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

[Alan Ford]

The meaning is the same, Mr. Ford. The sack, or bag, relates to the chicken. Now, how about answering the questions asked.

Ah, so you realise you misspoke! A teachable moment, eh? 

Now! The 'meaning' is not 'the same'. Why else would Mr Shelley himself, in his testimony, undermine the notion that the bag relates to the chicken sandwich which Mr Givens has assured him he ate that morning?

And where is your evidence that Mr Shelley associated the bag-with-the-chicken-bones with Mr Oswald? Or were you just making that bit up?

[Richard Smith]

Which CTers argue that? Are you suggesting we all do?

I don't know what Mr Oswald carried to work that day, for the simple reason that I wasn't there----and that Mr Frazier is not a reliable witness on several counts! 

You do know what Mr Oswald carried to work that day, because your gullibility when it comes to the official story is without limit!

Almost every CTer that posts here has suggested that Oswald carried a bag too short to contain the rifle due to Frazier's estimate. But how about we start with you?  Which are you suggesting is more likely based on your "knowledge" of the case?  That Oswald had a long bag along the size Frazier estimated or that he had no long bag at all?  I bet you weren't present at the Lincoln assassination but can reach a conclusion as to who fired the shot in that case.  It is absurd to suggest someone must be present at the event to make a reasoned conclusion from the evidence as to what occurred.  It is peculiar to become so circumspect when it suits your purpose.  Can you at least acknowledge that Oswald either had a long bag or he did not?  Therefore, it is dishonest to suggest both are true?

[Alan Ford]

Almost every CTer that posts here has suggested that Oswald carried a bag too short to contain the rifle due to Frazier's estimate. But how about we start with you?  Which are you suggesting is more likely based on your "knowledge" of the case?  That Oswald had a long bag along the size Frazier estimated or that he had no long bag at all?  I bet you weren't present at the Lincoln assassination but can reach a conclusion as to who fired the shot in that case.  It is absurd to suggest someone must be present at the event to make a reasoned conclusion from the evidence as to what occurred.  It is peculiar to become so circumspect when it suits your purpose.  Can you at least acknowledge that Oswald either had a long bag or he did not?  Therefore, it is dishonest to suggest both are true?

Great questions, Mr Smith! 

Most CTers are, it is true, hostile to the notion that Mr Oswald carried the Carcano into the Depository that morning. They ask questions like,
-------------When or how did Mr Oswald construct this large bag at the wrapping table?
-------------Why has Mr Frazier been so insistent that the bag Mr Oswald carried that morning was too small to be the large bag that went into evidence?
-------------Why no photos of the large bag in the SN?

These are good questions, and I'm not satisfied that any LNer has answered them satisfactorily!

And! There is nothing inconsistent, still less intellectually dishonest, about saying the bag Mr Oswald carried was sizeable but not as large as the bag entered into evidence. So cut that nonsense!

But I remain agnostic. Something made Mr Oswald leave the scene quickly and do the odd things he did. I am not closed to the possibility that this something was conscious involvement in the assassination plot----------such as, for instance, supplying the/a rifle.

There are other possibilities, however. (Mr Oswald having fired from the 6th fl window is emphatically not one of them!)

Mr Frazier's protestations about the bag may be due to displaced guilt over something else he saw that day but isn't telling. He certainly talks like a man who knows 'Lee' didn't do it.

John Wilkes Booth? We know he shot President Lincoln. We don't know who shot President Kennedy. Big difference!

 

[John Iacoletti]

Which CTers argue that? Are you suggesting we all do?

Nobody argues that. This is ?Richard??s usual strawman BS.

Frazier saw Oswald carry a bag. That doesn?t mean that bag was ever taken into the TSBD. And it certainly doesn?t mean that bag was CE142.

[John Iacoletti]

The fact that no other bag was found in the TSBD that would fit the description and circumstances as described by LMR and BWF.

Who says the bag seen by Frazier or Randle was ever in the TSBD?

Harold Norman?s lunch bag was not found in the TSBD either. Does that mean he didn?t have one?

[Oscar Navarro]

Ah, so you realise you misspoke! A teachable moment, eh? 

Now! The 'meaning' is not 'the same'. Why else would Mr Shelley himself, in his testimony, undermine the notion that the bag relates to the chicken sandwich which Mr Givens has assured him he ate that morning?

And where is your evidence that Mr Shelley associated the bag-with-the-chicken-bones with Mr Oswald? Or were you just making that bit up?

Where do I say that Shelley associated the chicken lunch bag with Oswald? How about answering my questions.

[Oscar Navarro]

Who says the bag seen by Frazier or Randle was ever in the TSBD?

Harold Norman?s lunch bag was not found in the TSBD either. Does that mean he didn?t have one?

The evidence says so.