BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963

[Martin Weidmann]

Still waiting for Chapman?s evidence that Randle said the bag ?looked long enough to contain a rifle?.

Might be better to start waiting for the first martian to land on our planet?. Might be more realistic.

[Michael Walton]

I thought Oswald said he had a cheese sandwich and a piece of fruit for his lunch that day?

[Jerry Freeman]

Wouldn't someone have to be a complete dumbass that can't tell the difference between holding an 8 ounce pack of curtain rods and a 10 lb package containing a rifle?

Well?

[Colin Crow]

Just wondering how many bags were fingerprinted in the TSBD that day and by whom? Anyone like to answer?

The number of bags that were dusted for prints in the TSBD was? Who did the dusting? When was the dusting performed?

[Alan Ford]

Theory!

a) Mr Frazier and his sister Ms Linnie Mae Randle did see Mr Oswald with a long bag that morning

b) Mr Oswald did tell Mr Frazier it contained curtain rods

c) What was in the bag was not a rifle.

d) What was in the bag was two types of item.

 

[Richard Smith]

Theory!

a) Mr Frazier and his sister Ms Linnie Mae Randle did see Mr Oswald with a long bag that morning

b) Mr Oswald did tell Mr Frazier it contained curtain rods

c) What was in the bag was not a rifle.

d) What was in the bag was two types of item.

 

This is simple:

Frazier - Oswald carried a long bag that was not his lunch.  Oswald tells him it contains curtain rods.  "I asked him where was his lunch and he said he was going to buy his lunch that day."

Oswald - tells the DPD he carried his lunch and not curtain rods (i.e. any long bag such as described by Frazier).

Put the statements together and the conclusion is that one or the other is lying.  It is impossible to reconcile the statements and descriptions as Dishonest John pathetically tries.  Frazier clearly and directly, with Oswald's confirmation, rules out that Oswald carried his lunch that morning.  Any honest person with an ounce of intelligence would not suggest that a bag such as that described by Frazier was his ordinary "little" lunch sack.  It's over two feet long!  If there were even a scintilla of doubt, we also have Oswald's confirmation to Frazier that he is not carrying his lunch in the bag.  "I asked him where was his lunch and he said he was going to buy his lunch that day."

Thus, who is lying and why?  What incentive does Frazier, a dumb teenager, have to lie about whether Oswald carried his lunch or a long bag that morning?  None.  What incentive does Oswald have to lie about whether he carried a long bag?  If it contained something exculpatory - like curtain rods - he has every incentive to tell the truth and admit that he did.  If it contains something incriminating - like  a rifle - he has every incentive to lie.  What did he do?  He lied.  This is not rocket science unless you are dishonest - like Crooked John or biased.   The facts and circumstances are crystal clear.

[Alan Ford]

 Any honest person with an ounce of intelligence would not suggest that a bag such as that described by Frazier was his ordinary "little" lunch sack.  It's over two feet long!

Can't you read, Mr Smith? I explicitly listed as Proposition #1:

"a) Mr Frazier and his sister Ms Linnie Mae Randle did see Mr Oswald with a long bag that morning"

In normal usage, the underlining of a word serves the purpose of emphasis.

I am theorising----and I use that word advisedly, because (unlike you, evidently) I was not present for these events on 11/22/63----that the bag was indeed long (yes: "over two feet long") and that it did not contain a dissassembled rifle.

[Richard Smith]

Can't you read, Mr Smith? I explicitly listed as Proposition #1:

"a) Mr Frazier and his sister Ms Linnie Mae Randle did see Mr Oswald with a long bag that morning"

In normal usage, the underlining of a word serves the purpose of emphasis.

I am theorising----and I use that word advisedly, because (unlike you, evidently) I was not present for these events on 11/22/63----that the bag was indeed long (yes: "over two feet long") and that it did not contain a dissassembled rifle.

Again, you don't have to be present at a historical event to understand from the facts what occurred.  We would still be questioning who won the battle of Gettysburg if that were the case.  The question of the bag derives from Crooked John who suggests the bag Frazier described could have been the same lunch bag that Oswald indicated he carried.  And his ludicrious claim that it is not accurate to characterize Oswald as denying he carried a bag as described by Frazier.  I merely pointed out - and you seem to agree - that Frazier's bag and Oswald's lunch bag can't be the same bag.  Thus, the relevant point for you (which seemed clear) is that one or the other is lying about the bag.  If Oswald is lying, that lends itself to the question of why.  And the answer is obvious.  No one lies to get themselves in further difficulties by, for example, denying that they had a bag that contained exculpatory evidence like curtain rods.  Oswald lied because the bag had something in it that he did not want connected to him.  And it doesn't take a time machine to understand what.