I don't know what the forum record is for most misstatements in one post is, but you have to be close to it if you haven't broken it.
Oswald's print on the bag is not by itself proof of his guilt but it is probative. Rarely is a proof beyond a reasonable doubt made on a single piece of evidence. This is what conspiracy hobbyists (yes, you are one) fail to understand. It is the accumulative effect of all the evidence that erases reasonable doubt, not just in this case but in all cases. When all the arrows are pointing in the same direction, they aren't pointing in the wrong direction. It simply isn't reasonable, plausible, or even possible that all this evidence could be pointing to Oswald's guilt if he were actually innocent.
You seem to think it is significant that nobody saw Oswald make the paper bag. How does that preclude Oswald from having made the paper bag? Did any witness see somebody else making the bag out of TSBD paper? Somebody made that paper bag and did so without being seen by a witness. The forensic evidence makes it highly probative that it was Oswald who made the bag.
The Warren Commission made the case for Oswald's guilt and they provided us with conclusive evidence of that guilt far beyond a reasonable doubt. The fact that unreasonable people choose to dismiss that evidence does not establish reasonable doubt.
I did not speculate that Oswald brought a different bag into the TSBD at some unknown time. I was simply pointing out the logical conundrum you and other conspiracy hobbyists have created for themselves by disputing the bag found in the TSBD after the shooting was the same bag Frazier saw Oswald with. I find it far more likely that the two bags are one and the same but if you insist on claiming there were two different bag, then you have to accept that the bag Frazier saw disappeared without a trace and that another bag bearing Oswald's prints, long enough to hold the disassembled rifle, and containing fibers matching his rifle blanket was brought into the TSBD at some unknown time. Those are the logical choices you have. Which one do you want to go with. If you think there is a third option, please explain to us what that is.
You question why Frazier didn't see the bag when he took Oswald to Irving on Thursday evening. The bag had numerous creases in it indicating it had been folded up. It would be easy to conceal the folded up bag inside a jacket. Did you really need me to explain that to you?
The you ask "What body of evidence would that be?". I just got done listing it for you. I am not responsible for your poor reading comprehension. You can lead a horse to water...
You ask how much thought I have put into this case. I have been dealing with conspiracy hobbyists online for 35 years. I began shortly after Oliver Stone's movie came out in 1991. I know a hell of a lot more now then I did then and I have seen just about every argument imaginable over that time and have rebutted every one of them. Nothing you have raised is new to me nor are any of my answers to your questions. I've been down this road more times than I can count. What it comes down to is that conspiracy hobbyists cannot seem to solve the equation 2 + 2 = x.
You claim the evidence of Oswald's guilt is weak and questionable. It only seems that way to people who simply refuse to accept the conclusion that Oswald assassinated JFK just as surely as John Wilkes Booth assassinated Lincoln. There is none so blind as he who will not see.
You inferred there is some piece(s) of evidence that should be there but isn't. Tell us just what that evidence is. The body of evidence is exactly what we would expect to have with Oswald as the assassin. There is no evidence he was for or in conjunction with any other person. It is theoretically possible he could have had one or more accessories to his crime for which no evidence has ever been found, but after 62 years I find that possibility to be extremely remote. If you ever come across such compelling evidence, I'll be as happy as anyone to see it. I'm not holding my breath however.
You went on to claim evidence "ignored, misrepresented, dismissed and/or suppressed". Please tell us what that would be. Investigators looked at all the evidence and reached very logical conclusions. In some cases, the evidence was contradictory and mutually exclusive. For example we have one group of earwitnesses who told us all the shots came from the GK and another group who said all the shots came from the direction of the TSBD, Should the investigators have concluded both groups were correct or should they have looked for corroborating evidence to determine which group was right and which group was wrong?
You went on a long diatribe to dispute my claim that conspiracy hobbyists look at the evidence piecemeal instead of looking at it as a whole. In so doing, you demonstrated my claim to be true. You did exactly what I said. You refuse to look at the evidence as a body, because you know there is only one possible explanation that takes in ALL the evidence and that is a conclusion you simply refuse to accept. There are two types of people who dispute the fact that Oswald was the assassin. Those who don't know the body of evidence of his guilt and those who know the evidence and refuse to accept what that evidence tells us. The latter group (which you seem to be a member of) have as much credibility as flat earthers and moon landing deniers. Do you have reasonable doubts that the earth is a sphere or that our astronauts landed on the moon over 50 years ago and another group is now returning from having circled the moon? Either of the positions make about as much sense as denying Oswald was JFK's assassin.
I don't know what the forum record is for most misstatements in one post is, but you have to be close to it if you haven't broken it.What misstatements would that be? Be precise..... go on then.
Oswald's print on the bag is not by itself proof of his guilt but it is probative. Rarely is a proof beyond a reasonable doubt made on a single piece of evidence. This is what conspiracy hobbyists (yes, you are one) fail to understand.Oh, I do understand that better than you think. The problem is that this particular bag is actually a stand alone item, which you can not tie to Oswald's trip to Irving. You can not show this was the bag Oswald carried, nor can you show the bag ever contained a rifle and you most certainly can not show that this particular bag was ever in Frazier's car, where it would have had to have been if it had any connection to the rifle. You can't even autheticate it. And with that the probative value of that item of evidence is reduced to an absolute minimum! You can present anything you like as evidence. It happens on a daily basis in courts all over the country. But evidence isn't automatically proof of anything. And that's where you go off the rails time after time!
You seem to think it is significant that nobody saw Oswald make the paper bag. How does that preclude Oswald from having made the paper bag?It doesn't. But Oswald's opportunity to make that bag was limited. In addition we know that the materials used to create the bag came from the packaging department of the TSBD and the tape used was such that it needed to be applied there and then. In other words, the claim that Oswald made the bag for the sole purpose of collecting and transporting a rifle from Irving relies on Oswald having been able to make that bag on Thursday afternoon! If Oswald had no opportunity to make the bag within the limited time frame the entire theory around the bag goes out of the window.
Did any witness see somebody else making the bag out of TSBD paper? I don't know if anybody ever tried to find out, but, as you said, if nobody saw the bag being made why must it have been made by Oswald and not somebody else?
Somebody made that paper bag and did so without being seen by a witness. The forensic evidence makes it highly probative that it was Oswald who made the bag.Really? Explain why? Just because a print of Oswald was found on that bag? Are you that superficial?
The Warren Commission made the case for Oswald's guilt and they provided us with conclusive evidence of that guilt far beyond a reasonable doubt. The fact that unreasonable people choose to dismiss that evidence does not establish reasonable doubt.Hilarious... a guy, considering himself to be reasonable, is stating that people who do not find the evidence conclusive (it's far from it actually) are unreasonable. Just think about that for a moment and perhaps you will find out all by yourself just how truly pathetic that statement really is!
I did not speculate that Oswald brought a different bag into the TSBD at some unknown time. I never said you did.
I was simply pointing out the logical conundrum you and other conspiracy hobbyists have created for themselves by disputing the bag found in the TSBD after the shooting was the same bag Frazier saw Oswald with. There is no logical conundrum. It is a fact that Frazier, on Friday evening, was shown the bag allegedly found on the 6th floor and denied it was the one Oswald had carried.
I find it far more likely that the two bags are one and the same What you consider to be likely is hardly of any significance.
but if you insist on claiming there were two different bag, then you have to accept that the bag Frazier saw disappeared without a trace This is getting beyond comical. Oswald carried a bag into the TSBD at 8 AM. That's the bag Frazier saw. Kennedy wasn't shot until 12.30 PM which allows for 4,5 hours to dispose of a bag. So, let's get real for a moment. There is no evidence that the TSBD was ever searched for that bag, so for all we know it was simply somewhere in a dustbin all the time. No big mystery needed.
and that another bag bearing Oswald's prints, long enough to hold the disassembled rifle, and containing fibers matching his rifle blanket was brought into the TSBD at some unknown time. And what exactly makes you think the bag allegedly found on the 6th floor ever left the TSBD or ever contained a rifle? As for the fibers, first of all, how could there still be fibers in the bag, as it was brought out of the TSBD upside down? And secondly, have you seen the evidence photos showing the bag and the blanket next to eachother?
You question why Frazier didn't see the bag when he took Oswald to Irving on Thursday evening. The bag had numerous creases in it indicating it had been folded up. It would be easy to conceal the folded up bag inside a jacket. Did you really need me to explain that to you? Well, we know that Frazier never claimed to have seen the bag on Thursday. As it was folded, I assume you think Oswald hit it under his jacket, right? So, let's follow that train of thought; Oswald makes the bag at the TSBD, folds it and then in Irving unfolds it. He then carries the bag in the cup of his hand and once on the 6th floor folds the bag again and puts it (of all possible places) in the sniper's nest and the only print he leaves on the bag is a print from his hand when he carried the bag in the cup of his hand. Nothing strange there, right? Massive handling of a bag and leaving only one print. Wow!
The you ask "What body of evidence would that be?". I just got done listing it for you. I am not responsible for your poor reading comprehension. You can lead a horse to water...There is the so-called "reasonable" guy again, claiming somebody has poor reading comprehension for not blindly accepting the BS Mr Reasonable considers conclusive or persuasive.
You ask how much thought I have put into this case. I have been dealing with conspiracy hobbyists online for 35 years.And after 35 years you still haven't learned anything? Pfffff I know you find me unreasonable, but unlike you, I have learned a number of things in my discussions with LNs and in some cases I have actually changed my point of view on a particular subject. But perhaps one has to be unreasonable to being able to learn something new.
What it comes down to is that conspiracy hobbyists cannot seem to solve the equation 2 + 2 = x.Do you really think your childish insults make your case any more credible?
You claim the evidence of Oswald's guilt is weak and questionable. It only seems that way to people who simply refuse to accept the conclusion that Oswald assassinated JFKAh.. a different version of the same crappy "I'm the reasonable one" argument.
You went on a long diatribe to dispute my claim that conspiracy hobbyists look at the evidence piecemeal instead of looking at it as a whole. In so doing, you demonstrated my claim to be true. You did exactly what I said. You refuse to look at the evidence as a body, because you know there is only one possible explanation that takes in ALL the evidence and that is a conclusion you simply refuse to accept.You haven't got a clue what I looked at. In fact, the way I got involved in this case is by reading the WC report and finding it's conclusions were not supported by the evidence. If the evidence had supported their claims I wouldn't have been here. You have indeed fallen for the fantasy story told by the WC.
There are two types of people who dispute the fact that Oswald was the assassin. Those who don't know the body of evidence of his guilt and those who know the evidence and refuse to accept what that evidence tells us. Somewhere in this nonsense you really should have used the words "in my opinion". Do I know the evidence? Yes I do, and unlike you I think it's possible that I'm wrong, and I do indeed do not consider the evidence persuasive or conclusive. What I find strange and remarkable is that a guy like you, who clearly considers himself to be reasonable (but isn't) can not produce a single solid argument to convince somebody like me that I am wrong about something. Now, why is that?
The latter group (which you seem to be a member of) have as much credibility as flat earthers and moon landing deniers. Do you have reasonable doubts that the earth is a sphere or that our astronauts landed on the moon over 50 years ago and another group is now returning from having circled the moon? Either of the positions make about as much sense as denying Oswald was JFK's assassin.Why do LNs feel the need to make crappy claims like this? Is it perhaps a sign of weakness?
