The Brown Paper Bag

[Michael Capasse]

I didn't ask if you believe Frazier. My question was why you believe him. How can you be sure Frazier got this detail right? What sets Frazier apart that makes his recollections more credible than eyewitnesses as a whole?

Because he was, and still is, absolutely sure of what he saw.
  you're the one trying to distort that

Mr. BALL - You say he had the package under his arm when you saw him?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir.

Mr. BALL - You mean one end of it under the armpit?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir; he had it up just like you stick it right under your arm like that.

Mr. BALL - And he had the lower part--
Mr. FRAZIER - The other part with his right hand.

Mr. BALL - Right hand?
Mr. FRAZIER - Right.

Mr. BALL - He carried it then parallel to his body?
Mr. FRAZIER - Right, straight up and down.

Representative FORD - Under his right arm?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir.

[John Corbett]

Because he was, and still is, absolutely sure of what he saw.
  you're the one trying to distort that

So if somebody just says he's sure he's right, that's good enough for you.

That says a lot about you.

Why don't you tell us the real reason you believe him. You are a conspiracy hobbyist and you want to believe him.

[Michael Capasse]

So if somebody just says he's sure he's right, that's good enough for you.

That says a lot about you.

Why don't you tell us the real reason you believe him. You are a conspiracy hobbyist and you want to believe him.

  Project much?

Two long time consistent problems nutters have never gotten past;

Frazier saw a bag too small to be the rifle.
Frazier refused to identity the bag allegedly found upstairs.

He was sure of both.

[Martin Weidmann]

You say that about most of the things I write.

[qiuote]

You have no evidence whatsoever that the bag found on the 6th floor ever left the TSBD, ever held a broken down rifle (an FBI export could find no markings in the bag that would be expected to be there if a broken down rifle had been in it) or that Oswald carried that bag on Friday morning. All you have are self-serving assumptions you call "forensic evidence". You do understand that with enough assumptions you can make anybody look guilty of anything, right.
[/quote}

The choice seems to be whether Oswald carried one bag into the TSBD that morning and Frazier simply misjudged the length of the bag
                                                                               or
Frazier brought a bag about 2 feet long into the TSBD that morning which disappeared without a trace and at some other time, Oswald carried a 38 inch long bag in the TSBD which was long enough to hold the disassembled rifle and had Oswald's prints on it and fibers matching the blanket Oswald used to wrap his rifle in when it was in the Paine's garage. If you offered that choice to 100 people, you'd be lucky to find two who believed the latter.
 
As I've told you before, the proof is in the entire body of evidence, not treating the bag as a standalone piece of evidence. The explanation that Oswald brought his rifle into the TSBD that morning in the bag Frazier saw dovetails with all the other evidence that indicates Oswald was the shooter. His rifle was the murder weapon. It had his palm print on it. It had fibers matching the shirt he wore that day on the butt plate of the rifle. The rifle was positively matched to the 3 shells in the sniper's nest and the two recovered bullets. Following the assassination, Oswald fled from his workplace, returned to his rooming house to fetch his revolver, shot and killed a cop about 45 minutes after the assassination, fled from that scene and was arrested a short time later in a theater a short distance from the scene of the cop killing with the murder weapon in his possession as well as the same two makes of bullets recovered from the dead cop's body. If you can come up with a plausible explanation for the above evidence that doesn't have Oswald as a double murderer, I'd love to hear it. I've asked that of more conspiracy hobbyists than I can count over the past 35 years and not one has even attempted to offer an alternative explanation that is the least bit plausible. It's easy to offer a plausible alternative for any one piece of evidence which is why the conspiracy hobbyists almost always resort to that ploy. It's impossible to come with a plausible explanation for the entire body of evidence other than the one the WC gave us. I'll predict right now, you won't even try. Prove me wrong.

That's nice but two people can be wrong about a detail just as easily as one can, especially when they live together and have had ample time to discuss what it is they saw. According to FBI Special Agent Bookhout's report of 11/23/63, Randle's estimate of the size of the bag was 3 feet by 6 inches. When testifying before the WC, she indicated Oswald was gripping the bag near the top with part of if folded over his grip. If Oswald's right hand was at the mid-thigh level, there would have to be about 30 inches below the grip to be almost touching the ground. if we add the 30 inches to the amount of the bag that was in his hand and the amount of the bag that was folded over, we are pretty close to 38 inches which was the length of the bag in the TSBD.

The choice seems to be whether Oswald carried one bag into the TSBD that morning and Frazier simply misjudged the length of the bag

Silly "choice" as it seems to be beyond discussion that Oswald carried a bag into the TSBD. It is not about Frazier estimating the length of the bag. He saw the bag being carried by Oswald under his armpit and in the cup of his hand. That's an observation not en estimate. Do you have any idea why Lt Day completely freaked out when Frazier denied the bag shown to him was the one Oswald carried and why did Captain Fritz nearly exploded and hit Frazier. And don't try to tell me that never happened, because there are reports that actually confirmed it!

So, if the question becomes which bag did Oswald carry, the choice is between the flimsy supermarkt bag Frazier said he saw to Fritz on Friday evening or the bag made from heavy duty wrapping paper that has in significant print of Oswald on it.

Frazier brought a bag about 2 feet long into the TSBD that morning which disappeared without a trace and at some other time, What? Frazier also brought in a 2 feet long bag? 

What makes you think the bag Oswald brought into the TSBD disappeared with a trace? They never searched the TSBD for such a bag, so for all you and I know it could have been in a dustbin somewhere.

Oswald carried a 38 inch long bag in the TSBD which was long enough to hold the disassembled rifle and had Oswald's prints on it and fibers matching the blanket Oswald used to wrap his rifle in when it was in the Paine's garage.

This is like a tape recording full of utter BS for which there is no proof on a permanent loop. You can't prove Oswald carried a 38 inch bag, nor can you prove there was a rifle in Ruth Paine's garage on 11/22/63 and I am not even going to discuss the fiber crap again. As for Oswald's print on a bag made at the TSBD, from TSBD materials and found at the TSBD on the same floor Oswald worked that morning, is utterly worthless of anything except perhaps that Oswald must have touched that bag.

If you offered that choice to 100 people, you'd be lucky to find two who believed the latter.

Exactly right. Only die hard LNs would believe the 38 inch bag story, so for once I agree with you. 

Could it be that you don't even know what you have written?

As I've told you before, the proof is in the entire body of evidence, not treating the bag as a standalone piece of evidence.

There is no "body of evidence". All there is, is a bag and a massive amount of assumptions and statements not supported by evidence.

His rifle was the murder weapon.

There is no evidence it was his rifle. All there is, is some questionable evidence for Oswald ordering a rifle from Klein's month earlier.

It had his palm print on it.

Did it? The FBI couldn't find it when their lab examined the weapon only hours after the murder.
The alleged palmprint didn't surface until several days later when Oswald was already in his grave.

It had fibers matching the shirt he wore that day on the butt plate of the rifle.

You don't know and can not prove which shirt Oswald was wearing on Friday morning!

The rifle was positively matched to the 3 shells in the sniper's nest and the two recovered bullets. Following the assassination, Oswald fled from his workplace, returned to his rooming house to fetch his revolver, shot and killed a cop about 45 minutes after the assassination, fled from that scene and was arrested a short time later in a theater a short distance from the scene of the cop killing with the murder weapon in his possession as well as the same two makes of bullets recovered from the dead cop's body. If you can come up with a plausible explanation for the above evidence that doesn't have Oswald as a double murderer, I'd love to hear it. I've asked that of more conspiracy hobbyists than I can count over the past 35 years and not one has even attempted to offer an alternative explanation that is the least bit plausible. It's easy to offer a plausible alternative for any one piece of evidence which is why the conspiracy hobbyists almost always resort to that ploy. It's impossible to come with a plausible explanation for the entire body of evidence other than the one the WC gave us. I'll predict right now, you won't even try.

I thought you said you had a body of evidence, but all you are coming up with are assumptions, speculation and terminology to imply Oswald's guilt. All you have is a contrived story with so many loose ends and holes in it that it falls apart under any kind of light scrutiny. That's why LNs always fail to answer critical questions, as you have been doing the past couple of days!

Prove me wrong.

Don't have to. You can't prove yourself right! You don't get to win by default simply because a question can not be answered to your pathetic standard.

Oh and btw, even if you are given an alternative story you will never accept or believe it anyway.

That's nice but two people can be wrong about a detail just as easily as one can, especially when they live together and have had ample time to discuss what it is they saw.

Ah, so now we have a conspiracy between Frazier and Randle? Oh boy....

According to FBI Special Agent Bookhout's report of 11/23/63, Randle's estimate of the size of the bag was 3 feet by 6 inches.

All through the decades the FBI has already refused to release FD 302 reports because the contain a lot of incorrect information. Randle never saw Bookhout's FB 302 and he could have written anything he liked in it. But none if that is important.

Frazier said he saw Oswald carry the package in the cup of his hand and under his armpit. Randle said she saw Oswald carry it at the top and hanging next to his leg, almost reaching the ground.
Those are no estimates! Just by going by Oswald's size of 5,9 it can easily be determined how long the package maximum could have been. So, why are you now so desperated to revisit the estimation discussion? Perhaps that way you feel you can dismiss the actual evidence more easily?

If Oswald's right hand was at the mid-thigh level, there would have to be about 30 inches below the grip to be almost touching the ground.

"If" doesn't cut it! You have no idea where Oswald's hand was when he carried the package. And even if the package was 30 inches, it still wouldn't have been large enough to conceal a 36" rifle. So, I'm sure where you are going with this. It's a dead end street!

If we add the 30 inches to the amount of the bag that was in his hand and the amount of the bag that was folded over, we are pretty close to 38 inches which was the length of the bag in the TSBD.

Hilarious. They would mean that Oswald had 8 inches of the bag folded up, including six where the barrel of the rifle would have been. Did Oswald fold up the barrel as well? Or you next going to argue the barrel was made out of soft plastic or rubber?

[Martin Weidmann]

So if somebody just says he's sure he's right, that's good enough for you.

That says a lot about you.

Why don't you tell us the real reason you believe him. You are a conspiracy hobbyist and you want to believe him.

Well you constantly say you are right and that's most certainly not good enough.

Frazier has a lot more credibility than you will ever have. He saw the package. All you have is a self-serving theory for which you can offer no proof other than assumption and speculation.