The Brown Paper Bag

[Bill Brown]

Whaley told the Commission he saw both jackets;
Mr. BALL. Here is Commission No. 162 which is a gray jacket with zipper.
Mr. WHALEY. I thank that is the jacket he had on when he rode with me in the cab.

Mr. BALL. Look something like it?
And here is Commission Exhibit No. 163, does this look like anything he had on?

Mr. WHALEY. He had this one on or the other one.
Mr. BALL. That is right.

Mr. WHALEY. That is what I told you I noticed. I told you about the shirt being open, he had on the two jackets with the open shirt.

Dec 18, 63 to the FBI  - He called it a gray work jacket;
"...OSWALD was wearing grey work pants and a grey work jacket and had on a darker shirt which had a gold streak in it .
He also recalled that this shirt was opened down the front to about the fourth button, and he does not recall OSWALD wearing
an undershirt. He also recalled that the. sh1rt, as well as the rest of OSWALD's attire, was unpressed and wrinkled as though
it had not been ironed after washing or as though he had slept in the clothes."

[Michael Capasse]

  Pick & choose. Pick and choose.
an irrefutable pile of garbage

[Bill Brown]

Pick & choose. Pick and choose.

This is where you're confused.  I'm not the one picking and choosing.  I'm willing to throw out everything Whaley says about what Oswald was wearing inside his cab.  YOU are the one insisting Oswald was wearing a jacket inside the cab.

[Michael Capasse]

This is where you're confused.  I'm not the one picking and choosing.  I'm willing to throw out everything Whaley says about what Oswald was wearing inside his cab.  YOU are the one insisting Oswald was wearing a jacket inside the cab.

I've said no such thing.
You have both conflicting statements and evidence throughout, then cherry pick what you want from this garbage

[Martin Weidmann]

Another fine example of your inability to make logical inferences. Marina knew Oswald kept his rifle in a blanket in the Paine's garage. The morning of the 22nd, Oswald takes a long brown paper package to work. After the shooting, Oswald's rifle is found on the floor where the shooter was seen and spent shells were on the floor. A short distance away, am empty brown paper bag is found with Oswald's prints on it and fibers matching Oswald's blanket and you can't put all these factors together to reach the logical inference that Oswald took his rifle to work in the long brown paper package? You need it proven to you to an absolute certainty? Damn, if I ever commit a serious crime, I hope I get someone like you on my jury.

Why do you think he folded it in the sniper's nest?

You obviously don't know what it is that polygraphs do. Hint: they can't indicate whether a person accurately remembered an event.

That requires one to make logical inferences. You seem incapable of doing that. Or is it that your unwilling to do that?

One question. Do you honestly believe that? Do you really think he could have left the building from which someone had just shot the POTUS carrying a duffle bag with a heavy object and no one would have been the least bit suspicious. More to the point, do you think Oswald would have thought that?

At best, a polygraph can indicate if someone is being DELIBERATELY deceitful. It can't give an indication if someone didn't  remember and event accurately. That's why they call it a lie detector. It's not called a can't-remember-shit detector.

Yes, it is and if Frazier was honestly telling them what he remembered, there would have been no indication of deceit. If Frazier inaccurately remembered the event, a polygraph would have given no indication of that. Polygraphs are used to determine if a person is being honest, not if they are being accurate.

You have never provided a bit of corroborating forensic evidence that proves Frazier accurately remember the package he saw Oswald carry.

No it doesn't. If all we had to go on was Frazier's description of the bag, the logical conclusion would be the bag might or might not be the length Frazier remembered. But that isn't all we have to go on. A bag was found in the TSBD with Oswald's prints on it which matched Frazier's description of the bag in every way except for the length.

Again, it requires one to make logical inferences in order to conclude that the bag found in the TSBD is the same one Frazier saw Oswald carry into the TSBD. You seem either unable or unwilling to do that.

You don't have to choose between Frazier's opinion and my opinion. If's a choice as to whether you believe Frazier or the forensic evidence.

Again, it isn't a case of whether Frazier's account conflicts with my opinion. Frazier's account conflicts with the forensic evidence.

It proves nothing BY ITSELF. This is where conspiracy hobbyists always fall down. They look at one piece of evidence and say it doesn't prove anything. You have to put the pieces together to figure out what the puzzle looks like. We have a paper bag with Oswald's prints found near the location where someone saw a shooter and which shells were found that matched a rifle found elsewhere on the same floor which was proven to belong to Oswald and the bag contained fibers that matched the blanket Oswald was known to have stored his rifle in. Can you really not put all those pieces together and reach a logical conclusion or do you just not want to accept the logical conclusion?

So you expect me to find the proof to support your assertion. Since you are the one claiming that proof exists, shouldn't you be the one providing it.
I wish I had a nickel for every time I've seen a conspiracy hobbyist resort to that ploy. Long time conspiracy hobbyist Tony Marsh's stock reply when asked to provide support for one of his claims was, "Learn to google". This is just more of the same.

Why don't your surprise us. Prove to us you didn't just make this story up.

The difference between us is that my opinions are supported by hard evidence, Yours, not so much.

Another fine example of your inability to make logical inferences. Marina knew Oswald kept his rifle in a blanket in the Paine's garage.

Another dishonest reply. Marina didn't know anything of the sort. She checked the blanket once, in late september, and saw the wooden stock of a rifle. She assumed it was Oswald's, and it may well have been. But what she didn't know is what happened to that rifle after late September. She may have seen the blanket lying on the ground but she could only assume (and not know) if the rifle was still in it.

After the shooting, Oswald's rifle is found on the floor where the shooter was seen and spent shells were on the floor.

"Pswald's rifle" LOL

The morning of the 22nd, Oswald takes a long brown paper package to work. After the shooting, Oswald's rifle is found on the floor where the shooter was seen and spent shells were on the floor. A short distance away, am empty brown paper bag is found with Oswald's prints on it and fibers matching Oswald's blanket and you can't put all these factors together to reach the logical inference that Oswald took his rifle to work in the long brown paper package?

Apart for the fact that you keep representing the evidence, of course I can make an assumption (which is actually what you mean by "logical inference", but that doesn't mean that this would the correct conclusion.

You need it proven to you to an absolute certainty?

So, you don't know for certain there was a rifle in Ruth Paine's garage on 11/21/63. Got it.

Nobody is applying such a high standard. All I have asked for is even the slightest bit of actual evidence to show there was actually a rifle stored in Ruth Paine's garage. What is clear beyond absolute certainty is that you haven't any. All you have is information that is being misrepresented and assumptions. In other words; you've got nothing. But I expect you will never understand that!

Why do you think he folded it in the sniper's nest?

The bag was found folded up in the sniper's nest. If you like think it was folder somewhere else, be my guest.

I take it you also can't provide an explanation for the absence of prints that would have been placed on the bag when it was folded.

You obviously don't know what it is that polygraphs do. Hint: they can't indicate whether a person accurately remembered an event.

And nobody said they could. Only a dishonest person would bring up something this stupid. A polygraph is not perfect, but it's the best tool there is to determine if somebody is telling the truth about what he or she had seen.

That requires one to make logical inferences. You seem incapable of doing that. Or is it that your unwilling to do that?

Whenever  I make a logical inference, I do so based on actual verifiable evidence and not just speculation and wishful thinking as you do.

So, in summary, we have so far;

You have no evidence that a rifle was stored in Ruth Paine's garage on 11/21/63. You only have assumption
You have no explanation for the absence of prints on the bag that would recently have been made when the bag was folded.
And you have no evidence to support your claim that the 6th floor bag ever left the TSBD

Wow!

One question. Do you honestly believe that? Do you really think he could have left the building from which someone had just shot the POTUS carrying a duffle bag with a heavy object and no one would have been the least bit suspicious.

Yes, sure. he could have easily done that. He could have walked out the back of the building with a duffel bag and mingle with people in the street in seconds. He also could have left the building through the front door (which LNs believe he did) and walked out with a back into a sense of massive commotion. We know that nobody saw him leave in any event. As soon as he crossed the street and walked towards a bus he was just another guy in a crowd. Sometimes the best place to hide is in plain sight!

More to the point, do you think Oswald would have thought that?

I don't know what Oswald was thinking. I just don't understand the reasoning for making a paper bag, when he had duffel bags in Ruth Paine's garage and he alleged managed to take the rifle to New Orleans on public transport without being noticed.

At best, a polygraph can indicate if someone is being DELIBERATELY deceitful. It can't give an indication if someone didn't  remember and event accurately. That's why they call it a lie detector. It's not called a can't-remember-shit detector.

And Frazier clearly wasn't deliberately deceitful. He simply told the truth, but that's something you just don't like.

Yes, it is and if Frazier was honestly telling them what he remembered, there would have been no indication of deceit. If Frazier inaccurately remembered the event, a polygraph would have given no indication of that. Polygraphs are used to determine if a person is being honest, not if they are being accurate.

And what in the world makes you think that Frazier inaccurately remembered anything? Let me guess.... back to the pathetic massive assumptions about the 6th floor bag.

You do understand that your entire flawed theory is based on a partial print on a paper bag that was found at Oswald's place of work? On second thought; you probably don't understand that at all.

You have never provided a bit of corroborating forensic evidence that proves Frazier accurately remember the package he saw Oswald carry.

Don't have to. Frazier saw the bag and gets the benefit of the doubt until actual evidence shows he was wrong. So, it's up to you to provide that evidence and you can't do it.

No it doesn't. If all we had to go on was Frazier's description of the bag, the logical conclusion would be the bag might or might not be the length Frazier remembered. But that isn't all we have to go on. A bag was found in the TSBD with Oswald's prints on it which matched Frazier's description of the bag in every way except for the length.

This is getting tiresome. You have nothing to put the bag found at the 6th floor in Oswald's cup of hand. And you really need to stop lying. Frazier's description of the bag did not match the 6th floor bag, made from heavy duty wrapping paper, at all.

Detective Lewis states for the record that Frazier described the bag he saw as being a "crickly brown paper sack" and Ltd Day confirmed that Frazier told him that "the sack he observed in possession of Oswald early that morning was definitely a thin, flimsy sack like on purchased in a dime store"

So, who do you lie?

Again, it requires one to make logical inferences in order to conclude that the bag found in the TSBD is the same one Frazier saw Oswald carry into the TSBD. You seem either unable or unwilling to do that.

Translation; It's an assumption for which I don't have a shred of evidence, so I just call it a "logical inference". Pathetic!

You don't have to choose between Frazier's opinion and my opinion. If's a choice as to whether you believe Frazier or the forensic evidence.

Again, your opinion isn't "forensic evidence". The only forensic value the 6th floor bag has is to show that a partial print of Oswald was found on it. That's it! Everything else is you making stuff up, which is something the WC didn't even do. They just stated as fact that it was the bag Oswald had carried and completely ignored what Frazier said. That's some investigation!

It proves nothing BY ITSELF. This is where conspiracy hobbyists always fall down. They look at one piece of evidence and say it doesn't prove anything.

And you just agreed it proves nothing.

You have to put the pieces together to figure out what the puzzle looks like. We have a paper bag with Oswald's prints found near the location where someone saw a shooter and which shells were found that matched a rifle found elsewhere on the same floor which was proven to belong to Oswald and the bag contained fibers that matched the blanket Oswald was known to have stored his rifle in. Can you really not put all those pieces together and reach a logical conclusion or do you just not want to accept the logical conclusion?

Hilarious. The only piece of physical evidence is the 6th floor bag with Oswald's partial print on it. Claiming that the rifle "was proven to belong to Oswald" is a gross overstatement of the facts. And this fiber BS is getting tedious. Anybody who cherry picks the evidence and simply rejects or ignores the real possibility of cross contamination is not serious.

There are no pieces to put together. All you have are claims you wish to believe. It is and can never be a logical conclusion when it is based on purposely misrepresented, so-called "facts".

So you expect me to find the proof to support your assertion. Since you are the one claiming that proof exists, shouldn't you be the one providing it.

First of all, don't pretend to know better about the assassination than me and they ask me to school you. It's pathetic! Do your homework!
And secondly, as to providing evidence; since you never provide any evidence for your claims, I would say; no it's not a given that I should help you out.

I actually don't care if you believe the reports exist of not. If you claim they don't exist, you do so at your own peril, because there are plenty of people who know far more than you ever will who will see you for the buffoon you really are.

I wish I had a nickel for every time I've seen a conspiracy hobbyist resort to that ploy. Long time conspiracy hobbyist Tony Marsh's stock reply when asked to provide support for one of his claims was, "Learn to google". This is just more of the same.  Why don't your surprise us. Prove to us you didn't just make this story up. 

It's not a ploy. I couldn't care less what you think. I have the reports here and that's all I need to know. The last thing I will try to do is convince you of anything as that would be a pointless exercise

The difference between us is that my opinions are supported by hard evidence, Yours, not so much.

You're funny little man. Oh well, even the biggest fool considers himself to be a genius.....

[Bill Brown]

I've said no such thing.
You have both conflicting statements and evidence throughout, then cherry pick what you want from this garbage

You're still confused.

My only point here is that Whaley's Warren Commission testimony doesn't make it a fact that Oswald was wearing a jacket while in his cab.

Therefore, it is faulty to state as a fact that Oswald was wearing a jacket while inside the cab.

[Michael Capasse]

You're still confused.

My only point here is that Whaley's Warren Commission testimony doesn't make it a fact that Oswald was wearing a jacket while in his cab.

Therefore, it is faulty to state as a fact that Oswald was wearing a jacket while inside the cab.

WHAT?  - therefore, it is also faulty to state as a fact that Oswald was not wearing a jacket while inside the cab.
Cherry picking isn't proof of anything

Whaley told the Commission he saw both jackets;
Mr. BALL. Here is Commission No. 162 which is a gray jacket with zipper.
Mr. WHALEY. I thank that is the jacket he had on when he rode with me in the cab.

Mr. BALL. Look something like it?
And here is Commission Exhibit No. 163, does this look like anything he had on?

Mr. WHALEY. He had this one on or the other one.
Mr. BALL. That is right.

Mr. WHALEY. That is what I told you I noticed. I told you about the shirt being open, he had on the two jackets with the open shirt.

Dec 18, 63 to the FBI  - He called it a gray work jacket;
"...OSWALD was wearing grey work pants and a grey work jacket and had on a darker shirt which had a gold streak in it .
He also recalled that this shirt was opened down the front to about the fourth button, and he does not recall OSWALD wearing
an undershirt. He also recalled that the. sh1rt, as well as the rest of OSWALD's attire, was unpressed and wrinkled as though
it had not been ironed after washing or as though he had slept in the clothes."