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

[John Iacoletti]

A few more things to ponder before reaching he erroneous conclusion that the long bag Oswald carried on the morning of 11/22/1963 was not the same bag found in the SN.

1) Frazier testified that Oswald always gave him a ride to Irving, TX on a Friday. This time Frazier gave Oswald a ride on a Thursday.
2) Frazier testified that day was the first time Oswald had actually walked over to his house before being picked up for work
3) Frazier testified that Oswald always carried a lunch bag and placed it on his lap but that morning Oswald told BWF he was going to buy his lunch. Oswald told interrogators he brought his lunch that day.
4) Frazier testified that he and Oswald always walked together to the TSBD. Oswald was 50' ahead of BWF when Oswald entered the TSBD.
5) Frazier testified that Oswald usually went to Irving on Friday's but when BWF asked Oswald if he would be going to Irving that Friday Oswald said no.

How do any of these points relate to whether CE 142 was the bag that Frazier saw?

[John Iacoletti]

You can't be for real.  Alan made specific reference to Oswald being seen by Frazier carrying a bag into the TSBD.  Frazier estimated that bag as being over two feet long!  Thus, the obvious implication is that he saw Oswald carrying a "long bag" into the TSBD.  Good grief.  Even a fringe kook should be able to piece that together.

Typical "Richard".  You make a claim that is false, "Oswald denies carrying any long bag along the size estimated by Frazier", and when rightly called on it, you revert to insults and arrogance instead of admitting your error.  Cite anything whatsoever that states that Oswald was given a size estimate.

Oswald doesn't have to be told the size of the bag estimated by Frazier to lie about it.  He denied carrying any bag of that size.  He says he carried an ordinary lunch sack.

Also false.  Cite anything whatsoever that states that Oswald said he carried "an ordinary lunch sack".

[John Iacoletti]

Progress!  And just when intelligent people had cause to doubt it was possible.  So we can discount the claim that Oswald had no long bag in his possession when he entered the TSBD.  Hooray!  Glad you won't be citing that again.   Oswald has a long a bag when he enters the TSBD.  Check.

How many times has this been discussed and you still don't get it.  Just because Oswald had a bag in the parking lot doesn't mean he carried a bag into the TSBD.  In fact, the only witness to him entering the TSBD said that he was not.

  Now it boils down to the evidence.

Yes, yes it does.  Do you have any evidence beyond your usual speculation that CE 142 was the bag that Frazier saw?

It is the only such bag matching the general description.

Bzzt.  Not only do you NOT know this to be true, it doesn't match the description that Frazier gave.

  It can't be accounted for in anyway except as Oswald's bag.

Bzzzt again.  You can't even account for it being in the SN when it was discovered.

  No bag matching matching Frazier's estimate was ever found or accounted for in any way.

This bogus argument is destroyed every time you make it and yet you persist.  Was Harold Norman's lunch bag ever found or accounted for in any way?  Not finding something not not prove it doesn't exist.  That's the black swan fallacy.

  Oswald denies carrying any long bag along the size estimated by Frazier.

Still false.  Why don't you start providing exact quotes instead of false characterizations?  You'll be less likely to further embarrass yourself.

  Thus, your hero is lying in your scenario in which Oswald carries the two foot or so long bag.  Why?

Every time your fallacies are exposed, you revert back to the "hero" and "saint" rhetoric.  Why?  Somebody has to have a hero in order to fairly evaluate evidence (or lack thereof)?

It doesn't take Sherlock Holmes to reach the obvious conclusion that Frazier honestly, but erroneously estimated the length of the bag.

No, it takes a guy who thinks that his speculations are evidence.

[Richard Smith]

I don't follow the angst about characterizing Frazier's description of the bag as "long."  Or that Oswald denied carrying any such bag.  Frazier said the bag Oswald carried was over two feet long.  That is a long bag.  Oswald was asked what he was carrying and he said he carried his lunch sack.  The bag being described by Frazier is not a lunch sack.  Now put those statement together.  If there were any doubt whatsoever on this point, Frazier specifically asked Oswald about his lunch because he noticed he was not carrying it and Oswald confirmed he was carrying "curtain rods."  As a result, the clear, obvious and only implication that can be derived from this context is that Oswald denied carrying any long bag along the lines described by Frazier.  That is just a stone cold fact.  Oswald said he had a lunch sack.  Frazier said he didn't but had a much longer bag.  To suggest it is somehow not accurate to characterize Oswald as lying simply because he was not directly asked "did you carry a bag as described by Frazier" is ludicrous and dishonest.  But that is the typical weak sauce stuff of the likes of Dishonest John.

[Richard Smith]

There is a clear and obvious distinction in Frazier's testimony between the long bag that he saw Oswald carry that morning and the "little" lunch bag Oswald ordinarily carried. If there were any doubt on this point, Oswald confirmed to Frazier that he was going to buy his lunch that day and that the longer bag contained curtain rods (explaining the "long" bag).  Thus, Oswald's subsequent claim that he carried only a lunch sack is a direct denial of Frazier's claim that he had a longer bag.  In fact it is the only implication that can be drawn unless Frazier is lying.  But CTers insist Oswald was carrying a bag along the lines estimated by Frazier.  Thus, Oswald must be lying in that context when he insists he had his lunch.  It is the only conclusion that can be drawn.

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.
Mr. BALL - But every other day he brought a lunch?
Mr. FRAZIER - Right, when he rode with me.
Mr. BALL - Would he bring it in a paper sack or what kind of a container?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir; like a little paper sack you get out of a grocery store, you have seen these little old sacks that you could buy, sandwich bag, sack.


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 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.

[John Iacoletti]

The bag being described by Frazier is not a lunch sack.

...and you know this how?

To suggest it is somehow not accurate to characterize Oswald as lying simply because he was not directly asked "did you carry a bag as described by Frazier" is ludicrous and dishonest.

What's ludicrous and dishonest is you claiming that "Oswald denies carrying any long bag along the size estimated by Frazier" when it is not true.

[John Iacoletti]

There is a clear and obvious distinction in Frazier's testimony between the long bag that he saw Oswald carry that morning and the "little" lunch bag Oswald ordinarily carried.

Perhaps you'd care to explain how the "little" lunch bag Oswald ordinarily carried has any bearing on what he carried on 11/22?

If there were any doubt on this point, Oswald confirmed to Frazier that he was going to buy his lunch that day and that the longer bag contained curtain rods (explaining the "long" bag).

So your evidence that Oswald is lying is that you prefer Frazier's account.

  Thus, Oswald's subsequent claim that he carried only a lunch sack is a direct denial of Frazier's claim that he had a longer bag.

BS.  Are you suggesting that a lunch somehow cannot be carried in a longer bag?  perhaps along with some curtain rods?  Do you think it's just a coincidence that Frazier formerly worked at a job that involved curtain rods?  Does the curtain rod story have any corroboration whatsoever?

  In fact it is the only implication that can be drawn unless Frazier is lying.

Logical fallacy.  False dichotomy.  As Oswald reportedly said, Frazier could have been thinking of some other day.  Or it's possible Oswald was lying to Frazier, but that doesn't somehow prove he had a rifle that wouldn't actually fit in the bag, in the bag.

  But CTers insist Oswald was carrying a bag along the lines estimated by Frazier.  Thus, Oswald must be lying in that context when he insists he had his lunch.  It is the only conclusion that can be drawn.

You draw a lot of conclusions that aren't justified by the evidence.

Mr. RANKIN. Do you know whether your husband carried any package with him when he left the house on November 22nd?
Mrs. OSWALD. I think that he had a package with his lunch. But a small package.
Mr. RANKIN. Do you know whether he had any package like a rifle in some container?
Mrs. OSWALD. No.