "facts".
Oswald made a special trip to Irving on a Thursday so he could retrieve his rifle,
Speculation not supported by actual evidence. Marina and Ruth Paine both said he came to Irving to make up with Marina and persuade her to live together with him again.
a rifle that was missing form the Paine garage on the Friday afternoon.
More speculation! There is not a shred of evidence that there actually was a rifle in Ruth Paine's garage on 11/21/63
Oswald wrapped the rifle in brown paper that came from the Depository so the rifle sack could be easily smuggled into his work and wouldn't be so conspicuous.
Again, pure speculation. There is no evidence that the paper bag made from TSBD materials ever left the building. Frazier denied, on Friday evening, that the TSBD bag wasn't the one he saw Oswald carry. That's first day evidence!
Oswald left the paper sack and the rifle on the 6th floor and got the heck out of there as quickly as possible.
You just can't help yourself, can you? There is no evidence that Oswald left anything on the 6th floor or that he was even there when the shots were fired. It's all speculation!
See Michael, no mental gymnastics required, a straight forward assassination explains ALL the evidence and also explains ALL of Oswald's actions.
Having a theory is fine as long as it supported by actual evidence. Your theory is nothing more than a made up fairytale.
Speculation not supported by actual evidence. Marina and Ruth Paine both said he came to Irving to make up with Marina and persuade her to live together with him again.
Sorry old chum the evidence is that Oswald told Frazier that he was going to get "curtain rods" and he accomplished the mission by having "curtain rods" with him the very next day and since "curtain rods" were never found and/or needed then we can know for a certainty that the mission was to retrieve his rifle, you know Oswald's rifle that was found on the 6th floor!
Mr. FRAZIER - Well, I say, we were standing like I said at the four-headed table about half as large as this, not, quite half as large, but anyway I was standing there getting the orders in and he said, "Could I ride home with you this afternoon?"
And I said, "Sure. You know, like I told you, you can go home with me any time you want to, like I say anytime you want to go see your wife that is all right with me."
So automatically I knew it wasn't Friday, I come to think it wasn't Friday and I said, "Why are you going home today?"
And he says, "I am going home to get some curtain rods." He said, "You know, put in an apartment."
He wanted to hang up some curtains and I said, "Very well." And I never thought more about it and I had some invoices in my hands for some orders and I walked on off and started filling the orders.
Mr. FRAZIER - Let's see, when I got in the car I have a kind of habit of glancing over my shoulder and so at that time I noticed there was a package laying on the back seat, I didn't pay too much attention and I said, "What's the package, Lee?"
And he said, "Curtain rods," and I said, "Oh, yes, you told me you was going to bring some today."
That is the reason, the main reason he was going over there that Thursday afternoon when he was to bring back some curtain rods, so I didn't think any more about it when he told me that.
Having a theory is fine as long as it supported by actual evidence. Your theory is nothing more than a made up fairytale.
And here we are 60+ years later and my "fairytale" has withstood the test of time and is firmly entrenched in the History Books.
Whereas the CT's have spent virtually their entire lives looking for a viable alternative and so far all we have is empty denials, poor critical thinking and endless unproven allegations. Go figure!
JohnM
-
Sorry old chum the evidence is that Oswald told Frazier that he was going to get "curtain rods" and he accomplished the mission by having "curtain rods" with him the very next day and since "curtain rods" were never found and/or needed then we can know for a certainty that the mission was to retrieve his rifle, you know Oswald's rifle that was found on the 6th floor!
Mr. FRAZIER - Well, I say, we were standing like I said at the four-headed table about half as large as this, not, quite half as large, but anyway I was standing there getting the orders in and he said, "Could I ride home with you this afternoon?"
And I said, "Sure. You know, like I told you, you can go home with me any time you want to, like I say anytime you want to go see your wife that is all right with me."
So automatically I knew it wasn't Friday, I come to think it wasn't Friday and I said, "Why are you going home today?"
And he says, "I am going home to get some curtain rods." He said, "You know, put in an apartment."
He wanted to hang up some curtains and I said, "Very well." And I never thought more about it and I had some invoices in my hands for some orders and I walked on off and started filling the orders.
Mr. FRAZIER - Let's see, when I got in the car I have a kind of habit of glancing over my shoulder and so at that time I noticed there was a package laying on the back seat, I didn't pay too much attention and I said, "What's the package, Lee?"
And he said, "Curtain rods," and I said, "Oh, yes, you told me you was going to bring some today."
That is the reason, the main reason he was going over there that Thursday afternoon when he was to bring back some curtain rods, so I didn't think any more about it when he told me that.
And here we are 60+ years later and my "fairytale" has withstood the test of time and is firmly entrenched in the History Books.
Whereas the CT's have spent virtually their entire lives looking for a viable alternative and so far all we have is empty denials, poor critical thinking and endless unproven allegations. Go figure!
JohnM
Sorry old chum the evidence is that Oswald told Frazier that he was going to get "curtain rods" and he accomplished the mission by having "curtain rods" with him the very next day
Hilarious! Oswald was going to Irving to make up with his wife and he is supposed to tell a 19 year old co-worker about his marital troubles? Really? Obviously he needed an excuse when Frazier asked him, so he told a white lie. No big deal!
One would think that his wife and the lady she's living with would know exactly why he came to Irving, but only in your alternate reality his wife and Ruth Paine are lying about that. Go figure.
Btw, what exactly was the mission Oswald was on? Do you have a shred of evidence that there was even a rifle in Ruth Paine's garage on 11/21/63? I seriously doubt it!
and since "curtain rods" were never found and/or needed then we can know for a certainty that the mission was to retrieve his rifle,
Wow! No curtain rods being found provides you "certainty" that Oswald collected a rifle you can't even prove was there. Talk about being delusional!
you know Oswald's rifle that was found on the 6th floor!
LOL
-
Sorry old chum the evidence is that Oswald told Frazier that he was going to get "curtain rods" and he accomplished the mission by having "curtain rods" with him the very next day
Hilarious! Oswald was going to Irving to make up with his wife and he is supposed to tell a 19 year old co-worker about his marital troubles? Really? Obviously he needed an excuse when Frazier asked him, so he told a white lie. No big deal!
One would think that his wife and the lady she's living with would know exactly why he came to Irving, but only in your alternate reality his wife and Ruth Paine are lying about that. Go figure.
Btw, what exactly was the mission Oswald was on? Do you have a shred of evidence that there was even a rifle in Ruth Paine's garage on 11/21/63? I seriously doubt it!
and since "curtain rods" were never found and/or needed then we can know for a certainty that the mission was to retrieve his rifle,
Wow! No curtain rods being found provides you "certainty" that Oswald collected a rifle you can't even prove was there. Talk about being delusional!
you know Oswald's rifle that was found on the 6th floor!
LOL
That's all very nice but irrelevant, why didn't you address the Elephant in the room, why on Earth would Oswald take "curtain rods" in a long package to work and then simply leave them behind? And don't forget that his rooming house's room had curtain rods, so think hard and try to explain this massive dilemma, Good Luck!
JohnM
-
That's all very nice but irrelevant, why didn't you address the Elephant in the room, why on Earth would Oswald take "curtain rods" in a long package to work and then simply leave them behind? And don't forget that his rooming house's room had curtain rods, so think hard and try to explain this massive dilemma, Good Luck!
JohnM
why didn't you address the Elephant in the room
What Elephant would that be?
why on Earth would Oswald take "curtain rods" in a long package to work and then simply leave them behind?
He probably didn't. I don't know what was in the bag and neither do you. Frazier said that he carried the bag between the cup of his hand and under his armpit. That's not an estimate. It's an observation!
You can speculate all you want, but a dismanteld MC rifle could not fit between the cup of Oswald's hand and under his armpit.
And don't forget that his rooming house's room had curtain rods, so think hard and try to explain this massive dilemma, Good Luck!
There is no dilemma. All there is, is you speculating based on the mere fact that Frazier said Oswald told him about collecting curtain rods.
-
why didn't you address the Elephant in the room
What Elephant would that be?
why on Earth would Oswald take "curtain rods" in a long package to work and then simply leave them behind?
He probably didn't. I don't know what was in the bag and neither do you. Frazier said that he carried the bag between the cup of his hand and under his armpit. That's not an estimate. It's an observation!
You can speculate all you want, but a dismanteld MC rifle could not fit between the cup of Oswald's hand and under his armpit.
And don't forget that his rooming house's room had curtain rods, so think hard and try to explain this massive dilemma, Good Luck!
There is no dilemma. All there is, is you speculating based on the mere fact that Frazier said Oswald told him about collecting curtain rods.
...based on the mere fact that Frazier said Oswald told him about collecting curtain rods.
Sorry Martin you've got it all wrong, not only did Oswald tell Frazier that he was going to Irving to collect "curtain rods" but Oswald told Frazier very specifically that on the back seat of Frazier's car were those very same "curtain rods". So I'll ask again what happened to the curtain rods and why didn't Oswald take them with him?
JohnM
-
That's all very nice but irrelevant, why didn't you address the Elephant in the room, why on Earth would Oswald take "curtain rods" in a long package to work and then simply leave them behind? And don't forget that his rooming house's room had curtain rods, so think hard and try to explain this massive dilemma, Good Luck!
JohnM
Again, in the real world, there is no dilemma. It only exists in your imagination.
What makes you think that there actually were curtain rods in that bag?
Just because Oswald used it as an excuse to explain his trip to Irving instead of telling a 19 year old co-worker about his marital problems?
Your self serving speculation is pathetic.
All this BS;
I propose a theory that explains it all, hear me out.
Oswald made a special trip to Irving on a Thursday so he could retrieve his rifle, a rifle that was missing form the Paine garage on the Friday afternoon.
Oswald wrapped the rifle in brown paper that came from the Depository so the rifle sack could be easily smuggled into his work and wouldn't be so conspicuous.
Oswald left the paper sack and the rifle on the 6th floor and got the heck out of there as quickly as possible.
See Michael, no mental gymnastics required, a straight forward assassination explains ALL the evidence and also explains ALL of Oswald's actions.
is more than likely based on a white lie Oswald told Frazier to explain why he went to Irving.
Why don't you provide actual evidence that there was indeed a rifle, belonging to Oswald, in Ruth Paine's garage on 11/21/63?
If you do that, we may have something to talk about....... so, where is that evidence?
-
Again, in the real world, there is no dilemma. It only exists in your imagination.
What makes you think that there actually were curtain rods in that bag?
Just because Oswald used it as an excuse to explain his trip to Irving instead of telling a 19 year old co-worker about his marital problems?
Your self serving speculation is pathetic.
All this BS;
is more than likely based on a white lie Oswald told Frazier to explain why he went to Irving.
Why don't you provide actual evidence that there was indeed a rifle, belonging to Oswald, in Ruth Paine's garage on 11/21/63?
If you do that, we may have something to talk about....... so, where is that evidence?
C'mon Martin, this is weak sauce, it's well established that Oswald was having marital problems because for a start he wasn't living with Marina, DUH!
And their latest tiff happened on the previous Monday, so Oswald had Tuesday and Wednesday to rectify their marriage but instead of waiting till the weekend where he would have 2 full days to fully explain himself, he chose Thursday, the precise night before the President arrived. Some coincidence?
But anyway, you keep running from the fact that Oswald took a large package to work and instead of answering my simple questions, you keep deflecting because let's face it, you're stumped!
JohnM
-
:D It has been corrected.
It was a little too obvious to not have been just an oversight.
-
How is he bent over? - if the package is shorter - he holds in the manner she had seen.
How does a shorter package restrict the way he held it, if he can reach both portions
One hand near the top - the other for support at the bottom. I seriously don't understand your point.
It is certainly is NO proof the package is longer than about 2 feet.
MC--"One hand near the top - the other for support at the bottom. I seriously don't understand your point."
This is also obvious. If the almost touches the ground and his left hand is near the bottom, LHO has to be bent over to be holding.
Oswald is 5 feet 9 inches----69 inches tall, LHO waist would be approximately 29 inches
The bag is 27 inches.
Oswald right hand is several inches below the top. Left hand near the bottom.
Linnie Mae stated the bag almost touched the ground. That would make LHO’s right hand below 6 inches + below his waist and his left hand near the ground. He would have to be bent at the waist to carry the package with the bottom close the ground along with his left hand.
Mrs. RANDLE. He was carrying a package in a sort of a heavy brown bag, heavier than a grocery bag it looked to me. It was about, if I might measure, about this long, I suppose, and he carried it in his right hand, had the top sort of folded down and had a grip like this, and the bottom, he carried it this way, you know, and it almost touched the ground as he carried it.
Mr. BALL. And he was grabbing it with his right hand at the top of the package and the package almost touched the ground?
Mrs. RANDLE. Yes, sir.
-
I'm aware that facts don't worry you too much, so how would you have noticed? Carry on. ROFL.
John Myton is working overtime to educate you on the facts but it does not appear to be taking. If you decide to actually contribute something to the discussion instead of this nonsense that would be great.
-
The bag is 27 inches.
The rifle broken down is 34.8 inches long, About 40 inches assembled.
So, whatever Frazier saw was obviously not the rifle.
How does this prove what LMR saw was any longer?
-
John Myton is working overtime to educate you on the facts but it does not appear to be taking. If you decide to actually contribute something to the discussion instead of this nonsense that would be great.
Mytton is in the same dilemma as you. He just has more pictures.
...they provide no further proof but appear right on cue.
Sometimes they flash and blink with yellow squigglys.
-
MC--"One hand near the top - the other for support at the bottom. I seriously don't understand your point."
This is also obvious. If the almost touches the ground and his left hand is near the bottom, LHO has to be bent over to be holding.
Oswald is 5 feet 9 inches----69 inches tall, LHO waist would be approximately 29 inches
The bag is 27 inches.
Oswald right hand is several inches below the top. Left hand near the bottom.
Linnie Mae stated the bag almost touched the ground. That would make LHO’s right hand below 6 inches + below his waist and his left hand near the ground. He would have to be bent at the waist to carry the package with the bottom close the ground along with his left hand.
Mrs. RANDLE. He was carrying a package in a sort of a heavy brown bag, heavier than a grocery bag it looked to me. It was about, if I might measure, about this long, I suppose, and he carried it in his right hand, had the top sort of folded down and had a grip like this, and the bottom, he carried it this way, you know, and it almost touched the ground as he carried it.
Mr. BALL. And he was grabbing it with his right hand at the top of the package and the package almost touched the ground?
Mrs. RANDLE. Yes, sir.
I made this graphic a few years ago illustrating how Linnie Mae was describing how Oswald was holding the bag, and if the bag was only 2 feet long then it wouldn't be almost touching the ground because Oswald isn't a gorilla!
(https://i.postimg.cc/SNNRzNgb/Randle-bag-near-touch-ground-b.jpg)
Also another fun fact, is if you look at Oswald's bag being taken from the depository the bottom which is the open side is excessively crumpled as if someone was holding it like Linnie Mae described!
(https://i.postimg.cc/1tsshJT1/oswald-bag-at-depository.jpg)
JohnM
-
Mytton is in the same dilemma as you. He just has more pictures.
...they provide no further proof but appear right on cue.
Sometimes they flash and blink with yellow squigglys.
Mytton is in the same dilemma as you. He just has more pictures.
...they provide no further proof but appear right on cue.
Check out the images I posted directly before this one, it'll blow your mind!
Sometimes they flash and blink with yellow squigglys.
They flash when I compare two photos and "coloured squigglys" are to highlight specific characteristics for those a bit slower than the rest of us!
JohnM
-
He didn't pay attention to the bag, but what exactly was Frazier's mistake?
-
I made this graphic a few years ago illustrating how Linnie Mae was describing how Oswald was holding the bag, and if the bag was only 2 feet long then it wouldn't be almost touching the ground because Oswald isn't a gorilla!
(https://i.postimg.cc/SNNRzNgb/Randle-bag-near-touch-ground-b.jpg)
Also another fun fact, is if you look at Oswald's bag being taken from the depository the bottom which is the open side is excessively crumpled as if someone was holding it like Linnie Mae described!
(https://i.postimg.cc/1tsshJT1/oswald-bag-at-depository.jpg)
JohnM
Great graphics John. Linnie adjusts the length of the bag to 27 inches but she does not alter her memory of how LHO held it to fit the new size. You picture is what a person envisions if LHO is holding it with one hand but I don’t think that is not what she is describing. Linnie changes the length of the bag but does not change how she remembers him holding it. Even though she states the bag is 27 inches long now, she still is referencing LHO holding the bag as being 3 feet 6 inches long. I think he had his right hand grasping the barrel below the front sight because of how she described it, and then she is still is referring to his left hand holding the bottom or near it.
Linnie: “and the bottom, he carried it this way, you know,”
If LHO is holding the bottom of the bag and it is 27 inches long and close to the ground he has to be bent over.
Mr Ball needed to get her to elaborate on how LHO was supporting it in more detail but he lets her just reference it the once. But once is enough to understand the bag was not 27 inches long.
-
The rifle broken down is 34.8 inches long, About 40 inches assembled.
So, whatever Frazier saw was obviously not the rifle.
How does this prove what LMR saw was any longer?
MC "One hand near the top - the other for support at the bottom. I seriously don't understand your point"
You never incorporated your statement about how LHO was holding the bag in your reply. Tuere is no doubt as to why. Obviously, you understand its importance. Linnie Mae exposed BWF estimate of the bag as being false.
-
MC "One hand near the top - the other for support at the bottom. I seriously don't understand your point"
You never incorporated your statement about how LHO was holding the bag in your reply. Tuere is no doubt as to why. Obviously, you understand its importance. Linnie Mae exposed BWF estimate of the bag as being false.
WHY? please tell me. - I'm talking to a brick - I'll say it again...
A shorter package does not refute what LMR saw. I just don't know what else to say.
Frazier saw a bag from his palm to his armpit. How is that the rifle?
-
Put two things together that prove Lee Oswald owns that bag. Just two.
60 pages and Mytton & Nissan have failed with half truth and assumptions.
-
Whoa ! Randle makes no mention of the left hand or holding the bottom.
Mrs. RANDLE. He was carrying a package in a sort of a heavy brown bag, heavier than a grocery bag it looked to me. It was about, if I might measure, about this long, I suppose, and he carried it in his right hand, had the top sort of folded down and had a grip like this, and the bottom, he carried it this way, you know, and it almost touched the ground as he carried it.
Mr. BALL. Let me see. He carried it in his right hand, did he?
Mrs. RANDLE. That is right.
Mr. BALL. And where was his hand gripping the middle of the package?
Mrs. RANDLE. No, sir; the top with just a little bit sticking up. You know just like you grab something like that.
Mr. BALL. And he was grabbing it with his right hand at the top of the package and the package almost touched the ground?
Mrs. RANDLE. Yes, sir.
He's holding it like a grip bag with one hand - but she only saw him from the waist up. (and white t shirt?)
"He had on a white T-shirt, I just saw him from the waist up,..."
it also gives absolutely no indication of a package longer than what Frazier said.
The 36" estimate was added by FBI Bookout by mistake - perhaps even fed to her. She has no reason to lie.
You put far too much weight in this unreliable witness at a glance - against Frazier - who is absolutely sure - palm to armpit.
Looking at this now, NO, her description does NOT match the placement of the fingerprints. Her description makes the bag no longer than what BWF saw
Thumb1: 2x Lee carried an 8 lb. rifle with one hand.
-
Put two things together that prove Lee Oswald owns that bag. Just two.
60 pages and Mytton & Nissan have failed with half truth and assumptions.
Why do CT's always make themselves the ultimate arbiter and for no reasonable reason, deny each and every piece of presented evidence? Lucky we have impartial Jury's, who make decisions based on the evidence and not their overpowering bias!
Oswald's prints were on the bag, and again, Oswald's prints were on the bag.
(https://i.postimg.cc/NGx7cFK3/Osw-aldsprintsonthebag.jpg)
The bag was a perfect fit for Oswald's rifle.
(https://i.postimg.cc/nccKcx7C/Osw-alds-Rifle-Paper-Bag.jpg)
The bag was recovered in the sniper's nest and Oswald's rifle was discovered on the very same floor.
JohnM
-
Whoa ! Randle makes no mention of the left hand or holding the bottom.
Mrs. RANDLE. He was carrying a package in a sort of a heavy brown bag, heavier than a grocery bag it looked to me. It was about, if I might measure, about this long, I suppose, and he carried it in his right hand, had the top sort of folded down and had a grip like this, and the bottom, he carried it this way, you know, and it almost touched the ground as he carried it.
Mr. BALL. Let me see. He carried it in his right hand, did he?
Mrs. RANDLE. That is right.
Mr. BALL. And where was his hand gripping the middle of the package?
Mrs. RANDLE. No, sir; the top with just a little bit sticking up. You know just like you grab something like that.
Mr. BALL. And he was grabbing it with his right hand at the top of the package and the package almost touched the ground?
Mrs. RANDLE. Yes, sir.
He's holding it like a grip with one hand - She only see him from the wast up.
This gives absolutely no indication of a package longer than what Frazier said.
The 36" estimate was added by FBI Bookout. AND she has no reason to lie.
You put far too much weight in this witness against Frazier - who is - absolutely sure - palm to armpit.
Looking at this now, her description does NOT match the placement of the fingerprints.
Thumb1: 2x Lee carried an 8 lb. rifle with one hand.
The 36" estimate was added by FBI Bookout.
Yeah it was written by Bookout after he wrote "Randle stated..."
Did Bookout estimate that Randle said Oswald walked up the driveway?
Did Bookout estimate that Randle said Oswald had a long brown package?
Did Bookout estimate that Randle said Oswald put the long brown package in the back of Wesley's car?
Did Bookout estimate that Randle said thereafter Oswald walked to the entrance area?
Did Bookout estimate that Randle said Oswald waited there for Wesley to come out and drive Oswald to work?
RANDLE stated that about 7:15 a.m., November 22, 1963, she looked out of a window of her residence and observed LEE HARVEY OSWALD walking up her driveway and saw him put a long brown package, approximately 3 feet by 6 inches, in the back seat area of WESLEY FRAZIER's 1954 black Chevrolet four door automobile. Thereafter, she observed OSWALD walk to the front, or entrance area, of her residence where he waited for FRAZIER to come out of the house and give him a ride to work.
• Randle initial estimate of the length of the long brown package was done out of honesty and all your denials won't change this solid evidence, the fact that she later colluded with Wesley to drastically shrink the package came about because of Wesley's fear, especially after Fritz threatened a poor innocent 19 year old with physical violence.
JohnM
-
...the fact that she later colluded with Wesley to drastically shrink the package came about because of Wesley's fear....
JohnM
Ridiculous claim without any proof.
-
WHY? please tell me. - I'm talking to a brick - I'll say it again...
A shorter package does not refute what LMR saw. I just don't know what else to say.
Frazier saw a bag from his palm to his armpit. How is that the rifle?
You are a brick. You have no idea what you post.
You wrote this “"One hand near the top - the other for support at the bottom. I seriously don't understand your point"
You cut and pasted this:
Mrs. RANDLE. He was carrying a package in a sort of a heavy brown bag, heavier than a grocery bag it looked to me. It was about, if I might measure, about this long, I suppose, and he carried it in his right hand, had the top sort of folded down and had a grip like this, and the bottom, he carried it this way, you know, and it almost touched the ground as he carried it.
You all by yourself completely have made the case that there is no way the bag was 27 inches. Nobody else needs to post another word. These denying posts make no sense in light of what you have posted about Linnie’s testimony. Her testimony was plain enough to understand that you made the claim the bag was held on the bottom and she stated repeatedly the bottom was nearly on the ground. There is no other explanation than LHO would have to have been bent over to accomplish that if the bag was 27 inches. For god’s sake do the math.
It is really simple you can either believe the bag was 27 inches and LHO was walking bent over or you can believe the bag was 42 inches and LHO was walking erect. Pick one.
-
Ridiculous claim without any proof.
It is not a ridiculous claim, it's called deductive reasoning based on affidavits, FBI report, physical evidence and testimony.
1) The first day evidence is that Linnie Mae Randall said she saw a three foot long package which is much, much longer than 2 foot and impossible to get wrong.
2) The only package found was a package about 3 feet long with Oswald's prints. See how the evidence fits!
3) Frazier is interrogated and threatened with physical violence.
4) Naďve Frazier would be scared of being guilty by association.
5) Oswald tells Frazier that his package contained "curtain rods" but I suspect Frazier knew otherwise and if not from the start, definitely after Frazier heard shots and Oswald was no where to be found.
6) To try and appear innocent Frazier tells the story that the package was only two feet long, too bad the only bag found was at least 50% longer and had Oswald's prints.
Now for a another piece of the puzzle, Frazier worked with curtain rods and knew how they came packaged, so to weasel his way out of his predicament, Frazier used this memory as his BS size estimate.
Mr. BALL - Did it appear to you there was some, more than just paper he was carrying, some kind of a weight he was carrying?
Mr. FRAZIER - Well, yes, sir; I say, because one reason I know that because I worked in a department store before and I had uncrated curtain rods when they come in, and I know if you have seen when they come straight from the factory you know how they can bundle them up and put them in there pretty compact, so he told me it was curtain rods so I didn't think any more about the package whatsoever.
BTW for any alternate "curtain rods" story to be true then we must locate the "curtain rods" and then we have to ascertain why Oswald didn't take the "curtain rods" when he left the Depository?
Then and only then can we rely on the obviously fictitious "curtain rods" story but until that day we have to depend on the physical evidence, testimonies, ETC, ETC...
JohnM
-
You are a brick. You have no idea what you post.
You wrote this “"One hand near the top - the other for support at the bottom. I seriously don't understand your point"
You cut and pasted this:
Mrs. RANDLE. He was carrying a package in a sort of a heavy brown bag, heavier than a grocery bag it looked to me. It was about, if I might measure, about this long, I suppose, and he carried it in his right hand, had the top sort of folded down and had a grip like this, and the bottom, he carried it this way, you know, and it almost touched the ground as he carried it.
You all by yourself completely have made the case that there is no way the bag was 27 inches. Nobody else needs to post another word. These denying posts make no sense in light of what you have posted about Linnie’s testimony. Her testimony was plain enough to understand that you made the claim the bag was held on the bottom and she stated repeatedly the bottom was nearly on the ground. There is no other explanation than LHO would have to have been bent over to accomplish that if the bag was 27 inches. For god’s sake do the math.
It is really simple you can either believe the bag was 27 inches and LHO was walking bent over or you can believe the bag was 42 inches and LHO was walking erect. Pick one.
Show me where LMR said he held the bag with 2 hands.
I made an assumption based on what you said about the prints. - I wont do that again
and how does LMR prove the bag is longer? - it must be the 7th time I asked that one
-
Whoa ! Randle makes no mention of the left hand or holding the bottom.
Mrs. RANDLE. He was carrying a package in a sort of a heavy brown bag, heavier than a grocery bag it looked to me. It was about, if I might measure, about this long, I suppose, and he carried it in his right hand, had the top sort of folded down and had a grip like this, and the bottom, he carried it this way, you know, and it almost touched the ground as he carried it.
Mr. BALL. Let me see. He carried it in his right hand, did he?
Mrs. RANDLE. That is right.
Mr. BALL. And where was his hand gripping the middle of the package?
Mrs. RANDLE. No, sir; the top with just a little bit sticking up. You know just like you grab something like that.
Mr. BALL. And he was grabbing it with his right hand at the top of the package and the package almost touched the ground?
Mrs. RANDLE. Yes, sir.
He's holding it like a grip bag with one hand - but she only saw him from the waist up. (and white t shirt?)
"He had on a white T-shirt, I just saw him from the waist up,..."
it also gives absolutely no indication of a package longer than what Frazier said.
The 36" estimate was added by FBI Bookout by mistake - perhaps even fed to her. She has no reason to lie.
You put far too much weight in this unreliable witness at a glance - against Frazier - who is absolutely sure - palm to armpit.
Looking at this now, NO, her description does NOT match the placement of the fingerprints. Her description makes the bag no longer than what BWF saw
Thumb1: 2x Lee carried an 8 lb. rifle with one hand.
He's holding it like a grip bag with one hand - but she only saw him from the waist up. (and white t shirt?)
"He had on a white T-shirt, I just saw him from the waist up,..."
it also gives absolutely no indication of a package longer than what Frazier said.
The 36" estimate was added by FBI Bookout by mistake - perhaps even fed to her. She has no reason to lie.
How about you quote the entire passage within context. Randle was clearly referring to the fact that she only paid attention to Oswald's upper half otherwise she wouldn't have mentioned Oswald's pants and how could she make the statement that the package almost touched the ground if she didn't have a full view? Sometimes the intellectual dishonesty to push whatever point you are trying to make literally astounds me!
Mr. BALL. How was Lee dressed that morning?
Mrs. RANDLE. He had on a white T-shirt, I just saw him from the waist up, I didn't pay any attention to his pants or anything, when he was going with the package. I was more interested in that. But he had on a white T-shirt and I remember some sort of brown or tan shirt and he had a gray jacket, I believe.
Anyway the view out the front of Randle was not obstructed. And from Randle's vantage point she could see everything.
(https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/pages/WH_Vol17_0097a.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/2yfDFTQK/osw-ald-walks-to-frazier-car.gif)
JohnM
-
John Myton is working overtime to educate you on the facts but it does not appear to be taking. If you decide to actually contribute something to the discussion instead of this nonsense that would be great.
"Facts", there you go. Always a fresh episode of The Nessan Clown Show. Carry on!
-
It looks like I'm the only one dealing with the facts!
1) Oswald makes a trip to Irving for the first time ever mid-week on Thursday.
2) Just by chance?, President Kennedy is passing by Oswald's work place the very next day.
3) Oswald for the first time ever brings a long package to work, he tells Frazier it contains "curtain rods"
4) Oswald immediately upon arrival at Frazier's hides the package in the back seat of Frazier's car then goes back to wait for Frazier.
5) Oswald for the first time ever, walks ahead of Frazier increasing the gap as they walk to the Depository.
6) Oswald's rifle is found on the 6th floor.
7) A long bag is found with Oswald's prints.
8} No "curtain rods" are ever found.
9) Oswald's fresh prints are found in the sniper's nest and Oswald's fresh prints are found on the rifle rest boxes, which were moved half way across the 6th floor. And even though he does indeed work there, it's not his job to touch every box every few days.
10) Oswald for some reason known only to him, decides to leave within 3 minutes of the President being shot.
11) No one who sees Oswald thereafter says that Oswald was carrying a long brown package, odd considering that Oswald specifically made the unscheduled trip to Irving for "curtain rods".
12) "Curtain rods" were not found in Oswald's room and as a matter of fact his room didn't even need "curtain rods"
12) Oswald lies to interrogators about what was in the brown paper package.
13) Oswald lies to interrogators about where in Frazier's car he stored the package.
These Tom my good friend are just some of the facts in this case, and so far not one CT is willing to deal with these facts, why is that?
JohnM
Dear John, I'm not participating in your copy-paste show, so thanks to Martin for taking care of your "facts." Here comes an actual fact: The Warren Commission was so scared of Frazier's curtain rod story that they had to stage a curtain rod discovery show at the Paine residence, in the garage, starring Ruth Paine and their boy John Howlett. Unfortunately, Howlett had handed them in for printing BEFORE they were "found" in the garage, as seen on a CSSS form signed by both Howlett and DP Carl Day. Bummer!
-
C'mon Martin, this is weak sauce, it's well established that Oswald was having marital problems because for a start he wasn't living with Marina, DUH!
And their latest tiff happened on the previous Monday, so Oswald had Tuesday and Wednesday to rectify their marriage but instead of waiting till the weekend where he would have 2 full days to fully explain himself, he chose Thursday, the precise night before the President arrived. Some coincidence?
But anyway, you keep running from the fact that Oswald took a large package to work and instead of answering my simple questions, you keep deflecting because let's face it, you're stumped!
JohnM
Hilarious!
So you can't provide a shred of evidence that shows there actually was a rifle in Ruth Paine's garage on 11/21/63? Got it!
-
C'mon Martin, this is weak sauce, it's well established that Oswald was having marital problems because for a start he wasn't living with Marina, DUH!
And their latest tiff happened on the previous Monday, so Oswald had Tuesday and Wednesday to rectify their marriage but instead of waiting till the weekend where he would have 2 full days to fully explain himself, he chose Thursday, the precise night before the President arrived. Some coincidence?
But anyway, you keep running from the fact that Oswald took a large package to work and instead of answering my simple questions, you keep deflecting because let's face it, you're stumped!
JohnM
Oswald had other plans for the weekend. That's why he chose to get it done with on Thursday. Who said weak sauce?
-
Oswald had other plans for the weekend. That's why he chose to get it done with on Thursday. Who said weak sauce?
Hilarious, now you're responding for Martin and a couple of posts ago, even used his clown insult?
Is this some type of Twisted Tag Team Wrestling? You joined up on the 22nd and even though Martin was posting virtually every waking hour he suddenly stopped on virtually the same day that you started posting? Then Martin started posting 10 days later and you started drastically slowing down? Hahahaaha!
JohnM
-
Dear John, I'm not participating in your copy-paste show, so thanks to Martin for taking care of your "facts." Here comes an actual fact: The Warren Commission was so scared of Frazier's curtain rod story that they had to stage a curtain rod discovery show at the Paine residence, in the garage, starring Ruth Paine and their boy John Howlett. Unfortunately, Howlett had handed them in for printing BEFORE they were "found" in the garage, as seen on a CSSS form signed by both Howlett and DP Carl Day. Bummer!
I don't understand how the WC would be scared 5 months after the assassination? Scared of what?
And how are the dates a problem, is there another form that you are referring to?
Anyway here's the document, BTW Martin also had trouble posting evidence. LOL!
(https://i.postimg.cc/K8N8cKXM/Crime-Scene-Search-Section-Form-for-Curtain-Rods-Paine-garage.jpg)
EDIT I remember Alan Ford had a bug up his ass about this and here's his images and his off the wall conclusion.
(https://i.imgur.com/yAPLDbk.gif)
(https://i.postimg.cc/XYMYY1Wf/Curtain-Rods-Texas-History-guide.jpg)
And then we have the dates/times, and the fact that there are two different versions of the form:
The Warren Gullibles' solution is that Lt. Day got BOTH dates on the original form wrong, which is of course just laughable. To make us break into further hysterics, they cannot, when asked, come up with a single viable alternative submission date to take the place of 15 March!
Here, by contrast, is a grown-up starting point for solving the conundrum presented by these forms:
A Depository employee found the rods and alerted the authorities. Word must not leak out that a pair of curtain rods had been found in the building. A priority therefore was to contain this person by making them think the matter had been scrupulously looked into.
So what does Lt. Day do? He makes a copy of the submission/release form as it looked BEFORE "& 276" and the RELEASE sign-out details have been added. The TSBD person is therefore given a copy looking like this:
JohnM
-
Oswald had other plans for the weekend. That's why he chose to get it done with on Thursday. Who said weak sauce?
Oswald had other plans for the weekend.
You're right, Oswald's plans were to either flee the country, die battling the cops or the start of a long jail sentence.
That's why he chose to get it done with on Thursday.
Again you're right, he got it done and started the ball rolling on Thursday.
JohnM
-
Hilarious, now you're responding for Martin and a couple of posts ago, even used his clown insult?
Is this some type of Twisted Tag Team Wrestling? You joined up on the 22nd and even though Martin was posting virtually every waking hour he suddenly stopped on virtually the same day that you started posting? Then Martin started posting 10 days later and you started drastically slowing down? Hahahaaha!
JohnM
I don't understand how the WC would be scared 5 months after the assassination? Scared of what?
And how are the dates a problem, is there another form that you are referring to?
Anyway here's the document, BTW Martin also had trouble posting evidence. LOL!
EDIT I remember Alan Ford had a bug up his ass about this and here's his images and his off the wall conclusion.
JohnM
You're right, Oswald's plans were to either flee the country, die battling the cops or the start of a long jail sentence.
Again you're right, he got it done and started the ball rolling on Thursday.
JohnM
A classic example of how John will talk about anything, except maybe the weather, instead of answering a vital question!
Hilarious!
So you can't provide a shred of evidence that shows there actually was a rifle in Ruth Paine's garage on 11/21/63? Got it!
-
A Depository employee found the rods and alerted the authorities. Word must not leak out that a pair of curtain rods had been found in the building. A priority therefore was to contain this person by making them think the matter had been scrupulously looked into.
Alan Ford's and presumably Tom's assertion that a depository employee found these infamous missing curtain rods has a little problem, according to CT lore Frazier saw the curtain rods neatly tucked under Oswald's arm, from armpit to cupped hand, but as the much taller Wesley demonstrated, he could barely fit a 24 inch package under his arm, so obviously a 27.5 inch package for Oswald's puny arms is totally out of the question! So any chance of a gotcha moment is out the window( no pun intended)! Sorry chappies
(https://i.postimg.cc/4x7gKwSV/Howlett-Paine-curtai9n-rods.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/Fz8TwbVX/Paine-exhibit-275-276-curtain-rods.jpg)
JohnM
-
Dear John, I'm not participating in your copy-paste show, so thanks to Martin for taking care of your "facts." Here comes an actual fact: The Warren Commission was so scared of Frazier's curtain rod story that they had to stage a curtain rod discovery show at the Paine residence, in the garage, starring Ruth Paine and their boy John Howlett. Unfortunately, Howlett had handed them in for printing BEFORE they were "found" in the garage, as seen on a CSSS form signed by both Howlett and DP Carl Day. Bummer!
After spending way too much time on this, while trying to watch the footy, I can't possibly see how anyone can get conspiracy from this, human error perhaps, but that's as far as it goes.
The Paines were in Washington giving evidence on the 18th of March.
On the 23rd of March, Ruth Paine was back in Irving at the Paine residence, with Howlett and Jenner measuring stuff.
Lt. Day was not there, but is probably overworked and under payed and by this stage is having an absolute gutful of this entire endless investigation.
On the 23rd the curtain rod exhibits 275 and 276 are numbered and taken by Howlett to Lt. Day.
Lt. Day who was not there, either misheard or misinterpreted the date Howlett collected the curtain rods, as being the 15th. A Sunday?
Howlett takes the curtain rods to Day on the 24th, hence why 24th as the pick-up is written on the form because Day anticipates having to set aside his workload and do the work immediately.
Howlett realizing an immediate turnaround is unfeasible and says he will be back in a couple of days, so take your time.
Lt. Day does the fingerprint check on the 25th.
Day corrects the Howlett pick up date to the 26th.
No problems, easy peasy!
(https://i.postimg.cc/Sxg3S9r3/25-3-64-curtain-prints-Day.jpg)
BTW, considering ALL of this is easily accessible, makes the very thought that it's somehow conspiratorial, absurd but Tom if you can convince me that it's something beyond innocent human error, I'm all ears!
JohnM
-
A classic example of how John will talk about anything, except maybe the weather, instead of answering a vital question!
He's been doing it for 60+ pages
-
He's been doing it for 60+ pages
And many years Thumb1:
-
I'll ask again. 3rd time:
He didn't pay attention to the bag, but what exactly was Frazier's mistake?
-
He's been doing it for 60+ pages
I present fact after fact after fact, whereas ALL the CT's just keep running from my basic fundamental question!
All I ask is what happened to Oswald's "curtain rods" and clearly they were very important to him, especially after making a unique mid-week trip to Irving, so why Michael, why didn't Oswald take his "curtain rods" back to his room on Beckley?
And all I hear is crickets! Chirp chirp chirp!
JohnM
-
The bag was a perfect fit for Oswald's rifle. JohnM
Frazier saw a bag from the palm to his armpit - Too short to be the rifle
The bag was recovered in the sniper's nest and Oswald's rifle was discovered on the very same floor.
JohnM
The first 11 officers never saw the bag on the floor when they arrived - The first 4 testified as such:
Sgt. Gerald Hill, the first DPD officer to arrive:
"The only specifics we discussed were this. You were asking Officer Hicks if either one recalled seeing a sack,
supposedly one that had been made by the suspect, in which he could have possibly carried the weapon into the Depository,
and I at that time told you about the small sack that appeared to be a lunch sack, and that that was the only sack that I saw,
and that I left the Book Depository prior to the finding of the gun."
Deputy Sheriff Luke Mooney
Mr. BALL. Did you see a paper bag at any other window?
Mr. MOONEY. No, sir; I didn't.
Mr. BALL. .....Now, was there anything you saw over in the corner?
Mr. MOONEY. No, sir; I didn't see anything over in the corner.
Deputy Sheriff Roger Craig:
Mr. BELIN. Was there any long sack laying in the floor there that you remember seeing, or not?
Mr. CRAIG. No; I don't remember seeing any.
Detective Boyd, who arrived with Captain Fritz before Day and Studebaker:
Mr. BALL. Did you see any brown wrapping paper near the window where the hulls were found,
near the windows alongside which the hulls were found?
Mr. BOYD. I don't believe I did.
Why do CT's always make themselves the ultimate arbiter and for no reasonable reason, deny each and every piece of presented evidence? Lucky we have impartial Jury's, who make decisions based on the evidence and not their overpowering bias!
Oswald's prints were on the bag, and again, Oswald's prints were on the bag.
JohnM
The fingerprints are not consistent with how Lee or LMR held the bag. One detective called them nothing more than a smudge.
Thumb1: Try again.
-
I'll ask again. 3rd time:
He didn't pay attention to the bag, but what exactly was Frazier's mistake?
Your question doesn't make sense because you make a statement confirming Frazier's mistake, then ask a question that you yourself just answered!?
JohnM
-
I present fact after fact after fact, whereas ALL the CT's just keep running from my basic fundamental question!
All I ask is what happened to Oswald's "curtain rods" and clearly they were very important to him, especially after making a unique mid-week trip to Irving, so why Michael, why didn't Oswald take his "curtain rods" back to his room on Beckley?
And all I hear is crickets! Chirp chirp chirp!
JohnM
I present fact after fact after fact,
LOL :D
-
Your question doesn't make sense because you make a statement confirming Frazier's mistake, then ask a question that you yourself just answered!?
JohnM
It's really very simple, John.
YOU insisted Frazier is mistaken - what exactly is that mistake?
-
Frazier saw a bag from the palm to his armpit - Too short to be the rifle
The first 11 officers never saw the bag on the floor when they arrived - The first 4 testified as such:
Sgt. Gerald Hill, the first DPD officer to arrive:
"The only specifics we discussed were this. You were asking Officer Hicks if either one recalled seeing a sack,
supposedly one that had been made by the suspect, in which he could have possibly carried the weapon into the Depository,
and I at that time told you about the small sack that appeared to be a lunch sack, and that that was the only sack that I saw,
and that I left the Book Depository prior to the finding of the gun."
Deputy Sheriff Luke Mooney
Mr. BALL. Did you see a paper bag at any other window?
Mr. MOONEY. No, sir; I didn't.
Mr. BALL. .....Now, was there anything you saw over in the corner?
Mr. MOONEY. No, sir; I didn't see anything over in the corner.
Deputy Sheriff Roger Craig:
Mr. BELIN. Was there any long sack laying in the floor there that you remember seeing, or not?
Mr. CRAIG. No; I don't remember seeing any.
Detective Boyd, who arrived with Captain Fritz before Day and Studebaker:
Mr. BALL. Did you see any brown wrapping paper near the window where the hulls were found,
near the windows alongside which the hulls were found?
Mr. BOYD. I don't believe I did.
The fingerprints are not consistent with how Lee or LMR held the bag. One detective called them nothing more than a smudge.
Thumb1: Try again.
1) You yourself confirmed repeatedly that Frazier didn't pay attention to the bag and he admitted under oath that the bag may have been out in front, sorry but them's the facts.
2) Multiple officers saw Oswald's rifle bag in the corner of the TSBD. “If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound”
3) The time that Linnie or Wesley saw the bag, is a fraction of time Oswald spent making, carrying and unpacking his rifle bag, so your statement is just plain stupid.
This is fun, keep at it though and maybe just maybe you might be able to come up with a worthwhile response!
JohnM
-
It's really very simple, John.
YOU insisted Frazier is mistaken - what exactly is that mistake?
You better refresh my memory, show me the post where I say Frazier was mistaken?
JohnM
-
2) Multiple officers saw Oswald's rifle bag in the corner of the TSBD. “If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound” JohnM
After the fact.
1) You yourself confirmed repeatedly that Frazier didn't pay attention to the bag and he admitted under oath that the bag may have been out in front, sorry but them's the facts.
True he didn't pay attention to the bag but was sure of how he held it.
Mr. BALL - You say he had the package under his arm when you saw him?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL - You mean one end of it under the armpit?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir; he had it up just like you stick it right under your arm like that.
Mr. BALL - And he had the lower part--
Mr. FRAZIER - The other part with his right hand.
Mr. BALL - Right hand?
Mr. FRAZIER - Right.
Mr. BALL - He carried it then parallel to his body?
Mr. FRAZIER - Right, straight up and down.
Representative FORD - Under his right arm?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes.
and the bottom:
Mr. FRAZIER - I didn't pay much attention, but when I did, I say, he had this part down here,
like the bottom would be short he had cupped in his hand like that...".
3) The time that Linnie or Wesley saw the bag, is a fraction of time Oswald spent making, carrying and unpacking his rifle bag, so your statement is just plain stupid.
There is no evidence of merit in this statement
-
1) You yourself confirmed repeatedly that Frazier didn't pay attention to the bag and he admitted under oath that the bag may have been out in front, sorry but them's the facts.
2) Multiple officers saw Oswald's rifle bag in the corner of the TSBD. “If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound”
3) The time that Linnie or Wesley saw the bag, is a fraction of time Oswald spent making, carrying and unpacking his rifle bag, so your statement is just plain stupid.
This is fun, keep at it though and maybe just maybe you might be able to come up with a worthwhile response!
JohnM
Instead of constantly arguing about a paper bag, why don't you shut us up completely by providing evidence that shows there actually was a rifle in Ruth Paine's garage on 11/21/63?
No rifle = no need for a trip to Irving to collect it
No rifle = no need to make a paper bag
Your constant ramblings about a paper bag only demonstrate how weak your arguments really are!
-
Instead of constantly arguing about a paper bag, why don't you shut us up completely by providing evidence that shows there actually was a rifle in Ruth Paine's garage on 11/21/63?
No rifle = no need for a trip to Irving to collect it
No rifle = no need to make a paper bag
Your constant ramblings about a paper bag only demonstrate how weak your arguments really are!
No rifle = no need for a trip to Irving to collect it
Hahahaha! Talk about shooting yourself in the foot, Oswald knew he had a rifle wrapped in a blanket on the floor of the Paine garage, therefore he made the trip to Irving to collect it, so;
Yes rifle = need for a trip to Irving to collect it.
JohnM
-
You better refresh my memory, show me the post where I say Frazier was mistaken?
JohnM
My mistake. So, your gonna go with the phony Frazier lied (though he had absolutely no reason to) when Frritz threatened him and walked out?
Thumb1: Got it.
-
Show me where LMR said he held the bag with 2 hands.
I made an assumption based on what you said about the prints. - I wont do that again
and how does LMR prove the bag is longer? - it must be the 7th time I asked that one
John has taken care of this in spades. The conspiracy individuals do not seem to be able to get out of their own way. Same endless story, all pointless questions and never any answers.
You posted this MC: "One hand near the top - the other for support at the bottom. I seriously don't understand your point"
You cut and pasted this:
Mrs. RANDLE. He was carrying a package in a sort of a heavy brown bag, heavier than a grocery bag it looked to me. It was about, if I might measure, about this long, I suppose, and he carried it in his right hand, had the top sort of folded down and had a grip like this, and the bottom, he carried it this way, you know, and it almost touched the ground as he carried it.
So you say things and do things and then you deny it all.
There is only one way Linnie can claim the bag almost touched the ground, is if she saw it.
Mrs. RANDLE. He was carrying a package in a sort of a heavy brown bag, heavier than a grocery bag it looked to me. It was about, if I might measure, about this long, I suppose, and he carried it in his right hand, had the top sort of folded down and had a grip like this, and the bottom, he carried it this way, you know, and it almost touched the ground as he carried it.
Mr. BALL. And he was grabbing it with his right hand at the top of the package and the package almost touched the ground?
Mrs. RANDLE. Yes, sir.
You are mistaking her not seeing his pants with the package obscuring them.
Once again, the fingerprints on the bag discovered in the SN match her description.
it must be the 7th time I asked that one
It has been answered to death. You just don't like the answer. If you can't do the math, get someone to help you.
-
John has taken care of this in spades. The conspiracy individuals do not seem to be able to get out of their own way. Same endless story, all pointless questions and never any answers.
You posted this MC: "One hand near the top - the other for support at the bottom. I seriously don't understand your point"
You cut and pasted this:
Mrs. RANDLE. He was carrying a package in a sort of a heavy brown bag, heavier than a grocery bag it looked to me. It was about, if I might measure, about this long, I suppose, and he carried it in his right hand, had the top sort of folded down and had a grip like this, and the bottom, he carried it this way, you know, and it almost touched the ground as he carried it.
So you say things and do things and then you deny it all.
There is only one way Linnie can claim the bag almost touched the ground, is if she saw it.
Mrs. RANDLE. He was carrying a package in a sort of a heavy brown bag, heavier than a grocery bag it looked to me. It was about, if I might measure, about this long, I suppose, and he carried it in his right hand, had the top sort of folded down and had a grip like this, and the bottom, he carried it this way, you know, and it almost touched the ground as he carried it.
Mr. BALL. And he was grabbing it with his right hand at the top of the package and the package almost touched the ground?
Mrs. RANDLE. Yes, sir.
You are mistaking her not seeing his pants with the package obscuring them.
Once again, the fingerprints on the bag discovered in the SN match her description.
it must be the 7th time I asked that one
It has been answered to death. You just don't like the answer. If you can't do the math, get someone to help you.
All garbage ! - All you need now is to show where LMR said Lee even used his left hand.
-
"Facts", there you go. Always a fresh episode of The Nessan Clown Show. Carry on!
What? It may be made sense to you in your head, but it doesn't make any sense on paper. Maybe try not attempting to be clever, it is not really working out.
-
Hahahaha! Talk about shooting yourself in the foot, Oswald knew he had a rifle wrapped in a blanket on the floor of the Paine garage, therefore he made the trip to Irving to collect it, so;
Yes rifle = need for a trip to Irving to collect it.
JohnM
Oswald knew he had a rifle wrapped in a blanket on the floor of the Paine garage
Says who? You haven't got a clue what Oswald knew or didn't know!
You wouldn't be making up things again, would you now, John?
Or do you, as per usual, mistake your highly speculative opinion again with actual evidence?
-
Hilarious, now you're responding for Martin and a couple of posts ago, even used his clown insult?
Is this some type of Twisted Tag Team Wrestling? You joined up on the 22nd and even though Martin was posting virtually every waking hour he suddenly stopped on virtually the same day that you started posting? Then Martin started posting 10 days later and you started drastically slowing down? Hahahaaha!
JohnM
I don't post on behalf of others; anyone registered is free to reply to a post. Another LN false claim. Your paranoid theories are actually great fun to read; carry on!
-
All garbage ! - All you need now is to show where LMR said Lee even used his left hand.
You obviously felt she did
MC "One hand near the top - the other for support at the bottom."
-
You obviously felt she did
MC "One hand near the top - the other for support at the bottom."
BS:
Incorrectly based on what a nutter (that is you) told me. - I wont do that again.
You kicked yourself back to square one. Where did LMR say Lee used his left hand?
-
After spending way too much time on this, while trying to watch the footy, I can't possibly see how anyone can get conspiracy from this, human error perhaps, but that's as far as it goes.
Happy to see the problem with the dates finally sunk in, especially since it should be preschool stuff checking with a calendar.
The Paines were in Washington giving evidence on the 18th of March.
On the 23rd of March, Ruth Paine was back in Irving at the Paine residence, with Howlett and Jenner measuring stuff.
Lt. Day was not there, but is probably overworked and under payed and by this stage is having an absolute gutful of this entire endless investigation.
On the 23rd the curtain rod exhibits 275 and 276 are numbered and taken by Howlett to Lt. Day.
Lt. Day who was not there, either misheard or misinterpreted the date Howlett collected the curtain rods, as being the 15th. A Sunday?
Howlett takes the curtain rods to Day on the 24th, hence why 24th as the pick-up is written on the form because Day anticipates having to set aside his workload and do the work immediately.
Howlett realizing an immediate turnaround is unfeasible and says he will be back in a couple of days, so take your time.
Lt. Day does the fingerprint check on the 25th.
Day corrects the Howlett pick up date to the 26th.
No problems, easy peasy!
(https://i.postimg.cc/Sxg3S9r3/25-3-64-curtain-prints-Day.jpg)
BTW, considering ALL of this is easily accessible, makes the very thought that it's somehow conspiratorial, absurd but Tom if you can convince me that it's something beyond innocent human error, I'm all ears!
JohnM
Lt. Day who was not there, either misheard or misinterpreted the date Howlett collected the curtain rods, as being the 15th. A Sunday?
Apart from the 15th possibly being a Sunday (it actually was), can anyone make sense of this?
-
Wake me up when the bag no longer exists. The one that was found next to the SN with Oswald's prints that can be measured to avoid the necessity of pedantically analyzing witness estimates of its length and how it was carried. Witness who had no real opportunity or cause to give the bag much notice.
-
Wake me up when the bag no longer exists. The one that was found next to the SN with Oswald's prints that can be measured to avoid the necessity of pedantically analyzing witness estimates of its length and how it was carried. Witness who had no real opportunity or cause to give the bag much notice.
There's no evidence to show "it" was carried outside of the depository until Montgomery took it out. It really sucks. You can go back to sleep now.
-
Oswald knew he had a rifle wrapped in a blanket on the floor of the Paine garage
Says who? You haven't got a clue what Oswald knew or didn't know!
You wouldn't be making up things again, would you now, John?
Or do you, as per usual, mistake your highly speculative opinion again with actual evidence?
You made the silly challenge not me.
Yes rifle = need for a trip to Irving to collect it.
JohnM
-
I don't post on behalf of others; anyone registered is free to reply to a post. Another LN false claim. Your paranoid theories are actually great fun to read; carry on!
Your history here is an open book and there was nothing false about my observation, the fact that you are here freaking out, is very telling.
JohnM
-
You made the silly challenge not me.
Yes rifle = need for a trip to Irving to collect it.
JohnM
So weak, but thanks for making it abundantly clear that you indeed do not have a shred of evidence to show that a rifle was stored in Ruth Paine's garage on 11/21/63! Thumb1:
And you still haven't got a clue what Oswald knew or not! Just keep the fairytales coming....
-
Happy to see the problem with the dates finally sunk in, especially since it should be preschool stuff checking with a calendar.
Lt. Day who was not there, either misheard or misinterpreted the date Howlett collected the curtain rods, as being the 15th. A Sunday?
Apart from the 15th possibly being a Sunday (it actually was), can anyone make sense of this?
Happy to see the problem with the dates finally sunk in, especially since it should be preschool stuff checking with a calendar.
Yeah sure, combing through testimony and cross referencing archives is pre-school stuff? Did you discover this or did you rip off other researchers?
Lt. Day who was not there, either misheard or misinterpreted the date Howlett collected the curtain rods, as being the 15th. A Sunday?
Apart from the 15th possibly being a Sunday (it actually was), can anyone make sense of this?
See the problem here Tom, is that you appear to have no experience in the real World, human error out here is so prevalent that it's away of life.
Newspaper articles get locations, facts, times and etc, wrong all the time. Just witness the initial reports in this case alone, different rifles, agents killed, mistaken and/or misrepresented evidence and the list goes on and on.
What I conclude in this Paine curtain rod saga is the WC date of the curtain rod collection is in line with Day's fingerprint analysis and the subsequent Howlett collection, nuff said!
As I said at the start, this is months after the assassination and is a simple exercise in satisfying the public with every potential possibility.
BTW I asked you to "convince me if this is something beyond innocent human error" and where could this possibly be construed as something evil? But as usual you have no answers.
JohnM
-
So weak, but thanks for making it abundantly clear that you indeed do not have a shred of evidence to show that a rifle was stored in Ruth Paine's garage on 11/21/63! Thumb1:
And you still haven't got a clue what Oswald knew or not! Just keep the fairytales coming....
So weak, but thanks for making it abundantly clear that you indeed do not have a shred of evidence to show that a rifle was stored in Ruth Paine's garage on 11/21/63! Thumb1:
How bizarre, I don't need a shred of evidence to know that the sun will rise in the morning or will set in the evening, it's a given. Just like Oswald knew that his rifle was in the wrapped blanket which was safely stored in the Paine garage. And don't forget the very same blanket with the cord still tied to it, was empty on the afternoon of the assassination. And guess where the rifle was found on the afternoon of the very same day! ROFL! LOL! HAHAHAHA!
Mr. BALL. What part did you take?
Mr. ROSE. Well, I was the senior detective that was there, and so I was sort of the spokesman for the group, I suppose, and Stovall wen into the bedroom of Marina Oswald--Marina Oswald's bedroom, and I don't remember where Adamcik went first, but I talked with Ruth Paine a few minutes and she told me that Marina was there and that she was Lee Oswald's wife and that she was a citizen of Russia, and so I called Captain Fritz on the phone and told him what I had found out there and asked him if there was any special instructions, and he said, "Well, ask her about her husband, ask her if her husband has a rifle." I turned and asked Marina, but she didn't seem to understand. She said she couldn't understand, so Ruth Paine spoke in Russian to her and Ruth Paine also interpreted for me, and she said that Marina said--first she said Marina said "No," and then a minute Marina said, "Yes, he does have." So, then I talked to Captain Fritz for a moment and hung up the phone and I asked Marina if she would show me where his rifle was and Ruth Paine interpreted and Marina pointed to the garage and she took me to the garage and she pointed to a blanket that was rolled up and laying on the floor near the wall of the garage and Ruth Paine said, "Says that that's where his rifle is." Well, at the time I couldn't tell whether there was one in there or not. It appeared to be--it was in sort of an outline of a rifle.
Mr. BALL. You mean the blanket had the outline of a rifle?
Mr. ROSE. Yes; it did.
Mr. BALL. Was it tied at one end?
Mr. ROSE. Yes, sir; it was sort of rolled up, but it was flattened out from laying down and tied near the middle, I would say, with a cord and so I went on and picked the blanket up, but it was empty--it didn't have the rifle in it.
Mr. STOVALL. Shortly after that, Rose came back in carrying this blanket, as well as I remember, it was tied at one end and the other end was open.
Mr. BALL. It was tied with what kind of material?
Mr. STOVALL. It was tied with a white cord, as well as I remember.
Mr. BALL. A white what?
Mr. STOVALL. A white twine--it was thicker than a kite twine that you see or use on kites--more like this they use for wrapping large packages and tying them and he showed me that end, of course, he told me----
Mr. BALL. What did he tell you?
Mr. STOVALL. He told me that when he went to the garage, Marina had pointed to the blanket there and she said something to Ruth Paine and Ruth Paine told him that that was where Lee kept his rifle.
Mr. BELIN. All right, then what happened?
Mr. ADAMCIK. Well, we went through the house, if I remember correctly, and I believe the other detectives found some property. I know they found this blanket that was rolled up in the garage.
Mr. BELIN. Were you there when they saw the blanket?
Mr. ADAMCIK. No; I wasn't there. I saw the blanket later.
Mr. BELIN. Where was it when you first saw it?
Mr. ADAMCIK. I believe they took it in the house. I am pretty sure.
Mr. BELIN. Had they unrolled the blanket when they took it in the house?
Mr. ADAMCIK. No; they had a string still tied around it. Apparently had two strings, and just one of the strings were cut.
Mr. BELIN. One of the strings was cut?
Mr. ADAMCIK. Yes.
BTW for someone who is vigorously defending Oswald, you haven't been doing a very good job, the mountain of evidence still stands just as tall today as it has for every day for over 60 years. Try harder!
JohnM
-
How bizarre, I don't need a shred of evidence to know that the sun will rise in the morning or will set in the evening, it's a given. Just like Oswald knew that his rifle was in the wrapped blanket which was safely stored in the Paine garage. And don't forget the very same blanket with the cord still tied to it, was empty on the afternoon of the assassination. And guess where the rifle was found on the afternoon of the very same day! ROFL! LOL! HAHAHAHA!
Mr. BALL. What part did you take?
Mr. ROSE. Well, I was the senior detective that was there, and so I was sort of the spokesman for the group, I suppose, and Stovall wen into the bedroom of Marina Oswald--Marina Oswald's bedroom, and I don't remember where Adamcik went first, but I talked with Ruth Paine a few minutes and she told me that Marina was there and that she was Lee Oswald's wife and that she was a citizen of Russia, and so I called Captain Fritz on the phone and told him what I had found out there and asked him if there was any special instructions, and he said, "Well, ask her about her husband, ask her if her husband has a rifle." I turned and asked Marina, but she didn't seem to understand. She said she couldn't understand, so Ruth Paine spoke in Russian to her and Ruth Paine also interpreted for me, and she said that Marina said--first she said Marina said "No," and then a minute Marina said, "Yes, he does have." So, then I talked to Captain Fritz for a moment and hung up the phone and I asked Marina if she would show me where his rifle was and Ruth Paine interpreted and Marina pointed to the garage and she took me to the garage and she pointed to a blanket that was rolled up and laying on the floor near the wall of the garage and Ruth Paine said, "Says that that's where his rifle is." Well, at the time I couldn't tell whether there was one in there or not. It appeared to be--it was in sort of an outline of a rifle.
Mr. BALL. You mean the blanket had the outline of a rifle?
Mr. ROSE. Yes; it did.
Mr. BALL. Was it tied at one end?
Mr. ROSE. Yes, sir; it was sort of rolled up, but it was flattened out from laying down and tied near the middle, I would say, with a cord and so I went on and picked the blanket up, but it was empty--it didn't have the rifle in it.
Mr. STOVALL. Shortly after that, Rose came back in carrying this blanket, as well as I remember, it was tied at one end and the other end was open.
Mr. BALL. It was tied with what kind of material?
Mr. STOVALL. It was tied with a white cord, as well as I remember.
Mr. BALL. A white what?
Mr. STOVALL. A white twine--it was thicker than a kite twine that you see or use on kites--more like this they use for wrapping large packages and tying them and he showed me that end, of course, he told me----
Mr. BALL. What did he tell you?
Mr. STOVALL. He told me that when he went to the garage, Marina had pointed to the blanket there and she said something to Ruth Paine and Ruth Paine told him that that was where Lee kept his rifle.
Mr. BELIN. All right, then what happened?
Mr. ADAMCIK. Well, we went through the house, if I remember correctly, and I believe the other detectives found some property. I know they found this blanket that was rolled up in the garage.
Mr. BELIN. Were you there when they saw the blanket?
Mr. ADAMCIK. No; I wasn't there. I saw the blanket later.
Mr. BELIN. Where was it when you first saw it?
Mr. ADAMCIK. I believe they took it in the house. I am pretty sure.
Mr. BELIN. Had they unrolled the blanket when they took it in the house?
Mr. ADAMCIK. No; they had a string still tied around it. Apparently had two strings, and just one of the strings were cut.
Mr. BELIN. One of the strings was cut?
Mr. ADAMCIK. Yes.
BTW for someone who is vigorously defending Oswald, you haven't been doing a very good job, the mountain of evidence still stands just as tall today as it has for every day for over 60 years. Try harder!
JohnM
How bizarre, I don't need a shred of evidence to know that the sun will rise in the morning or will set in the evening, it's a given.
Just how pathetic can you get? A rifle being in Ruth Paine's garage on 11/21/63 is not a given, so, yes, you need to present at least a shred of actual evidence that it was there, instead of trying to weasel out of it!
Just like Oswald knew that his rifle was in the wrapped blanket which was safely stored in the Paine garage.
Strike two: you haven't got a clue what Oswald knew or not!
And don't forget the very same blanket with the cord still tied to it, was empty on the afternoon of the assassination.
Wow... that's powerful evidence of just how ignorant you really are. An empty blanket that, according to Micheal Paine, could easily have contained camping equipment was found empty by people who were clueless about how long the blanket had been empty. In the real world, an empty blanket found in a garage is evidence of an empty blanket being in that garage and nothing more
And guess where the rifle was found on the afternoon of the very same day!
What rifle would that be? Once again you are making silly claims that you can not support by actual evidence!
I'm not even going to bother with what Rose, Stovall and Adamcik said, because not one of them actually saw a rifle in Ruth Paine's garage!
When all you have is an empty blanket that, in the opinion of Gus Rose, "had the outline of a rifle", you really haven't got anything at all.
BTW for someone who is vigorously defending Oswald, you haven't been doing a very good job, the mountain of evidence still stands just as tall today as it has for every day for over 60 years.
Thank you for sharing your biased opinion.
Now, let's try to go back to evidence that actually would be accepted in court. What is your evidence that there was a rifle in Ruth Paine's garage on 11/21/63.
And please try not to display you utter ignorance and duplicity this time around!
-
How bizarre, I don't need a shred of evidence to know that the sun will rise in the morning or will set in the evening, it's a given.
Just how pathetic can you get? A rifle being in Ruth Paine's garage on 11/21/63 is not a given, so, yes, you need to present at least a shred of actual evidence that it was there, instead of trying to weasel out of it!
Just like Oswald knew that his rifle was in the wrapped blanket which was safely stored in the Paine garage.
Strike two: you haven't got a clue what Oswald knew or not!
And don't forget the very same blanket with the cord still tied to it, was empty on the afternoon of the assassination.
Wow... that's powerful evidence of just how ignorant you really are. An empty blanket that, according to Micheal Paine, could easily have contained camping equipment was found empty by people who were clueless about how long the blanket had been empty. In the real world, an empty blanket found in a garage is evidence of an empty blanket being in that garage and nothing more
And guess where the rifle was found on the afternoon of the very same day!
What rifle would that be? Once again you are making silly claims that you can not support by actual evidence!
I'm not even going to bother with what Rose, Stovall and Adamcik said, because not one of them actually saw a rifle in Ruth Paine's garage!
When all you have is an empty blanket that, in the opinion of Gus Rose, "had the outline of a rifle", you really haven't got anything at all.
BTW for someone who is vigorously defending Oswald, you haven't been doing a very good job, the mountain of evidence still stands just as tall today as it has for every day for over 60 years.
Thank you for sharing your biased opinion.
Now, let's try to go back to evidence that actually would be accepted in court. What is your evidence that there was a rifle in Ruth Paine's garage on 11/21/63.
And please try not to display you utter ignorance and duplicity this time around!
Yawn! This is getting tiresome.
Let's put the combined knowledge of CT's 60+ years defence of Oswald to the test.
Q. Is it Oswald's rifle and was it used in the assassination?
Prosecution: Yes. Oswald wrote an order, Oswald paid for the order, Kleins processed the order and Kleins sent the order to Oswald's PO box, Oswald was proven to have been holding the same weapon as sent, the rifle was stored in a blanket, the same blanket was empty the afternoon of the assassination, Oswald was seen carrying a long brown package to work, the long brown package was discovered in the sniper's nest with Oswald's prints, the eyewitness to this bag repeatedly says he "never payed attention to the bag", the rifle was found at Oswald's place of employment, 3 expended shells matching the rifle was found in the sniper's nest, the only recovered bullet fragments belonged to Oswald's rifle and Oswald's prints were on the rifle.
CT's: No. Oswald's order was forged, Kleins forged their microfilm records, the money order was forged and planted in the Federal reserve(yes really LOL!), the backyard photos are fake, Oswald's rifle was never at the Paine residence, de Mohrenschildt lied about the rifle at Neely street, Oswald's rifle was planted in the TSBD, the bag was manufactured by the Dallas Police, the prints on the bag were planted, the shells were planted, the bullet fragments were planted, Oswald's dead hand supplied the palm print. Need I go on?
Analysis: the prosecution has a powerful indisputable case whereas the CT's are relying on an unprovable mountain of lies, manipulation and deception from multiple unconnected actors, geez what a bunch of desperate losers!
JohnM
-
Yawn! This is getting tiresome.
Let's put the combined knowledge of CT's 60+ years defence of Oswald to the test.
Q. Is it Oswald's rifle and was it used in the assassination?
Prosecution: Yes. Oswald wrote an order, Oswald paid for the order, Kleins processed the order and Kleins sent the order to Oswald's PO box, Oswald was proven to have been holding the same weapon as sent, the rifle was stored in a blanket, the same blanket was empty the afternoon of the assassination, Oswald was seen carrying a long brown package to work, the long brown package was discovered in the sniper's nest with Oswald's prints, the eyewitness to this bag repeatedly says he "never payed attention to the bag", the rifle was found at Oswald's place of employment, 3 expended shells matching the rifle was found in the sniper's nest, the only recovered bullet fragments belonged to Oswald's rifle and Oswald's prints were on the rifle.
CT's: No. Oswald's order was forged, Kleins forged their microfilm records, the money order was forged and planted in the Federal reserve(yes really LOL!), the backyard photos are fake, Oswald's rifle was never at the Paine residence, de Mohrenschildt lied about the rifle at Neely street, Oswald's rifle was planted in the TSBD, the bag was manufactured by the Dallas Police, the prints on the bag were planted, the shells were planted, the bullet fragments were planted, Oswald's dead hand supplied the palm print. Need I go on?
Analysis: the prosecution has a powerful indisputable case whereas the CT's are relying on an unprovable mountain of lies, manipulation and deception from multiple unconnected actors, geez what a bunch of desperate losers!
JohnM
Yawn! This is getting tiresome.
I'm sure it must be for you, being utterly unable to convince anybody of the BS you're posting.
What's actually the most important is that all your song and dance routine proves is that you haven't got a shred of evidence that there was a rifle stored in Ruth Paine's garage on 11/21/63.
Q. Is it Oswald's rifle and was it used in the assassination?`
Prosecution: Yes. Oswald wrote an order, Oswald paid for the order, Kleins processed the order and Kleins sent the order to Oswald's PO box, Oswald was proven to have been holding the same weapon as sent, the rifle was stored in a blanket, the same blanket was empty the afternoon of the assassination, Oswald was seen carrying a long brown package to work, the long brown package was discovered in the sniper's nest with Oswald's prints, the eyewitness to this bag repeatedly says he "never payed attention to the bag", the rifle was found at Oswald's place of employment, 3 expended shells matching the rifle was found in the sniper's nest, the only recovered bullet fragments belonged to Oswald's rifle and Oswald's prints were on the rifle.
CT's: No. Oswald's order was forged, Kleins forged their microfilm records, the money order was forged and planted in the Federal reserve(yes really LOL!), the backyard photos are fake, Oswald's rifle was never at the Paine residence, de Mohrenschildt lied about the rifle at Neely street, Oswald's rifle was planted in the TSBD, the bag was manufactured by the Dallas Police, the prints on the bag were planted, the shells were planted, the bullet fragments were planted, Oswald's dead hand supplied the palm print. Need I go on?
Analysis: the prosecution has a powerful indisputable case whereas the CT's are relying on an unprovable mountain of lies, manipulation and deception from multiple unconnected actors, geez what a bunch of desperate losers!
None of this concoction of wild and questionable claims actually provides a shred of evidence that a rifle was stored in Ruth Paine's garage on 11/21/63.
You are just desperately trying (and failing miserably) to make people believe there must have been a rifle in Ruth Paine's garage. It's LN crap 101!
But it does prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that you are completely unable to present a shred of evidence for the claim that there was a rifle in Ruth Paine's garage on 11/21/63.
Perhaps you should do the same as Charles Collins and consult an actual lawyer to find out what real evidence is!
-
Perhaps you should do the same as Charles Collins and consult an actual lawyer to find out what real evidence is!
I think you mean Mitch Todd? But that is neither here or there.
In response to John Iacoletti inane criticisms of Bugliosi's 53 pieces of evidence, a very real lawyer set Iacoletti straight about what evidence actually is, because what people learn through TV and gossip isn't necessarily correct.
Your concept of evidence is flawed. The threshold question is relevancy. Under Rule 401 of the Federal Rules of Evidence, for example, "Evidence is relevant if: (a) it has any tendency to make a fact more or less probable than it would be without the evidence; and (b) the fact is of consequence in determining the action."
Every item you label as NE, PW and TQ would be deemed relevant evidence.
Rule 401. Test for Relevant Evidence
Evidence is relevant if:
(a) it has any tendency to make a fact more or less probable than it would be without the evidence; and
(b) the fact is of consequence in determining the action.
Notes
(Pub. L. 93–595, §1, Jan. 2, 1975, 88 Stat. 1931; Apr. 26, 2011, eff. Dec. 1, 2011.)
Notes of Advisory Committee on Proposed Rules
Problems of relevancy call for an answer to the question whether an item of evidence, when tested by the processes of legal reasoning, possesses sufficient probative value to justify receiving it in evidence. Thus, assessment of the probative value of evidence that a person purchased a revolver shortly prior to a fatal shooting with which he is charged is a matter of analysis and reasoning.
The variety of relevancy problems is coextensive with the ingenuity of counsel in using circumstantial evidence as a means of proof. An enormous number of cases fall in no set pattern, and this rule is designed as a guide for handling them. On the other hand, some situations recur with sufficient frequency to create patterns susceptible of treatment by specific rules. Rule 404 and those following it are of that variety; they also serve as illustrations of the application of the present rule as limited by the exclusionary principles of Rule 403.
Passing mention should be made of so-called “conditional” relevancy. Morgan, Basic Problems of Evidence 45–46 (1962). In this situation, probative value depends not only upon satisfying the basic requirement of relevancy as described above but also upon the existence of some matter of fact. For example, if evidence of a spoken statement is relied upon to prove notice, probative value is lacking unless the person sought to be charged heard the statement. The problem is one of fact, and the only rules needed are for the purpose of determining the respective functions of judge and jury. See Rules 104(b) and 901. The discussion which follows in the present note is concerned with relevancy generally, not with any particular problem of conditional relevancy.
Relevancy is not an inherent characteristic of any item of evidence but exists only as a relation between an item of evidence and a matter properly provable in the case. Does the item of evidence tend to prove the matter sought to be proved? Whether the relationship exists depends upon principles evolved by experience or science, applied logically to the situation at hand. James, Relevancy, Probability and the Law, 29 Calif.L.Rev. 689, 696, n. 15 (1941), in Selected Writings on Evidence and Trial 610, 615, n. 15 (Fryer ed. 1957). The rule summarizes this relationship as a “tendency to make the existence” of the fact to be proved “more probable or less probable.” Compare Uniform Rule 1(2) which states the crux of relevancy as “a tendency in reason,” thus perhaps emphasizing unduly the logical process and ignoring the need to draw upon experience or science to validate the general principle upon which relevancy in a particular situation depends.
The standard of probability under the rule is “more * * * probable than it would be without the evidence.” Any more stringent requirement is unworkable and unrealistic. As McCormick §152, p. 317, says, “A brick is not a wall,” or, as Falknor, Extrinsic Policies Affecting Admissibility, 10 Rutgers L.Rev. 574, 576 (1956), quotes Professor McBaine, “* * * t is not to be supposed that every witness can make a home run.” Dealing with probability in the language of the rule has the added virtue of avoiding confusion between questions of admissibility and questions of the sufficiency of the evidence.
The rule uses the phrase “fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action” to describe the kind of fact to which proof may properly be directed. The language is that of California Evidence Code §210; it has the advantage of avoiding the loosely used and ambiguous word “material.” Tentative Recommendation and a Study Relating to the Uniform Rules of Evidence (Art. I. General Provisions), Cal. Law Revision Comm'n, Rep., Rec. & Studies, 10–11 (1964). The fact to be proved may be ultimate, intermediate, or evidentiary; it matters not, so long as it is of consequence in the determination of the action. Cf. Uniform Rule 1(2) which requires that the evidence relate to a “material” fact.
The fact to which the evidence is directed need not be in dispute. While situations will arise which call for the exclusion of evidence offered to prove a point conceded by the opponent, the ruling should be made on the basis of such considerations as waste of time and undue prejudice (see Rule 403), rather than under any general requirement that evidence is admissible only if directed to matters in dispute. Evidence which is essentially background in nature can scarcely be said to involve disputed matter, yet it is universally offered and admitted as an aid to understanding. Charts, photographs, views of real estate, murder weapons, and many other items of evidence fall in this category. A rule limiting admissibility to evidence directed to a controversial point would invite the exclusion of this helpful evidence, or at least the raising of endless questions over its admission. Cf. California Evidence Code §210, defining relevant evidence in terms of tendency to prove a disputed fact.
Committee Notes on Rules—2011 Amendment
The language of Rule 401 has been amended as part of the restyling of the Evidence Rules to make them more easily understood and to make style and terminology consistent throughout the rules. These changes are intended to be stylistic only. There is no intent to change any result in any ruling on evidence admissibility.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_401
JohnM
-
I think you mean Mitch Todd? But that is neither here or there.
In response to John Iacoletti inane criticisms of Bugliosi's 53 pieces of evidence, a very real lawyer set Iacoletti straight about what evidence actually is, because what people learn through TV and gossip isn't necessarily correct.
Rule 401. Test for Relevant Evidence
Evidence is relevant if:
(a) it has any tendency to make a fact more or less probable than it would be without the evidence; and
(b) the fact is of consequence in determining the action.
Notes
(Pub. L. 93–595, §1, Jan. 2, 1975, 88 Stat. 1931; Apr. 26, 2011, eff. Dec. 1, 2011.)
Notes of Advisory Committee on Proposed Rules
Problems of relevancy call for an answer to the question whether an item of evidence, when tested by the processes of legal reasoning, possesses sufficient probative value to justify receiving it in evidence. Thus, assessment of the probative value of evidence that a person purchased a revolver shortly prior to a fatal shooting with which he is charged is a matter of analysis and reasoning.
The variety of relevancy problems is coextensive with the ingenuity of counsel in using circumstantial evidence as a means of proof. An enormous number of cases fall in no set pattern, and this rule is designed as a guide for handling them. On the other hand, some situations recur with sufficient frequency to create patterns susceptible of treatment by specific rules. Rule 404 and those following it are of that variety; they also serve as illustrations of the application of the present rule as limited by the exclusionary principles of Rule 403.
Passing mention should be made of so-called “conditional” relevancy. Morgan, Basic Problems of Evidence 45–46 (1962). In this situation, probative value depends not only upon satisfying the basic requirement of relevancy as described above but also upon the existence of some matter of fact. For example, if evidence of a spoken statement is relied upon to prove notice, probative value is lacking unless the person sought to be charged heard the statement. The problem is one of fact, and the only rules needed are for the purpose of determining the respective functions of judge and jury. See Rules 104(b) and 901. The discussion which follows in the present note is concerned with relevancy generally, not with any particular problem of conditional relevancy.
Relevancy is not an inherent characteristic of any item of evidence but exists only as a relation between an item of evidence and a matter properly provable in the case. Does the item of evidence tend to prove the matter sought to be proved? Whether the relationship exists depends upon principles evolved by experience or science, applied logically to the situation at hand. James, Relevancy, Probability and the Law, 29 Calif.L.Rev. 689, 696, n. 15 (1941), in Selected Writings on Evidence and Trial 610, 615, n. 15 (Fryer ed. 1957). The rule summarizes this relationship as a “tendency to make the existence” of the fact to be proved “more probable or less probable.” Compare Uniform Rule 1(2) which states the crux of relevancy as “a tendency in reason,” thus perhaps emphasizing unduly the logical process and ignoring the need to draw upon experience or science to validate the general principle upon which relevancy in a particular situation depends.
The standard of probability under the rule is “more * * * probable than it would be without the evidence.” Any more stringent requirement is unworkable and unrealistic. As McCormick §152, p. 317, says, “A brick is not a wall,” or, as Falknor, Extrinsic Policies Affecting Admissibility, 10 Rutgers L.Rev. 574, 576 (1956), quotes Professor McBaine, “* * * t is not to be supposed that every witness can make a home run.” Dealing with probability in the language of the rule has the added virtue of avoiding confusion between questions of admissibility and questions of the sufficiency of the evidence.
The rule uses the phrase “fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action” to describe the kind of fact to which proof may properly be directed. The language is that of California Evidence Code §210; it has the advantage of avoiding the loosely used and ambiguous word “material.” Tentative Recommendation and a Study Relating to the Uniform Rules of Evidence (Art. I. General Provisions), Cal. Law Revision Comm'n, Rep., Rec. & Studies, 10–11 (1964). The fact to be proved may be ultimate, intermediate, or evidentiary; it matters not, so long as it is of consequence in the determination of the action. Cf. Uniform Rule 1(2) which requires that the evidence relate to a “material” fact.
The fact to which the evidence is directed need not be in dispute. While situations will arise which call for the exclusion of evidence offered to prove a point conceded by the opponent, the ruling should be made on the basis of such considerations as waste of time and undue prejudice (see Rule 403), rather than under any general requirement that evidence is admissible only if directed to matters in dispute. Evidence which is essentially background in nature can scarcely be said to involve disputed matter, yet it is universally offered and admitted as an aid to understanding. Charts, photographs, views of real estate, murder weapons, and many other items of evidence fall in this category. A rule limiting admissibility to evidence directed to a controversial point would invite the exclusion of this helpful evidence, or at least the raising of endless questions over its admission. Cf. California Evidence Code §210, defining relevant evidence in terms of tendency to prove a disputed fact.
Committee Notes on Rules—2011 Amendment
The language of Rule 401 has been amended as part of the restyling of the Evidence Rules to make them more easily understood and to make style and terminology consistent throughout the rules. These changes are intended to be stylistic only. There is no intent to change any result in any ruling on evidence admissibility.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_401
JohnM
Rule 401. Test for Relevant Evidence
Evidence is relevant if:
(a) it has any tendency to make a fact more or less probable than it would be without the evidence; and
(b) the fact is of consequence in determining the action.
No matter how much you google "arguments" the basic fact still remains that you do not have a shred of evidence to show there was a rifle in Ruth Paine's garage on 11/21/63.
So, there is no point in discussing if evidence is relevant, as there is no evidence to begin with.
Care to try again?
-
Just like Oswald knew that his rifle was in the wrapped blanket which was safely stored in the Paine garage.
How does dumped on the garage floor become "safely stored"?
ROFL
-
BS:
Incorrectly based on what a nutter (that is you) told me. - I wont do that again.
You kicked yourself back to square one. Where did LMR say Lee used his left hand?
based on what a nutter (that is you) told me.
Sure, why would anyone doubt that you did. Actually, that has to be one of the stranger things you have posted.
You are denying LHO walked bent over, good choice LHO was walking erect with a 3 foot 6 inch bag. We all know, nobody would walk bent over with the 27 inch bag. You had the right answer and here you are now you are denying it. I don't know why you would want to do that. You personally have posted all of these. Did you not ever read them? Maybe subconsciously you just did not want to know what she said. She destroys the short bag nonsense and the whole conspiracy tripe that goes along with it.
Where did LMR say Lee used his left hand?
Let us review, Linnie gives two different descriptions of how each hand held the package. “Gripping or grabbing or grab” the top with the right hand and “hugging” the bottom with the other.
Right hand:
Mr. BALL. Let me see. He carried it in his right hand, did he?
Mrs. RANDLE. That is right.
Mr. BALL. And where was his hand gripping the middle of the package?
Mrs. RANDLE. No, sir; the top with just a little bit sticking up. You know just like you grab something like that.
Mrs. RANDLE. No, sir; the top with just a little bit sticking up. You know just like you grab something like that.
Mr. BALL. And he was grabbing it with his right hand at the top of the package and the package almost touched the ground?
Mrs. RANDLE. Yes, sir.
Left Hand:
Mr. BALL. I have one question, Mr. Chief Justice.
You used an expression there, that the bag appeared heavy.
Mrs. RANDLE. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. You meant that there was some weight appeared to--
Mrs. RANDLE. To the bottom.
Mr. BALL. To the bottom?
Mrs. RANDLE. Yes. It tapered like this as he [i]hugged [/i]it in his hand. It was more bulky toward the bottom than it was this way.
Mr. BELIN. Toward the top? More bulky toward the bottom than toward the top?
Mrs. RANDLE. That is right.
Both Hands:
I suppose, and he carried it in his right hand, had the top sort of folded down and had a grip like this, and the bottom, he carried it this way, you know, and it almost touched the ground as he carried it.
Linnie shreds BWF testimony. It leaves you with two choices, one he deliberately misleads investigators or two as he said he just did not pay any attention. You should be happy. Your posting made a significant contribution to understanding how Linnie's bag recollections shed light on the question of LHO transporting the rifle to the TSBD.
-
Just like Oswald knew that his rifle was in the wrapped blanket which was safely stored in the Paine garage.
How does dumped on the garage floor become "safely stored"?
ROFL
Just like Oswald knew that his rifle was in the wrapped blanket which was safely stored in the Paine garage.
How does dumped on the garage floor become "safely stored"?
It was safely stored in the confines of a crowded garage as part of a house which was virtually occupied 24/7, that's a safe environment.
It wasn't stored outside behind a tree or leaning against a house.
The rifle itself was stored inconspicuously in a blanket, even Michael who interacted with the blanket numerous times thought that it contained pipes or a shovel.
Is a thief going to back up a truck and empty the entire contents of the tightly stuffed garage and even if they did, a blanket on the floor wouldn't have a high priority.
BTW, out of the post you replied to, you edit out every other fact and then decide to fall on your sword with a misjudged, misguided easily refuted, assertion! Really?
(https://i.postimg.cc/nrxR48tj/ruth-paine-garage.jpg)
Mr. LIEBELER - Did you think there was more than one tent pole in the package or just one tent pole?
Mr. PAINE - As I say, I moved it several times, and I think I thought progressively each time. I moved it twice. It had three occasions. And the first one was an iron, thought of an iron pipe and then I have drawn, I drew yesterday, a picture of the thing I had in mind. Then in order to fill out the package I had to add another object to it and there I added again I was thinking of camping equipment, and I added a folding shovel such as I had seen in the Army, a little spade where the blade folds back over the handle. This has the trouble that this blade was too symmetrical I disposed to the handle and to fit the package the blade had to be off center, eccentric to the handle. Also, I had my vision of the pipe. It had an iron pipe about 30 inches long with a short section of pipe going off 45 degrees. No words here, it just happened that I did have this image in my mind of trying to fill up that package in the back burner of my mind.
https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/testimony/paine_m1.htm
(https://i.postimg.cc/X7kMD8H6/michael-paine-exhibit-1-drawing-shovel.jpg)
ROFL
For someone who is constantly "rolling on the floor laughing", you don't seem like a very funny guy, in fact you give the impression of an overly paranoid dude, with a permanent scowl on your face!
JohnM
-
It was safely stored in the confines of a crowded garage as part of a house which was virtually occupied 24/7, that's a safe environment.
It wasn't stored outside behind a tree or leaning against a house.
The rifle itself was stored inconspicuously in a blanket, even Michael who interacted with the blanket numerous times thought that it contained pipes or a shovel.
Is a thief going to back up a truck and empty the entire contents of the tightly stuffed garage and even if they did, a blanket on the floor wouldn't have a high priority.
BTW, out of the post you replied to, you edit out every other fact and then decide to fall on your sword with a misjudged, misguided easily refuted, assertion! Really?
(https://i.postimg.cc/nrxR48tj/ruth-paine-garage.jpg)
Mr. LIEBELER - Did you think there was more than one tent pole in the package or just one tent pole?
Mr. PAINE - As I say, I moved it several times, and I think I thought progressively each time. I moved it twice. It had three occasions. And the first one was an iron, thought of an iron pipe and then I have drawn, I drew yesterday, a picture of the thing I had in mind. Then in order to fill out the package I had to add another object to it and there I added again I was thinking of camping equipment, and I added a folding shovel such as I had seen in the Army, a little spade where the blade folds back over the handle. This has the trouble that this blade was too symmetrical I disposed to the handle and to fit the package the blade had to be off center, eccentric to the handle. Also, I had my vision of the pipe. It had an iron pipe about 30 inches long with a short section of pipe going off 45 degrees. No words here, it just happened that I did have this image in my mind of trying to fill up that package in the back burner of my mind.
https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/testimony/paine_m1.htm
(https://i.postimg.cc/X7kMD8H6/michael-paine-exhibit-1-drawing-shovel.jpg)
For someone who is constantly "rolling on the floor laughing", you don't seem like a very funny guy, in fact you give the impression of an overly paranoid dude, with a permanent scowl on your face!
JohnM
Wow, that took a lot of words attempting to back up your claim! By now you should know that I enjoy taking potshots at the weak Nutters. BTW, had you been one of the elite LNs, you would simply have argued that the bundle didn't include the ammo; hence, it was perfectly safe for even the children to slip into the garage. In fact, not even an empty ammunition box was anywhere to be found in the Paine residence. Not safe for the scope, though, to end up on the floor and being kicked around, ROFL.
-
Your history here is an open book and there was nothing false about my observation, the fact that you are here freaking out, is very telling.
JohnM
I was not "responding for Martin". Another unsupported claim we can put on top of your existing pile of unsupported claims. Carry on, John!
-
Yeah sure, combing through testimony and cross referencing archives is pre-school stuff? Did you discover this or did you rip off other researchers?
I referred to the dates, like looking them up in a 1963 calendar, but maybe I was too harsh saying preschool. Should have said 3rd grade; did you even make it past 3rd grade? Ripping off researchers sounds interesting; what was that all about?
See the problem here Tom, is that you appear to have no experience in the real World, human error out here is so prevalent that it's away of life.
Newspaper articles get locations, facts, times and etc, wrong all the time. Just witness the initial reports in this case alone, different rifles, agents killed, mistaken and/or misrepresented evidence and the list goes on and on.
What I conclude in this Paine curtain rod saga is the WC date of the curtain rod collection is in line with Day's fingerprint analysis and the subsequent Howlett collection, nuff said!
As I said at the start, this is months after the assassination and is a simple exercise in satisfying the public with every potential possibility.
BTW I asked you to "convince me if this is something beyond innocent human error" and where could this possibly be construed as something evil? But as usual you have no answers.
JohnM
I'm not here to convince you of anything. Day not being present and signing the form is pretty far out, even for a Nutter. Adding the 24th to your fantasy makes even less sense if the rods are dusted on the 25th. You've stopped making any sense, so I'll wait around for the more elite Nutters to chime in.
-
Wow, that took a lot of words attempting to back up your claim! By now you should know that I enjoy taking potshots at the weak Nutters. BTW, had you been one of the elite LNs, you would simply have argued that the bundle didn't include the ammo; hence, it was perfectly safe for even the children to slip into the garage. In fact, not even an empty ammunition box was anywhere to be found in the Paine residence. Not safe for the scope, though, to end up on the floor and being kicked around, ROFL.
Wow, that took a lot of words attempting to back up your claim!
And considering you couldn't refute a single point, makes my facts the only possible answers. Thanks for playing.
By now you should know that I enjoy taking potshots at the weak Nutters.
And this is the best you got, after I just humiliated you? Get real.
BTW, had you been one of the elite LNs, you would simply have argued that the bundle didn't include the ammo; hence, it was perfectly safe for even the children to slip into the garage.
What idiot stores his rifle with the ammo, you're not very good at this are you, Tom!
In fact, not even an empty ammunition box was anywhere to be found in the Paine residence.
Oswald didn't even have enough bullets to fill his clip, any ammo box was long gone.
Not safe for the scope, though, to end up on the floor and being kicked around, ROFL.
What proof have you got that the scope was attached or even in the Blanket, because at Neely street, Oswald's rifle didn't have the scope attached, Oops, so it's not a given that it was permanently attached. And considering the rifle was war surplus, you know designed to be used in a war, I don't think Oswald was too concerned about a few toddlers rummaging about around his blanket wrapped rifle. Hahahaha!
Mr. RANKIN. Was it out in the room at that time, as distinguished from in a closet in the room?
Mrs. OSWALD. Yes, it was open, out in the open. At first I think---I saw some package up on the top shelf, and I think that that was the rifle. But I didn't know. And apparently later he assembled it and had it in the room.
Mr. RANKIN. When you saw the rifle assembled in the room, did it have the scope on it?
Mrs. OSWALD. No, it did not have a scope on it.
(https://i.postimg.cc/zG4scGm4/blanket-rifle-bag-sack.jpg)
BTW I love smashing silly overconfident bully CT's, it makes each and every win extremely satisfying.
Next time bring your "A" game because so far making you look the fool is just way too easy. Now run along and do a little research so you can at least appear barely competent.
JohnM
-
I referred to the dates, like looking them up in a 1963 calendar, but maybe I was too harsh saying preschool. Should have said 3rd grade; did you even make it past 3rd grade? Ripping off researchers sounds interesting; what was that all about?
I'm not here to convince you of anything. Day not being present and signing the form is pretty far out, even for a Nutter. Adding the 24th to your fantasy makes even less sense if the rods are dusted on the 25th. You've stopped making any sense, so I'll wait around for the more elite Nutters to chime in.
I referred to the dates, like looking them up in a 1963 calendar, but maybe I was too harsh saying preschool. Should have said 3rd grade; did you even make it past 3rd grade? Ripping off researchers sounds interesting; what was that all about?
Like I said, I checked all the primary sources, that's what a reputable researcher does. In my early days I've trusted many CT's that I assumed did the legwork and let's just say, their research skills left a lot to be desired.
Ripping off researchers sounds interesting; what was that all about?
Alan Ford was spewing this nonsense years ago and you've just jumped on his coat-tails. But maybe you can do a better job of fitting this months old evidence into a plausible narrative, but somehow I doubt it!
I'm not here to convince you of anything.
Well Tom, you're doing a good job of that.
Day not being present and signing the form is pretty far out, even for a Nutter. Adding the 24th to your fantasy makes even less sense if the rods are dusted on the 25th. You've stopped making any sense, so I'll wait around for the more elite Nutters to chime in.
I told you it's simple human error. Lt. Day made some assumptions which didn't pan out.
Then I asked politely for you to create a narrative explaining what you believe happened and so far you have failed because you apparently lack the deductive reasoning skills to add one and one. But I guess after reading Alan Ford's absurd hole filled alternate reality, I can understand why you won't.
• So in conclusion, what are we left with is plain and simple human error, or will a yet to found super CT make the necessary connections because here in this CT cesspool we have a lot of nobodies and insane theories but no answers!
It sure looks like being a keen CT isn't what it's cracked up to be!
JohnM
-
based on what a nutter (that is you) told me.
Sure, why would anyone doubt that you did. Actually, that has to be one of the stranger things you have posted.
You are denying LHO walked bent over, good choice LHO was walking erect with a 3 foot 6 inch bag. We all know, nobody would walk bent over with the 27 inch bag. You had the right answer and here you are now you are denying it. I don't know why you would want to do that. You personally have posted all of these. Did you not ever read them? Maybe subconsciously you just did not want to know what she said. She destroys the short bag nonsense and the whole conspiracy tripe that goes along with it.
Where did LMR say Lee used his left hand?
Let us review, Linnie gives two different descriptions of how each hand held the package. “Gripping or grabbing or grab” the top with the right hand and “hugging” the bottom with the other.
Right hand:
Mr. BALL. Let me see. He carried it in his right hand, did he?
Mrs. RANDLE. That is right.
Mr. BALL. And where was his hand gripping the middle of the package?
Mrs. RANDLE. No, sir; the top with just a little bit sticking up. You know just like you grab something like that.
Mrs. RANDLE. No, sir; the top with just a little bit sticking up. You know just like you grab something like that.
Mr. BALL. And he was grabbing it with his right hand at the top of the package and the package almost touched the ground?
Mrs. RANDLE. Yes, sir.
Left Hand:
Mr. BALL. I have one question, Mr. Chief Justice.
You used an expression there, that the bag appeared heavy.
Mrs. RANDLE. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. You meant that there was some weight appeared to--
Mrs. RANDLE. To the bottom.
Mr. BALL. To the bottom?
Mrs. RANDLE. Yes. It tapered like this as he [i]hugged [/i]it in his hand. It was more bulky toward the bottom than it was this way.
Mr. BELIN. Toward the top? More bulky toward the bottom than toward the top?
Mrs. RANDLE. That is right.
Both Hands:
I suppose, and he carried it in his right hand, had the top sort of folded down and had a grip like this, and the bottom, he carried it this way, you know, and it almost touched the ground as he carried it.
Linnie shreds BWF testimony. It leaves you with two choices, one he deliberately misleads investigators or two as he said he just did not pay any attention. You should be happy. Your posting made a significant contribution to understanding how Linnie's bag recollections shed light on the question of LHO transporting the rifle to the TSBD.
All garbage.
She never saw him touch the bag with his left hand.
The prints on the bag are not consistent with how it was carried.
-
All garbage.
She never saw him touch the bag with his left hand.
The prints on the bag are not consistent with how it was carried.
All garbage.
You asked for proof and now that it has been presented you do not like the results.
But don't be so hard on yourself. It all comes from your posts. Apparently, you just never read them.
She never saw him touch the bag with his left hand
No, according to her statements and your own assessment she did.
The prints on the bag are not consistent with how it was carried.
Oh, but they are. I am sure you would like them not to be but no they are there.
-
All garbage.
You asked for proof and now that it has been presented you do not like the results.
But don't be so hard on yourself. It all comes from your posts. Apparently, you just never read them.
She never saw him touch the bag with his left hand
No, according to her statements and your own assessment she did.
The prints on the bag are not consistent with how it was carried.
Oh, but they are. I am sure you would like them not to be but no they are there.
I don't debate cartoon theories.
Later, dude.
-
I don't debate cartoon theories.
Later, dude.
You don’t debate? That is interesting. A better way to describe it is “when the going gets tough the tough get going”.
Anyway, your posts put the BWF and bag issue to bed.
-
No evidence of the rifle in the Paine garage on 11/21
The prints on the bag are not consistent with how it was carried.
Although Frazier did not pay attention to the bag, he was sure it was carried from the palm to the armpit. (too small for the rifle)
Both Frazier & Linnie Mae had no reason to lie about what they saw.
(https://preview.ibb.co/cqGmgw/Slide18.gif)
Thumb1:There is no reason to believe the rifle was ever put in that bag and carried in that morning by Lee Oswald.
-
No evidence of the rifle in the Paine garage on 11/21
The prints on the bag are not consistent with how it was carried.
Although Frazier did not pay attention to the bag, he was sure it was carried from the palm to the armpit. (too small for the rifle)
Both Frazier & Linnie Mae had no reason to lie about what they saw.
(https://preview.ibb.co/cqGmgw/Slide18.gif)
Thumb1:There is no reason to believe the rifle was ever put in that bag and carried in that morning by Lee Oswald.
Both Frazier & Linnie Mae had no reason to lie about what they saw.
Linnie Mae did not lie about what she saw. BWF had a very good reason to lie.
Linnie Mae and BWF gave radically different accounts of how the bag was carried. Linnie Mae’s account of how the bag was carried does not work with BWF’s estimate of length. Linnie Mae’s account works with what was discovered in the SN. BWF’s does not. The bag discovered in the SN has LHO’s prints on it matching Linnie Mae’s description of LHO carrying the package. You know this.
-
And considering you couldn't refute a single point, makes my facts the only possible answers. Thanks for playing.
And this is the best you got, after I just humiliated you? Get real.
What idiot stores his rifle with the ammo, you're not very good at this are you, Tom!
Oswald didn't even have enough bullets to fill his clip, any ammo box was long gone.
What proof have you got that the scope was attached or even in the Blanket, because at Neely street, Oswald's rifle didn't have the scope attached, Oops, so it's not a given that it was permanently attached. And considering the rifle was war surplus, you know designed to be used in a war, I don't think Oswald was too concerned about a few toddlers rummaging about around his blanket wrapped rifle. Hahahaha!
Mr. RANKIN. Was it out in the room at that time, as distinguished from in a closet in the room?
Mrs. OSWALD. Yes, it was open, out in the open. At first I think---I saw some package up on the top shelf, and I think that that was the rifle. But I didn't know. And apparently later he assembled it and had it in the room.
Mr. RANKIN. When you saw the rifle assembled in the room, did it have the scope on it?
Mrs. OSWALD. No, it did not have a scope on it.
(https://i.postimg.cc/zG4scGm4/blanket-rifle-bag-sack.jpg)
BTW I love smashing silly overconfident bully CT's, it makes each and every win extremely satisfying.
Next time bring your "A" game because so far making you look the fool is just way too easy. Now run along and do a little research so you can at least appear barely competent.
JohnM
Right, Oswald didn't really care about his Carcano and toddlers kicking it around the garage floor was no big deal, so what exactly did you mean by "safely stored"?
Oh, about the scope, if it wasn't permanently attached, when did it become attached?
-
There are fingerprints confirming Linnie Mae’s description of how it was held.
No. As Pat Speer brilliantly illustrated, the palmprint was near the middle of the bag, and the fingerprint was near the bottom of the bag.
https://www.patspeer.com/jahs-chapter-18 (https://www.patspeer.com/jahs-chapter-18)
-
Besides the Mountain of physical evidence
LOL
1) Oswald asks Frazier to take him to Irving to get "curtain rods".
2) Oswald breaks his usual routine and goes to Irving on a Thursday which just happens to be the day before the Presidential visit, what a coincidence!
3) Oswald goes against standard protocol and doesn't get permission from Ruth Paine for his unexpected visit.
4) Oswald leaves most of his money.
5) Oswald leaves his wedding ring.
6) Oswald never tells Marina he's going to leave with "curtain rods".
7) Oswald never tells Ruth that he's going to leave with "curtain rods".
8} Oswald upon reaching Frazier's house immediately hides the "curtain rods" in Frazier's car.
9) Oswald's package is seen by Frazier on the back seat of Frazier's car and Oswald confirms that it contains "curtain rods", whereas the interrogators recall that Oswald said he carried the package on his lap in the front seat.
10) Oswald is 50 feet ahead of Frazier when entering the Texas School Book Depository, another first.
11) Oswald leaves the Depository not at the start or end of lunch but after about 3 minutes from when the President is assassinated, roughly the time it takes to walk from the 6th floor, be confronted, buy a coke and then exit on the ground floor.
12) Oswald never asks permission to leave work by his immediate superior Shelley, in fact Shelley testifies that he never sees Oswald after 12PM.
13) Oswald made a great effort to get "curtain rods" yet isn't seen by Bledsoe on the bus carrying "curtain rods"
14) Oswald isn't seen in Whaley's cab carrying "curtain rods"
15) Oswald isn't seen by Roberts carrying "curtain rods" into his room at the rooming house.
16) Oswald's room doesn't contain any additional "curtain rods".
17) Oswald's room doesn't even need additional "curtain rods".
18) Oswald was not described by any eyewitnesses at the Tippit crime scene carrying "curtain rods"
19) Oswald was not described by Johnny Brewer as carrying "curtain rods"
20) Oswald didn't hit Officer McDonald over the head in the Texas Theatre with "curtain rods"
21) Oswald told his interrogators a different story that he never had "curtain rods" and only carried his lunch to work.
22) Oswald's prints were found on a brown paper bag recovered in the sniper's nest.
23) Oswald's rifle was a neat fit for the brown paper bag.
24) Oswald's "curtain rods" were never found in the Depository.
That is a really cool list of claims, exactly none of which are evidence that Oswald brought a rifle into the TSBD.
-
Your quoting Linnie’s second recounting not her first. Her first is a 42 inch bag, that was being held in a manner that would have LHO bent at the hip to be holding a 27 inch bag in the same manner.
BS:
She never said anything about a 42 inch bag.
-
If the rifle stayed fully assembled, a small lunch sized bag could simply and easily be placed over the exposed muzzle end of the barrel to hide it. That solution would have been much simpler and quicker than disassembling and reassembling the rifle. The small lunch sized bag could have been disposed of anywhere in the TSBD and would not have appeared out of place.
If a small lunch bag could have been disposed of anywhere, then so could a two-foot long bag.
-
1) In the following video @3:33 Buell Wesley Frazier Under Oath, admits that he hardly paid any attention to the bag and the bag could have been protruding out the front of his body,
"could have been". LOL.
-
Tom Sorenson provided an opinion and nothing else, just background noise.
Simply amazing given that you have no evidence beyond your opinion that there was any rifle in any package.
-
Another interesting factoid is another simpleton Dougherty testified that some of the fellows and specifically Shelley saw the bag, but obviously Shelley knew better than to admit that he saw Oswald carry the murder weapon. But poor old Frazier had no choice but to slightly twist and admit what he saw, but the best excuse Frazier could come up with, was to introduce a little white lie.
Your cherry-picking skills are a wonder to witness. Not unlike rubber-necking at the site of a horrific automobile accident.
-
So Michael, you acknowledge that Oswald carried a long package to work, why didn't anyone who saw Oswald in the immediate aftermath see Oswald with the long package?
Because the package was important enough for Oswald to make a special trip to Irving to collect it, so where is it, what happened to it and why would Oswald leave it behind?
I propose a theory that explains it all, hear me out.
Oswald made a special trip to Irving on a Thursday so he could retrieve his rifle, a rifle that was missing form the Paine garage on the Friday afternoon.
Oswald wrapped the rifle in brown paper that came from the Depository so the rifle sack could be easily smuggled into his work and wouldn't be so conspicuous.
Oswald left the paper sack and the rifle on the 6th floor and got the heck out of there as quickly as possible.
See Michael, no mental gymnastics required, a straight forward assassination explains ALL the evidence and also explains ALL of Oswald's actions.
Cool story, bro.
If only you had any evidence whatsoever that it is actually true.
-
Sorry old chum the evidence is that Oswald told Frazier that he was going to get "curtain rods" and he accomplished the mission by having "curtain rods" with him the very next day and since "curtain rods" were never found and/or needed then we can know for a certainty that the mission was to retrieve his rifle
LOL.
-
That's all very nice but irrelevant, why didn't you address the Elephant in the room, why on Earth would Oswald take "curtain rods" in a long package to work and then simply leave them behind? And don't forget that his rooming house's room had curtain rods, so think hard and try to explain this massive dilemma, Good Luck!
"Dillemma". LOL.
a) who said they were for the rooming house room?
b)
(https://i.vgy.me/tzlb8k.jpg)
-
Sorry Martin you've got it all wrong, not only did Oswald tell Frazier that he was going to Irving to collect "curtain rods" but Oswald told Frazier very specifically that on the back seat of Frazier's car were those very same "curtain rods". So I'll ask again what happened to the curtain rods and why didn't Oswald take them with him?
Hilarious.
So "Frazier said so" is good evidence, except when it isn't.
-
Why do CT's always make themselves the ultimate arbiter and for no reasonable reason, deny each and every piece of presented evidence? Lucky we have impartial Jury's, who make decisions based on the evidence and not their overpowering bias!
You mean the way you make yourself the ultimate arbiter on when Frazier and Randle were telling the truth and when they were lying?
-
Like I said, I checked all the primary sources, that's what a reputable researcher does. In my early days I've trusted many CT's that I assumed did the legwork and let's just say, their research skills left a lot to be desired.
Alan Ford was spewing this nonsense years ago and you've just jumped on his coat-tails. But maybe you can do a better job of fitting this months old evidence into a plausible narrative, but somehow I doubt it!
Well Tom, you're doing a good job of that.
I told you it's simple human error. Lt. Day made some assumptions which didn't pan out.
Then I asked politely for you to create a narrative explaining what you believe happened and so far you have failed because you apparently lack the deductive reasoning skills to add one and one. But I guess after reading Alan Ford's absurd hole filled alternate reality, I can understand why you won't.
• So in conclusion, what are we left with is plain and simple human error, or will a yet to found super CT make the necessary connections because here in this CT cesspool we have a lot of nobodies and insane theories but no answers!
It sure looks like being a keen CT isn't what it's cracked up to be!
JohnM
Ok, so the rip off claim was another BS claim we can add to your already towering pile of BS claims.
Back to the proposed abundance of mistakes by Day, approved by Howlett;
Lt. Day who was not there, either misheard or misinterpreted the date Howlett collected the curtain rods, as being the 15th. A Sunday?
This is straight up nonsense. Howlett would have submitted the rods to the person in charge of the evidence room that particular day, especially if it was a rush job. The submission date would have read 3-23-64.
-
• Randle initial estimate of the length of the long brown package was done out of honesty and all your denials won't change this solid evidence, the fact that she later colluded with Wesley to drastically shrink the package came about because of Wesley's fear, especially after Fritz threatened a poor innocent 19 year old with physical violence.
Another cool story, bro. If only you had some actual evidence that it is true.
-
Alan Ford's and presumably Tom's assertion that a depository employee found these infamous missing curtain rods has a little problem, according to CT lore Frazier saw the curtain rods neatly tucked under Oswald's arm, from armpit to cupped hand, but as the much taller Wesley demonstrated, he could barely fit a 24 inch package under his arm, so obviously a 27.5 inch package for Oswald's puny arms is totally out of the question! So any chance of a gotcha moment is out the window( no pun intended)! Sorry chappies
Yet somehow carrying a 40-inch package under the same puny arm makes perfect sense to "Mytton".
Like you know how long Oswald's arms were...
-
After spending way too much time on this, while trying to watch the footy, I can't possibly see how anyone can get conspiracy from this, human error perhaps, but that's as far as it goes.
They were "mistaken" -- the ultimate get out of jail free card for the LN-faithful.
-
Hahahaha! Talk about shooting yourself in the foot, Oswald knew he had a rifle wrapped in a blanket on the floor of the Paine garage, therefore he made the trip to Irving to collect it, so;
Once again, cool story bro. If only you had some actual evidence to support it.
-
Wake me up when the bag no longer exists. The one that was found next to the SN with Oswald's prints that can be measured to avoid the necessity of pedantically analyzing witness estimates of its length and how it was carried. Witness who had no real opportunity or cause to give the bag much notice.
This ranks right up there with your legendary argument that the best evidence that Oswald went down the stairs after the shooting is that he did.
-
Prosecution: Yes. Oswald wrote an order, Oswald paid for the order, Kleins processed the order and Kleins sent the order to Oswald's PO box, Oswald was proven to have been holding the same weapon as sent, the rifle was stored in a blanket, the same blanket was empty the afternoon of the assassination, Oswald was seen carrying a long brown package to work, the long brown package was discovered in the sniper's nest with Oswald's prints, the eyewitness to this bag repeatedly says he "never payed attention to the bag", the rifle was found at Oswald's place of employment, 3 expended shells matching the rifle was found in the sniper's nest, the only recovered bullet fragments belonged to Oswald's rifle and Oswald's prints were on the rifle.
Claims aren't evidence. Try harder.
-
Evidence is relevant if:
(a) it has any tendency to make a fact more or less probable than it would be without the evidence; and
(b) the fact is of consequence in determining the action.
Oswald not being chatty with a cab driver does not make the claim that Oswald killed Kennedy any more probable than if he was chatty with a cab driver.
Therefore it is not relevant evidence.
Thanks! Thumb1:
-
You are denying LHO walked bent over, good choice LHO was walking erect with a 3 foot 6 inch bag. We all know, nobody would walk bent over with the 27 inch bag.
a) how did you determine what "we all know"?
b) why would a 27 inch bag need to be carried by walking "bent over"?
c) why is "Linnie Mae said" automatically more credible than "Buell Wesley said"?
By the way, Linnie Mae never says in her testimony that he was holding or touching the package with his left hand. That was something you read into it.
-
I told you it's simple human error. Lt. Day made some assumptions which didn't pan out.
Just like you do. Calling them "deductive reasoning" doesn't make your assumptions any more correct.
-
Linnie Mae did not lie about what she saw.
Good, I'm glad that's settled!
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.
Thumb1:
-
The CTer/contrarian struggle with logic is painful to behold. Here is an example. If Oswald is placed beyond doubt at point A and then sometime later at point B there is no reason to engage in endless pedantic nitpicking to claim he couldn't have made it to point B within the known timeframe. CTer/contrarians refuse to accept this simple concept. They cling to pedantic, subjective interpretations of any witness testimony or circumstance that casts any doubt on this conclusion. Again, the best proof that a thing could happen is that it DID happen. There is no better proof. If person X is proven beyond doubt to be in Paris on one day and in NYC on the next, there is no need to know which plane he took, who he sat next to on the plane, or his manner of dress to reach the conclusion that he made it to NYC from Paris in that timeframe. Just because a witness might describe this person as wearing a different colored jacket than the person in NYC is rabbit hole nonsense if the totality of evidence places him there beyond all doubt.
-
The CTer/contrarian struggle with logic is painful to behold. Here is an example. If Oswald is placed beyond doubt at point A and then sometime later at point B there is no reason to engage in endless pedantic nitpicking to claim he couldn't have made it to point B within the known timeframe. CTer/contrarians refuse to accept this simple concept. They cling to pedantic, subjective interpretations of any witness testimony or circumstance that casts any doubt on this conclusion. Again, the best proof that a thing could happen is that it DID happen. There is no better proof. If person X is proven beyond doubt to be in Paris on one day and in NYC on the next, there is no need to know which plane he took, who he sat next to on the plane, or his manner of dress to reach the conclusion that he made it to NYC from Paris in that timeframe. Just because a witness might describe this person as wearing a different colored jacket than the person in NYC is rabbit hole nonsense if the totality of evidence places him there beyond all doubt.
:D I'm trying to follow along on this one.
Does that mean LMR saw a rifle?
Too funny.
-
No. As Pat Speer brilliantly illustrated, the palmprint was near the middle of the bag, and the fingerprint was near the bottom of the bag.
https://www.patspeer.com/jahs-chapter-18 (https://www.patspeer.com/jahs-chapter-18)
No. As Pat Speer brilliantly illustrated, the palmprint was near the middle of the bag, and the fingerprint was near the bottom of the bag.
I read it that Pat proves what Linnie stated was correct about how LHO gripped the rifle near the top of the bag.
Mrs. RANDLE. He was carrying a package in a sort of a heavy brown bag, heavier than a grocery bag it looked to me. It was about, if I might measure, about this long, I suppose, and he carried it in his right hand, had the top sort of folded down and had a grip like this, and the bottom, he carried it this way, you know, and it almost touched the ground as he carried it.
The bottom he carried it this way.... and it almost touched the ground.
-
The CTer/contrarian struggle with logic is painful to behold. Here is an example. If Oswald is placed beyond doubt at point A and then sometime later at point B there is no reason to engage in endless pedantic nitpicking to claim he couldn't have made it to point B within the known timeframe. CTer/contrarians refuse to accept this simple concept. They cling to pedantic, subjective interpretations of any witness testimony or circumstance that casts any doubt on this conclusion. Again, the best proof that a thing could happen is that it DID happen. There is no better proof. If person X is proven beyond doubt to be in Paris on one day and in NYC on the next, there is no need to know which plane he took, who he sat next to on the plane, or his manner of dress to reach the conclusion that he made it to NYC from Paris in that timeframe. Just because a witness might describe this person as wearing a different colored jacket than the person in NYC is rabbit hole nonsense if the totality of evidence places him there beyond all doubt.
Classic LN dishonesty at it's finest. The Paris/NYC analogy is simply pathetic!
Oswald was not "placed beyond doubt at point A". Some time ago I've spend months waiting for you to provide a shred of evidence that Oswald was on the 6th floor when the shots were fired. Not only couldn't you provide such evidence, but you finally threw a tantrum and ran away from the conversation.
Not even the WC could place Oswald on the 6th floor at 12.30. They just assumed he was there and you are doing the same!
-
:D I'm trying to follow along on this one.
Does that mean LMR saw a rifle?
Too funny.
Funny? Yes, but not for the reason you think. This is like describing color to someone who is color blind. They find it difficult to "follow along." The classic CTer inability to see the forest for all the trees.
-
It's when the airline timetable shows that X couldn't have made it to NYC in time to be seen the LN tosspot evidence falls apart and their hissy fits begin. Like when Oswald "escaped" from the Plaza by bus, by cab or whatever... ROFL.
-
The CTer/contrarian struggle with logic is painful to behold. Here is an example. If Oswald is placed beyond doubt at point A and then sometime later at point B there is no reason to engage in endless pedantic nitpicking to claim he couldn't have made it to point B within the known timeframe. CTer/contrarians refuse to accept this simple concept. They cling to pedantic, subjective interpretations of any witness testimony or circumstance that casts any doubt on this conclusion. Again, the best proof that a thing could happen is that it DID happen. There is no better proof. If person X is proven beyond doubt to be in Paris on one day and in NYC on the next, there is no need to know which plane he took, who he sat next to on the plane, or his manner of dress to reach the conclusion that he made it to NYC from Paris in that timeframe. Just because a witness might describe this person as wearing a different colored jacket than the person in NYC is rabbit hole nonsense if the totality of evidence places him there beyond all doubt.
Again, the best proof that a thing could happen is that it DID happen.
:D :D :D
Tricky Dicky's Patented Nutter Logic.
Example #1
1] The best proof that a thing could happen is that it DID happen.
2] Oswald shot JFK.
3] That is proof that it DID happen.
Example#2
1] The best proof that a thing could happen is that it DID happen.
2] Oswald made it down from the 6th floor to the 2nd floor in time to be confronted by Baker.
3] That is proof that it DID happen.
-
It's when the airline timetable shows that X couldn't have made it to NYC in time to be seen the LN tosspot evidence falls apart and their hissy fits begin. Like when Oswald "escaped" from the Plaza by bus, by cab or whatever... ROFL.
You are gaining a dim understanding of logic. Who thought it possible? Here it is again. If the evidence proves that person A is in Paris in the morning and in NYC the next day because the evidence demonstrates that he is NYC, we know beyond all doubt that he made it from Paris to NYC because the evidence demonstrates that it happened. It's not necessary to then prove what plane he took, how he was dressed etc to reach that conclusion. The inability to know all those details with certainty does not cast doubt on that relevant conclusion.
CTers would agonize over descriptions of the person's clothing, height, age on the plane from other passengers to suggest there is doubt. Any discrepancy would be pounced on as creating doubt. They would argue about "chain of custody," and timelines while often applying subjective criteria to the witness testimony. Even if there are holes in the timeline, witness contradictions, unknowns, it doesn't change the evidence that places the person in NYC. If the person is there, that means he could and did get there even if we don't know every detail of how he got there. However unlikely you want to believe the circumstances, if it happened, then that is definitive of the event. It's like arguing to a person standing right in front of you holding a winning lottery ticket that the odds against winning the lottery are so great that it couldn't possibly happen. That is lunacy. You are looking through the wrong end of the telescope and arguing everything looks small.
-
Again, the best proof that a thing could happen is that it DID happen.
:D :D :D
Tricky Dicky's Patented Nutter Logic.
Example #1
1] The best proof that a thing could happen is that it DID happen.
2] Oswald shot JFK.
3] That is proof that it DID happen.
Example#2
1] The best proof that a thing could happen is that it DID happen.
2] Oswald made it down from the 6th floor to the 2nd floor in time to be confronted by Baker.
3] That is proof that it DID happen.
Try this. If the evidence places Oswald at the Tippit murder scene, do you agree that is conclusive of whether he had the time to get there? And as a result, we don't need to prove his every movement with a stopwatch to accept that conclusion. I'm not asking you for an endless pedantic subjective rant on whether the evidence places him there. I realize that some CTers may not agree that it did because they apply an impossible standard of proof, but hypothetically IF the evidence places him at the scene don't you agree that moots all the discussion about timelines and routes that would have got him there at that moment? I don't think that is a very complex concept to understand even for you.
-
Try this. If the evidence places Oswald at the Tippit murder scene, do you agree that is conclusive of whether he had the time to get there? And as a result, we don't need to prove his every movement with a stopwatch to accept that conclusion. I'm not asking you for an endless pedantic subjective rant on whether the evidence places him there. I realize that some CTers may not agree that it did because they apply an impossible standard of proof, but hypothetically IF the evidence places him at the scene don't you agree that moots all the discussion about timelines and routes that would have got him there at that moment? I don't think that is a very complex concept to understand even for you.
If the evidence places Oswald at the Tippit murder scene, do you agree that is conclusive of whether he had the time to get there?
Yes
And as a result, we don't need to prove his every movement with a stopwatch to accept that conclusion.
Agreed
IF the evidence places him at the scene don't you agree that moots all the discussion about timelines and routes that would have got him there at that moment?
Agreed
-
If the evidence places Oswald at the Tippit murder scene, do you agree that is conclusive of whether he had the time to get there?
Yes
And as a result, we don't need to prove his every movement with a stopwatch to accept that conclusion.
Agreed
IF the evidence places him at the scene don't you agree that moots all the discussion about timelines and routes that would have got him there at that moment?
Agreed
Wasn't the subject matter; Oswald being on the 6th floor and getting down the stairs within 75 seconds after the shots?
So, why is "Richard" now talking about Tippit? :D
-
Wasn't the subject matter; Oswald being on the 6th floor and getting down the stairs within 75 seconds after the shots?
So, why is "Richard" now talking about Tippit? :D
I think TD's Patented Logic - If it DID happen, that proves it DID happen - can be applied to all scenarios regarding the JFK case. ::)
-
Wasn't the subject matter; Oswald being on the 6th floor and getting down the stairs within 75 seconds after the shots?
So, why is "Richard" now talking about Tippit? :D
Likely because he held a similar lecture in the Tippit thread last year.
https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,4116.msg158279.html#msg158279
-
Try this. If the evidence places Oswald at the Tippit murder scene, do you agree that is conclusive of whether he had the time to get there? And as a result, we don't need to prove his every movement with a stopwatch to accept that conclusion. I'm not asking you for an endless pedantic subjective rant on whether the evidence places him there. I realize that some CTers may not agree that it did because they apply an impossible standard of proof, but hypothetically IF the evidence places him at the scene don't you agree that moots all the discussion about timelines and routes that would have got him there at that moment? I don't think that is a very complex concept to understand even for you.
The WC definitely didn't get it because they came up with a nutty bus ride going nowhere and Whaley the cab driver; neither were needed according to your principle. Is "an impossible standard of proof" explained in part two of your lecture?
-
Likely because he held a similar lecture in the Tippit thread last year.
https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,4116.msg158279.html#msg158279
He tried to do the same in a conversation I had with him about Oswald being on the 6th floor when the shots were fired and coming down the stairs within 75 seconds after the last shot.
He couldn't prove that Oswald was on the 6th floor at 12:30 PM or that he came down the stairs, so he started to use circular logic.
1. Oswald was seen on the second floor door by Baker within 75 to 90 seconds after the shots, which somehow "proves" that he must have come down the stairs
2. Oswald came down the stairs which "proves" that he must have been on the 6th floor.
It's laughable, but what is worse is that he actually believes his reasoning is logical.
You'll get a better conversation out of a brick wall.
-
The WC definitely didn't get it because they came up with a nutty bus ride going nowhere and Whaley the cab driver; neither were needed according to your principle. Is "an impossible standard of proof" explained in part two of your lecture?
I'm not sure exactly what you are claiming here. That someone conjured up a fake bus ride for Oswald that took him nowhere and is entirely pointless in the context of a conspiracy narrative? Why would anyone make that up as part of a plan? Are you familiar with "Chekhov's gun"? At the risk of exciting the other Tom with a Russia reference, it's a principle that if a writer references a gun in a story, there must be a reason for it, such as it being fired sometime later in the plot. It would be pointless and stupid for your fantasy conspirators to put Oswald on a bus if that doesn't move the plot. Pointless events like getting on a bus that gets stuck in traffic and then getting off to get into a cab are things that happen in real life. Not a narrative.
-
Likely because he held a similar lecture in the Tippit thread last year.
https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,4116.msg158279.html#msg158279
So much learning going on today. Remarkable progress. The thing speaks for itself. If the evidence is deemed conclusive that Oswald was on the 6th floor at 12:30 as the evidence, history books, and law enforcement indicate and that he was on the 2nd floor a couple of minutes later, then that is conclusive that he moved from the 6th to 2nd floor unnoticed in that timeframe. The evidence supports both conclusions even if his exact movements can't be recreated with certainty or even deemed improbable by those who apply an impossible standard of proof to the topic.
All the subjective nitpicking of witness testimony and pedantic attempts to analyze events down to the second are not necessary to reach this conclusion. The inability to do so creates no doubt of the fact.
How can be unknowable, even contrary to some interpretations, and still raise no doubt that it could be done because the evidence confirms that it was done. It is not necessary for me or anyone to prove how it was done to the satisfaction of anyone else. Once a thing has occurred, the odds against it occurring are no longer relevant in determining whether it did in fact occur. Even if the odds were a billion to one against it happening, and there is nothing like that in this context. This is called discovering the simplicity that lies on the far side of complexity (i.e. not going down the rabbit hole). Res ipsa loquitur.
-
So much learning going on today. Remarkable progress. The thing speaks for itself. If the evidence is deemed conclusive that Oswald was on the 6th floor at 12:30 as the evidence, history books, and law enforcement indicate and that he was on the 2nd floor a couple of minutes later, then that is conclusive that he moved from the 6th to 2nd floor unnoticed in that timeframe. The evidence supports both conclusions even if his exact movements can't be recreated with certainty or even deemed improbable by those who apply an impossible standard of proof to the topic.
All the subjective nitpicking of witness testimony and pedantic attempts to analyze events down to the second are not necessary to reach this conclusion. The inability to do so creates no doubt of the fact.
How can be unknowable, even contrary to some interpretations, and still raise no doubt that it could be done because the evidence confirms that it was done. It is not necessary for me or anyone to prove how it was done to the satisfaction of anyone else. Once a thing has occurred, the odds against it occurring are no longer relevant in determining whether it did in fact occur. Even if the odds were a billion to one against it happening, and there is nothing like that in this context. This is called discovering the simplicity that lies on the far side of complexity (i.e. not going down the rabbit hole). Res ipsa loquitur.
If the evidence is deemed conclusive that Oswald was on the 6th floor at 12:30
The only important word in this sentence is "If". There is no evidence that places Oswald on the 6th floor! None whatsoever! The WC couldn't provide any and poor "Richard" completely failed to produce it not all that long ago
as the evidence, history books, and law enforcement indicate and
There is no evidence, nor are there any claims by "law enforcement" and as far as history books are concerned; just check out the Donation of Constantine, which the history books, for more than a 1000 years, falsely claimed to authentic! So much for history books!
All the BS that "Richard" comes up with is nothing but a pathetic appeal to authority (when no real authority exists) and none of it speaks for itself for anybody else except "Richard"!
-
So much learning going on today. Remarkable progress. The thing speaks for itself. If the evidence is deemed conclusive that Oswald was on the 6th floor at 12:30 as the evidence, history books, and law enforcement indicate and that he was on the 2nd floor a couple of minutes later, then that is conclusive that he moved from the 6th to 2nd floor unnoticed in that timeframe. The evidence supports both conclusions even if his exact movements can't be recreated with certainty or even deemed improbable by those who apply an impossible standard of proof to the topic.
All the subjective nitpicking of witness testimony and pedantic attempts to analyze events down to the second are not necessary to reach this conclusion. The inability to do so creates no doubt of the fact.
How can be unknowable, even contrary to some interpretations, and still raise no doubt that it could be done because the evidence confirms that it was done. It is not necessary for me or anyone to prove how it was done to the satisfaction of anyone else. Once a thing has occurred, the odds against it occurring are no longer relevant in determining whether it did in fact occur. Even if the odds were a billion to one against it happening, and there is nothing like that in this context. This is called discovering the simplicity that lies on the far side of complexity (i.e. not going down the rabbit hole). Res ipsa loquitur.
"If the evidence is deemed conclusive that Oswald was on the 6th floor at 12:30 as the evidence, history books, and law enforcement indicate..."
There is not a single piece of credible evidence that puts Oswald "on the 6th floor at 12:30". Not a single piece.
This is the crux of your mental problems regarding this case. You blindly believe it is a fact that Oswald was on the 6th floor at 12:30 pm, you can not be swayed from this "fact", yet EVERY SINGLE PIECE OF CREDIBLE EVIDENCE regarding who was on the 6th floor just before, during and after the assassination points away from Oswald.
Your idea, that Oswald was on the 6th floor taking the shots is a THEORY. You simply can't face this truth and you have been made to look a real fool over this issue only recently.
You are way out of your depth here because your inability to think correctly about this puts you at a massive disadvantage.
Just for fun - name a single piece of credible evidence that puts Oswald on the 6th floor at 12:30 pm.
This challenge goes out to all Nutters.
PS: Before you even dare think about it, the presence of the rifle does not place Oswald on the 6th floor at 12:30 pm.
-
Just for fun - name a single piece of credible evidence that puts Oswald on the 6th floor at 12:30 pm.
This challenge goes out to all Nutters.
PS: Before you even dare think about it, the presence of the rifle does not place Oswald on the 6th floor at 12:30 pm.
Name a single piece of credible evidence that puts Oswald on the 6th floor at 12:30 pm. Except for the rifle. That one doesn't count. Neither do the shells. ::)
CT logic, triple distilled.
-
Name a single piece of credible evidence that puts Oswald on the 6th floor at 12:30 pm. Except for the rifle. That one doesn't count. Neither do the shells. ::)
CT logic, triple distilled.
Hi Tim, it's been a long time...
Ok, let's play this game.
Let's say, for argument's sake, the rifle found at the 6th floor did in fact belong to Oswald and the shells matched the rifle, how exactly does that prove that Oswald himself was on the 6th floor at 12:30, when the shots were fired?
-
Hi Tim, it's been a long time...
Ok, let's play this game.
Let's say, for argument's sake, the rifle found at the 6th floor did in fact belong to Oswald and the shells matched the rifle, how exactly does that prove that Oswald himself was on the 6th floor at 12:30, when the shots were fired?
How would the jury view it when presented with additional evidence and facts? Where was Oswald when the shooting was taking place? His prints were on the long paper sack found in the sniper's nest. A defense counsel could try to raise doubt about it to the jury but it would still be there for their consideration. They would have the FBI conclusion about the fibres found in the sack presented to them as well. Why did Oswald flee the building so soon after the assassination? Could the Tippit murder be used against him in any way when being tried for the Kennedy murder?
Beyond reasonable doubt in the standard, not beyond any doubt.
-
Name a single piece of credible evidence that puts Oswald on the 6th floor at 12:30 pm. Except for the rifle. That one doesn't count. Neither do the shells. ::)
CT logic, triple distilled.
Really Tim??
How does the rifle put Oswald on the 6th floor at 12:30 pm?
How do the shells put Oswald on the 6th floor at 12:30 pm?
You should really engage your brain before just wading in.
Nutter "logic" in a nutshell.
-
How would the jury view it when presented with additional evidence and facts? Where was Oswald when the shooting was taking place? His prints were on the long paper sack found in the sniper's nest. A defense counsel could try to raise doubt about it to the jury but it would still be there for their consideration. They would have the FBI conclusion about the fibres found in the sack presented to them as well. Why did Oswald flee the building so soon after the assassination? Could the Tippit murder be used against him in any way when being tried for the Kennedy murder?
Beyond reasonable doubt in the standard, not beyond any doubt.
I'm not really interested in what a jury would think about a circumstantial case like this one. It would be up to the defense to discredit the circumstantial arguments by the prosecution, and here we don't have the case of the defense!
But that's not the question I asked. How does the presence of a rifle belonging to Oswald prove that Oswald was on the 6th floor at 12:30?
-
I'm not really interested in what a jury would think about a circumstantial case like this one. It would be up to the defense to discredit the circumstantial arguments by the prosecution, and here we don't have the case of the defense!
But that's not the question I asked. How does the presence of a rifle belonging to Oswald prove that Oswald was on the 6th floor at 12:30?
Logically, the rifle being his proves beyond a reasonable doubt that Oswald was on the 6th floor at 12:30.
-
As a follow up to my last post as I know how obtuse Nutters can be.
The Mannlicher-Carcano, even if demonstrated beyond any doubt whatsoever to belong to Oswald, does not put Oswald on the 6th floor at 12:30 pm.
The 3 shells discovered in the southeast corner do not put Oswald on the 6th floor at 12:30 pm.
It is impossible for either of these pieces of evidence to put Oswald on the 6th floor at 12:30 pm.
What these pieces of evidence do is STRENGTHEN THE ASSUMPTION that Oswald was on the 6th floor at 12:30 pm.
But Tim, like the good little Nutter he is, can't differentiate between an assumption and a fact when it comes to Oswald's guilt.
it is a trait shared by nearly all Nutters and it demonstrates an extreme mentality usually associated with the Tinfoil Brigade.
It is one of many traits that Nutters share with Tinfoilers.
Tim doesn't realise his conviction that Oswald was on the 6th floor at 12:30 pm is a THEORY.
He fully believes that it is a proven FACT.
It is the cornerstone of all Nutter "Logic" around this issue - Oswald's rifle was found on the 6th floor therefore Oswald took the shots!
-
Logically, the rifle being his proves beyond a reasonable doubt that Oswald was on the 6th floor at 12:30.
:D :D :D
And there it is folks, right on cue!!
-
How would the jury view it when presented with additional evidence and facts? Where was Oswald when the shooting was taking place? His prints were on the long paper sack found in the sniper's nest. A defense counsel could try to raise doubt about it to the jury but it would still be there for their consideration. They would have the FBI conclusion about the fibres found in the sack presented to them as well. Why did Oswald flee the building so soon after the assassination? Could the Tippit murder be used against him in any way when being tried for the Kennedy murder?
Beyond reasonable doubt in the standard, not beyond any doubt.
Exactly Tim, these CK's keep asking for proof that Oswald was on the 6th floor @12:30 but it seems that the only evidence that will be accepted is if they had seen Oswald with their very own eyes, because even at the Tippit crime scene almost a dozen people saw Oswald in the immediate vicinity or moving away fiddling with his revolver, yet this indisputable evidence is waved away.
It's just a game to these deeply paranoid CK's who have an irrational hatred of authority and this "Anybody but Oswald" mantra is just a manifestation of this psychosis.
I can't imagine every murder being committed in front of eyewitnesses but the Police do a good job of solving a fair percentage of these heinous crimes.
•In this case specifically the murder weapon is the most important piece of evidence, hence the search for who owns the weapon is a logical starting point for investigation, to suggest otherwise is absolutely bonkers.
•Then after establishing ownership of the murder weapon you investigate the owner and a possible alibi, Oswald has none.
•And again in this case you search the weapon for prints and other forms of contact and here we have Oswald's palmprint and shirt fibers which aren't 100% conclusive but the prohibitive possibility that they are someone else's shirt is extremely remote.
• Next you analyse Oswald's actions before and after the assassination;
A) Oswald makes an unexpected trip to Irving the night before then assassination
B) Either Oswald or Frazier is lying about a package containing "curtain rods", who is more likely to lie?
C) Either Oswald or Frazier/ Linnie Mae is lying about where in Frazier's car that Oswald placed the "curtain rods", who is more likely to lie.
D) No curtain rods are found.
E) The package wrapping found in the sniper's nest has Oswald's prints.
F) The prints in the sniper's nest are relatively fresh, the FBI determined the prints are no older than a few days, and yes Oswald worked there but it wasn't his responsibility to touch every one of the hundreds/thousands of boxes every few days.
G) Oswald doesn't leave at 12PM or at the end of lunch but he leaves in the time it takes a person to travel from the 6th floor, be confronted, buy a coke then get to the ground floor and leave the building, about three minutes after the assassination, this fleeing the scene of the crime alone is highly incriminating.
H) Oswald boards a bus then gets off a bus, why the hurry?
I) Oswald gets a cab and gets out way past his Rooming house, why?
J) Tippit was the first Police Officer to be shot on the job for years, why would Oswald feel compelled to kill a cop?
K) Oswald while hiding in a dark theatre punches an approaching Policeman the tries to use the same revolver that killed Tippit and attempts to kill more.
• Oswald lies while being interrogated, especially when the rifle comes up;
1) Oswald lies about the backyard photos, saying they pasted his head on someone else's body. The backyard photos have been authenticated and besides a negative exists.
2) Oswald conveniently leaves out Neely street as a previous house he rented, funnily enough Neely street is where the backyard photos were taken! Oops!
3) Oswald lies about the "curtain rods" and says he only had his lunch
4) Oswald lies about where he placed the "curtain rods"
5) Oswald lies about owning the rifle.
6) Oswald lies about purchasing the revolver in Fort Worth, likely distancing himself from his preferred method of buying through mail-order the way he bought the rifle.
Now this is a quick summation off the top of my head but does any one in the real World really truly believe that Oswald was innocent?
What could the defence possibly present to refute this evidence, because saying that it was ALL faked and/or a product of lies from multiple unconnected sources would be laughed out of court.
JohnM
-
Name a single piece of credible evidence that puts Oswald on the 6th floor at 12:30 pm. Except for the rifle. That one doesn't count. Neither do the shells. ::)
CT logic, triple distilled.
You cannot help but laugh at them. The conspiracy crowd have yet to come up with LHO’s alibi or even something close and put it all to bed. Why keep everyone in suspense? Is there anyone else who can’t verify their whereabouts at 12:30 and subsequently have a pistol stuck in their stomach by a cop on the 2nd floor?
-
I'm not sure exactly what you are claiming here. That someone conjured up a fake bus ride for Oswald that took him nowhere and is entirely pointless in the context of a conspiracy narrative? Why would anyone make that up as part of a plan? Are you familiar with "Chekhov's gun"? At the risk of exciting the other Tom with a Russia reference, it's a principle that if a writer references a gun in a story, there must be a reason for it, such as it being fired sometime later in the plot. It would be pointless and stupid for your fantasy conspirators to put Oswald on a bus if that doesn't move the plot. Pointless events like getting on a bus that gets stuck in traffic and then getting off to get into a cab are things that happen in real life. Not a narrative.
The WC had rock-solid evidence that Oswald shot and killed JFK at 12:30 pm, the WC had rock-solid evidence that Oswald shot and killed Tippit at just around 1:15 pm, yet the WC invested considerable effort to convince the reader of their report that Oswald could have made it in time to 10th & Patton to kill Tippit, which according to the Richard principle would have been completely wasted. Richard principle broken, Q.E.D.
-
Logically, the rifle being his proves beyond a reasonable doubt that Oswald was on the 6th floor at 12:30.
How exactly is it "logical"to say that Oswald's rifle (if that's what it was) being found on the 6th floor is proof beyond a reasonable doubt that Oswald himself was on the 6th floor at 12:30?
In my opinion it isn't logical at all to confuse an assumption with actual evidence, but I'm more than happy to learn from you why my opinion is wrong!
-
Exactly Tim, these CK's keep asking for proof that Oswald was on the 6th floor @12:30 but it seems that the only evidence that will be accepted is if they had seen Oswald with their very own eyes, because even at the Tippit crime scene almost a dozen people saw Oswald in the immediate vicinity or moving away fiddling with his revolver, yet this indisputable evidence is waved away.
It's just a game to these deeply paranoid CK's who have an irrational hatred of authority and this "Anybody but Oswald" mantra is just a manifestation of this psychosis.
I can't imagine every murder being committed in front of eyewitnesses but the Police do a good job of solving a fair percentage of these heinous crimes.
•In this case specifically the murder weapon is the most important piece of evidence, hence the search for who owns the weapon is a logical starting point for investigation, to suggest otherwise is absolutely bonkers.
•Then after establishing ownership of the murder weapon you investigate the owner and a possible alibi, Oswald has none.
•And again in this case you search the weapon for prints and other forms of contact and here we have Oswald's palmprint and shirt fibers which aren't 100% conclusive but the prohibitive possibility that they are someone else's shirt is extremely remote.
• Next you analyse Oswald's actions before and after the assassination;
A) Oswald makes an unexpected trip to Irving the night before then assassination
B) Either Oswald or Frazier is lying about a package containing "curtain rods", who is more likely to lie?
C) Either Oswald or Frazier/ Linnie Mae is lying about where in Frazier's car that Oswald placed the "curtain rods", who is more likely to lie.
D) No curtain rods are found.
E) The package wrapping found in the sniper's nest has Oswald's prints.
F) The prints in the sniper's nest are relatively fresh, the FBI determined the prints are no older than a few days, and yes Oswald worked there but it wasn't his responsibility to touch every one of the hundreds/thousands of boxes every few days.
G) Oswald doesn't leave at 12PM or at the end of lunch but he leaves in the time it takes a person to travel from the 6th floor, be confronted, buy a coke then get to the ground floor and leave the building, about three minutes after the assassination, this fleeing the scene of the crime alone is highly incriminating.
H) Oswald boards a bus then gets off a bus, why the hurry?
I) Oswald gets a cab and gets out way past his Rooming house, why?
J) Tippit was the first Police Officer to be shot on the job for years, why would Oswald feel compelled to kill a cop?
K) Oswald while hiding in a dark theatre punches an approaching Policeman the tries to use the same revolver that killed Tippit and attempts to kill more.
• Oswald lies while being interrogated, especially when the rifle comes up;
1) Oswald lies about the backyard photos, saying they pasted his head on someone else's body. The backyard photos have been authenticated and besides a negative exists.
2) Oswald conveniently leaves out Neely street as a previous house he rented, funnily enough Neely street is where the backyard photos were taken! Oops!
3) Oswald lies about the "curtain rods" and says he only had his lunch
4) Oswald lies about where he placed the "curtain rods"
5) Oswald lies about owning the rifle.
6) Oswald lies about purchasing the revolver in Fort Worth, likely distancing himself from his preferred method of buying through mail-order the way he bought the rifle.
Now this is a quick summation off the top of my head but does any one in the real World really truly believe that Oswald was innocent?
What could the defence possibly present to refute this evidence, because saying that it was ALL faked and/or a product of lies from multiple unconnected sources would be laughed out of court.
JohnM
these CK's keep asking for proof that Oswald was on the 6th floor @12:30
Nutters keep insisting that the evidence proves Oswald was on the 6th floor at 12:30 pm.
This is a falsehood that must be challenged so you are asked to provide evidence to support this falsehood.
Obviously you can't...because it's a falsehood.
So, instead of admitting you can't provide the evidence you start crying about being asked to provide it!!
The problem is that Nutters don't know the difference between an assumption and a fact when it comes to Oswald's guilt.
When Nutters perpetuate the falsehood that the evidence proves Oswald was on the 6th floor at 12:30 pm, that falsehood must be challenged.
It is a lie that can't be allowed to stand.
-
Exactly Tim, these CK's keep asking for proof that Oswald was on the 6th floor @12:30 but it seems that the only evidence that will be accepted is if they had seen Oswald with their very own eyes, because even at the Tippit crime scene almost a dozen people saw Oswald in the immediate vicinity or moving away fiddling with his revolver, yet this indisputable evidence is waved away.
It's just a game to these deeply paranoid CK's who have an irrational hatred of authority and this "Anybody but Oswald" mantra is just a manifestation of this psychosis.
I can't imagine every murder being committed in front of eyewitnesses but the Police do a good job of solving a fair percentage of these heinous crimes.
•In this case specifically the murder weapon is the most important piece of evidence, hence the search for who owns the weapon is a logical starting point for investigation, to suggest otherwise is absolutely bonkers.
•Then after establishing ownership of the murder weapon you investigate the owner and a possible alibi, Oswald has none.
•And again in this case you search the weapon for prints and other forms of contact and here we have Oswald's palmprint and shirt fibers which aren't 100% conclusive but the prohibitive possibility that they are someone else's shirt is extremely remote.
• Next you analyse Oswald's actions before and after the assassination;
A) Oswald makes an unexpected trip to Irving the night before then assassination
B) Either Oswald or Frazier is lying about a package containing "curtain rods", who is more likely to lie?
C) Either Oswald or Frazier/ Linnie Mae is lying about where in Frazier's car that Oswald placed the "curtain rods", who is more likely to lie.
D) No curtain rods are found.
E) The package wrapping found in the sniper's nest has Oswald's prints.
F) The prints in the sniper's nest are relatively fresh, the FBI determined the prints are no older than a few days, and yes Oswald worked there but it wasn't his responsibility to touch every one of the hundreds/thousands of boxes every few days.
G) Oswald doesn't leave at 12PM or at the end of lunch but he leaves in the time it takes a person to travel from the 6th floor, be confronted, buy a coke then get to the ground floor and leave the building, about three minutes after the assassination, this fleeing the scene of the crime alone is highly incriminating.
H) Oswald boards a bus then gets off a bus, why the hurry?
I) Oswald gets a cab and gets out way past his Rooming house, why?
J) Tippit was the first Police Officer to be shot on the job for years, why would Oswald feel compelled to kill a cop?
K) Oswald while hiding in a dark theatre punches an approaching Policeman the tries to use the same revolver that killed Tippit and attempts to kill more.
• Oswald lies while being interrogated, especially when the rifle comes up;
1) Oswald lies about the backyard photos, saying they pasted his head on someone else's body. The backyard photos have been authenticated and besides a negative exists.
2) Oswald conveniently leaves out Neely street as a previous house he rented, funnily enough Neely street is where the backyard photos were taken! Oops!
3) Oswald lies about the "curtain rods" and says he only had his lunch
4) Oswald lies about where he placed the "curtain rods"
5) Oswald lies about owning the rifle.
6) Oswald lies about purchasing the revolver in Fort Worth, likely distancing himself from his preferred method of buying through mail-order the way he bought the rifle.
Now this is a quick summation off the top of my head but does any one in the real World really truly believe that Oswald was innocent?
What could the defence possibly present to refute this evidence, because saying that it was ALL faked and/or a product of lies from multiple unconnected sources would be laughed out of court.
JohnM
these CK's keep asking for proof that Oswald was on the 6th floor @12:30
And what's wrong with that? Are we just to accept the BS assumptions guys like you are making based on no actual evidence whatsoever?
Now this is a quick summation off the top of my head but does any one in the real World really truly believe that Oswald was innocent?
Innocent of what? Being somehow involved at some level or being the shooter?
What could the defence possibly present to refute this evidence, because saying that it was ALL faked and/or a product of lies from multiple unconnected sources would be laughed out of court.
The biggest absurdity is that you actually believe that the circumstantial fairytale you are presenting to us, would actually withstand massive scrutiny by the defence in court.
For starters, for there to be a trial, Oswald would have been alive and thus be able to explain, through his counsel, his reasons for his trip to Irving and whatever happened there.
Also, all the speculation about the paper bag and the curtain rod story would be cleared up. The Norman/Jarman sighting from the Domino room would be clarified.
And who knows what information previously ignored or dismissed witnesses would be able to present and what Oswald himself could have told about the rifle and revolver orders, the backyard photos, his interrogation etc etc etc.
IMO the defence would destroy a large part of the assumptions that are not supported by actual evidence in no time.
-
We would likely hear the 5th quoted endlessly! Didn't work well for the prosecution in the OJ case. All the defense needs to do is create doubt, lots of doubt, and they would have a field day in this case. As Martin mentions, they would bring in witnesses not previously questioned along with their own expert witnesses to challenge the technical and medical aspects of the case.
-
We would likely hear the 5th quoted endlessly! Didn't work well for the prosecution in the OJ case. All the defense needs to do is create doubt, lots of doubt, and they would have a field day in this case. As Martin mentions, they would bring in witnesses not previously questioned along with their own expert witnesses to challenge the technical and medical aspects of the case.
What the LNs do not (want to) understand is that the WC report was written for the court of public opinion and not for a court of law!
-
these CK's keep asking for proof that Oswald was on the 6th floor @12:30
Nutters keep insisting that the evidence proves Oswald was on the 6th floor at 12:30 pm.
This is a falsehood that must be challenged so you are asked to provide evidence to support this falsehood.
Obviously you can't...because it's a falsehood.
So, instead of admitting you can't provide the evidence you start crying about being asked to provide it!!
The problem is that Nutters don't know the difference between an assumption and a fact when it comes to Oswald's guilt.
When Nutters perpetuate the falsehood that the evidence proves Oswald was on the 6th floor at 12:30 pm, that falsehood must be challenged.
It is a lie that can't be allowed to stand.
Nutters keep insisting that the evidence proves Oswald was on the 6th floor at 12:30 pm.
This is a falsehood that must be challenged so you are asked to provide evidence to support this falsehood.
Obviously you can't...because it's a falsehood.
So, instead of admitting you can't provide the evidence you start crying about being asked to provide it!!
I phrased my question so honest CT's, if they exist, will question themselves and and actually think about exactly what evidence beyond the Mountain already provided, that they require to place Oswald on the 6th floor and as I clearly said, the keen yet deluded CT needs to see Oswald with his/her own two eyes otherwise this crime is essentially unsolvable, in their opinion that is!
See Dan, in the past I've asked some of the best CT's, what evidence they need to place Oswald on the 6th floor and invariably I get the usual answers, like "evidence that convinces me" or "evidence that proves he was there" or we get answers like Tom's above, and I'm paraphrasing here "we can throw out all the evidence if we can create doubt", so Tom wants to rely on some human error and/or a technicality to clear his client, very sad!
The problem is that Nutters don't know the difference between an assumption and a fact when it comes to Oswald's guilt.
When Nutters perpetuate the falsehood that the evidence proves Oswald was on the 6th floor at 12:30 pm, that falsehood must be challenged.
It is a lie that can't be allowed to stand.
What assumptions? This case is surrounded by facts from physical evidence, forensic confirmation, the actions of a man clearly fleeing from the scene of the crime and through to a man who lies in custody whenever anything surrounding the rifle is questioned! As Bugliosi says, he could throw away half of this evidence and he'd still have enough to convict!
JohnM
-
I phrased my question so honest CT's, if they exist, will question themselves and and actually think about exactly what evidence beyond the Mountain already provided, that they require to place Oswald on the 6th floor and as I clearly said, the keen yet deluded CT needs to see Oswald with his/her own two eyes otherwise this crime is essentially unsolvable, in their opinion that is!
See Dan, in the past I've asked some of the best CT's, what evidence they need to place Oswald on the 6th floor and invariably I get the usual answers, like "evidence that convinces me" or "evidence that proves he was there" or we get answers like Tom's above, and I'm paraphrasing here "we can throw out all the evidence if we can create doubt", so Tom wants to rely on some human error and/or a technicality to clear his client, very sad!
What assumptions? This case is surrounded by facts from physical evidence, forensic confirmation, the actions of a man clearly fleeing from the scene of the crime and through to a man who lies in custody whenever anything surrounding the rifle is questioned! As Bugliosi says, he could throw away half of this evidence and he'd still have enough to convict!
JohnM
See Dan, in the past I've asked some of the best CT's, what evidence they need to place Oswald on the 6th floor and invariably I get the usual answers, like "evidence that convinces me" or "evidence that proves he was there"
What's wrong with asking for "evidence that proves he was there"?
As Bugliosi says, he could throw away half of this evidence and he'd still have enough to convict!
Hilarious! Mytton's pathetic appeal to the opinion of an anything but neutral lawyer/prosecutor who has a vested commercial interest in proclaiming that Oswald was the lone gunman.
Show me a prosecutor and I'll show you a man who will be convinced that he can convict a suspect with "evidence", no matter how questionable it is. :D
-
I phrased my question so honest CT's, if they exist, will question themselves and and actually think about exactly what evidence beyond the Mountain already provided, that they require to place Oswald on the 6th floor and as I clearly said, the keen yet deluded CT needs to see Oswald with his/her own two eyes otherwise this crime is essentially unsolvable, in their opinion that is!
See Dan, in the past I've asked some of the best CT's, what evidence they need to place Oswald on the 6th floor and invariably I get the usual answers, like "evidence that convinces me" or "evidence that proves he was there" or we get answers like Tom's above, and I'm paraphrasing here "we can throw out all the evidence if we can create doubt", so Tom wants to rely on some human error and/or a technicality to clear his client, very sad!
What assumptions? This case is surrounded by facts from physical evidence, forensic confirmation, the actions of a man clearly fleeing from the scene of the crime and through to a man who lies in custody whenever anything surrounding the rifle is questioned! As Bugliosi says, he could throw away half of this evidence and he'd still have enough to convict!
JohnM
What assumptions?
It is getting really tedious, making this same point over and over again, but there really does seem to be a genuine mental blockage regarding this aspect of the case for LNers.
There is NO CREDIBLE, DIRECT EVIDENCE placing Oswald on the 6th floor at any time after he is seen/heard by the floor-laying crew racing the elevators down to start their lunch break. And even then he is on the 5th floor.
Your belief that Oswald was on the 6th floor at 12:30 pm is an ASSUMPTION.
You don't seem to be able to comprehend this truth.
IT IS NOT A FACT.
That is all that is being said, John.
Your belief that Oswald took the shots is an ASSUMPTION.
Why can you not get your head around this simple truth?
-
Exactly Tim, these CK's keep asking for proof that Oswald was on the 6th floor @12:30 but it seems that the only evidence that will be accepted is if they had seen Oswald with their very own eyes, because even at the Tippit crime scene almost a dozen people saw Oswald in the immediate vicinity or moving away fiddling with his revolver, yet this indisputable evidence is waved away.
It's just a game to these deeply paranoid CK's who have an irrational hatred of authority and this "Anybody but Oswald" mantra is just a manifestation of this psychosis.
I can't imagine every murder being committed in front of eyewitnesses but the Police do a good job of solving a fair percentage of these heinous crimes.
•In this case specifically the murder weapon is the most important piece of evidence, hence the search for who owns the weapon is a logical starting point for investigation, to suggest otherwise is absolutely bonkers.
•Then after establishing ownership of the murder weapon you investigate the owner and a possible alibi, Oswald has none.
•And again in this case you search the weapon for prints and other forms of contact and here we have Oswald's palmprint and shirt fibers which aren't 100% conclusive but the prohibitive possibility that they are someone else's shirt is extremely remote.
• Next you analyse Oswald's actions before and after the assassination;
A) Oswald makes an unexpected trip to Irving the night before then assassination
B) Either Oswald or Frazier is lying about a package containing "curtain rods", who is more likely to lie?
C) Either Oswald or Frazier/ Linnie Mae is lying about where in Frazier's car that Oswald placed the "curtain rods", who is more likely to lie.
D) No curtain rods are found.
E) The package wrapping found in the sniper's nest has Oswald's prints.
F) The prints in the sniper's nest are relatively fresh, the FBI determined the prints are no older than a few days, and yes Oswald worked there but it wasn't his responsibility to touch every one of the hundreds/thousands of boxes every few days.
G) Oswald doesn't leave at 12PM or at the end of lunch but he leaves in the time it takes a person to travel from the 6th floor, be confronted, buy a coke then get to the ground floor and leave the building, about three minutes after the assassination, this fleeing the scene of the crime alone is highly incriminating.
H) Oswald boards a bus then gets off a bus, why the hurry?
I) Oswald gets a cab and gets out way past his Rooming house, why?
J) Tippit was the first Police Officer to be shot on the job for years, why would Oswald feel compelled to kill a cop?
K) Oswald while hiding in a dark theatre punches an approaching Policeman the tries to use the same revolver that killed Tippit and attempts to kill more.
• Oswald lies while being interrogated, especially when the rifle comes up;
1) Oswald lies about the backyard photos, saying they pasted his head on someone else's body. The backyard photos have been authenticated and besides a negative exists.
2) Oswald conveniently leaves out Neely street as a previous house he rented, funnily enough Neely street is where the backyard photos were taken! Oops!
3) Oswald lies about the "curtain rods" and says he only had his lunch
4) Oswald lies about where he placed the "curtain rods"
5) Oswald lies about owning the rifle.
6) Oswald lies about purchasing the revolver in Fort Worth, likely distancing himself from his preferred method of buying through mail-order the way he bought the rifle.
Now this is a quick summation off the top of my head but does any one in the real World really truly believe that Oswald was innocent?
What could the defence possibly present to refute this evidence, because saying that it was ALL faked and/or a product of lies from multiple unconnected sources would be laughed out of court.
JohnM
Only in the mind of a conspiracy theorist could Oswald ever have lived long enough to see 1965 had he not been killed by Ruby. Of course, that's assuming that he was killed by Ruby. :)
-
We would likely hear the 5th quoted endlessly! Didn't work well for the prosecution in the OJ case. All the defense needs to do is create doubt, lots of doubt, and they would have a field day in this case. As Martin mentions, they would bring in witnesses not previously questioned along with their own expert witnesses to challenge the technical and medical aspects of the case.
The OJ case? LOL!
What a dumb comparison, I haven't looked into the OJ case for a while but how about this for starters;
DNA evidence was a new concept barely understood by this Jury and the prosecution did an awful job in their presentation.
The glove and the subsequent try on, leading to the catchy "If it don't fit you must acquit"
Eight black members on this jury in the immediate wake of Rodney King!
Fuhrman and the "N" word.
The peculiar removal of key pieces of evidence from the prosecutions case?
Judge Ito's decisions, like the visit to OJ's house and the substituted photos and paintings.
But at least at the civil trial they got it right like the Bruno Magli shoes and OJ's comment about not wearing "ugly ass shoes".
As Martin mentions, they would bring in witnesses not previously questioned along with their own expert witnesses to challenge the technical and medical aspects of the case.
What witnesses? Like the ever flexible Hoffman or Beverly Oliver or Gordon Arnold or Acquilla Clemons who according to Anthony Summers was inside a block away and saw something no other eyewitness saw? Good luck with that!
The same technical evidence, the majority of which was verified by the FBI experts, again good luck with that.
And as for the medical evidence authenticated by numerous studies and panels, really?
Your chances of getting Oswald off, by reasons of "doubt" or a technically is extremely slim and is actually downright immoral, is it that important to you to be so underhanded?
JohnM
-
You cannot help but laugh at them. The conspiracy crowd have yet to come up with LHO’s alibi or even something close and put it all to bed. Why keep everyone in suspense? Is there anyone else who can’t verify their whereabouts at 12:30 and subsequently have a pistol stuck in their stomach by a cop on the 2nd floor?
Oswald's alibi is that he was in the second floor lunch room, the first floor lunchroom, and out on the front entrance steps at the time of the shooting. :)
-
Only in the mind of a conspiracy theorist could Oswald ever have lived long enough to see 1965 had he not been killed by Ruby. Of course, that's assuming that he was killed by Ruby. :)
Everything OK with you, Tim?
I'm really starting to worry about you.
-
Oswald's alibi is that he was in the second floor lunch room, the first floor lunchroom, and out on the front entrance steps at the time of the shooting. :)
Do you have any credible record that shows he actually said any of these things?
-
The OJ case? LOL!
What a dumb comparison, I haven't looked into the OJ case for a while but how about this for starters;
DNA evidence was a new concept barely understood by this Jury and the prosecution did an awful job in their presentation.
The glove and the subsequent try on, leading to the catchy "If it don't fit you must acquit"
Eight black members on this jury in the immediate wake of Rodney King!
Fuhrman and the "N" word.
The peculiar removal of key pieces of evidence from the prosecutions case?
Judge Ito's decisions, like the visit to OJ's house and the substituted photos and paintings.
All very good observations. The mishandling of fungible evidence by the LAPD was also a major factor in OJ's acquittal.
-
All very good observations. The mishandling of fungible evidence by the LAPD was also a major factor in OJ's acquittal.
Just like the mishandling of evidence by the DPD could have been a major factor in Oswald's acquittal? Or is there a difference?
Btw, you never answered my question, which is disappointing as I am eager to learn. So, here is my question again;
Logically, the rifle being his proves beyond a reasonable doubt that Oswald was on the 6th floor at 12:30.
How exactly is it "logical"to say that Oswald's rifle (if that's what it was) being found on the 6th floor is proof beyond a reasonable doubt that Oswald himself was on the 6th floor at 12:30?
In my opinion it isn't logical at all to confuse an assumption with actual evidence, but I'm more than happy to learn from you why my opinion is wrong!
-
Do you have any credible record that shows he actually said any of these things?
I haven't taken them from what he said. Although, he did actually say that he was eating his lunch in the first floor lunchroom. On Nov 22, 1997, Carolyn Arnold told John Young that she was 100% positive that Lee Oswald was in the first floor lunchroom at 12.25 that day. He was sitting there calmly eating his lunch.
-
See Dan, in the past I've asked some of the best CT's, what evidence they need to place Oswald on the 6th floor and invariably I get the usual answers, like "evidence that convinces me" or "evidence that proves he was there"
What's wrong with asking for "evidence that proves he was there"?
You've isolated my question without context but never the less, beyond the evidence we have, like the relatively fresh prints on the rifle rest moved halfway across the 6th floor, the murder weapon, no alibi, Brennan's first day extremely close description, Oswald's immediate fleeing from the crime scene and Oswald's lies in custody, what more evidence in your opinion is required for proof?
In any other case, a suspects fresh prints at the specific place where the crime took place, the ownership and the suspects prints on the murder weapon, no alibi, fleeing the crime scene which is a clear consciousness of guilt and along with lying to the authorities about your connection to the murder weapon would be alone enough evidence to prove to a jury that the defendant is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. And in this case the evidence goes so much deeper!
JohnM
-
Just like the mishandling of evidence by the DPD could have been a major factor in Oswald's acquittal? Or is there a difference?
I'm not aware of any mishandling of fungible evidence by the DPD.
Btw, you never answered my question, which is disappointing as I am eager to learn. So, here is my question again;
How exactly is it "logical"to say that Oswald's rifle (if that's what it was) being found on the 6th floor is proof beyond a reasonable doubt that Oswald himself was on the 6th floor at 12:30?
In my opinion it isn't logical at all to confuse an assumption with actual evidence, but I'm more than happy to learn from you why my opinion is wrong!
I can't make you understand it. If you can't see it for yourself, nothing that I can say will help.
-
You've isolated my question without context but never the less, beyond the evidence we have, like the relatively fresh prints on the rifle rest moved halfway across the 6th floor, the murder weapon, no alibi, Brennan's first day extremely close description, Oswald's immediate fleeing from the crime scene and Oswald's lies in custody, what more evidence in your opinion is required for proof?
In any other case, a suspects fresh prints at the specific place where the crime took place, the ownership and the suspects prints on the murder weapon, no alibi, fleeing the crime scene which is a clear consciousness of guilt and along with lying to the authorities about your connection to the murder weapon would be alone enough evidence to prove to a jury that the defendant is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. And in this case the evidence goes so much deeper!
JohnM
No other employees of the TSBD left their fingerprints or palm prints on the boxes in the sniper's nest. Oswald was the only one.
-
I haven't taken them from what he said. Although, he did actually say that he was eating his lunch in the first floor lunchroom. On Nov 22, 1997, Carolyn Arnold told John Young that she was 100% positive that Lee Oswald was in the first floor lunchroom at 12.25 that day. He was sitting there calmly eating his lunch.
Although, he did actually say that he was eating his lunch in the first floor lunchroom
Yes, that's what the interrogators wrote in their reports. It's when he saw Norman and Jarman walking towards the elevators to go up to the 5th floor. It's just too bad the interrogators screwed that part up in their contradicting reports.
On Nov 22, 1997, Carolyn Arnold told John Young that she was 100% positive that Lee Oswald was in the first floor lunchroom at 12.25 that day. He was sitting there calmly eating his lunch.
I didn't know that she told John Young this, but it would fit with the Norman/Jarman sighting which also took place around 12.25. So, perhaps he did have an alibi after all.
-
You've isolated my question without context but never the less, beyond the evidence we have, like the relatively fresh prints on the rifle rest moved halfway across the 6th floor, the murder weapon, no alibi, Brennan's first day extremely close description, Oswald's immediate fleeing from the crime scene and Oswald's lies in custody, what more evidence in your opinion is required for proof?
In any other case, a suspects fresh prints at the specific place where the crime took place, the ownership and the suspects prints on the murder weapon, no alibi, fleeing the crime scene which is a clear consciousness of guilt and along with lying to the authorities about your connection to the murder weapon would be alone enough evidence to prove to a jury that the defendant is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. And in this case the evidence goes so much deeper!
JohnM
You've isolated my question without context but never the less, beyond the evidence we have, like the relatively fresh prints on the rifle rest moved halfway across the 6th floor, the murder weapon, no alibi, Brennan's first day extremely close description, Oswald's immediate fleeing from the crime scene and Oswald's lies in custody, what more evidence in your opinion is required for proof?
All circumstantial and highly questionable claims do not prove that Oswald was on the 6th floor at 12:30.
In any other case, a suspects fresh prints at the specific place where the crime took place, the ownership and the suspects prints on the murder weapon, no alibi, fleeing the crime scene which is a clear consciousness of guilt and along with lying to the authorities about your connection to the murder weapon would be alone enough evidence to prove to a jury that the defendant is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
More questional circumstantial stuff.
would be alone enough evidence to prove to a jury that the defendant is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
Really? Is this your expert opinion as a lawyer?
A word of advise; if you can predict how a jury will weigh the evidence, you should really offer your services to just about every prosecutor and/or defence lawyer? You'd make a fortune!
And in this case the evidence goes so much deeper!
Does it? So, why haven't we seen this "so much deeper" evidence in the past 6 decades?
-
On Nov 22, 1997, Carolyn Arnold told John Young that she was 100% positive that Lee Oswald was in the first floor lunchroom at 12.25 that day. He was sitting there calmly eating his lunch.
I didn't know that she told John Young this, but it would fit with the Norman/Jarman sighting which also took place around 12.25. So, perhaps he did have an alibi after all.
In 1963, Carolyn Arnold told FBI Agent Richard Harrison that she thought that she caught a fleeting glimpse of Oswald standing in the hallway between the front door and the double doors leading to the warehouse. She wasn't sure that it was Oswald and that it was a few minutes before 12:15. In 1978, she told Earl Golz that she saw Oswald in the second floor lunchroom as she was on her way out of the building. She said that she left the building at 12:25. That same year she was interviewed by Anthony Summers. She told him that she saw Oswald in the second floor lunch room at "about 12:15. It may have been slightly later".
-
No other employees of the TSBD left their fingerprints or palm prints on the boxes in the sniper's nest. Oswald was the only one.
I think there may have been unidentified partial prints but the evidence of the unusually moved rolling reader boxes is undeniable and the configuration of Oswald's prints on top of this box is that Oswald was looking down Elm street.
Mr. BALL. Now, the Rolling Readers were stacked three aisles away, I believe you testified, haven't you, before?
Mr. SHELLEY. I'm not sure how many aisles we moved all that stock now, but it was at least three aisles.
Mr. BALL. Away from the southeast corner?
Mr. SHELLEY. Yes; they were at least half way across the building from this corner.
Mr. BALL. Had you ever instructed anybody to take two Rolling Readers over there?
Mr. SHELLEY. No, sir.
Mr. BALL. Would it have been unusual for two Rolling Readers to be out of the stack and over there?
Mr. SHELLEY. Very unusual, because they are different size cartons from everything else.
Mr. BALL. You mean from everything else in the southeast corner?
Mr. SHELLEY. Well, from any box on that floor.
Mr. BALL. They were?
Mr. SHELLEY. Yes; they were little boxes. The rest of them are pretty good sized.
Mr. BALL. You had had a special place for the Rolling Readers?
Mr. SHELLEY. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. Then, the two Rolling Readers that were over in the southeast corner were out of place, were they?
Mr. SHELLEY. They sure were.
Mr. BALL. Had you ever seen them out of place before?
Mr. SHELLEY. No, sir.
Mr. BALL. Had you ever seen those Rolling Readers in that corner before?
Mr. SHELLEY. No, sir.
(https://i.postimg.cc/y88JrC3z/oswaldsprintssnipersnest1.jpg)
JohnM
-
On Nov 22, 1997, Carolyn Arnold told John Young that she was 100% positive that Lee Oswald was in the first floor lunchroom at 12.25 that day. He was sitting there calmly eating his lunch.
I didn't know that she told John Young this, but it would fit with the Norman/Jarman sighting which also took place around 12.25. So, perhaps he did have an alibi after all.
You do realize that Carolyn Arnold said she saw Oswald in the "first floor" lunchroom and the Domino room was on the ground floor!? DOH!
BTW have you worked out what a "room" is? Hahahahaha!
JohnM
-
In 1963, Carolyn Arnold told FBI Agent Richard Harrison that she thought that she caught a fleeting glimpse of Oswald standing in the hallway between the front door and the double doors leading to the warehouse. She wasn't sure that it was Oswald and that it was a few minutes before 12:15. In 1978, she told Earl Golz that she saw Oswald in the second floor lunchroom as she was on her way out of the building. She said that she left the building at 12:25. That same year she was interviewed by Anthony Summers. She told him that she saw Oswald in the second floor lunch room at "about 12:15. It may have been slightly later".
Which only tells us that Carolyn Arnold was a human being who doesn't get everything right all the time. People misremember. I don't remember exactly what I saw or said 15 years ago. How about you, Tim?
The one consistent is of course that she says every time that she saw Oswald shortly before the assassination. Regardless if it was 12:15 or 12:25, it was a time when Oswald was supposed to have been in the sniper's nest, right?
-
I'm not aware of any mishandling of fungible evidence by the DPD.
I can't make you understand it. If you can't see it for yourself, nothing that I can say will help.
I'm not aware of any mishandling of fungible evidence by the DPD.
Of course you are not aware... that's part of the problem
I can't make you understand it. If you can't see it for yourself, nothing that I can say will help.
So, you agree that whatever you have to say simply isn't convincing?
-
Which only tells us that Carolyn Arnold was a human being who doesn't get everything right all the time. People misremember. I don't remember exactly what I saw or said 15 years ago. How about you, Tim?
The one consistent is of course that she says every time that she saw Oswald shortly before the assassination. Regardless if it was 12:15 or 12:25, it was a time when Oswald was supposed to have been in the sniper's nest, right?
What it tells us is that Carolyn Arnold was not reliable.
-
You do realize that Carolyn Arnold said she saw Oswald in the "first floor" lunchroom and the Domino room was on the ground floor!? DOH!
BTW have you worked out what a "room" is? Hahahahaha!
JohnM
You do realize that Carolyn Arnold said she saw Oswald in the "first floor" lunchroom and the Domino room was on the ground floor!? DOH!
Oh boy.... Baker saw Oswald in in the 2nd floor lunchroom, right?
The Domino room was one floor below that... so what floor is that?
-
I'm not aware of any mishandling of fungible evidence by the DPD.
Of course you are not aware... that's part of the problem
Well then, why not educate me here? What were the fungible items of evidence and how were they mishandled by the DPD?
-
What it tells us is that Carolyn Arnold was not reliable.
But a guy like Brennan was?
-
Well then, why not educate me here? What were the fungible items of evidence and how were they mishandled by the DPD?
Ok, I'll give you two simple examples.
The jacket that was found in a parking lot (described on DPD radio as being white) was handled, according to Captain Westbrook by himself and two unidentified officers. So, how come there are markings of seven officers on the grey jacket now in evidence?
Another example is the paper bag and the blanket. The claim is that fibers of the blanket were found in the paper bag, but there is photographic evidence that shows the blanket and the bag lying next to eachother. One is a DPD photo showing the items before they were sent to Washington and the other was taken in the FBI lab showing the two items lying next to eachother.
-
You do realize that Carolyn Arnold said she saw Oswald in the "first floor" lunchroom and the Domino room was on the ground floor!? DOH!
Oh boy.... Baker saw Oswald in in the 2nd floor lunchroom, right?
The Domino room was one floor below that... so what floor is that?
Focus Martin, my response was your incorrect assumption that Arnold's sighting of Oswald in the first floor lunchroom somehow erroneously "fit with the Norman/Jarman sighting" on the first floor. :D
(https://s3.amazonaws.com/pix.iemoji.com/images/emoji/apple/ios-12/256/backhand-index-pointing-down.png)
On Nov 22, 1997, Carolyn Arnold told John Young that she was 100% positive that Lee Oswald was in the first floor lunchroom at 12.25 that day. He was sitting there calmly eating his lunch.
I didn't know that she told John Young this, but it would fit with the Norman/Jarman sighting which also took place around 12.25. So, perhaps he did have an alibi after all.
JohnM
-
But a guy like Brennan was?
Brennan was much more reliable than her. He identified Oswald in a lineup but declined to say positively that he was the one who he saw firing a rifle from the Southeast window of the sixth floot of the depository. When testifying under oath he explained why he chose not to. Carolyn Arnold told four different stories.
-
Focus Martin, my response was your incorrect assumption that Arnold's sighting of Oswald in the first floor lunchroom somehow erroneously "fit with the Norman/Jarman sighting" on the first floor. :D
(https://s3.amazonaws.com/pix.iemoji.com/images/emoji/apple/ios-12/256/backhand-index-pointing-down.png)
JohnM
Oh boy,
If Carolyn Arnold said she saw Oswald in the first floor lunchroom (which is the Domino room) it does fit with the Norman/Jarman sighting" on the first floor, because that's where the shipping department and elevators were.
It was Tim who claimed she said she saw Oswald in the first floor lunchroom.
I haven't taken them from what he said. Although, he did actually say that he was eating his lunch in the first floor lunchroom. On Nov 22, 1997, Carolyn Arnold told John Young that she was 100% positive that Lee Oswald was in the first floor lunchroom at 12.25 that day. He was sitting there calmly eating his lunch.
I, on the other hand, was very much aware that she had said she had seen him in the second floor lunchroom, just prior to the shooting. And that would fit nicely with Baker seeing him there just after the shooting.
It's so easy to get you rattled! :D
-
Brennan was much more reliable than her. He identified Oswald in a lineup but declined to say positively that he was the one who he saw firing a rifle from the Southeast window of the sixth floot of the depository. When testifying under oath he explained why he chose not to. Carolyn Arnold told four different stories.
He identified Oswald in a lineup but declined to say positively that he was the one who he saw firing a rifle from the Southeast window of the sixth floot of the depository.
Exactly. And later he changed his story....
And not only that, he also misrepresented where he was sitting on the wall and he made a false statement about seeing the shooter firing his rifle, when video evidence shows that he was actually looking at the motorcade at that time.
If you call that reliable, there isn't much I can tell you, except that I would have loved to see him testify under oath at a trial and being destroyed by the defense.
Carolyn Arnold told four different stories.
And was never given the opportunity to testify under oath. Go figure!
-
Ok, I'll give you two simple examples.
The jacket that was found in a parking lot (described on DPD radio as being white) was handled, according to Captain Westbrook by himself and two unidentified officers. So, how come there are markings of seven officers on the grey jacket now in evidence?
Another example is the paper bag and the blanket. The claim is that fibers of the blanket were found in the paper bag, but there is photographic evidence that shows the blanket and the bag lying next to eachother. One is a DPD photo showing the items before they were sent to Washington and the other was taken in the FBI lab showing the two items lying next to eachother.
The jacket and paper bag are non-fungible items. They were readily identifiable or had been made readily identifiable. Those items, along with the blanket were of little importance to the case against Oswald. The jacket itself would not have had much value to a prosecutor in a court of law because Marina would not be allowed to testify against Lee. No one else would have positively identified it as belonging to Oswald. Sam Guinyard's positive identification would be heard by a jury but it wouldn't have the value that Marina's identification of it would. The seven markings on the jacket were not needed but most of those who handled it marked on it anyway. The jacket is seen to be white under certain lighting conditions. Of course, you know that already.
-
He identified Oswald in a lineup but declined to say positively that he was the one who he saw firing a rifle from the Southeast window of the sixth floot of the depository.
Exactly. And later he changed his story....
And not only that, he also misrepresented where he was sitting on the wall and he made a false statement about seeing the shooter firing his rifle, when video evidence shows that he was actually looking at the motorcade at that time.
If you call that reliable, there isn't much I can tell you, except that I would have loved to see him testify under oath at a trial and being destroyed by the defense.
Carolyn Arnold told four different stories.
And was never given the opportunity to testify under oath. Go figure!
Brennan cannot be seen in film footage at the times of the second and third shots. He would not have been destroyed by a defence lawyer when testifying under oath.
How exactly do you think Carolyn Arnold's testimony would go, in light of her Nov 26 statement to the FBI?
-
The jacket and paper bag are non-fungible items. They were readily identifiable or had been made readily identifiable. Those items, along with the blanket were of little importance to the case against Oswald. The jacket itself would not have had much value to a prosecutor in a court of law because Marina would not be allowed to testify against Lee. No one else would have positively identified it as belonging to Oswald. Sam Guinyard's positive identification would be heard by a jury but it wouldn't have the value that Marina's identification of it would. The seven markings on the jacket were not needed but most of those who handled it marked on it anyway. The jacket is seen to be white under certain lighting conditions. Of course, you know that already.
Who said anything about how a jury would weigh the evidence.
You asked for examples of items of evidence that were mishandled by the DPD. And the list of items is massive!
The seven markings on the jacket were not needed but most of those who handled it marked on it anyway.
That's actually not true. The two unidentified officers who actually handled the jacket did not mark it. Only Captain Westbrook did.
The other six people who marked it never handled it.
The jacket is seen to be white under certain lighting conditions. Of course, you know that already.
Sure, but the radio traffic came from the officers who actually saw it at the parking lot. Were they so color blind that they couldn't determine the actual color of the jacket?
-
Oh boy,
If Carolyn Arnold said she saw Oswald in the first floor lunchroom (which is the Domino room) it does fit with the Norman/Jarman sighting" on the first floor, because that's where the shipping department and elevators were.
It was Tim who claimed she said she saw Oswald in the first floor lunchroom.
I, on the other hand, was very much aware that she had said she had seen him in the second floor lunchroom, just prior to the shooting. And that would fit nicely with Baker seeing him there just after the shooting.
It's so easy to get you rattled! :D
I admit earlier I was using the Australian/British meaning of ground floor and the first floor instead of the American first floor and second floor but it doesn't change the fact that Carolyn Arnold saw Oswald in her lunchroom on the second floor and your claim that it was an alibi for Oswald's sighting by Jnr and Norman on the first floor was seriously flawed. Sorry bout that.
Arnold told author Anthony Summers that “Arnold told author Anthony Summers that “she went into the lunchroom on the second floor for a moment” (she was pregnant at the time and had a craving for a glass of water) and saw Oswald there, alone and having lunch.”
It was Tim who claimed she said she saw Oswald in the first floor lunchroom.
If so, then I think Tim is Canadian and probably did the same thing as me, but there is no doubt Arnold was referring to her 2nd floor lunchroom.
I, on the other hand, was very much aware that she had said she had seen him in the second floor lunchroom, just prior to the shooting. And that would fit nicely with Baker seeing him there just after the shooting.
Too bad that Baker saw Oswald leaving the hallway and therefore was entering the 2nd floor lunchroom. Oops!
JohnM
-
Brennan cannot be seen in film footage at the times of the second and third shots. He would not have been destroyed by a defence lawyer when testifying under oath.
How exactly do you think Carolyn Arnold's testimony would go, in light of her Nov 26 statement to the FBI?
Brennan cannot be seen in film footage at the times of the second and third shots. He would not have been destroyed by a defence lawyer when testifying under oath.
Thank you for your opinion.
How exactly do you think Carolyn Arnold's testimony would go, in light of her Nov 26 statement to the FBI?
I have no idea. She was ignored from the beginning (which is extremely telling) and I'm not sure if an internal FBI document would actually be allowed to be introduced into evidence at a trial.
-
Brennan cannot be seen in film footage at the times of the second and third shots. He would not have been destroyed by a defence lawyer when testifying under oath.
How exactly do you think Carolyn Arnold's testimony would go, in light of her Nov 26 statement to the FBI?
Brennan's first day description of Oswald was very close and considering that the majority of the people at the TSBD windows were either black or women then Brennan most certainly saw Oswald, you know the guy who left his prints covering the Sniper's nest and the guy who owned the rifle on the very same floor.
JohnM
-
I admit earlier I was using the Australian/British meaning of ground floor and the first floor instead of the American first floor and second floor but it doesn't change the fact that Carolyn Arnold saw Oswald in her lunchroom on the second floor and your claim that it was an alibi for Oswald's sighting by Jnr and Norman on the first floor was seriously flawed. Sorry bout that.
Arnold told author Anthony Summers that “Arnold told author Anthony Summers that “she went into the lunchroom on the second floor for a moment” (she was pregnant at the time and had a craving for a glass of water) and saw Oswald there, alone and having lunch.”
If so, then I think Tim is Canadian and probably did the same thing as me, but there is no doubt Arnold was referring to her 2nd floor lunchroom.
Too bad that Baker saw Oswald leaving the hallway and therefore was entering the 2nd floor lunchroom. Oops!
JohnM
I admit earlier I was using the Australian/British meaning of ground floor and the first floor instead of the American first floor and second floor but it doesn't change the fact that Carolyn Arnold saw Oswald in her lunchroom on the second floor and your claim that it was an alibi for Oswald's sighting by Jnr and Norman on the first floor was seriously flawed. Sorry bout that.
It wasn't "seriously flawed". It was intended to show you just how foolish you were. Sorry bout that.
Too bad that Baker saw Oswald leaving the hallway and therefore was entering the 2nd floor lunchroom. Oops!
Yeah, I know what Baker said, but having been in the TSBD I am 100% sure that there is no way that Baker could have seen Oswald in the way he described it.
-
Who said anything about how a jury would weigh the evidence.
You asked for examples of items of evidence that were mishandled by the DPD. And the list of items is massive!
I asked you for examples of fungible items of evidence and for you to describe how were they mishandled by the DPD?
The only item you named was the blanket, and you never described how it was mishandled by the DPD.
The seven markings on the jacket were not needed but most of those who handled it marked on it anyway.
That's actually not true. The two unidentified officers who actually handled the jacket did not mark it. Only Captain Westbrook did.
The other six people who marked it never handled it.
If they never handled it, how could they have marked it?
The jacket is seen to be white under certain lighting conditions. Of course, you know that already.
Sure, but the radio traffic came from the officers who actually saw it at the parking lot. Were they so color blind that they couldn't determine the actual color of the jacket?
The officer who reported that it was white never handled the jacket. He saw it at a distance. it appeared to be white.
-
Too bad that Baker saw Oswald leaving the hallway and therefore was entering the 2nd floor lunchroom. Oops!
Yeah, I know what Baker said, but having been in the TSBD I am 100% sure that there is no way that Baker could have seen Oswald in the way he described it.
What a ludicrous self serving assumption and besides your usual song and dance of having Law enforcement conveniently lie when you've been proven wrong, there is so much misinformation with what you just said;
• From the stairs you have a clear view of the Vestibule window, you know a clear glass window which is designed to be seen through.
• Baker as he raced up the stairs wasn't making a search of the entire building, he noticed something out of the ordinary and investigated. Baker's priority was to reach the top of the building and the only reason he happened to see Oswald was because the elevator was stuck on an upper floor.
• Truly who came in behind Baker said Oswald was standing just beyond the entrance of the lunchroom.
Mr. BELIN - What did you see that caused you to turn away from going up to the third floor?
Mr. BAKER - As I came out of that stairway running, Mr. Truly had already gone on around, see, and I don't know, as I come around----
Mr. DULLES - Gone on around and up?
Mr. BAKER - He had already started around the bend to come to the next elevation going up, I was coming out this one on the second floor, and I don't know, I was kind of sweeping this area as I come up, I was looking from right to left and as I got to this door here I caught a glimpse of this man, just, you know, a sudden glimpse, that is all it was now, and it looked to me like he was going away from me.
Mr. BELIN - All right. Then what did you do?
Mr. BAKER - I ran on up here and opened this door and when I got this door opened I could see him walking on down.
Mr. DULLES - Had he meanwhile gone on through the door ahead of you?
Mr. BAKER - I can't say whether he had gone on through that door or not. All I did was catch a glance at him, and evidently he was--this door might have been, you know, closing and almost shut at that time.
The view from the stairs, looking right through the vestibule door window into the hallway and the entrance to the lunchroom which is cannot be seen, is to the left
(https://i.postimg.cc/0NJ7c1hy/Photo-wcd81-1-0145-Door-of-Lunchroom-to-Door-to-First-Floor-Stairs.jpg)
A plan of the 2nd floor with Baker's initial position when he saw Oswald, indicated by the "B" enclosed with the red box.
Mr. BAKER - At the upper portion of this stairway leading to the second floor, I was just stepping out on to the second floor when I caught this glimpse of this man through this doorway.
Mr. BELIN - Do you want to put a spot there, with the letter "B" at the point you believe you were when you were looking through that door? You put the letter "B" on Exhibit 497 when you first saw the movement.
Mr. BAKER - Yes, sir.
(https://i.postimg.cc/tqKkLnQr/ce-497-2nd-floor-lunchroomb.jpg)
Truly saw Oswald standing just inside the lunchroom.
Mr. BELIN. And where was Lee Harvey Oswald at the time you saw him?
Mr. TRULY. He was at the front of the lunchroom, not very far inside he was just inside the lunchroom door.
Mr. BELIN. All right.
Mr. TRULY. 2 or 3 feet, possibly.
Mr. BELIN. Could you put an "O" where you saw Lee Harvey Oswald?
All right. You have put an "O" on Exhibit 497.
(https://i.postimg.cc/RF8MV2X2/Truky-see-Oswald-at-O.jpg)
Howlett showing the vestibule door closing(viewed from a different angled) which may have alerted Baker.
(https://i.postimg.cc/LsNFCGPG/Through-lunch-door-2nd-floor-vestibule-b.gif)
BTW since you've been there, tell the Forum precisely how "there is no way that Baker could have seen Oswald in the way he described it."??
JohnM
-
Brennan's first day description of Oswald was very close and considering that the majority of the people at the TSBD windows were either black or women then Brennan most certainly saw Oswald, you know the guy who left his prints covering the Sniper's nest and the guy who owned the rifle on the very same floor.
JohnM
Brennan testified under oath that he saw Oswald firing a rifle from the sniper's nest that Oswald had left his prints in, that's true. I do believe him. That being said, I avoid using him in the case against Oswald. CTs love to bash him, as they do others who implicate Oswald's guilt in murder.
-
Brennan testified under oath that he saw Oswald firing a rifle from the sniper's nest that Oswald had left his prints in, that's true. I do believe him. That being said, I avoid using him in the case against Oswald. CTs love to bash him, as they do others who implicate Oswald's guilt in murder.
You're right, the CT's in their last desperate gasps are now left attacking any eyewitness who implicates Oswald.
But before anything was officially known, Brennan's first day description of Oswald, was broadcast on the Police radio within 15 minutes is worth repeating because the CT's have no answers, they say that Brennan's description can be half the population of Dallas which is just absurd because first of all half the population is women and then when it's further dissected we have slim, around 5 foot 10 height which crosses out another stack of the population and next we have an appearance of about 30 which Oswald with his thinning scalp is about right and finally we have him as being white.
So after eliminating a wide cross section of the male population of Dallas we are left with a relative handful of people and then out of the employees in the Depository this is reduced to a mere fraction.
So by logical deduction we are left with a tiny fraction of people and considering that Oswald owned the rifle and owned the relative fresh prints in the exact window that Brennan specified, we can pinpoint who did the shooting!
Now if Brennan's description was elderly, black, fat, very tall and completely bald then we can write off Oswald, but it wasn't.
JohnM
-
I asked you for examples of fungible items of evidence and for you to describe how were they mishandled by the DPD?
The only item you named was the blanket, and you never described how it was mishandled by the DPD.
If they never handled it, how could they have marked it?
The officer who reported that it was white never handled the jacket. He saw it at a distance. it appeared to be white.
I asked you for examples of fungible items of evidence and for you to describe how were they mishandled by the DPD?
Your "non-fungible" qualification is just a disingenuous way to limit the scope of the evidence. I ignored it because evidence is evidence, period!
The only item you named was the blanket, and you never described how it was mishandled by the DPD.
I already told you. They placed the blanket next to the paper bag risking cross contamination,
If they never handled it, how could they have marked it?
That is indeed a very good question. There is no "if". You can go through all the evidence and testimony relating to the jacket and you won't find anything else but Captain Westbrook confirming he placed his mark on the jacket and saying that one unidentified officer pointed the jacket out to him and he gave the jacket to another unidentified officer when he himself moved on to the Texas Theater. The receipt of the evidence room shows that Westbrook handed the jacket in, which means he must have gotten it back at some point in time. Who the other six officers are who marked the jacket is a complete mystery. All that can be said about one of them is that he also marked the revolver.
The officer who reported that it was white never handled the jacket. He saw it at a distance. it appeared to be white.
Can you point me to that officer's testimony or report in which he confirms this?
-
Brennan's first day description of Oswald was very close and considering that the majority of the people at the TSBD windows were either black or women then Brennan most certainly saw Oswald, you know the guy who left his prints covering the Sniper's nest and the guy who owned the rifle on the very same floor.
JohnM
Brennan's first day description of Oswald was very close
This is Brennan's first day description of the man he saw:
"He was a white man in his early 30s, slender, nice-looking, and would weigh about 165 to 175 pounds"
He was white (that sounds like Oswald)
He was a man (two for two, this really could be Oswald)
In his early 30s (D'oh. Only about tens years off! When he actually saw Oswald he was struck by how much older the guy in the TSBD building appeared to be)
Slender (we're back on track, Oswald was definitely slender)
Nice looking (nice looking?? Oswald?? I don't think there's going to be many takers for that one)
About 165 to 175 pounds (Hmmm...not really. Even the lower estimate is a good 15 pounds off)
Three out of six ain't bad but is there a universe where this description can be considered a "very close" description of Oswald?
No.
No, there isn't.
You can tell when Nutters are backed into a corner when they pull Brennan out of the hat.
Far from being the star of the show he turned out to be the most unreliable and least credible witness out of the lot (and that was up against some stiff competition).
He was the only witness to be called back to give clarifying testimony TWICE in the same day and he still had to give a further affidavit providing further clarification.
This article about Brennan is worth reading - https://jfkconspiracyforum.freeforums.net/thread/1619/howard-brennan-star-witness-who
"...considering that the majority of the people at the TSBD windows were either black or women then Brennan most certainly saw Oswald.."
This statement must surely find a seat at the top table of bizarre Nutter "logic"
-
There are a lot of problems with Brennan.
First - He FAILED to identify Lee at the line ups. It doesn't matter what reason he gave later. He failed to identify him.
https://jfk.boards.net/post/3579
He gave several different reason to not choose Oswald. He said he had seen the man on TV and that might have
"..cloud[ed] any identification.." in his book, he didn't trust the Dallas Police.
"I felt even more angry and betrayed. I hadn’t agreed to make an identification to the local authorities.
I knew that there were ways my identity could become known though the leaks in the police department and I didn’t want any part of it."
Meanwhile, his face was already on the local television the day of, with pictures of him talking to the Secret Service.
Brennan boasted about the expedited broadcast to attorney Belin during his Commission testimony, asking if he had seen it.
His name, age, and occupation, also appeared in the Dallas Morning News as a statement to the press the day after.
The FBI took several statements from Brennan from Nov 22, until the day he testified.
Other visits were required when Howard "appeared to revert to his earlier inability" to identify Lee Oswald.
These recorded statements raise doubts, in addition to other direct contradictions in his testimony.
The most important discrepancy I can see is, what he said at the end of testimony.
They were quick to dismiss him right after he said it:
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Mr. BELIN. Do you remember the specific color of any shirt
that the man with the rifle was wearing?
Mr. BRENNAN. No, other than light, and a khaki color--maybe in khaki.
I mean other than light color--not a real white shirt, in other words.
If it was a white shirt, it was on the dingy side.
Mr. BELIN. All right. Could you see the man's trousers at all?
Do you remember any color?
Mr. BRENNAN. I remembered them at that time as being similar to the same color
of the shirt or a little lighter. And that was another thing that I called their attention to at the lineup.
Mr. BELIN. What do you mean by that?
Mr. BRENNAN. That he was not dressed in the same clothes that I saw the man in the window.
Mr. BELIN. You mean with reference to the trousers or the shirt?
Mr. BRENNAN. Well, not particularly either. In other words, he just didn't have the same clothes on.
Mr. BELIN. All right.
Mr. BRENNAN. I don't know whether you have that in the record or not. I am sure you do.
Mr. DULLES. Any further questions? I guess there are no more questions, Mr. Belin.
https://jfk.boards.net/post/3587/thread
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The films of the 6th floor as the car makes the turn show no face or flesh tone in that window - it is covered in boxes and what looks like a pipe
coming out of the window. The WC had six witnesses that saw a rifle but, up until Brennan, none would say they saw Oswald.
But the HSCA found a witness that had seen someone in that room moving boxes 2-5 mins after the shooting.
Lt Day had concerns on the witness stand that the boxes were not the same configuration he saw when he was there
https://jfk.boards.net/post/7564
Meanwhile, Carolyn Walther, Richard Carr and Johnny Powell all saw more than one person in the window before the president arrived.
All three saw a combination of light colored clothing - Spanish looking people - a rifle - and a man in a brown suit. All were ignored by the WC.
There again, Commission witnesses, Arnold Rowland & Amos Euins also saw light colored clothing and what they thought were "colored" people in the window.
IMO, when they had no one to identify Lee, it came down to; "Mr Brennan, we know who you saw, we have his rifle. Will you testify?" Not very difficult.
https://jfk.boards.net/post/7692/thread
.
-
Brennan's first day description of Oswald was very close
This is Brennan's first day description of the man he saw:
"He was a white man in his early 30s, slender, nice-looking, and would weigh about 165 to 175 pounds"
He was white (that sounds like Oswald)
He was a man (two for two, this really could be Oswald)
In his early 30s (D'oh. Only about tens years off! When he actually saw Oswald he was struck by how much older the guy in the TSBD building appeared to be)
Slender (we're back on track, Oswald was definitely slender)
Nice looking (nice looking?? Oswald?? I don't think there's going to be many takers for that one)
About 165 to 175 pounds (Hmmm...not really. Even the lower estimate is a good 15 pounds off)
Three out of six ain't bad but is there a universe where this description can be considered a "very close" description of Oswald?
No.
No, there isn't.
That's quite a standard to apply under the circumstances. Of course, "nice looking" is a subjective description. It could just mean he was dressed neatly. Not necessarily that he looked like a movie star. Oswald was balding and certainly looked older than 24. In his 30s is not a bad estimate of his age given that he was seen from the ground through a 6th floor window. Weight is an estimate. Overall, pretty close to Oswald and reported in the minutes following the assassination. At the very least, Brennan confirms that a slender, white male was the person firing shots from the 6th floor window. That alone debunks many CT theories that involve no shots being fired from that window. And whose prints are found on the boxes behind that window? Whose rifle is found on that floor? Whose shell casing are found by the window? All the evidence points to a slender white male named LHO. It's difficult to even understand how there could be much more evidence than exists to support that conclusion.
-
That's quite a standard to apply under the circumstances. Of course, "nice looking" is a subjective description. It could just mean he was dressed neatly. Not necessarily that he looked like a movie star. Oswald was balding and certainly looked older than 24. In his 30s is not a bad estimate of his age given that he was seen from the ground through a 6th floor window. Weight is an estimate. Overall, pretty close to Oswald and reported in the minutes following the assassination. At the very least, Brennan confirms that a slender, white male was the person firing shots from the 6th floor window. That alone debunks many CT theories that involve no shots being fired from that window. And whose prints are found on the boxes behind that window? Whose rifle is found on that floor? Whose shell casing are found by the window? All the evidence points to a slender white male named LHO. It's difficult to even understand how there could be much more evidence than exists to support that conclusion.
All the evidence points to a slender white male named LHO.
:D :D :D
I didn't realise that Brennan could tell his initials just by looking at him!!
That's quite a standard to apply under the circumstances.
The circumstances are that Brennan was using his eyes to look at someone, then describe that person.
His unbelievably basic description of the man he saw was still way off.
Because you're so blinded by your bias you don't see how ridiculous your point is about Brennan's estimation of the age of the man in the window.
You argue that Oswald looked older than he really was and that's why Brennan got his estimation so wrong, but what you fail to appreciate is that Brennan was comparing the age of the man in the window to Oswald himself!
When he actually saw Oswald, Brennan was struck by how much younger he looked compared to the man in the window.
Next you'll be arguing that Oswald looked almost a decade older in the TSBD building than he did elsewhere.
-
All the evidence points to a slender white male named LHO.
:D :D :D
I didn't realise that Brennan could tell his initials just by looking at him!!
That's quite a standard to apply under the circumstances.
The circumstances are that Brennan was using his eyes to look at someone, then describe that person.
His unbelievably basic description of the man he saw was still way off.
Because you're so blinded by your bias you don't see how ridiculous your point is about Brennan's estimation of the age of the man in the window.
You argue that Oswald looked older than he really was and that's why Brennan got his estimation so wrong, but what you fail to appreciate is that Brennan was comparing the age of the man in the window to Oswald himself!
When he actually saw Oswald, Brennan was struck by how much younger he looked compared to the man in the window.
Next you'll be arguing that Oswald looked almost a decade older in the TSBD building than he did elsewhere.
Brennan's description is certainly not "way off." At worst he added a few years to balding Oswald's actual age (not a decade) and pounds to his weight while looking at him through a 6th floor window. I would say it is remarkably accurate under the circumstances. The fact that it was provided within a few minutes of the event means he was not influenced by the press coverage or some conspiracy to frame Oswald. You really think that because Brennan was a few years off on estimating Oswald's age that that somehow raise doubt about all the evidence left behind that window including Oswald's prints and shell casings from his rifle? Honestly, that is not very compelling.
-
Brennan's description is certainly not "way off." At worst he added a few years to balding Oswald's actual age (not a decade) and pounds to his weight while looking at him through a 6th floor window. I would say it is remarkably accurate under the circumstances. The fact that it was provided within a few minutes of the event means he was not influenced by the press coverage or some conspiracy to frame Oswald. You really think that because Brennan was a few years off on estimating Oswald's age that that somehow raise doubt about all the evidence left behind that window including Oswald's prints and shell casings from his rifle? Honestly, that is not very compelling.
You really think that because Brennan was a few years off on estimating Oswald's age that that somehow raise doubt about all the evidence left behind that window including Oswald's prints and shell casings from his rifle?
Strawman Smith strikes again ;D
I would say it is remarkably accurate under the circumstances.
:D :D :D
-
You really think that because Brennan was a few years off on estimating Oswald's age that that somehow raise doubt about all the evidence left behind that window including Oswald's prints and shell casings from his rifle?
Strawman Smith strikes again ;D
I would say it is remarkably accurate under the circumstances.
:D :D :D
I'm not exactly sure what you are taking issue with since you didn't articulate a single point while acting like a petulant child upset to learn that there is no Santa Claus. Oswald was balding and looked much older than 24. I would have guessed his age as late 20s or early 30s. Estimating his age as in his 30s is reasonable. Particularly for someone who saw him through a 6th floor window. The description is not "way off." That is an absurd characterization. It highlights the incredible bias that you bring to this case. You would have us believe that it could only be Oswald if Brennan had performed like a circus worker and precisely guessed his age and weight. In your fantasy world, any discrepancy in his estimate negates the real evidence such as Oswald's prints on the SN, the presence of his rifle, and fired shell casings on behind the window. That's breathtaking and the only truly unresolved issue is not whether Oswald was the shooter but why anyone would go to such tortured lengths to try to exonerate him.
-
I'm not exactly sure what you are taking issue with since you didn't articulate a single point while acting like a petulant child upset to learn that there is no Santa Claus. Oswald was balding and looked much older than 24. I would have guessed his age as late 20s or early 30s. Estimating his age as in his 30s is reasonable. Particularly for someone who saw him through a 6th floor window. The description is not "way off." That is an absurd characterization. It highlights the incredible bias that you bring to this case. You would have us believe that it could only be Oswald if Brennan had performed like a circus worker and precisely guessed his age and weight. In your fantasy world, any discrepancy in his estimate negates the real evidence such as Oswald's prints on the SN, the presence of his rifle, and fired shell casings on behind the window. That's breathtaking and the only truly unresolved issue is not whether Oswald was the shooter but why anyone would go to such tortured lengths to try to exonerate him.
I'm not exactly sure what you are taking issue with
Quelle surprise :D
It's always funny when a completely unreasonable man considers himself to be reasonable....
-
It doesn't matter whether Brennan was "remarkably accurate" or "way off", he failed to recognize Oswald at the lineup. Game over. It's remarkable that Richard insists on stumping his small feet to evade this brutal fact.
-
It doesn't matter whether Brennan was "remarkably accurate" or "way off", he failed to recognize Oswald at the lineup. Game over. It's remarkable that Richard insists on stumping his small feet to evade this brutal fact.
Game over? Game over?
Sorry Tom but but neither you or I are in a position to make that assertion, it would come down to an unbiased Jury to balance the evidence and then they could draw their own conclusion.
1) As already stated, Brennan's first day affidavit and the subsequent Police radio broadcast closely matched Oswald's description and would be powerful evidence.
2) Oswald's fresh prints in the sniper's nest, the same window Brennan identified.
3) Oswald's rifle.
4) Oswald's flight from the scene of the crime.
5) Special agent Sorrels who testified at the line-up that Brennan told him that man 2, "Oswald" was the closest man.
6) Brennan's testimony under oath that he was afraid for his family because of a possible Communist connection. A very real worry.
7) Brennan stating categorially in his testimony under oath that he could have identified Oswald.
And there you have it, personally I believe it's a slam dunk.
JohnM
-
Game over? Game over?
Sorry Tom but but neither you or I are in a position to make that assertion, it would come down to an unbiased Jury to balance the evidence and then they could draw their own conclusion.
1) As already stated, Brennan's first day affidavit and the subsequent Police radio broadcast closely matched Oswald's description and would be powerful evidence.
2) Oswald's fresh prints in the sniper's nest, the same window Brennan identified.
3) Oswald's rifle.
4) Oswald's flight from the scene of the crime.
5) Special agent Sorrels who testified at the line-up that Brennan told him that man 2, "Oswald" was the closest man.
6) Brennan's testimony under oath that he was afraid for his family because of a possible Communist connection. A very real worry.
7) Brennan stating categorially in his testimony under oath that he could have identified Oswald.
And there you have it, personally I believe it's a slam dunk.
JohnM
And there you have it, personally I believe it's a slam dunk.
And I, personally, believe you have been fooled..... Go figure!
-
Game over? Game over?
Sorry Tom but but neither you or I are in a position to make that assertion, it would come down to an unbiased Jury to balance the evidence and then they could draw their own conclusion.
1) As already stated, Brennan's first day affidavit and the subsequent Police radio broadcast closely matched Oswald's description and would be powerful evidence.
2) Oswald's fresh prints in the sniper's nest, the same window Brennan identified.
3) Oswald's rifle.
4) Oswald's flight from the scene of the crime.
5) Special agent Sorrels who testified at the line-up that Brennan told him that man 2, "Oswald" was the closest man.
6) Brennan's testimony under oath that he was afraid for his family because of a possible Communist connection. A very real worry.
7) Brennan stating categorially in his testimony under oath that he could have identified Oswald.
And there you have it, personally I believe it's a slam dunk.
JohnM
To my knowledge, no other witness pulled the commie card, certainly not those who pointed their finger at Oswald. Brennan's commie paranoia BS would be a hard sell in court, especially since it cured itself so quickly. "Under oath" only means you can get in trouble if you're caught lying. Your list would obviously not have stood unchallenged, so your jury argument is essentially moot; the defense would have destroyed it, especially "Oswald's rifle." —ROFL.
-
To my knowledge, no other witness pulled the commie card, certainly not those who pointed their finger at Oswald. Brennan's commie paranoia BS would be a hard sell in court, especially since it cured itself so quickly. "Under oath" only means you can get in trouble if you're caught lying. Your list would obviously not have stood unchallenged, so your jury argument is essentially moot; the defense would have destroyed it, especially "Oswald's rifle." —ROFL.
Destroyed it? Destroyed it?
Talk about delusional
To my knowledge, no other witness pulled the commie card, certainly not those who pointed their finger at Oswald.
How many eyewitnesses were there that went to a line-up who saw the President of the United States being shot? Brennan had every right to fear for his family
Brennan's commie paranoia BS would be a hard sell in court, especially since it cured itself so quickly.
After Oswald was killed and his lone nutter status quickly became clear, Brennan had little reason to fear any reprisals. And what did Brennan get out of this, not much!
"Under oath" only means you can get in trouble if you're caught lying.
Yeah, and lying about any evidence in connection with the murder of the President of the United States could mean a long stay behind bars, so Brennan's best interest was to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth and since he swore on the bible, lying could mean eternal damnation in the pits of Hell!
Your list would obviously not have stood unchallenged, so your jury argument is essentially moot; the defense would have destroyed it, especially "Oswald's rifle." —ROFL.
Sure a good defence would challenge everything, let's see how far that gets you in connection with my list.
1) No debate Brennan's extremely close description was broadcast on the Police radio at 12:45
2) Oswald's relatively fresh prints were in the sniper's nest, these prints on multiple boxes according to the FBI Experts were no more than 3 days old, and in addition the Rolling reader boxes which were moved half way across the 6th floor were a unique size perfectly suitable to create a rifle rest and to top it off Oswald's prints were on top of the closer Rolling Reader box orientated as if Oswald was looking down Elm street, the Defence could argue that Oswald worked there but the prosecution would counter with, every employee was not paid to touch every box in the building every three days making the prohibitive probability that Oswald touched these boxes as a matter of his job extremely low.
3) Oswald's rifle was ordered, paid for, sent to his PO Box, was photographed with and was found at his work! The defence could argue that each of these were faked by persons unknown and the rifle was planted but you'd be laughed put of court, pathetic!
4) Again this is a no brainer Oswald decided to leave not at the start of lunch, not at the end of lunch but within 3 minutes of the President being shot. Then Oswald in a blind panic bashes on the door of a bus stuck in Traffic then after a short time jumps off and gets a cab which then stops way past his rooming house. Every step shows a consciousness of guilt, the defence would have no hope justifying any of this. Their best bet would be to say Oswald knew something and fled, but that could only mean Oswald was involved and the Death Penalty would equally apply to him.
5+6+7) Explained above. The defence could say that it was "Game Over" because of the initial apprehension but when weighed with his first description along with a very real fear of his family being slaughtered, His testimony would sway any jury.
See Tom, you've been smashed! Next time, Try Harder!
JohnM