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

[Martin Weidmann]

Thank you for this very ample reply, Mr Weidman, it's appreciated! 

Now!

It may well be that Mr Frazier felt the paper was more "crinkly", and that his impression (based on casual sighting of the bag) was correct.
-------------------I.e. it may well be that CE-142 is not the bag he saw Mr Oswald bring to work that morning.

However! There is also this in the Odum-McNeely report of 2 Dec which you cite:

[H]e now realizes that his conclusion that the sack was thin, crinkly paper, of the type used in Five and Ten Cent stores, was based to a considerable extent upon the fact that the color of the sack was a very light brown as compared with the type of dark brown paper used for heavier grocery sacks. He noted that the color of the replica sack was the same color as the package which he had seen in possession of Oswald on the morning of November 22, 1963

Not a direct quote from Mr Frazier, I'll readily grant you! But...

During his Warren Commission testimony, Mr Frazier is shown an untreated (i.e. non-discolored) part of CE-142:

Mr. BALL - Is that similar to the color of the bag you saw in the back seat of your car that morning?
Mr. FRAZIER - It would be, surely it could have been, and it couldn't have been. Like I say, see, you know this color, either one of these colors, is very similar to the type of paper that you can get out of a store or anything like that, and so I say it could have been and then it couldn't have been.
Mr. BALL - Do you mean by that that it is similar to the color?
Mr. FRAZIER - Right.
Mr. BALL - And do you have a definite memory of the color of the bag you saw on the back seat of your car so that you can distinguish between one color and another?
Mr. FRAZIER - I believe it would be more on this basis here.
Mr. BALL - You say it would be more on the color of bag No. 364, is that right?
Mr. FRAZIER - Right.

I don't think we can rule out Mr Frazier's having seen Mr Oswald with CE-142 that morning-----at least not until we have at least tried to account for the serious discrepancy in described length between it and the bag Mr Frazier and Ms Randle described.

Now! I believe we can account for this discrepancy, and in a way that blows the official story to smithereens.

And so-----I urge caution! It may well be that, in dismissing CE-142 as the bag Mr Oswald brought to work that morning, we are potentially dismissing a powerfully eloquent clue as to how Mr Oswald was framed for involvement in the assassination!

I am not sure I follow the last part of your post. How could CE-142 being the bag Oswald carried (if that's what happened) be a clue to how he was framed?

[Alan Ford]

I am not sure I follow the last part of your post. How could CE-142 being the bag Oswald carried (if that's what happened) be a clue to how he was framed?

Because it is a bag
--------------large enough to contain curtain rods
and
--------------large enough to contain a dissassembled Carcano!

 

[Walt Cakebread]

Citation, please! 

I can't put my finger on it at the moment ....  Perhaps it's in Fraziers testimony...  I'm certain that Frazier was quoted as saying that the bag they displayed to him while he was in the polygraph room was NOT the bag that he saw Lee carry that morning...and he went on to say that not only was the bag much bigger than Lee's sack....It was constructed from heavy weight paper while Lee's sack was constructed from flimsy light weight paper.

[Alan Ford]

I can't put my finger on it at the moment ....  Perhaps it's in Fraziers testimony...  I'm certain that Frazier was quoted as saying that the bag they displayed to him while he was in the polygraph room was NOT the bag that he saw Lee carry that morning...and he went on to say that not only was the bag much bigger than Lee's sack....It was constructed from heavy weight paper while Lee's sack was constructed from flimsy light weight paper.

See my reply to Mr Weidmann above! 

[Martin Weidmann]

Because it is a bag
--------------large enough to contain curtain rods
and
--------------large enough to contain a dissassembled Carcano!

 

Sorry, still don't follow.

Btw I don't think there was a broken down rifle in the bag Oswald carried simply because I seriously doubt, for a number of reasons, there actually was a rifle belonging to Oswald stored in Ruth Paine's garage.

Also, Oswald is supposed to have carried that rifle on public transport several times (the Walker shooting and his trip to New Orleans). He must have used something to conceal the weapon on those occassions. So, why would he have to make a paper bag now when an inconspicuous duffel bag would have sufficed? It makes no sense to me at all, that Oswald would suddenly feel the need to make a paper bag at the TSBD and risk being seen when other, far easier, alternatives would have been available to him.

[Alan Ford]

Sorry, still don't follow.

Btw I don't think there was a broken down rifle in the bag Oswald carried [...]

Neither do I---the bag seen by Mr Frazier and Ms Randle was too short, but it was too short by a very interesting number of inches!

[Walt Cakebread]

See my reply to Mr Weidmann above! 

 I believe we can account for this discrepancy, and in a way that blows the official story to smithereens.

And so-----I urge caution! It may well be that, in dismissing CE-142 as the bag Mr Oswald brought to work that morning, we are potentially dismissing a powerfully eloquent clue as to how Mr Oswald was framed for involvement in the assassination!

HUH??.... I'm spinning my wheels trying to get traction, and move forward.   What the hell are you talkin about?