The Brown Paper Bag

[John Corbett]

JC-

Verily, on the two trips necessary to move the M-C rifle from the Paine residence to the TSBD, if done in stages.

I concede that.

OTOH, the Dallas Morning News reported on Sept. 25 that JFK would visit Dallas on 11.22. By all accounts LHO was an avid reader of news, and a political student.

LHO is reported to have scoped out rooftop vantage points along Elm St., pre-11.22

In other words, LHO may have been planning or pondering whether to assassinate JFK in the month before 11.22, maybe from the TSBD, or maybe somewhere else, which ever was most propitious. The cavernous TSBD, with plenty of hiding spots, was a good place to cache the M-C, in any event.

So LHO moved the rifle in, but in parts. Maybe the barrel inside a pant leg.

My guess is LHO was part of the JFKA...what part, I can't tell you.

Dan Rather with that bag...I dunno. Great clip though.

I can tell you what part played in the JFKA. He did it all by himself. It was a one man operation and there is no evidence anybody else took part.

Oswald wasn't hired by the TSBD until October 15. No motorcade was planned until the White House agreed to make the Texas trip a two day affair. There wouldn't have been time for one if the Kennedys were only going to spend one day in the state. The motorcade route wasn't determined until the luncheon site was selected. The motorcade route was determined by the selection of the Trade Mart for the luncheon and that didn't happen until November 14. The route wasn't made public until November 18. Oswald could not have known before then of the opportunity fate had dealt him. On top of that, why would Oswald have bothered bringing the barrel in on a separate trip and risk having it discovered. The barrel was the shorter of the two pieces and would easily fit in the bag.

Nothing you have suggested makes the least bit of sense.

[John Corbett]

I have to believe the reason for his special trip to Irving on Thursday night was to retrieve something he needed on Friday.

The only reason that you "have to believe" that is because it fits with your preconceived opinion.

It doesn't take Sherlock Holmes to figure out what that something was.

True. All it really takes is a massive amount of assumption and speculation.

All it takes is a look at the forensic evidence and apply common sense. The bag had Oswald's palm and fingerprint on it. It contained fibers that matched the blanket Oswald used to store his rifle in the Paine's garage.

I'd love to hear a plausible alternative explanation for the known evidence from you but I know I won't because there isn't one.

[Martin Weidmann]

All it takes is a look at the forensic evidence and apply common sense. The bag had Oswald's palm and fingerprint on it. It contained fibers that matched the blanket Oswald used to store his rifle in the Paine's garage.

I'd love to hear a plausible alternative explanation for the known evidence from you but I know I won't because there isn't one.

All it takes is a look at the forensic evidence and apply common sense.

What "forensic evidence" are you talking about?

Can you prove that there was a rifle in Ruth Paine's garage on 11/22/63 and that Oswald took it? No, you can't!

Common sense is just another way of saying "I don't have evidence, but my speculation is good enough".

The bag had Oswald's palm and fingerprint on it.

Did it? And if so, Oswald's prints are also all over Frazier's car. Does than mean he owns that car? I'm sure you can make a "common sense" argument to "prove" it does!

It contained fibers that matched the blanket Oswald used to store his rifle in the Paine's garage.

There is no such thing as matching fibers in forensic science. "Look similar" is the best you will get and that's simply not good enough.

I'd love to hear a plausible alternative explanation for the known evidence from you but I know I won't because there isn't one.

And there is the classic LN's "I'm right unless you can prove me wrong" BS.

Why in the world should anybody have to present a "plausible alternative explanation" when you can't place a rifle in Ruth Paine's garage on 11/22/63, when you can't show that it was the same rifle that was found at the TSBD and when you can only speculate about what was in the paper bag Frazier saw Oswald carry. A paper bag btw that Frazier too this day still says wasn't big enough to contain a broken down rifle.

Just like every other LN you are all over the place and confuse assumption and speculation with actual conclusive evidence!

[Tom Graves]

All it takes is a look at the forensic evidence and apply common sense.

What "forensic evidence" are you talking about?

Can you prove that there was a rifle in Ruth Paine's garage on 11/22/63 and that Oswald took it? No, you can't!

Common sense is just another way of saying "I don't have evidence, but my speculation is good enough".

The bag had Oswald's palm and fingerprint on it.

Did it? And if so, Oswald's prints are also all over Frazier's car. Does than mean he owns that car? I'm sure you can make a "common sense" argument to "prove" it does!

It contained fibers that matched the blanket Oswald used to store his rifle in the Paine's garage.

There is no such thing as matching fibers in forensic science. "Look similar" is the best you will get and that's simply not good enough.

I'd love to hear a plausible alternative explanation for the known evidence from you but I know I won't because there isn't one.

And there is the classic LN's "I'm right unless you can prove me wrong" BS.

Why in the world should anybody have to present a "plausible alternative explanation" when you can't place a rifle in Ruth Paine's garage on 11/22/63, when you can't show that it was the same rifle that was found at the TSBD and when you can only speculate about what was in the paper bag Frazier saw Oswald carry. A paper bag btw that Frazier too this day still says wasn't big enough to contain a broken down rifle.

Just like every other LN you are all over the place and confuse assumption and speculation with actual conclusive evidence!

Dear Martin,

How can you be so right about Donald Trump, and so wrong about the JFKA?

-- Tom

[John Corbett]

All it takes is a look at the forensic evidence and apply common sense.

What "forensic evidence" are you talking about?

Can you prove that there was a rifle in Ruth Paine's garage on 11/22/63 and that Oswald took it? No, you can't!

Common sense is just another way of saying "I don't have evidence, but my speculation is good enough".

The bag had Oswald's palm and fingerprint on it.

Did it? And if so, Oswald's prints are also all over Frazier's car. Does than mean he owns that car? I'm sure you can make a "common sense" argument to "prove" it does!

It contained fibers that matched the blanket Oswald used to store his rifle in the Paine's garage.

There is no such thing as matching fibers in forensic science. "Look similar" is the best you will get and that's simply not good enough.

I'd love to hear a plausible alternative explanation for the known evidence from you but I know I won't because there isn't one.

And there is the classic LN's "I'm right unless you can prove me wrong" BS.

Why in the world should anybody have to present a "plausible alternative explanation" when you can't place a rifle in Ruth Paine's garage on 11/22/63, when you can't show that it was the same rifle that was found at the TSBD and when you can only speculate about what was in the paper bag Frazier saw Oswald carry. A paper bag btw that Frazier too this day still says wasn't big enough to contain a broken down rifle.

Just like every other LN you are all over the place and confuse assumption and speculation with actual conclusive evidence!

This is a classic example of conspiracy hobbyists making excuses to dismiss the damning evidence of Oswald's guilt. They can't explain the evidence to make the case for Oswald's innocence so they try to explain it away. One of their favorite ploys is to attack each piece of evidence individually rather than look at the body of evidence as a whole. When you do the latter, there can be no other plausible explanation than Oswald brought the rifle to work and used it to kill JFK.

You ask why anybody would have to present an "alternative plausible explanation". Well, if you want to make the case for conspiracy, that would be nice.  I'm not even asking you to prove how it happened. Just tell us another way it could have happened. There simply is no plausible alternative. if there was, some conspiracy hobbyist would have found one after 62 years. But of course, there is no plausible alternative to the conclusion that Oswald was the assassin.

I've served on four juries, two criminal and two civil. In each case, the judge instructed the jury to make logical inferences from the evidence presented.
This is how that process would apply to the JFKA.

Given that:
3 shells were found at the location where a shooter was seen and
a fragmented bullet was found in the limo and an intact bullet was found at the hospital where the shooting victims were taken and
all the shells and bullets were positively matched to a rifle found on the 6th floor of the TSBD and
the rifle had Oswald's palm print on it and
there were fibers on the butt plate of the rifle that matched the shirt Oswald was wearing that day and
and a bag was found near the shooter's location with Oswald's prints on it and fibers matching the blanket in Ruth Paine's garage and
Marina said Oswald kept his rifle wrapped in the blanket in Ruth Paine's garage and
there is a paper trail establishing that Oswald bought the rifle by mail from Klein's Sporting Goods Co. and
there were pictures taken of Oswald with the rifle and
Oswald's fingerprints were found on the boxes stacked at the shooters window oriented as they would be if he was facing down Elm Street
the ONLY logical inference that can be made is that Oswald brought the rifle to work and assassinated JFK with it. And we haven't even talked about the evidence that he killed Tippit.

No one piece of evidence by itself proves Oswald's guilt but collectively, the body of evidence leaves no doubt. The case against Oswald is greater than the some of its parts. It is absurd to think you could have all that evidence pointing to Oswald's guilt if he were actually innocent. That is how logical inferences are arrived at. An alternative explanation might be plausible for any one piece of evidence, but when you have to stretch for alternatives for each and every piece of evidence, reasonable doubt vanishes.

Since you brought up Frazier's description of the bag, Frazier never measured the bag. Tbe bag was measured by investigators and found to be long enough to hold a disassembled Carcano. Frazier could only estimate the size of the bag by glancing at it over his shoulder. At the time he saw the bag, he would have no reason to think the size of the bag would become important. The estimate he gave was based on memory. He was not asked to estimate the size of bag when he was observing it. But just for grins, let's say that the bag found in the TSBD was not the same bag Frazier saw. We can make two logical inferences from that. One is that the bag Frazier saw Oswald bring into the TSBD disappeared without a trace, despite a thorough search of the TSBD. The other is that at some other time, Oswald brought a different bag into the TSBD and that bag was long enough to hold a disassemble Carcano rifle.

If juries routinely applied the same thought process to the evidence in other criminal cases that conspiracy hobbyists apply to the evidence against Oswald in the JFKA, few if any people would ever be convicted. If they dreamed up the kind of silly excuses that conspiracy hobbyists do to disregard the evidence of Oswald's guilt, every criminal defendant would walk. There is no reasonable doubt of Oswald's guilt in either the murder of JFK or the murder of JDT. To anyone who is famliar with the evidence against Oswald and is capable of thinking logically there is no doubt at all.

[Benjamin Cole]

JC-

I dunno.

There are so many witnesses to the smoke-and-bang show at the GK, and the 100% telltale smell of gunsmoke in that area in the immediate aftermath of the JFKA, that I have to suspect there was at least a diversion from the GK.

So, at a minimum, that is a party of two in the JFKA.

The entry wound to the volar side of JBC's wrist is inexplicable. Try putting a watch on your right wrist the normal way, and then touching the watch dial to your navel. Dr. Robert Shaw, JBC's surgeon, a someone with a great deal of experience (he treated 700 wartime bullet wound victims) thought it inexplicable JBC's wrist wound resulted from the same bullet that entered JBC's back and existed his front.

As stated, I am of the view JBC was struck ~Z-295 and JFK at Z-313, and that suggests two shooters behind the limo.

I don't think the JFKA required much planning or expertise---that is usually the CT mania, meaning that CIA did it, or Mossad. Maybe LHO's confederates, like LHO, had military training.

LHO got lucky with the final motorcade route. Otherwise, he and a confederate might have taken up positions elsewhere along the motorcade route. Or maybe even dropped the idea.

IMHO, the problem with CT'ers is they insist LHO was totally uninvolved in the JFKA.

The LN'ers insist no one else was involved at all in the JFKA, except LHO. 

I think LHO was involved in the JFKA C.

Just IMHO.

[John Corbett]

JC-

I dunno.

There are so many witnesses to the smoke-and-bang show at the GK, and the 100% telltale smell of gunsmoke in that area in the immediate aftermath of the JFKA, that I have to suspect there was at least a diversion from the GK.

So, at a minimum, that is a party of two in the JFKA.

The entry wound to the volar side of JBC's wrist is inexplicable. Try putting a watch on your right wrist the normal way, and then touching the watch dial to your navel. Dr. Robert Shaw, JBC's surgeon, a someone with a great deal of experience (he treated 700 wartime bullet wound victims) thought it inexplicable JBC's wrist wound resulted from the same bullet that entered JBC's back and existed his front.

As stated, I am of the view JBC was struck ~Z-295 and JFK at Z-313, and that suggests two shooters behind the limo.

I don't think the JFKA required much planning or expertise---that is usually the CT mania, meaning that CIA did it, or Mossad. Maybe LHO's confederates, like LHO, had military training.

LHO got lucky with the final motorcade route. Otherwise, he and a confederate might have taken up positions elsewhere along the motorcade route. Or maybe even dropped the idea.

IMHO, the problem with CT'ers is they insist LHO was totally uninvolved in the JFKA.

The LN'ers insist no one else was involved at all in the JFKA, except LHO. 

I think LHO was involved in the JFKA C.

Just IMHO.

There is no forensic evidence of a shooter from any location other than the sniper's nest in the TSBD. The smell of gunpowder gives us no clue as to where that smell originated. Some people thought the shots sounded like they came from the GK and others thoughtit sounded like it came from the direction of the TSBD. The TSBD earwitnesses are supported by a wealth of forensic evidence found in the TSBD as well as an eyewitness to saw the shooter fire the final shot. There is no corroboration to support the GK earwitnesses. I know which group I'm putting my money on.

Of course LHO was "involved". He was the one who did it. He needed no help and there is no credible evidence he had any.

IMHO your IMHO is FUBAR.

[John Mytton]

JC-

I dunno.

There are so many witnesses to the smoke-and-bang show at the GK, and the 100% telltale smell of gunsmoke in that area in the immediate aftermath of the JFKA, that I have to suspect there was at least a diversion from the GK.

So, at a minimum, that is a party of two in the JFKA.

The entry wound to the volar side of JBC's wrist is inexplicable. Try putting a watch on your right wrist the normal way, and then touching the watch dial to your navel. Dr. Robert Shaw, JBC's surgeon, a someone with a great deal of experience (he treated 700 wartime bullet wound victims) thought it inexplicable JBC's wrist wound resulted from the same bullet that entered JBC's back and existed his front.

As stated, I am of the view JBC was struck ~Z-295 and JFK at Z-313, and that suggests two shooters behind the limo.

I don't think the JFKA required much planning or expertise---that is usually the CT mania, meaning that CIA did it, or Mossad. Maybe LHO's confederates, like LHO, had military training.

LHO got lucky with the final motorcade route. Otherwise, he and a confederate might have taken up positions elsewhere along the motorcade route. Or maybe even dropped the idea.

IMHO, the problem with CT'ers is they insist LHO was totally uninvolved in the JFKA.

The LN'ers insist no one else was involved at all in the JFKA, except LHO. 

I think LHO was involved in the JFKA C.

Just IMHO.

The scenario that you are subscribing too, means that there was shooters behind and in front and since the "conspirators" wanted to have a lone gunman behind, why on Earth would they place any shooter in the front, I'd understand a dozen shooters in the buildings behind but a single shooter in front and the plan is ruined.
But let's look at the evidence of the earwitnesses, the majority of these witnesses heard only 3 shots and the vast majority heard shots from only one direction, now in the echo chamber of Dealey Plaza some witnesses were confused to the actual direction but if they were caught in an actual cross fire this would be immediately apparent. And since we all know that both Kennedy and Connally were struck in the back then we can confirm that ALL the shots came from behind.

The majority of Earwitnesses heard three shots.



Only a tiny fraction heard shots from more than one direction, which effectively rules out the illogical frontal assassin.



JohnM