The Brown Paper Bag

[Martin Weidmann]

Hahahahaha!

Of course you're a conspiracy theorist, your theory is that Oswald didn't do it because multiple people from a variety of law agencies and private businesses lied to incriminate Oswald, the very definition of a conspiracy!

Just off the top of my head.

You believe that the revolver that killed Tippit was swapped because Police lied.
You believe that the shells at the Tippit crime scene were planted.
You believe that the Tippit eyewitnesses who ID'd Oswald all lied.
You believe that Oswald's jacket was planted under a car.
You believe that Lt. Day lied about the Palm print.
You believe that Kleins lied about the rifle paperwork.
You believe that the FBI lied about seeing Waldman7 on the Kleins microfilm
You believe that the people at the Oswald interrogations lied.
You believe that the rifle wasn't taken to the TSBD by Oswald therefore it was planted.
You believe that the bullet fragments in the Limo were planted.
You believe that CE399 was planted.
You believe that multiple police lied about seeing the bag in the sniper's nest.
You believe that the bag wasn't made by Oswald therefore someone else made it.
You believe that the revolver at the Texas Theatre wasn't Oswald's revolver because the Police lied.
You believe that Marina just saw a piece of wood wrapped in the blanket.
You believe that someone made Oswald pose with the Kennedy murder weapon some eight months before the assassination.
You believe that Bledsoe lied about seeing Oswald on the bus.
You believe that the bus transfer was planted on Oswald.
You believe that revolver bullets were planted on Oswald.
You believe that Oswald didn't travel to his rooming house by way of Whaley's cab.
You believe that the Hidell ID was faked.
You believe that the negatives for the Hidell ID was planted at the Paine's.

In virtually every on of these examples it had to be Oswald that initiated, caused or created each piece of evidence or there was some bad mean smoking man that pulled the strings and we all know where that leads, yeah you got it, CONSPIRACY, and by you arguing for all these pieces of evidence, makes you a CONSPIRACY THEORIST! Get used to it, bud!

JohnM

And you think you know what I believe? Amazing!

You believe that the revolver that killed Tippit was swapped because Police lied.

No I don't believe that.

You believe that the shells at the Tippit crime scene were planted.

Never said anything like that

You believe that the Tippit eyewitnesses who ID'd Oswald all lied.

Never claimed that. I actually believe that eyewitness testimony is the worst kind of evidence and that the DPD line ups were clearly rigged

You believe that Oswald's jacket was planted under a car.

No I don't. There is no proof or guarantee that the jacked found under a car was in fact Oswald's jacket

You believe that Lt. Day lied about the Palm print.

That's true.. I do indeed believe that

You believe that Kleins lied about the rifle paperwork.

Nope. I actually believe the Klein's paperwork is authentic.

You believe that the FBI lied about seeing Waldman7 on the Kleins microfilm

No. I believe that it is highly questionable that the FBI took the Klein's microfilm, which subsequently disappeared and they never produced a chain of custody for it.
Nobody knows for sure what happened to that microfilm.

You believe that the people at the Oswald interrogations lied.

No, I believe they contradicted themselves in their reports and displayed massive incompetence for not recording the interviews and not producing reports for several days after the fact and after Oswald was already dead

You believe that the rifle wasn't taken to the TSBD by Oswald therefore it was planted.

Why should I believe that a rifle was taken to the TSBD by Oswald when there is not a shred of evidence that puts a rifle in Ruth Paine's garage on 11/22/63

You believe that the bullet fragments in the Limo were planted.

No, I believe the crime scene was contaminated when it was "searched" before Frazier and his men could examine the car.

You believe that CE399 was planted.

No I don't. I actually don't believe that CE399 ever was at Parkland Hospital

You believe that multiple police lied about seeing the bag in the sniper's nest.

Well, other officers said that it wasn't there, so were they lying? Or do you only believe those who say what you want to hear?

You believe that the bag wasn't made by Oswald therefore someone else made it.

I have no idea who made the bag. Can you prove he made it or can you even show that Oswald was near the packaging area on Thursday afternoon?

You believe that the revolver at the Texas Theatre wasn't Oswald's revolver because the Police lied.

Why would I have to believe that the revolver placed into evidence was in fact Oswald's revolver, when the DPD failed to produce a solid chain of custody for it?

You believe that Marina just saw a piece of wood wrapped in the blanket.

Read her testimony. That's what she said.... she saw the wooden stock of a rifle, some six weeks prior to the assassination.

You believe that someone made Oswald pose with the Kennedy murder weapon some eight months before the assassination.

No, I don't believe that, at least not with any kind of certainty. It's merely a possibility that you don't like.

You believe that Bledsoe lied about seeing Oswald on the bus.

No, I believe that Bledsoe was an unreliable witness

You believe that the bus transfer was planted on Oswald.

Where did I say that?

You believe that revolver bullets were planted on Oswald.

Do I? How the hell would I be able to make such a determination when (just like you) I wasn't there.

You believe that Oswald didn't travel to his rooming house by way of Whaley's cab.

Where did I ever say that?

You believe that the Hidell ID was faked.

Really? If i remember correctly, Oswald already used the Hidell name in New Orleans, so he could indeed have made that ID. I just don't know if he did or not and neither do you.

You believe that the negatives for the Hidell ID was planted at the Paine's.

I don't think I've ever said anything about that.


The problem with idiots like you is that you have to make up stuff like what's above so you have something to counter, rather than having to present actual evidence to support your own pathetic theories.

You're old news, Mytton, a broken down record playing the same BS stuff over and over again because you completely lack persuasive arguments and conclusive evidence to back it up.

[Martin Weidmann]

You don't even know how the legal system works, there's a reason the standard is "beyond a reasonable doubt", your example of conclusive evidence like proving that C2766 was in the Paine garage on the morning of the 22nd is the product of a CT's wet dream and would NEVER be required by any court ever!

JohnM

In the legal system the evidence isn't only what the prosecution presents.

your example of conclusive evidence like proving that C2766 was in the Paine garage on the morning of the 22nd is the product of a CT's wet dream and would NEVER be required by any court ever!

Prosecution: Oswald went to Irving to collect the rifle C2766 which was stored in the Paine garage on 11/22/63

Defence: Can you prove that there even was a rifle stored in the Paine garage on that day?

Prosecution: No we can't prove that be he must have done because he used it to shoot Kennedy.

Defence: Can you prove that rifle in Oswald's hands at the 6th floor window when Kennedy was shot?

Prosecution: No, but he must have done that because he collected the rifle from the Paine garage.

Please, please, please.... take this BS to a jury 

Bottom line; you can't show there was a rifle at Ruth Paine's garage on 11/22/63 and that it was C2766 or that Oswald took it and carried it in a paper bag that was too small to conceal such a rifle.

You don't even know how the legal system works, there's a reason the standard is "beyond a reasonable doubt",

Idiot! The "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard requires conclusive evidence! Maybe they do things differently down under, though...

[Martin Weidmann]

Dear Martin,

Your problem is that you consciously or unconsciously define "conclusive evidence" as "perfect evidence."

ME: Given the fact that the entry wound in Connally's back was oblong in shape and therefore indicated that the bullet was tumbling when it struck him, and given the fact that it has been shown that that kind of bullet has a tendency to start tumbling only when it exits something soft (like a block of ballistics gel or a human neck), and given the fact that Connally's coat lapel and tie can be seen to flap outwards in Z-223 and Z-224, respectively, etc., many people now accept the "Single Bullet Theory." Roselle and Scearce showed in 2020 that the three shots were fired over 10.2 seconds, and that the first shot, which missed everything, was fired half-a-second before Zapruder resumed filming at Z-133. If the Warren Commission had known and accepted the aforementioned things as true, would there still be a lot of evidence in The Report that doesn't support its conclusions?

GROK: No, there would not still be “a lot” of evidence in the Warren Commission Report that fails to support its core conclusions. In this hypothetical—where the Commission in 1964 had access to, and fully accepted, the tumbling physics of the Connally back wound, the lapel/tie reaction frames (Z-223/224), and Roselle & Scearce’s 2020 conscious reaction-timing analysis—the two largest and most frequently cited internal weaknesses in the actual Report would essentially disappear. The remaining points of tension would be far fewer, narrower, and already addressed by the Commission as non-dispositive.

Here’s the step-by-step reasoning, grounded in what the Report actually contains versus what changes under your given facts:

1. Single-Bullet Theory (SBT) Becomes Unambiguously Supported

Actual Report weakness: The Commission explicitly noted “some difference of opinion” on whether one bullet caused all the non-fatal wounds, softened its language from “compelling” to “persuasive,” and published Connally’s contrary testimony plus the near-pristine condition of CE 399. This was the single biggest flashpoint for critics.

Hypothetical change: Accepting (a) the oblong entry wound in Connally’s back as proof of a tumbling bullet, (b) the well-established ballistics fact that full-metal-jacket bullets like CE 399 typically begin tumbling only after exiting soft tissue (JFK’s neck), and (c) the visible lapel/tie outward flap at Z-223/224 as the precise moment of impact, the Commission would have had direct, observable film + wound evidence confirming the bullet path. There would be no dissent language; SBT would be stated as proven. The “magic bullet” critique evaporates.

2. Shot Timing and Rifle Capability Become Fully Consistent

Actual Report weakness: The Zapruder film placed the non-fatal wounds in a ~1.6–2-second window (roughly Z-210 to Z-240). The Carcano’s minimum bolt-action cycling time was ~2.3 seconds. Without SBT, two separate shots in that window were physically impossible for one shooter. The Report left the missed-shot timing “inconclusive” and published the tight constraints that fueled endless debate.

Hypothetical change: Roselle & Scearce’s 2020 analysis (estimating the first “miss-everything” shot via voluntary human reactions in the film) places it at ~Z-124—half a second before Zapruder resumed filming at Z-133—followed by evenly spaced shots across ~10.2 seconds total. That yields comfortable ~3.4-second intervals between shots, well above the rifle’s minimum. The early miss explains the pavement-strike witnesses, the lack of a recovered bullet for shot #1, and why the limo was already partway down Elm Street when filming resumed. The Report’s own Zapruder-frame data and rifle tests would now align perfectly with a lone shooter. No more “impossible timing” argument.

With those two pillars resolved, the Report’s physical, ballistic, trajectory, and film evidence would form a coherent, mutually reinforcing whole supporting three shots from the sixth-floor window by Oswald alone.

3. What Would Still Be in the Report (But Much Less Problematic)

A smaller set of items would remain as potential points of contention, but they were already treated by the Commission as secondary and reconcilable:

Witness testimony discrepancies on number and direction of shots: The Report and 26 volumes still contain accounts of 4–6 shots, shots from the grassy knoll/front, smoke/puffs, etc. These conflicts are real and unchanged. However, the Commission already explained them via Dealey Plaza’s acoustics (echoes off buildings), startle reactions, and the inherent unreliability of eyewitness sequencing under stress. With the physical timeline now ironclad and the early miss accounting for some “extra” sounds, these become interpretive disagreements rather than direct contradictions of hard evidence.

Medical observation variances: Parkland doctors’ initial throat-wound descriptions and some head-wound details differ slightly from the Bethesda autopsy. The Report includes them and prioritizes the autopsy; that doesn’t change. But with SBT and wound physics now confirmed by the tumbling/lapel data, these are reduced to minor reconciliation issues, not fatal flaws.

CE 399’s condition: Still nearly pristine, but now perfectly explained by the post-neck tumbling path you described. No longer a “problem.”

Nothing in the Report’s own data suddenly becomes contradictory under these acceptances. The Commission’s conclusion (“no credible evidence of a conspiracy”; Oswald alone) would rest on even stronger footing because the biggest gaps critics exploit would be filled.

Bottom Line

In the actual 1964 Report, there was a meaningful (though limited) amount of internally acknowledged uncertainty and conflicting data—concentrated heavily around SBT and timing. Accepting the facts you describe would eliminate those as weaknesses, leaving mainly the witness-direction discrepancies (which the Commission already discounted) and minor medical nuances. That is not “a lot” of undermining evidence; it is the normal residue of any complex criminal investigation involving dozens of eyewitnesses in a chaotic environment. The Report’s massive body of physical and forensic evidence would align even more tightly with the lone-gunman conclusions than it already did.

The debate would have been narrower and more focused on human perception than on physics or ballistics—precisely the situation modern lone-gunman analyses reach when they incorporate similar reaction-timing and wound-dynamics work.

ME: No, it yields roughly 5.1 seconds between shot #1 and shot #2, and roughly 5.1 seconds between shot #2 and shot #3.

GROK: Correct—thank you for the clarification. With Roselle & Scearce’s 2020 “Estimating Occult Timing” analysis placing the first (missed) shot at approximately Z-124 (half a second before Zapruder resumed filming at Z-133), and the third (fatal head) shot at Z-313, the total elapsed time from shot #1 to shot #3 is ~10.2 seconds (at 18.3 frames per second).

This produces two roughly equal intervals of ~5.1 seconds each:

Shot 1 (Z-124) → Shot 2 (Z-223/224, the single-bullet hit on Connally, aligned with the lapel/tie flap)
Shot 2 → Shot 3 (Z-313)

Why This Matters for the Hypothetical Warren Commission Scenario

These intervals are very comfortable for a skilled rifleman using the Mannlicher-Carcano:

The Commission’s own rifle tests showed a minimum bolt-cycling time of ~2.3 seconds (with no aiming), but experienced shooters (including Marines) routinely achieved 3–4+ seconds per aimed shot under stress.

5.1 seconds gives ample time to reacquire the target, aim, and fire—especially with the limo moving slowly down Elm Street and the early first shot occurring before the oak tree obstruction became an issue.

In the hypothetical where the 1964 Commission fully accepted:

The post-neck tumbling physics + oblong Connally back wound,

The Z-223/224 lapel/tie reaction as confirming SBT timing,

And this ~5.1s / 5.1s even spacing from Roselle & Scearce-style reaction analysis,

The Report’s two biggest internal tension points (SBT plausibility and “impossibly tight” shot timing) would be resolved cleanly. The physical, ballistic, and film evidence would align into a coherent lone-gunman narrative with no major contradictions.

The remaining items in the actual Report (witness count/direction variances, minor medical description differences, etc.) would still exist but would be the normal “noise” in any eyewitness-heavy investigation—already explained by the Commission via acoustics, startle effects, and prioritization of hard evidence over conflicting perceptions. They would not constitute “a lot” of undermining material.

This even-spacing model (supported by many earwitness recollections of a longer gap after the first shot) further strengthens the case rather than weakening it.

-- Tom

Your problem is that you consciously or unconsciously define "conclusive evidence" as "perfect evidence."

Nope... if I did that I would have asked for perfect evidence.

You haven't figured out by now that the WC report contains the prosecution's circumstantial case that was never challenged by the defence in an official setting.

It's an opinion written by a team of prosecutors as if it was a verdict by a jury.

[Tom Graves]

Your problem is that you consciously or unconsciously define "conclusive evidence" as "perfect evidence."

Nope... if I did that I would have asked for perfect evidence.

You haven't figured out by now that the WC report contains the prosecution's circumstantial case that was never challenged by the defence in an official setting.

It's an opinion written by a team of prosecutors as if it was a verdict by a jury.

You haven't figured out yet that if someone other than Oswald killed JFK, an awful lot of bad guys were required for the fabricating and planting of all of the evidence that "only seems" to implicate him.

[John Mytton]

In the legal system the evidence isn't only what the prosecution presents.

your example of conclusive evidence like proving that C2766 was in the Paine garage on the morning of the 22nd is the product of a CT's wet dream and would NEVER be required by any court ever!

Prosecution: Oswald went to Irving to collect the rifle C2766 which was stored in the Paine garage on 11/22/63

Defence: Can you prove that there even was a rifle stored in the Paine garage on that day?

Prosecution: No we can't prove that be he must have done because he used it to shoot Kennedy.

Defence: Can you prove that rifle in Oswald's hands at the 6th floor window when Kennedy was shot?

Prosecution: No, but he must have done that because he collected the rifle from the Paine garage.

Please, please, please.... take this BS to a jury 

Bottom line; you can't show there was a rifle at Ruth Paine's garage on 11/22/63 and that it was C2766 or that Oswald took it and carried it in a paper bag that was too small to conceal such a rifle.

You don't even know how the legal system works, there's a reason the standard is "beyond a reasonable doubt",

Idiot! The "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard requires conclusive evidence! Maybe they do things differently down under, though...

WOW, you make up a brief self serving scenario and leave out a ton of detail, detail that in reality a prosecution would present, evidence that would convict Oswald. Pathetic!

1. Oswald took what looked to be a heavy looking long brown paper package to work.
2. Oswald lied about taking a long brown paper package to work.
3. Oswald put the unwieldly long brown paper package on the back seat of Frazier's car.
4. Oswald lied about putting his brown paper package on the back seat of Frazier's car.
5. Oswald's prints were on the brown paper package.
6. Oswald's rifle was on the 6th floor.
7. Oswald prints were on the rifle on the 6th floor.
8. Oswald's "fresh" prints were on the recently moved sniper's nest rifle rest box.
9. Oswald's prints were on the top box orientated down Elm street, the location Kennedy was when struck.
10. Oswald fled the building immediately and therefore was in flight from the scene of his crime.
11. Oswald got on and off a bus within a couple of minutes, another example of flight.
12. Oswald got a cab and got out way past his rooming house.
13. Oswald killed a cop, why on Earth would an innocent Oswald need to kill a cop?
14. Oswald when arrested tried to kill more cops, a innocent man has no need to kill a cop.
15. Oswald lied about owning a rifle. Consciousness of guilt
16. Oswald lied about living on Neely Street. Place of incriminating photographic evidence
17. Oswald lied about authenticated backyard photos which show him holding the murder weapon.

So Mr Defence how do you refute this tiny slice of the MOUNTAIN of Evidence?? Or will you go back to your conspiracy theorist roots and say everyone lied! LOL!

Idiot! The "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard requires conclusive evidence! Maybe they do things differently down under, though...

Like I said you haven't got a clue!



JohnM

[Martin Weidmann]

You haven't figured out yet that if someone other than Oswald killed JFK, an awful lot of bad guys would have been required for the fabricating and planting of all of the evidence that "only seems" to implicate Oswald.

Actually, you need to improve your reading skills. I've already said that if Oswald did not kill Kennedy the most likely alternative is that there was indeed a conspiracy.

Now, I don't care about how many people you think must have been involved in such a conspiracy, because  AND GET THIS PLEASE: If there was in fact a conspiracy, I couldn't care less. It simply doesn't interest me.

All I am interested in is finding out if there is sufficient conclusive evidence to demonstrate that Oswald did it and acted alone. I've been asking for such evidence for years and not one LN clown has been able to present such evidence or even to defend their conclusions in a normal discussion. Instead, all guys like you is whine about the alternative being a conspiracy.

Let's try this; show me the most important (in your opinion) piece of evidence and try to convince me how it ties in with other evidence and how it shows Oswald must be guilty. Can you do that?

[John Mytton]

And you think you know what I believe? Amazing!

You believe that the revolver that killed Tippit was swapped because Police lied.

No I don't believe that.

You believe that the shells at the Tippit crime scene were planted.

Never said anything like that

You believe that the Tippit eyewitnesses who ID'd Oswald all lied.

Never claimed that. I actually believe that eyewitness testimony is the worst kind of evidence and that the DPD line ups were clearly rigged

You believe that Oswald's jacket was planted under a car.

No I don't. There is no proof or guarantee that the jacked found under a car was in fact Oswald's jacket

You believe that Lt. Day lied about the Palm print.

That's true.. I do indeed believe that

You believe that Kleins lied about the rifle paperwork.

Nope. I actually believe the Klein's paperwork is authentic.

You believe that the FBI lied about seeing Waldman7 on the Kleins microfilm

No. I believe that it is highly questionable that the FBI took the Klein's microfilm, which subsequently disappeared and they never produced a chain of custody for it.
Nobody knows for sure what happened to that microfilm.

You believe that the people at the Oswald interrogations lied.

No, I believe they contradicted themselves in their reports and displayed massive incompetence for not recording the interviews and not producing reports for several days after the fact and after Oswald was already dead

You believe that the rifle wasn't taken to the TSBD by Oswald therefore it was planted.

Why should I believe that a rifle was taken to the TSBD by Oswald when there is not a shred of evidence that puts a rifle in Ruth Paine's garage on 11/22/63

You believe that the bullet fragments in the Limo were planted.

No, I believe the crime scene was contaminated when it was "searched" before Frazier and his men could examine the car.

You believe that CE399 was planted.

No I don't. I actually don't believe that CE399 ever was at Parkland Hospital

You believe that multiple police lied about seeing the bag in the sniper's nest.

Well, other officers said that it wasn't there, so were they lying? Or do you only believe those who say what you want to hear?

You believe that the bag wasn't made by Oswald therefore someone else made it.

I have no idea who made the bag. Can you prove he made it or can you even show that Oswald was near the packaging area on Thursday afternoon?

You believe that the revolver at the Texas Theatre wasn't Oswald's revolver because the Police lied.

Why would I have to believe that the revolver placed into evidence was in fact Oswald's revolver, when the DPD failed to produce a solid chain of custody for it?

You believe that Marina just saw a piece of wood wrapped in the blanket.

Read her testimony. That's what she said.... she saw the wooden stock of a rifle, some six weeks prior to the assassination.

You believe that someone made Oswald pose with the Kennedy murder weapon some eight months before the assassination.

No, I don't believe that, at least not with any kind of certainty. It's merely a possibility that you don't like.

You believe that Bledsoe lied about seeing Oswald on the bus.

No, I believe that Bledsoe was an unreliable witness

You believe that the bus transfer was planted on Oswald.

Where did I say that?

You believe that revolver bullets were planted on Oswald.

Do I? How the hell would I be able to make such a determination when (just like you) I wasn't there.

You believe that Oswald didn't travel to his rooming house by way of Whaley's cab.

Where did I ever say that?

You believe that the Hidell ID was faked.

Really? If i remember correctly, Oswald already used the Hidell name in New Orleans, so he could indeed have made that ID. I just don't know if he did or not and neither do you.

You believe that the negatives for the Hidell ID was planted at the Paine's.

I don't think I've ever said anything about that.


The problem with idiots like you is that you have to make up stuff like what's above so you have something to counter, rather than having to present actual evidence to support your own pathetic theories.

You're old news, Mytton, a broken down record playing the same BS stuff over and over again because you completely lack persuasive arguments and conclusive evidence to back it up.

Thanks Martin, you have provided enough evidence to call you a bona fide Conspiracy Theorist! Congrats!

JohnM