Buell Wesley Frazier - The bag that was a sack

[Martin Weidmann]

This is simple.  Any reliance on a polygraph is misplaced if the person being interrogated honestly but erroneously answers a question.  The polygraph is not God determining the truth of a matter but indicates whether the person is intentionally lying.  If that person is being honest but gets it wrong that is a mistake not an intentional lie.  It is the totality of facts that resolves the question and not an estimate.  Only one bag matching Frazier's general description was found.  It has Oswald's prints on it confirming it was in Oswald's possession.  There is no work-related explanation for that bag to be in the TSBD.  No other person who ever worked there came forward and explained the bag or accounted for it.  No bag matching Frazier's size estimate was ever found or accounted for.  Oswald denied carrying a long package but only his lunch.  Thus, he denied carrying a long bag the size estimated by Frazier when that would have assisted him.  The bag is found in proximity to fired bullet casings from Oswald's rifle and the SN boxes with Oswald's prints on them.   There is only one reasonable conclusion to be drawn from the facts and evidence.  There is not a single respectable historian that entertains any doubt whatsover that the bag found on the 6th floor was the one used to carry the rifle that morning.  This is the kind of discussion that only a fringe group has on the Internet.  They would throw a net over you if you made that argument in front of any informed group of folks.  Why don't you take your nutty theory to the NY Times if you think it is accurate and supported by the evidence instead of spending day and night here agonizing over every sentence like some kind of demented monk?

This is simple.  Any reliance on a polygraph is misplaced if the person being interrogated honestly but erroneously answers a question.  The polygraph is not God determining the truth of a matter but indicates whether the person is intentionally lying.  If that person is being honest but gets it wrong that is a mistake not an intentional lie.

Who exactly is relying on a polygraph?... Another figment of your imagination!

It is the totality of facts that resolves the question and not an estimate.

You still haven't caught on to the notion that Frazier's description of the bag as "definitely a thin, flimsy sack like the one purchased in a dime store" is not an estimate!

Only one bag matching Frazier's general description was found.

This is an outright lie. The bag they "found" on the 6th floor does not match Frazier's "general description" at all!

It has Oswald's prints on it confirming it was in Oswald's possession.

Are you really this stupid?... Prints on a bag at best only confirm that somebody touched that bag at some point in time. That's it!

There is no work-related explanation for that bag to be in the TSBD.

Says who?.... You are making stuff up again! Why do you constantly need this kind of strawman?

No other person who ever worked there came forward and explained the bag or accounted for it. 

Meaning what exactly? How many people would have even known about that paper bag and the significance placed on it in the first place, prior to the WCR being released?

No bag matching Frazier's size estimate was ever found or accounted for.

Only a fool continues to make the argument that a bag that was not found because nobody searched for it actually means something.

Besides, you are contradicting yourself in your dishonesty, as you claimed (falsly) that they had found a bag "matching Frazier's general description"

Oswald denied carrying a long package but only his lunch.

So what?

Thus, he denied carrying a long bag the size estimated by Frazier when that would have assisted him.

BS... This has already been explained to you time after time.... Oswald was never asked about a bag "size estimated by Frazier". According to Fritz he was merely asked if he had carried a "long" bag, whatever that means.....

The bag is found in proximity to fired bullet casings from Oswald's rifle and the SN boxes with Oswald's prints on them.   

Really?... Where exactly was it and who found that bag?

Detective Montgomery is on record saying that Fritz told him to guard the so-called sniper's nest until Day and Studebaker got there. He said he did and nobody touched anything in the location during that time. Yet, Montgomery also says on record that he saw the folded bag lying on top of a box. But Studebaker (who failed to photograph it in situ, yet was photographed himself bending over the exact same location when the bag was supposed to be there) claimed it was on the floor. Another unresolved contradiction...

Oswald's rifle

LOL

SN boxes with Oswald's prints on them

Wow.. boxes in a warehouse have prints on them from a guy whose job it is to handle those boxes..... Cased closed, right? Pfffffff


And again, your entire post is the same old crap you have posted time after time. What you have not done is deal with the FACT that Frazier on day 1 said to Lt Day that the bag Oswald carried was "definitely a thin, flimsy sack like the one purchased in a dime store" and told polygrapher R.D. Lewis that it was a ?crickly brown paper sack? and that he told Odum and McNeely a few days later that "the package was wrapped in a cheap, crinkly, thin paper sack, such as that provided by Five and Ten Cent Stores?

Let me guess; Frazier just was honestly mistaken, right? He just couldn't tell the difference between a cheap dime store bag and the heavy duty wrapping paper he probably saw at the TSBD every day, right?

[Richard Smith]

im?passe
a situation in which no progress is possible.

Martin cites a polygraph over and over and then asks who is relying on a polygraph.   He denies there is no work-related explanation for the bag but doesn't provide any or cite to any evidence in the last 50 years that provides any explanation for that bag being on the 6th floor except to carry the rifle.  He dismisses Oswald's prints on this bag because they only demonstrate that he touched it at some point (yes, like that morning when he carried it into the building).  He takes issue with the characterization that Oswald denied carrying a bag the size estimated by Frazier.   Frazier indicated that Oswald carried a long package about two feet long that was not his lunch.  Oswald denied carrying a long package but insisted it was his lunch.  Somehow Martin apparently believes these are not mutually exclusive claims.  He explains away the fact that no two-foot long bag was ever found by suggesting that no one ever searched for it!  A ridiculous and dishonest claim.  The building was thoroughly searched and a bag was found.  He idiotically tries to explain why no one ever came forward to explain the bag found if it had some work-related purpose by dishonestly claiming that no one would understand it's importance.  A real lulu.  The bag the authorities claimed the assassin brought his rifle.  If this bag belonged to someone else or had some work-related purpose for being on the 6th floor someone would have come forward to explain it in the last fifty years.  They did not.   That is the single dumbest claim since John I. suggested Oswald would not have taken paper from the TSBD to make the bag because that might have got him fired!!!  A real concern for the guy who intended to assassinate the president that week.  LOL. That one is a keeper.  These kooks are all the more humorous because they take themselves so seriously on an Internet forum.  Again, if you think you have evidence that proves a conspiracy take it to the NY Times and get back to us on their opinion.

[John Iacoletti]

The building was thoroughly searched and a bag was found.

Please provide evidence that the building was thoroughly searched for a lunch bag.  Is there any evidence that the lunch rooms were searched at all?  What a ridiculous argument.  Harold Norman's lunch bag was never found.  He must have brought in a rifle too.

Right, the police thoroughly searched the building.  That why they never found the clipboard Oswald used or his blue jacket.  But by golly they would have found a 20-inch lunch bag made out of cheap, crinkly, thin paper if one existed.  Do you ever listen to yourself?

That is the single dumbest claim since John I. suggested Oswald would not have taken paper from the TSBD to make the bag because that might have got him fired!!!  A real concern for the guy who intended to assassinate the president that week.  LOL. That one is a keeper.

It was particularly hilarious when your buddy Mytton said it.  Oops!

Detecting any deformation in the bag due to a specific item would be near impossible due to the condition of this bag which was obviously folded up by Oswald and smuggled out under his jacket and since stealing from the Depository was probably a dismissable offence, Oswald kept his theft to himself.

[Martin Weidmann]

im?passe
a situation in which no progress is possible.

Martin cites a polygraph over and over and then asks who is relying on a polygraph.   He denies there is no work-related explanation for the bag but doesn't provide any or cite to any evidence in the last 50 years that provides any explanation for that bag being on the 6th floor except to carry the rifle.  He dismisses Oswald's prints on this bag because they only demonstrate that he touched it at some point (yes, like that morning when he carried it into the building).  He takes issue with the characterization that Oswald denied carrying a bag the size estimated by Frazier.   Frazier indicated that Oswald carried a long package about two feet long that was not his lunch.  Oswald denied carrying a long package but insisted it was his lunch.  Somehow Martin apparently believes these are not mutually exclusive claims.  He explains away the fact that no two-foot long bag was ever found by suggesting that no one ever searched for it!  A ridiculous and dishonest claim.  The building was thoroughly searched and a bag was found.  He idiotically tries to explain why no one ever came forward to explain the bag found if it had some work-related purpose by dishonestly claiming that no one would understand it's importance.  A real lulu.  The bag the authorities claimed the assassin brought his rifle.  If this bag belonged to someone else or had some work-related purpose for being on the 6th floor someone would have come forward to explain it in the last fifty years.  They did not.   That is the single dumbest claim since John I. suggested Oswald would not have taken paper from the TSBD to make the bag because that might have got him fired!!!  A real concern for the guy who intended to assassinate the president that week.  LOL. That one is a keeper.  These kooks are all the more humorous because they take themselves so seriously on an Internet forum.  Again, if you think you have evidence that proves a conspiracy take it to the NY Times and get back to us on their opinion.

So rather than addressing the points I have made in my previous posts, you just decided to ignore it all and instead completely misrepresent what I have been saying in order to (once again) concoct another strawman rant in which you repeat your own lies and misrepresentations of the evidence as if they haven't already been debunked and proven wrong. Who do you think you are fooling?

But very well, unlike you, I will address all the crap you foolishly consider to be "logic"

Martin cites a polygraph over and over and then asks who is relying on a polygraph. 

Stop exposing your stupidity and stop lying. I did not cite a polygraph nor did I rely on one. I said that the record shows Frazier was being polygraphed when he was shown the heavy bag and there is no mention of any anomaly. That is a statement of fact, whether you like it or not!

He denies there is no work-related explanation for the bag but doesn't provide any or cite to any evidence in the last 50 years that provides any explanation for that bag being on the 6th floor except to carry the rifle.

More dishonesty and stupidity... First of all,  I have never denied (or confirmed for that matter) that "there is no work-related explanation for the bag" simply because I don't know if there was one or not (and neither do you) and secondly, the lack of an work-related explanation for that bag does not automatically mean that it's only purpose must have been "to carry the rifle".

He dismisses Oswald's prints on this bag because they only demonstrate that he touched it at some point (yes, like that morning when he carried it into the building).

More dishonesty. I don't dismiss the prints on the bag. I dismiss as speculation your claim that those prints somehow prove that the bag ever "was in Oswald's possession". Those prints could have been the result of Oswald simply picking up the bag and moving it that same morning. There is no way of knowing with any kind of certainty how those prints got on the bag, if they actually ever did!

He takes issue with the characterization that Oswald denied carrying a bag the size estimated by Frazier. 

Indeed, because according to Fritz Oswald was only asked if he had carried a "long" bag, whatever that means. It had nothing to do with a size estimate by Frazier!

Frazier indicated that Oswald carried a long package about two feet long that was not his lunch.  Oswald denied carrying a long package but insisted it was his lunch.  Somehow Martin apparently believes these are not mutually exclusive claims.

Frazier said that Oswald carried a "definitely a thin, flimsy sack like the one purchased in a dime store". He may well have been wrong in his estimate, to the extend that he estimated the bag to be larger than it really was. As for the content, that's an entirely different matter. Frazier allegedly said that Oswald told him the bag contained curtain rods, but that could have been a lie on Oswald's part and the bag could indeed simply have contained Oswald's lunch after all.

Here's the background to that; Oswald wants to go to Irving to make up with Marina after a fight the previous weekend (exactly what Marina and Ruth Paine both said) so he asks this 19 year old kid, Frazier, to take him there. When Frazier asks why, do you really think Oswald would tell him that he is going there to make up with his wife?... Or would he give him some excuse, like "picking up curtain rods"? Having told Frazier the cover story on Thursday, Oswald simply repeated it on Friday when Frazier asked him again about the package..... 

He explains away the fact that no two-foot long bag was ever found by suggesting that no one ever searched for it!  A ridiculous and dishonest claim.

You have not a shred of evidence that DPD officers returned to the TSBD to look for "a thin, flimsy sack like the one purchased in a dime store" after Frazier mentioned it while being polygraphed.

During the initial search on Friday afternoon they had no reason to look for a flimsy sack, because they had already "found" the heavy bag and jumped to the conclusion that this was the bag in which the rifle was brought in.

The building was thoroughly searched and a bag was found. 

John already replied to this one. No need for me to repeat it again. I can't help it when you are just to dumb to understand it.

He idiotically tries to explain why no one ever came forward to explain the bag found if it had some work-related purpose by dishonestly claiming that no one would understand it's importance.  A real lulu. 

Why is that dishonest? Can you even explain how people even would have known about that paper bag before the WCR was published? You are the one who is living in cuckoo land to believe that everybody would have had instant knowledge about what investigators were looking at.

The bag the authorities claimed the assassin brought his rifle.  If this bag belonged to someone else or had some work-related purpose for being on the 6th floor someone would have come forward to explain it in the last fifty years.  They did not.

Complete BS... After the publication of the WCR there would have been no point in coming forward. The entire argument you are trying to make is pathetic. Just because you can't think of a work-explanation for that bag and just because nobody came forward to claim it (as far as we know) does not automatically justify the conclusion that it must have been Oswald's bag and that he used it to carry a rifle. In fact, the bag found at the TSBD contained no traces of anything to even remotely conclude there had ever been a rifle in it. 

These kooks are all the more humorous because they take themselves so seriously on an Internet forum.

And you take them seriously enough to constantly reply to them with lies, misrepresentations, strawman, hand waving and a repetitive pattern of stupidity.


And once again, your entire post is the same old crap you have posted time after time. What you have not done (again) is deal with the FACT that Frazier on day 1 said to Lt Day that the bag Oswald carried was "definitely a thin, flimsy sack like the one purchased in a dime store" and told polygrapher R.D. Lewis that it was a ?crickly brown paper sack? and that he told Odum and McNeely a few days later that "the package was wrapped in a cheap, crinkly, thin paper sack, such as that provided by Five and Ten Cent Stores?

Why do you keep running away from that, Richard?

[Martin Weidmann]

It seems the LNs have nothing to counter this first day evidence which clearly shows that the bag found at the TSBD couldn't have been and wasn't the bag Frazier saw Oswald carry.

On Friday evening (Day 1) Frazier said to Lt Day that the bag he had seen Oswald carry some 16 hours earlier was "definitely a thin, flimsy sack like the one purchased in a dime store" and told polygrapher R.D. Lewis that it was a ?crickly brown paper sack?. A few days later he told FBI agents Odum and McNeely that "the package was wrapped in a cheap, crinkly, thin paper sack, such as that provided by Five and Ten Cent Stores?.

[Bill Brown]

You still haven't caught on to the notion that Frazier's description of the bag as "definitely a thin, flimsy sack like the one purchased in a dime store" is not an estimate!

Correct, it is not an estimate; it's an opinion.  Frazier never touched the bag so he could not know how thick or thin the bag was.

[Walt Cakebread]

Correct, it is not an estimate; it's an opinion.  Frazier never touched the bag so he could not know how thick or thin the bag was.

"Frazier never touched the bag so he could not know how thick or thin the bag was."

This is the argument of a desperate fool.....  A person doesn't have to touch a piece of brown paper to know if it is liegnt weigh flimsy paper or heavy weight paper......   And furthermore Frazier said that he recognized the light weight paper of the sack as being  similar to the paper that he had handled when unpacking curtain rods in a store where he had been employed.