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

[Walt Cakebread]

Was that the bag that Studebaker found a partial? The one carried out by Johnson with the bottle that was also dusted for prints inside the TSBD. At that stage they had no prints to compare it to.

At that stage they had no prints to compare it to.  They had Charlie Given's prints on file...and they had Lee's prints at 4:30....

FWIW.....Lt JC Day said the Dr Pepper bottle was in their lab for weeks and he finally threw it away.....( Caution:  Day was one of the biggest liars at the DPD...which was a den of liars) 

[Richard Smith]

Weasel words!

Truthful version: Mr Oswald is seen carrying a bag towards the building; the person who saw this has consistently insisted the bag was not long enough to be CE142.

 

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.

[Martin Weidmann]

Weasel words!

Truthful version: Mr Oswald is seen carrying a bag towards the building; the person who saw this has consistently insisted the bag was not long enough to be CE142.

 

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.

Amazing,

Richard turns Alan's words "A bag not long enough to be CE142" into "Oswald has a long bag when he enters the TSBD"

And then he wonders why nobody takes him seriously.

And then of course, Richard lies;

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

Oswald was never told "the size estimated by Frazier". If the interrogation reports are to be believed he was merely asked if he had carried a long bag, to which he answered; "no, only a lunch bag"

And then Richard says;

People lie when it is in their own self-interest

Exactly right, Richard, you have just clearly demonstrated that yourself   

[Walt Cakebread]

Amazing,

Richard turns Alan's words "A bag not long enough to be CE142" into "Oswald has a long bag when he enters the TSBD"

And then he wonders why nobody takes him seriously.

And then of course, Richard lies;

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

Oswald was never told "the size estimated by Frazier". If the interrogation reports are to be believed he was merely asked if he had carried a long bag, to which he answered; "no, only a lunch bag"

And then Richard says;

People lie when it is in their own self-interest

Exactly right, Richard, you have just clearly demonstrated that yourself   

NOW? what are you going to do with the skunk, Martin.... You've caught him by the tail ....but now what?

[Richard Smith]

Amazing,

Richard turns Alan's words "A bag not long enough to be CE142" into "Oswald has a long bag when he enters the TSBD"

And then he wonders why nobody takes him seriously.

And then of course, Richard lies;

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

Oswald was never told "the size estimated by Frazier". If the interrogation reports are to be believed he was merely asked if he had carried a long bag, to which he answered; "no, only a lunch bag"

And then Richard says;

People lie when it is in their own self-interest

Exactly right, Richard, you have just clearly demonstrated that yourself   

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.

[Oscar Navarro]

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.

[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".