Et tu, Bonnie?

[Colin Crow]

"Kind of" and "sort of".  Those are fairly imprecise descriptions.  But why would it preclude CE 142 as the bag?  It seems like asking for an image of the bag prior to it being found is an impossible standard of proof since there is no such image.  But that doesn't preclude it from being the bag.  The DPD searched the bag for evidence before any image of it was taken.  The first photo shows it in a fully extended state after that search.  Not as Oswald carried it that day.  That bag clearly has fold marks on it.

It has fold marks and is folded and sealed at one end. The other end had no such fold. The longest part of unassembled rifle was just under 35" in length, how long was the bag?

[Richard Smith]

It has fold marks and is folded and sealed at one end. The other end had no such fold. The longest part of unassembled rifle was just under 35" in length, how long was the bag?

The Dan Rather video shows how the bag could have been carried.  I'm not sure why you believe the condition of the other end somehow precludes it from being the bag Oswald carried.  The witness description is vague "kind of" and "sort of."  The level of detail on the photos doesn't make the condition of the bag obvious and that end of the bag does appear to have been crumpled as though wrapped or folded around the end of the rifle as shown in the Rather video.  Nothing about the condition of CE 142 precludes it from having been used to carry the rifle.  To the contrary, it has Oswald's prints on it.  No one else who ever worked in the TSBD claimed the bag or accounted for it being there. It appears to be a singular type bag for that building as no other such bag is shown in any photos or was apparently discovered.  There is no doubt this is bag Oswald carried that morning. 

[Martin Weidmann]

I'm waiting for the lightning to strike.  This from the guy who suggests over and over again that every witness in this case was wrong or lied when came to evidence of Oswald's guilt.  But here we are lectured on the importance of witnesses where a witness describes his recollection of how someone carried a package that he had little cause to notice while walking some distance BEHIND him and it is deemed gospel.  And the actual bag is discounted for some unknown reason despite having Oswald's prints on it and being found next to the SN boxes also with Oswald's prints on them along with fired bullet casings from Oswald's rifle.  With no work-related purpose or explanation for that bag to be there.  No one else who worked in that building ever explained the presence of the bag in that location or claimed ownership of it.  It just magically appears there without explanation in the contrarian fantasy world.  And instead what is important is how Oswald is described as carrying his bag from a distance.  The Dan Rather/CBS video on You Tube shows how the bag might have appeared as carried by Oswald and how Frazier might easily have been mistaken.

This from the guy who suggests over and over again that every witness in this case was wrong or lied when came to evidence of Oswald's guilt.

Stop making up lies. I have never suggested anything of the kind

But here we are lectured on the importance of witnesses where a witness describes his recollection of how someone carried a package that he had little cause to notice while walking some distance BEHIND him and it is deemed gospel.

Frazier's observation is a lot more solid than you want it to be, but it's no more gospel than Brennan's identification of the man in the window, or than Roberts' claim that Oswald left the roominghouse wearing a jacket.

And the actual bag is discounted for some unknown reason despite having Oswald's prints on it and being found next to the SN boxes also with Oswald's prints on them along with fired bullet casings from Oswald's rifle. 

You assume it's the "actual bag" but you can not prove it. Your opinion is of no value.

"Oswald's rifle" LOL

And instead what is important is how Oswald is described as carrying his bag from a distance. 

Frazier saw Oswald put the package in the cup of his hand and under his armpit. He could only have seen that if he was facing Oswald. And that wasn't from a distance!

The Dan Rather/CBS video on You Tube shows how the bag might have appeared as carried by Oswald and how Frazier might easily have been mistaken.

Might have appeared? It's one of the most deceitful videos of the entire case. The package that Rather was holding was tightly wrapped and in no way similar to the bag the witnesses saw. The only purpose was to make the part allegedly sticking out over his shoulder as small as it could be. Another pathetic attempt to explain away the problems with the bag is to claim that Frazier only saw Oswald from behind which is simply not true.

So many lies and half-truths in one post and still "Richard" is surprised that nobody believes a word he says.

[Martin Weidmann]

The Dan Rather video shows how the bag could have been carried.  I'm not sure why you believe the condition of the other end somehow precludes it from being the bag Oswald carried.  The witness description is vague "kind of" and "sort of."  The level of detail on the photos doesn't make the condition of the bag obvious and that end of the bag does appear to have been crumpled as though wrapped or folded around the end of the rifle as shown in the Rather video.  Nothing about the condition of CE 142 precludes it from having been used to carry the rifle.  To the contrary, it has Oswald's prints on it.  No one else who ever worked in the TSBD claimed the bag or accounted for it being there. It appears to be a singular type bag for that building as no other such bag is shown in any photos or was apparently discovered.  There is no doubt this is bag Oswald carried that morning.

The witness description is vague "kind of" and "sort of."

Right who needs witnesses when you can go with "the bag could have been carried" 

Nothing about the condition of CE 142 precludes it from having been used to carry the rifle.

Except for the fact that the witnesses who saw that bag Oswald carried and denied CE 142 is it..... A minor detail, right?

There is no doubt this is bag Oswald carried that morning.

Only in the mind of a fanatical LN fool who ignores the evidence.

[Dan O'meara]

From the first day affidavit.

"It must have been about 2' long, and the top of the sack was sort of folded up, and the rest of the sack had been kind of folded under."

Whatever your interpretation of his description, can you provide any image of the bag known as CE 142 that could match it?

I assume the lighter paper is the top flap that closes over the open end of the makeshift bag.
If the bag is folded as Frazier reports - top flap closed and part of the bag folded under - it is clearly not long enough to hold a rifle, assembled or not.
If the bottom part of the bag is folded at the closest crease to the bottom, the bag appears, from some very rough measurements I've just done, to be the perfect length to carry a set of the curtain rods found in the Paine garage.

[Colin Crow]

The Dan Rather video shows how the bag could have been carried.  I'm not sure why you believe the condition of the other end somehow precludes it from being the bag Oswald carried.  The witness description is vague "kind of" and "sort of."  The level of detail on the photos doesn't make the condition of the bag obvious and that end of the bag does appear to have been crumpled as though wrapped or folded around the end of the rifle as shown in the Rather video.  Nothing about the condition of CE 142 precludes it from having been used to carry the rifle.  To the contrary, it has Oswald's prints on it.  No one else who ever worked in the TSBD claimed the bag or accounted for it being there. It appears to be a singular type bag for that building as no other such bag is shown in any photos or was apparently discovered.  There is no doubt this is bag Oswald carried that morning.

How long was the bag?

[Colin Crow]

I assume the lighter paper is the top flap that closes over the open end of the makeshift bag.
If the bag is folded as Frazier reports - top flap closed and part of the bag folded under - it is clearly not long enough to hold a rifle, assembled or not.
If the bottom part of the bag is folded at the closest crease to the bottom, the bag appears, from some very rough measurements I've just done, to be the perfect length to carry a set of the curtain rods found in the Paine garage.

Dan I believe there is not a fold at the very left end, merely one side of the open end of the bag curled away from the rest. Can anyone see any evidence that the open end was ever sealed?

[Dan O'meara]

How long was the bag?

I make it about 37" with the top flap closed