The Brown Paper Bag

[Martin Weidmann]

It doesn't surprise me at all that Frazier has convinced himself that the bag did not contain a rifle and Oswald was not the shooter. That must have been a terrible thing for a 19 year old to have to live with, knowing he had unwittingly driven a presidential assassin to the scene of his crime. As more and more people began to dispute Oswald was the assassin, it gave Frazier a reason to relieve himself of that burden. I can understand why he would eagerly want to believe he was not an unknowing accessory to the crime.

It doesn't surprise me at all that Frazier has convinced himself that the bag did not contain a rifle

Frazier didn't need to convince himself of anything. He knew from day one that the bag he saw Oswald carry in the cup of his hand and below his armpit wasn't big enough to conceal a rifle.

He also knew that the bag Oswald carried was the kind you get from a supermarket and not one made from heavy duty wrapping paper. That's why he instantly denied that the bag they showed him on Friday evening wasn't the bag he had seen Oswald carry.

Ever since that first day the LNs and the WC before them have been trying to discredit Frazier with all sorts of pathetic claims, but despite all that he is today still just as sure as he was on the first day that the bag Oswald carried wasn't big enough to conceal a rifle. And if you don't believe me, than ask Frazier himself, as I have!

[Bill Brown]

It doesn't surprise me at all that Frazier has convinced himself that the bag did not contain a rifle

Frazier didn't need to convince himself of anything. He knew from day one that the bag he saw Oswald carry in the cup of his hand and below his armpit wasn't big enough to conceal a rifle.

He also knew that the bag Oswald carried was the kind you get from a supermarket and not one made from heavy duty wrapping paper. That's why he instantly denied that the bag they showed him on Friday evening wasn't the bag he had seen Oswald carry.

Ever since that first day the LNs and the WC before them have been trying to discredit Frazier with all sorts of pathetic claims, but despite all that he is today still just as sure as he was on the first day that the bag Oswald carried wasn't big enough to conceal a rifle. And if you don't believe me, than ask Frazier himself, as I have!

In October of '64, Frazier was clearly saying that the rifle was in the bag.  You don't have to like it.

[Martin Weidmann]

In October of '64, Frazier was clearly saying that the rifle was in the bag.  You don't have to like it.

Sure, Bill... Whatever you say, Bill.  Pffffff

It makes of course complete sense (not) for Frazier to deny that the bag was large enough to conceal a rifle from day one, then suddenly sign an "affidavit" saying the opposite and then go back to maintain his old position for the next 60 years.

But as you believe the WC BS, we already know that you are easily fooled, so why wouldn't you believe this nonsense as well, right?

[John Mytton]

Sure, Bill... Whatever you say, Bill.  Pffffff

It makes of course complete sense (not) for Frazier to deny that the bag was large enough to conceal a rifle from day one, then suddenly sign an "affidavit" saying the opposite and then go back to maintain his old position for the next 60 years.

But as you believe the WC BS, we already know that you are easily fooled, so why wouldn't you believe this nonsense as well, right?

...and then go back to maintain his old position for the next 60 years.

I can't blame him, you conspiracy Kooks theorists are psychotic and have badgered Frazier continually, as you say "for the next 60 years", he had no choice, otherwise you people would have made his life HELL!

JohnM

[Michael Capasse]

In October of '64, Frazier was clearly saying that the rifle was in the bag.  You don't have to like it.

Never said it before and hasn't said it since.
Lame.

[Martin Weidmann]

Never said it before and hasn't said it since.
Lame.

It merely shows the level of desperation at the LN side. They know they can't win the argument by debate and honest treatment of the evidence, so they come up with crap like this.

LNs never back up the bogus claims they make. Bill Brown is not going to produce a confirmation of Buell Frazier because he will never get one.

[Dan O'meara]

The issue is not the length of the paper bag - it's the length of the object in the bag.
Both Randle and Frazier report Oswald carrying the package in incredibly specific ways that, if taken at face value, make it impossible for the object in the paper bag to be a rifle, disassembled or not.
Frazier has the object cupped in Oswald's hand and held under his armpit.
Randle seems to describe Oswald carrying the object down by his side, almost touching the ground.
It doesn't matter what guesses Frazier and Randall made about the length of the package.
What matters is the way they describe the object being held as this sets a limit on how long the object can be.
For a man of Oswald's physical stature, it is physically impossible for him to be carrying a 34.8 inch disassembled rifle in the ways described by Frazier and Randle.
At a guess, the object must be somewhere between 24 - 28 inches in order to be carried in the ways Frazier and Randle describe.
If not a rifle, what can this object possibly be, as it is clearly not Oswald's lunch bag?