Then went inside with the curtain rods

[Richard Smith]

Repeating the same crap over and over again isn't going to yield a different response.

It is absurd to suggest that this bag was used for any purpose except to carry the rifle.

It is absurd to suggest that this bag was used to carry the rifle, when you haven't got a shred of evidence for it. Your opinions aren't evidence.

Have you figured out already who the other prints found on the bag belong to?

Do you believe that bag was used in the ordinary course of TSBD business to wrap books or not?  It's a simple question.

[Martin Weidmann]

Do you believe that bag was used in the ordinary course of TSBD business to wrap books or not?  It's a simple question.

The honest answer is that I have no idea, and nor do you! Although it seems unlikely that the purpose of the bag was to wrap books. It doesn't even matter, because if the bag was not used for ordinary TSBD business, it still doesn't mean that it must have have been used to bring in the MC rifle.

Unless you can show that the bag was used to bring in the MC rifle, all you have is an insignificant bag, made from TSBD materials and found at the TSBD, with multiple unidentified prints on it and allegedly two prints belonging to Oswald, who happened to work at the TSBD.

So, before you start jumping to flawed conclusions, you might want to consider the possibility that somebody else, other than Oswald, made the bag, for whatever reason, and that some of the other prints got on the bag when people picked it up to move it. You also may want to consider why Lt Day made a duplicate bag and who sent a similar bag in the mail to Oswald at a non-existing address.

[Steve M. Galbraith]

Do you believe that bag was used in the ordinary course of TSBD business to wrap books or not?  It's a simple question.

Crist, the lengths these people will go to to defend Oswald is endless. There is no absurdity they won't use to defend another absurdity.

If you apply their standards to any other historic event, to any other person accused of a crime, then it would be literally impossible to make any judgments or conclusions about what happened. As you've suggested, nobody really saw Boothe shoot Lincoln. Maybe he was escaping because he was framed? Who says he wrote THAT diary? It could have been planted. The shooter was actually Lincoln's guard. Maybe this and maybe that and just complete fantasies.

If someone doesn't want to believe in something then it is impossible to change their state of mind. They will just deny whatever is claimed, just give an absurd alternate explanation for whatever is presented and, presto!, the event disappears.

[Alan Ford]

Didja' ever notice that Mr Galbraith runs away from the challenge of explaining this document? Every single time.

Bumped for the ever-smug and ever-chicken Mr Galbraith! 

[Martin Weidmann]

Crist, the lengths these people will go to to defend Oswald is endless. There is no absurdity they won't use to defend another absurdity.

If you apply their standards to any other historic event, to any other person accused of a crime, then it would be literally impossible to make any judgments or conclusions about what happened. As you've suggested, nobody really saw Boothe shoot Lincoln. Maybe he was escaping because he was framed? Who says he wrote THAT diary? It could have been planted. The shooter was actually Lincoln's guard. Maybe this and maybe that and just complete fantasies.

If someone doesn't want to believe in something then it is impossible to change their state of mind. They will just deny whatever is claimed, just give an absurd alternate explanation for whatever is presented and, presto!, the event disappears.

Another pathetic whine. This is not about defending Oswald. It's about the veracity and validity of the evidence (read; assumptions) people like you present as if they are fact, when in truth you've got nothing to support whatever claim you're making against Oswald.

Your comparision with the Lincoln murder is as naive as it is misplaced.

If someone doesn't want to believe in something then it is impossible to change their state of mind.

Speak for yourself! The fact that you believe something doesn't mean it's true. It's easier to fool somebody than convince them they have been fooled.

They will just deny whatever is claimed, just give an absurd alternate explanation for whatever is presented and, presto!, the event disappears.

Disappearing events due to denial? Really? Are you serious.... This is not about making events disappear (whatever the hell than means). It's about the (lack of) quality of the evidence. Perhaps you long for the days that a simple accusation was enough to get a man hanged, but those who, unlike you, live in the present understand that you can not make stuff up and accuse somebody without evidence.

Instead of constantly complaining how people do not take your word for it that Oswald is guilty, why don't you try for once to actually answer a question asked about the "evidence"?

[Bill Chapman]

Crist, the lengths these people will go to to defend Oswald is endless. There is no absurdity they won't use to defend another absurdity.

If you apply their standards to any other historic event, to any other person accused of a crime, then it would be literally impossible to make any judgments or conclusions about what happened. As you've suggested, nobody really saw Boothe shoot Lincoln. Maybe he was escaping because he was framed? Who says he wrote THAT diary? It could have been planted. The shooter was actually Lincoln's guard. Maybe this and maybe that and just complete fantasies.

If someone doesn't want to believe in something then it is impossible to change their state of mind. They will just deny whatever is claimed, just give an absurd alternate explanation for whatever is presented and, presto!, the event disappears.

Are you sure these oswald-loving barrister-wannabes are worthy of anything more than mockery?

[Bill Chapman]

Bla bla bla... All you've got is opinions.

In the form of good-natured insights. Clever, cut-to-the-quick insights I might add. While you lot remain terminally grumpy. With faces buried in seemingly endless word-smorgasbords.

[Bill Chapman]

Oswald bag for wrapping long thin books

That's not Oswald's bag. Buell Frazier, the only witness who saw the bag, denied on Friday evening 11/22/63 that this was not the bag he had seen Oswald carry and he is still saying the same thing to this day.

Stop making up stuff!

Buell said that he didn't want to be remembered as the one who drove Oswald to work.