The Brown Paper Bag

[Martin Weidmann]

Marina mad a logical inference that the rifle was still in the blanket. I'm not surprised this escapes you.Yes, Oswald's rifle
The on that had his palm print on the underside of the barrel.
The one with fibers matching the shirt he wore that day.
The one he had several photographs take of him holding the rifle.
The one for which there is a clear paper trail showing he ordered the rifle from Klein's Sporting Goods.
Your scoffing at the notion that it is Oswald's rife shows no amount of evidence will ever convince a dedicated conspiracy hobbyist of Oswald's guilt. They will always find an excuse to dismiss it.
An assumption is something that is made without evidence.  A logical inference is made based on evidence. I'm not surprised you don't understand the difference.
That conclusion is based on common sense. I guess that leaves you out.
The bag was found folded up in the sniper's nest. If you like think it was folder somewhere else, be my guest.
It wasn't found folded up. It had creases in it indicating it had been folded at one time.
I can't explain your false premise.
You presented the polygraph as evidence Frazier accurately recalled the length of the package. A polygraph measures honesty, not accuracy.Every time you try, you show how bad you are at weighing evidence. You put absolute faith in Frazier's recollections and dismiss all the hard evidence of Oswald's guilt.
As I already said, I can't dumb it down enough for you to understand. I guess that's a failure on my part. No comment from me is even necessary at this point.Oswald made the bag to smuggle the rifle into the TSBD. He succeeding in doing that. Why would you second guess his decision.

Killing JFK was probably the one thing Oswald succeeded at in his short miserable life, and the conspiracy hobbyists have spent the last 62 years denying him credit for it. Give the guy a break. If Oswald could comeback, I'm sure he would tell you all to STFU.
{quote]

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.

I'll bet he told us what he thought to be the truth. He just got one very important detail wrong.One print is all that is necessary to prove Oswald handled the bag that was found next to the sniper's nest.The evidence is there. You just refuse to accept it. The fact you are willing to assume Frazier was 100% accurate reveals how misguided you are. It makes no sense to assume any witness is 100% accurate because usually they are not. Witnesses get some things wrong and some things right. We can confirm or refute what they say by how it jives with the physical evidence. What Frazier is to you is an excuse to dismiss all the daming evidence of Oswald's guilt. An excuse is all a determined conspiracy hobbyist needs too delude himself.  WTG
You keep relying on Frazier to describe the bag and ignore the bag that was actually found in the TSBD. With Oswald's prints on it.  What a silly way to weigh the evidence.The evidence has been presented. You refuse to accept it. That's your problem, not mine. It's the reason that 62 years later, you still can't figure out a simple murder case that the DPD had solved in the first 12 hourse. You can lead a horse to water...Try reading for comprehension. Did you miss the qualifier BY ITSELF.?The fact you dispute Oswald's ownership of the rifle and the validity of fiber evidence speaks volumes about your unwillingness to accept credible evidence. Nothing has been misrepresented. The fact that you refuse to accept the evidence of Oswald's guilt is a reflection on you, not the evidence. I don't have to pretend.You are the last person I would want schooling me. You are at the head of the dunce class.It's not my homework. It's yours. The burden of proof is on the person making the claim. You obviously can't meet that burden so you try to shift it to me. Why would I search for something that you made up out if thin air. If you had a source for this story, you would have no trouble providing it but you won't because you can't.Why do you keep lying. I've provided solid evidence for everything I've stated. The fact you refuse to accept the evidence is a reflection on you, not me.If these reports actually existed, you would have no trouble providing them.

I've called your bluff. It's time for you to show your cards or fold your hand.You must not care what anybody thinks. You'ee been called out and still you can't support your made up story. That says it all.Stop lying.That's called projection.

If you want me to reply to this mess, clean up the post.

On second thought don't even bother. I am not wasting my time in going over the same lies and assumptions every time.

All this constant BS about "logical inference" when it is in fact a mere assumption, the BS about "matching" fibers, the idiotic conclusions based on "common sense" claims and massive lies, like that the paper bag was not folded up when it was found (when the WC actually said it was) and your bogus claim that I consider the polygraph as evidence that Frazier accurately recalled the length of the package (when in fact he told to truth about how he saw Oswald carry in the cup of his hand and under his armpit) is more enough for me to conclude that you are a complete idiot who couldn't tell the truth if it saved his life. We're done.

[Martin Weidmann]

I have no need to lie.  Also, I have pics.  Not that you'll ever see them.

As for your "ego" comment, you're being foolish.  I didn't speak of having dinner with Buell Frazier until it was necessary.  I posted the two affidavits where Frazier acknowledges that the rifle was in the car.  You called them fakes.  That prompted me to inform you that I've already made an attempt to verify.

Like you, I simply wanted to verify for myself (in this case, the authenticity of the two affidavits).  If I had plans to speak of what was discussed during this pizza dinner with Buell, then I would have asked him (and Dave Perry) right then and there if I could discuss (on various internet forums and Facebook groups) what we talked about.

How many times are you going to comment on something which you know nothing about?

I didn't speak of having dinner with Buell Frazier until it was necessary.

And what exactly made it necessary? There wasn't anything, as far as I can tell. By your own words, you knew two weeks ago that the "affidavits" came from Ripley's. That should have been enough to know that they couldn't be relied on.

And no, Frazier didn't acknowledge that the rifle was in the bag. The massive difference with his autograph on the car registration makes it obvious those documents are fake.
And you understood that also two weeks ago, because if you thought for a second that they were authentic you would not have had a need to discuss them with Dave Perry.

[Bill Brown]

I didn't speak of having dinner with Buell Frazier until it was necessary.

And what exactly made it necessary? There wasn't anything, as far as I can tell. By your own words, you knew two weeks ago that the "affidavits" can from Ripley's. That should have been enough to know that they couldn't be relied on.

And no, Frazier didn't acknowledge that the rifle was in the bag. The massive difference with his autograph on the car registration makes it obvious those documents are fake.
And you understood that also two weeks ago, because if you thought for a second that they were authentic you would not have had a need to discuss them with Dave Perry.

You simply don't get it.  I posted an image of both affidavits, with no commentary; just the images, nothing more.  YOU then challenged their authenticity.  Then we went from there.  Perhaps you should scroll back and have a look.

As for the documents being fake, as you claim... I completely disagree.  Like I told you before, the simple fact that the affidavits say "Erwin" (instead of Irving) should tell you that someone was transcribing as they were listening to Frazier speak with that unmistakable accent of his (as opposed to someone simply typing in the word "Erwin" for some other reason which makes no sense).  You don't display the ability to think logically.  That's your biggest problem.

[Martin Weidmann]

You simply don't get it.  I posted an image of both affidavits, with no commentary; just the images, nothing more.  YOU then challenged their authenticity.  Then we went from there.  Perhaps you should scroll back and have a look.

As for the documents being fake, as you claim... I completely disagree.  Like I told you before, the simple fact that the affidavits say "Erwin" (instead of Irving) should tell you that someone was transcribing as they were listening to Frazier speak with that unmistakable accent of his (as opposed to someone simply typing in the word "Erwin" for some other reason which makes no sense).  You don't display the ability to think logically.  That's your biggest problem.

Some things never change.

Perhaps you should scroll back and have a look.

I did. That's why I know there was no reason to bring up eating pizza with Frazier. Oh wait, perhaps a completely failed appeal to authority?

As for the documents being fake, as you claim... I completely disagree.

Of course you do. A LN will always accept anything that supports his narrative regardless if it is authentic evidence or not.

Like I told you before, the simple fact that the affidavits say "Erwin" (instead of Irving) should tell you that someone was transcribing as they were listening to Frazier speak

No. You just made that up. There isn't a notary that would accept such a mistake.

You don't display the ability to think logically.  That's your biggest problem.

Let me guess, you consider it to be completely logical to use documents from, off all places, Ridley's. Not to mention that they don't have the usual form of an affidavit (you have seen enough real ones to know this) and not to mention that Frazier's signature is completely different.

I think my biggest problem is that I am talking to a dumbass who thinks he is thinking logically!

[John Corbett]

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.

Another reason to doubt Oswald was wearing a jacket post-assassination is that his former landlady spotted him on Cecil McWatters bus shortly after the assassination. She described a hole Oswald had in the elbow of a shirt, a whole that was present in the shirt Oswald was wearing when arrested. Bledsoe could not have seen that hole if Oswald was wearing a jacket.

"Having considered the probabilities as explained in Stombaugh's testimony, the Commission has concluded that the fibers in the tuft on the rifle most probably came from the shirt worn by Oswald when he was arrested, and that this was the same shirt which Oswald wore on the morning of the assassination. Marina Oswald testified that she thought her husband wore this shirt to work on that day. The testimony of those who saw him after the assassination was inconclusive about the color of Oswald's shirt,72 but Mary Bledsoe, a former landlady of Oswald, saw him on a bus approximately 10 minutes after the assassination and identified the shirt as being the one worn by Oswald primarily because of a distinctive hole in the shirt's right elbow. 73 Moreover, the bus transfer which he obtained as he left. the bus was still in the pocket when he was arrested.74 Although Oswald returned to his roominghouse after the assassination and when questioned by the police, claimed to have changed his shirt,75 the evidence indicates that he continued wearing the same shirt which he was wearing all morning and which he was still wearing when arrested."

From pages 124-125 of the Warren Commission Report.

Note to Martin Wiedmann:
This is how one provides a cite to support a statement one has made. I realize it's not possible for you to do this when you have just made something up out of thin air.

[John Corbett]

If you want me to reply to this mess, clean up the post.

On second thought don't even bother. I am not wasting my time in going over the same lies and assumptions every time.

All this constant BS about "logical inference" when it is in fact a mere assumption, the BS about "matching" fibers, the idiotic conclusions based on "common sense" claims and massive lies, like that the paper bag was not folded up when it was found (when the WC actually said it was) and your bogus claim that I consider the polygraph as evidence that Frazier accurately recalled the length of the package (when in fact he told to truth about how he saw Oswald carry in the cup of his hand and under his armpit) is more enough for me to conclude that you are a complete idiot who couldn't tell the truth if it saved his life. We're done.

I accept your surrender.

[Martin Weidmann]

I accept your surrender.

And I expected your pathetic comment, JM