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

[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?

[Martin Weidmann]

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.

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.  Do you think that that would have been over two feet long along the lines described by Frazier?  If there were any doubt on this point, Frazier asked about Oswald's lunch because he noticed he didn't have a lunch sack.  Oswald told him he had "curtain rods.  Lies confirmed in every possible manner.

You really are one confused individual?..

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.

How can Oswald deny carrying any bag of "that size" if he isn't told what size it is?

And some more confused reasoning;

He says he carried an ordinary lunch sack.  Do you think that that would have been over two feet long along the lines described by Frazier?  If there were any doubt on this point, Frazier asked about Oswald's lunch because he noticed he didn't have a lunch sack.  Oswald told him he had "curtain rods.   

So, you believe in the size estimate Frazier gave when it comes to Oswald saying merely he brought a lunch sack, but you dismiss Frazier's estimate when to comes to it having to be big enough to conceal a broken down rifle.... Wow!

Lies confirmed in every possible manner.

Only if you cherry pick the evidence to come up with a strawman argument to lead you to a foregone conclusion. You truly are some piece of work.

[Walt Cakebread]

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.

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.  Do you think that that would have been over two feet long along the lines described by Frazier?  If there were any doubt on this point, Frazier asked about Oswald's lunch because he noticed he didn't have a lunch sack.  Oswald told him he had "curtain rods.  Lies confirmed in every possible manner.

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.

Lee said that he didn't recall the exact size of the sack he carried....He said it contained his lunch and "You can't always find a sack that is just the right size for your lunch"

[Alan Ford]

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.  Now it boils down to the evidence.  On your side you have an estimate of Frazier of the bag's length.  Basically a guess as to the length of an object that he himself notes he barely had cause to notice. 

On the other side, we have such a bag that has Oswald's prints on it.  That bag exists and can be measured.  We don't have to guess or estimate its size.  It is the only such bag matching the general description.  It can't be accounted for in anyway except as Oswald's bag.  No bag matching matching Frazier's estimate was ever found or accounted for in any way.  Oswald denies carrying any long bag along the size estimated by Frazier.  Thus, your hero is lying in your scenario in which Oswald carries the two foot or so long bag.  Why?  It is an important question that sheds considerable light on the contents of a bag.  People lie when it is in their own self-interest and certainly not when it is contrary to their self interest.  But here you would have us believe Oswald lies about carrying a long bag along Frazier's estimate when it would have assisted him considerably if it did not contain any incriminatory evidence.  Why again?  Because the bag he carried contained the rifle!  It doesn't take Sherlock Holmes to reach the obvious conclusion that Frazier honestly, but erroneously estimated the length of the bag.  He got it wrong by a few inches in that scenario and everything else falls into place.  In your wild fantasy alternative scenario, all manner of unresolved and improbable events would have to be reconciled or explained.  Where did the longer bag come from, what happened to the shorter bag, how did Oswald's prints get on the longer bag, why did Oswald lie... none of which any CTer can provide any explanation much less any plausible explanation.

Calm down, Mr Smith. You're letting your emotions get the better of you! 

Now! What, in your understanding, is my 'wild fantasy alternative scenario'?

[Bill Chapman]

The "I didn't pay much attention" claim came later. On Friday evening he was adamant. Only later did he become more cautious. Besides, the fact that he didn't pay much attention doesn't automatically mean that he was wrong.
>>> What matters is that he didn't pay much attention, not at what juncture that became known to investigators

>>> You don't seem to understand that agreeing with the WC size would bring all hell down on him.

Even if true, you think this was a consideration on Frazier's mind hours after the murder, when Oswald was still alive in custody and there was no trace of the WC?
>>> I have no idea what any witness had in mind. I can only put myself in any given scene and think about I would do in such a circumstance. Buell said he was threatened physically in that interview. That may have xxxxxx him off enough to reconsider his options.

He saw Oswald put the bag in the cup of his hand and under his shoulder. Do you foolishly think he saw that from behind? Did Frazier have X-ray vision, perhaps?
>>> It seems that Oswald held it in the palm of his hand alright. But Buell agreed with Bug that it could have been held in front.

Stop rambling and just show us all where Randle ever said that the bag " looked long enough to contain a rifle." Go on then, we're waiting!
>>>
First Lennie Mae Randle statement on bag length
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/randle.txt

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.

(...)

Are you on medication? You are using arguments you don't believe in and you think others do that as well? Really?
>>> 'Using' in what sense

Already destroyed by John Iacoletti
>>>  Great; your fellow gaslighter-in-arms

LOL

PS: Is pointing out that Buell was, arguably, in potentially dire circumstances just considered to be 'rambling' by you?

[Alan Ford]

>>> I have no idea what any witness had in mind. I can only put myself in any given scene and think about I would do in such a circumstance. Buell said he was threatened physically in that interview. That may have xxxxxx him off enough to reconsider his options.

 

(Just so long as one isn't... selective in one's application of this important insight!)

[Bill Chapman]

(Just so long as one isn't... selective in one's application of this important insight!)

I personally think Buell was honest in what he thinks he saw