JFK Assassination Forum
JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => Topic started by: Bill Brown on May 12, 2019, 08:09:14 AM
-
In the sniper's nest, there were four boxes used in connection with the shooting. One large box containing books and then two of the smaller "Rolling Readers" boxes atop the large box of books. The fourth box was on the floor behind the stack of three,
obviously used as a seat.
On one of the Rolling Readers boxes at the window, Oswald's left palmprint and his right index fingerprint were found.
The employees laying the floor moved the large boxes of books from the west end of the floor over to the east end. However, the "Rolling Readers" boxes did not need to be moved, i.e. they weren't over on the west end where the new floor was being placed down. The two "Rolling readers" boxes in the sniper's nest were originally about three aisles over from the sniper's nest window and were taken to that window for the purposes of being used as a gun rest. The "Rolling Readers" boxes didn't contain books.
On the box on the floor, the one used as a seat, Day, using powder, dusted the box and developed a palmprint. Latona examined the print and found it to be from Oswald's right palm. Because Day used a powder to develop the print, Latona stated that not too long a time had passed between the time the print was placed on the box and the time it was developed by Day. Powder cannot develop prints beyond a certain point in time.
FBI experiments showed that twenty-four hours was a likely maximum time between the print being placed on the box and the time it was developed by the powder. However, Latona would only state that he could only testify with certainty that the print was less than three days old.
Arthur Mandella (fingerprint expert, NYPD), examined the prints and agreed that they belonged to Oswald. Mandella was of the opinion that the palmprint developed by Day (using the powder) from the box on the floor (the one used as a seat) was probably made within a day to a day and a half of the examination made on the 22nd.
Oswald could obviously have handled the boxes as part of his normal work duties. Fingerprints were taken from the twelve Depository employees who may have had cause to handle the boxes (found in the sniper's nest) as part of their normal work duties as well.
Other identifiable prints were developed on the boxes. These prints were compared with the fingerprints of all other employees as well as law enforcement personnel who handled the boxes. None of the identifiable prints belonged to any of the other employees.
Point being, the larger box on the sniper's nest floor used as a seat, was moved by the floor laying crew at some point earlier in the week. Day dusted this box with powder and developed a palmprint, which Latona said belonged to Oswald. The process of using the powder develops prints based on perspiration and therefore would not find prints older than one to three days (time frame dependent on which fingerprint expert you listen to).
While it's possible to handle the boxes and not leave a print at all, it's also likely as possible that Oswald was the only person to handle that box at any point in time past Tuesday the 19th (per Latona's three days out). Or, if you go by Mandella of the NYPD, Oswald could have been the only person to handle that box after Wednesday the 20th. If you go by the FBI's experiments, Oswald was possibly the only person to handle that box after Thursday the 21st.
Oswald's prints on the boxes prove he was in that window, but they can't prove when he was there exactly.
-
In the sniper's nest, there were four boxes used in connection with the shooting. One large box containing books and then two of the smaller "Rolling Readers" boxes atop the large box of books. The fourth box was on the floor behind the stack of three,
obviously used as a seat.
On one of the Rolling Readers boxes at the window, Oswald's left palmprint and his right index fingerprint were found.
The employees laying the floor moved the large boxes of books from the west end of the floor over to the east end. However, the "Rolling Readers" boxes did not need to be moved, i.e. they weren't over on the west end where the new floor was being placed down. The two "Rolling readers" boxes in the sniper's nest were originally about three aisles over from the sniper's nest window and were taken to that window for the purposes of being used as a gun rest. The "Rolling Readers" boxes didn't contain books.
On the box on the floor, the one used as a seat, Day, using powder, dusted the box and developed a palmprint. Latona examined the print and found it to be from Oswald's right palm. Because Day used a powder to develop the print, Latona stated that not too long a time had passed between the time the print was placed on the box and the time it was developed by Day. Powder cannot develop prints beyond a certain point in time.
FBI experiments showed that twenty-four hours was a likely maximum time between the print being placed on the box and the time it was developed by the powder. However, Latona would only state that he could only testify with certainty that the print was less than three days old.
Arthur Mandella (fingerprint expert, NYPD), examined the prints and agreed that they belonged to Oswald. Mandella was of the opinion that the palmprint developed by Day (using the powder) from the box on the floor (the one used as a seat) was probably made within a day to a day and a half of the examination made on the 22nd.
Oswald could obviously have handled the boxes as part of his normal work duties. Fingerprints were taken from the twelve Depository employees who may have had cause to handle the boxes (found in the sniper's nest) as part of their normal work duties as well.
Other identifiable prints were developed on the boxes. These prints were compared with the fingerprints of all other employees as well as law enforcement personnel who handled the boxes. None of the identifiable prints belonged to any of the other employees.
Point being, the larger box on the sniper's nest floor used as a seat, was moved by the floor laying crew at some point earlier in the week. Day dusted this box with powder and developed a palmprint, which Latona said belonged to Oswald. The process of using the powder develops prints based on perspiration and therefore would not find prints older than one to three days (time frame dependent on which fingerprint expert you listen to).
While it's possible to handle the boxes and not leave a print at all, it's also likely as possible that Oswald was the only person to handle that box at any point in time past Tuesday the 19th (per Latona's three days out). Or, if you go by Mandella of the NYPD, Oswald could have been the only person to handle that box after Wednesday the 20th. If you go by the FBI's experiments, Oswald was possibly the only person to handle that box after Thursday the 21st.
Oswald's prints on the boxes prove he was in that window, but they can't prove when he was there exactly.
"Oswald's prints on the boxes prove he was in that window, but they can't prove when he was there exactly."
Sorry Bill, it does nothing of the kind. It may prove he handled the boxes, but it doesn't prove he was there.
-
Yep. Just a coincidence that Oswald's prints were found in a position that would indicate handling the box in such a way so as to position it in a precise direction; ie straight down Broadway.
-
Yep. Just a coincidence that Oswald's prints were found in a position that would indicate handling the box in such a way so as to position it in a precise direction; ie straight down Broadway.
Were the prints taken before or after they moved the boxes?
You do know the boxes were moved, don't you?
-
In the sniper's nest, there were four boxes used in connection with the shooting. One large box containing books and then two of the smaller "Rolling Readers" boxes atop the large box of books. The fourth box was on the floor behind the stack of three,
obviously used as a seat.
On one of the Rolling Readers boxes at the window, Oswald's left palmprint and his right index fingerprint were found.
The employees laying the floor moved the large boxes of books from the west end of the floor over to the east end. However, the "Rolling Readers" boxes did not need to be moved, i.e. they weren't over on the west end where the new floor was being placed down. The two "Rolling readers" boxes in the sniper's nest were originally about three aisles over from the sniper's nest window and were taken to that window for the purposes of being used as a gun rest. The "Rolling Readers" boxes didn't contain books.
On the box on the floor, the one used as a seat, Day, using powder, dusted the box and developed a palmprint. Latona examined the print and found it to be from Oswald's right palm. Because Day used a powder to develop the print, Latona stated that not too long a time had passed between the time the print was placed on the box and the time it was developed by Day. Powder cannot develop prints beyond a certain point in time.
FBI experiments showed that twenty-four hours was a likely maximum time between the print being placed on the box and the time it was developed by the powder. However, Latona would only state that he could only testify with certainty that the print was less than three days old.
Arthur Mandella (fingerprint expert, NYPD), examined the prints and agreed that they belonged to Oswald. Mandella was of the opinion that the palmprint developed by Day (using the powder) from the box on the floor (the one used as a seat) was probably made within a day to a day and a half of the examination made on the 22nd.
Oswald could obviously have handled the boxes as part of his normal work duties. Fingerprints were taken from the twelve Depository employees who may have had cause to handle the boxes (found in the sniper's nest) as part of their normal work duties as well.
Other identifiable prints were developed on the boxes. These prints were compared with the fingerprints of all other employees as well as law enforcement personnel who handled the boxes. None of the identifiable prints belonged to any of the other employees.
Point being, the larger box on the sniper's nest floor used as a seat, was moved by the floor laying crew at some point earlier in the week. Day dusted this box with powder and developed a palmprint, which Latona said belonged to Oswald. The process of using the powder develops prints based on perspiration and therefore would not find prints older than one to three days (time frame dependent on which fingerprint expert you listen to).
While it's possible to handle the boxes and not leave a print at all, it's also likely as possible that Oswald was the only person to handle that box at any point in time past Tuesday the 19th (per Latona's three days out). Or, if you go by Mandella of the NYPD, Oswald could have been the only person to handle that box after Wednesday the 20th. If you go by the FBI's experiments, Oswald was possibly the only person to handle that box after Thursday the 21st.
Oswald's prints on the boxes prove he was in that window, but they can't prove when he was there exactly.
I like the wording on page 537 of ?Pictures of the Pain? by Richard Trask:
This evidence alone could not be conclusive that Oswald was the assassin, but was of probative value concluding that Oswald was at this area as set up.
-
Were the prints taken before or after they moved the boxes?
You do know the boxes were moved, don't you?
As the processing with black powder was done on each carton stacked near the window, it was moved to allow work to be done on the next.
As Day testified, ?They had simply been moved in the processing for prints. They weren?t put back in any particular order.?
-
As the processing with black powder was done on each carton stacked near the window, it was moved to allow work to be done on the next.
As Day testified, “They had simply been moved in the processing for prints. They weren’t put back in any particular order.”
Exactly. Which makes Bill Chapman's claim;
Yep. Just a coincidence that Oswald's prints were found in a position that would indicate handling the box in such a way so as to position it in a precise direction; ie straight down Broadway.
kind of silly and irrelevant
-
@ Newbies: The sniper's nest boxes were photographed in the position they were found before removing them for fingerprinting.
According to my information, Box 'A' the smaller of the stack of two, had a palm print and a fingerprint identified as Oswald's.
(https://i.postimg.cc/9XgY74SZ/Oswald-prints-on-box-A.jpg)
The boxes were then examined for prints and returned to the sniper's nest, placed
randomly near the window. That random placement caused certain CT brainiacs to
wet their panties and claim these random placements as the actual placement positions
during the shooting.
(https://i.postimg.cc/1XS096YN/post-fprinting-01.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/jqhPHDFZ/post-fprinting-02.jpg)
-
@ Newbies: The sniper's nest boxes were photographed in the position they were found before removing them for fingerprinting.
According to my information, Box 'A' the smaller of the stack of two, had a palm print and a fingerprint identified as Oswald's.
(https://i.postimg.cc/9XgY74SZ/Oswald-prints-on-box-A.jpg)
The boxes were then examined for prints and returned to the sniper's nest, placed
randomly near the window. That random placement caused certain CT brainiacs to
wet their panties and claim these random placements as the actual placement positions
during the shooting.
(https://i.postimg.cc/1XS096YN/post-fprinting-01.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/jqhPHDFZ/post-fprinting-02.jpg)
The sniper's nest boxes were photographed in the position they were found before removing them for fingerprinting.
So, you are basically saying that nobody messed with the crime scene before that photo was taken... Yeah right, so why is the infamous paper bag not in the picture?
-
The sniper's nest boxes were photographed in the position they were found before removing them for fingerprinting.
So, you are basically saying that nobody messed with the crime scene before that photo was taken... Yeah right, so why is the infamous paper bag not in the picture?
So, you're changing the subject rather than explaining your 'silly and irrelevant' charge about Oswald's fingerprints found on boxes in the sniper's nest. Typical CT 'whataboutism'.
One more time: Are you still claiming that my point about Oswald's fingerprints found on the box in a placement that would position the box in a specific direction (thus suggesting a rifle support built for a downrange firing position) somehow silly and irrelevant?
-
Exactly. Which makes Bill Chapman's claim;
kind of silly and irrelevant
Are you just trying to ignore the officers? verbal description of the scene, and Alyea?s film of the area prior to its being disrupted by the police looking for fingerprints?
-
So, you're changing the subject rather than explaining your 'silly and irrelevant' charge about Oswald's fingerprints found on boxes in the sniper's nest. Typical CT 'whataboutism'.
One more time: Are you still claiming that my point about Oswald's fingerprints found on the box in a placement that would position the box in a specific direction (thus suggesting a rifle support built for a downrange firing position) somehow silly and irrelevant?
So, you're changing the subject rather than explaining your 'silly and irrelevant' charge about Oswald's fingerprints found on boxes in the sniper's nest. Typical CT 'whataboutism'.
Evasive! You brought up the photograph and basically claimed or at least implied it was taken before anybody had messed with the sniper's nest. If that was true then the paper bag should be in the photo and it isn't. My question is a valid one and you seem to lack an answer
One more time: Are you still claiming that my point about Oswald's fingerprints found on the box in a placement that would position the box in a specific direction (thus suggesting a rifle support built for a downrange firing position) somehow silly and irrelevant?
Yes, because you have no way of knowing how the boxes were really placed. Instead you rely on a photograph with questionable validity.
-
Are you just trying to ignore the officers? verbal description of the scene, and Alyea?s film of the area prior to its being disrupted by the police looking for fingerprints?
Are you just trying to ignore the officers? verbal description of the scene,
No need, the officers' descriptions of the scene differ sufficiently to be uncertain about what the scene really was.
and Alyea?s film of the area prior to its being disrupted by the police looking for fingerprints?
If I recall correctly, Alyea's film of the area also does not show the paper bag in situ, nor it's removal from the sniper's nest, which either indicates that the bag wasn't there to begin with or it was already removed by somebody.
-
Are you just trying to ignore the officers? verbal description of the scene,
No need, the officers' descriptions of the scene differ sufficiently to be uncertain about what the scene really was.
and Alyea?s film of the area prior to its being disrupted by the police looking for fingerprints?
If I recall correctly, Alyea's film of the area also does not show the paper bag in situ, nor it's removal from the sniper's nest, which either indicates that the bag wasn't there to begin with or it was already removed by somebody.
Or perhaps, just maybe, the film was taken from such an angle that the area where the bag was found was blocked by other boxes or even out the frame of view.
-
If the ONLY evidence found was Oswald's prints on the boxes, then it might alone not be sufficient to prove his guilt. But taken within the totality of evidence, it is highly probative. To suggest that his prints being found on the SN boxes is "silly and irrelevant" tells us we are dealing with someone who is just playing defense attorney/devil's advocate and can't be taken seriously. Not that there was any prior doubt. When all is said and done, the evidence always points back to one person. All the more humorous is the notion espoused by these same parties that it is a "strawman" argument to suggest they are implying a conspiracy. Oswald was apparently just the unluckiest guy in history. Of all the TSBD employees, he is the only one to touch these particular boxes and the bag. He decides not to watch the motorcade like nearly every other employee and thus has no credible alibi. Somehow his rifle magically appears with his prints on it. He decides to knock off early for a movie and is the only person on planet Earth to be in the TSBD at the time of the assassination to pass the scene of the Tippit murder. The only Dallas PD officer murdered in a several year period. What are the odds that Oswald is at the scene of a presidential assassination and police murder within a one hour period? And he looks so much like the Tippit shooter that several witnesses identify him as the murderer. And he has a pistol with the same two brands of ammo used by the murderer. When he goes window shopping for some shoes, he attracts the suspicion a random salesman. Terrible luck. Then he decides to duck into the movie without buying a ticket. More bad luck. This results in the police being called on him while just wondering about in Mr. Magoo-like bliss. And instead of just answering their questions he decides to put up a fight. And on and on. But this is all "silly and irrelevant." Nothing to see here. Just an incredible series of bad luck and random citizens all lying for no apparent reason to implicate him.
-
(https://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/theSNbag001.jpg)
(https://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/33vzs4j%201.jpg)
(https://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/depository-and-lee-harvey-oswald_2.jpg)
(https://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/MASO_nary-wcdocs-37_0017_0043.jpg)
(https://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/fritzstandingonpaperbag.jpg)
-
(https://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/TSBD-Sixth-Floor-Snipers-Nest.jpg)
(https://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/6thfloor2.jpg)
(https://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/snipers-nest-1.jpg)
(https://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/6thfloor4.jpg)
(https://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/small_res.jpg)
-
(https://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/powell_1.jpg)
(https://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/recessedboxes.png)
(https://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/DillardAcrops.jpg)
(https://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/images%202.jpg)
(https://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/images%204.jpg)
-
If the ONLY evidence found was Oswald's prints on the boxes, then it might alone not be sufficient to prove his guilt. But taken within the totality of evidence, it is highly probative. To suggest that his prints being found on the SN boxes is "silly and irrelevant" tells us we are dealing with someone who is just playing defense attorney/devil's advocate and can't be taken seriously. Not that there was any prior doubt. When all is said and done, the evidence always points back to one person. All the more humorous is the notion espoused by these same parties that it is a "strawman" argument to suggest they are implying a conspiracy. Oswald was apparently just the unluckiest guy in history. Of all the TSBD employees, he is the only one to touch these particular boxes and the bag. He decides not to watch the motorcade like nearly every other employee and thus has no credible alibi. Somehow his rifle magically appears with his prints on it. He decides to knock off early for a movie and is the only person on planet Earth to be in the TSBD at the time of the assassination to pass the scene of the Tippit murder. The only Dallas PD officer murdered in a several year period. What are the odds that Oswald is at the scene of a presidential assassination and police murder within a one hour period? And he looks so much like the Tippit shooter that several witnesses identify him as the murderer. And he has a pistol with the same two brands of ammo used by the murderer. When he goes window shopping for some shoes, he attracts the suspicion a random salesman. Terrible luck. Then he decides to duck into the movie without buying a ticket. More bad luck. This results in the police being called on him while just wondering about in Mr. Magoo-like bliss. And instead of just answering their questions he decides to put up a fight. And on and on. But this is all "silly and irrelevant." Nothing to see here. Just an incredible series of bad luck and random citizens all lying for no apparent reason to implicate him.
To suggest that his prints being found on the SN boxes is "silly and irrelevant"
I did not suggest that. You need to learn to understand what is written!
The remainder of your rant isn't worth any kind of serious discussion.
-
The sniper's nest boxes were photographed in the position they were found before removing them for fingerprinting.
So, you are basically saying that nobody messed with the crime scene before that photo was taken... Yeah right, so why is the infamous paper bag not in the picture?
You haven't changed your very annoying habit of trying to tell people that they said something that they didn't say. Bill didn't say nobody messed with the crime scene before that picture was taken. He said the boxes were photographed in the position they were found before removing them for fingerprinting.
Robert Studebaker returned to the southeast corner and continued processing the items as instructed by Day, while Day processed the rifle found in the northwest corner. Here is his testimony along with the related photo exhibits. This explains why the paper bag is not in the picture.
Mr. BALL. Did you take a picture of the window in the southeast corner?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. Were there any boxes on the ledge of this window?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. Yes.
Mr. BALL. Did you take some pictures showing those boxes?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. Yes.
Mr. BALL. Was that before any of them were moved?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. That picture right there is the one that shows them, and the other pictures show them before they were moved.
Mr. BALL. You mean Exhibit A and B?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. A and B.
(http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/jfkinfo3/exhibits/studea.jpg)
(http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/jfkinfo3/exhibits/studeb.jpg)
Mr. BALL. Do you have any pictures of the boxes before they were moved other than those you have showed me?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. Just these two.
Mr. BALL. Just the two that show the cartons, and those are Exhibits A and B?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. We have probably got one down there I can get you that is a lot better print than that. If you want a better print, I can get it for you.
Mr. BALL. Then, you don't have any pictures taken of the boxes before they were moved?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. No.
Mr. BALL. Now, did you at any time see any paper sack around there?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. Yes sir.
Mr. BALL. Where?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. Storage room there - in, the southeast corner of the building folded.
Mr. BALL. In the southeast corner of the building?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. It was a paper - I don't know what it was.
Mr. BALL. And it was folded, you say?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. Yes.
Mr. BALL. Where was it with respect to the three boxes of which the top two were Rolling Readers?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. Directly east.
Mr. BALL. There is a corner there, isn't it?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. Yes, sir; in the southeast corner.
Mr. BALL. It was in the southeast corner?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. I drew that box in for somebody over at the FBI that
said you wanted it. It is in one of those pictures - one of the shots after the duplicate shot.
Mr. BALL. Let's mark this picture "Exhibit F."
(Instrument marked by the reporter as "Studebaker Exhibit F," for identification.)
Mr. BALL. Do you know who took that picture?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. No; I don't.
Mr. BALL. Do you recognize the diagram?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. Did you draw the diagram?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. I drew a diagram in there for the FBI, somebody from the FBI called me down - I can't think of his name, and he wanted an approximate location of where the paper was found.
Mr. BALL. Does that show the approximate location?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. Yes.
Mr. BALL. Where you have the dotted lines?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. Yes.
(http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/jfkinfo3/exhibits/studef.jpg)
Mr. BALL. Now, there is something that looks like steam pipes or water pipes in the corner there?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. Yes.
Mr. BALL. Where was that with reference to those pipes - the paper wrapping?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. Laying right beside it - right here.
Mr. BALL. Was it folded over?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. It was doubled - it was a piece of paper about this long and it was doubled over.
Mr. BALL. How long was it, approximately?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. I don't know - I picked it up and dusted it and they took it down there and sent it to Washington and that's the last I have seen of it, and I don't know.
Mr. BALL. Did you take a picture of it before you picked it up?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. No.
Mr. BALL. Does that sack show in any of the pictures you took?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. No; it doesn't show in any of the pictures.
Mr. BALL. Was it near the window?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. Which way from the window?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. It was east of the window.
Mr. BALL. Over in the corner?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. Over in the corner - in the southeast corner of the building, in the far southeast corner, as far as you can get is where it was
Mr. BALL. Now, did you also lift a print off of the box?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. Yes.
Mr. BALL. You lifted a print off of a box?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. Yes.
Mr. BALL. Where was the box?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. The box was due north of the paper that was found, and it was, I believe, we have it that it was - I can read the measurements off of one of these things - how far it was.
Mr. BALL. Fine, do that.
Mr. STUDEBAKER. It was 16 1/2 inches from the - from this wall over here (Indicating).
Mr. BALL. Which wall are you talking about?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. It was from the south wall of the building.
Mr. BALL. Did you take a picture of that box in place before it was moved?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. Yes.
Mr. BALL. The box from which you lifted the prints?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. This box never was moved.
Mr. BALL. That box never was moved?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. That box never was moved.
Mr. BALL. And you took a picture of it?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. And that was the location of it when you lifted the print of it?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. And may I have that, please, and we will mark it Exhibit G.
(http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/jfkinfo3/exhibits/studeg.jpg)
Mr. BALL. The picture of the boxes; this is after they were moved?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. Yes, sir; they were moved there. This is exactly the position they were in.
Mr. BALL. It is?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. Yes - not - this was after they were moved, but I put them in the same exact position.
Mr. BALL. Were they that close - that was about the position?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. Yes.
Mr. BALL. Let's take one of these pictures and mark it the next number, which will be "Exhibit J."
(Instrument marked by the reporter as "Studebaker Exhibit J," for identification)
Mr. BALL. After the boxes of Rolling Readers had been moved, you put them in the same position?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. Yes.
Mr. BALL. And took a picture?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. And this is Exhibit J, is it, is that right?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. Exhibit J, yes, sir.
(http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/jfkinfo3/exhibits/studej.jpg)
-
Fritz arrives at the alleged sniper's nest within 8 minutes of it's discovery.
(https://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/theSNbag001.jpg)
He's pictured/filmed virtually standing on top of the homemade paper gun case.
(https://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/fritzstandingonpaperbag.jpg)
Yet he testifies that he wasn't at the scene when the paper gun case was found.
Mr. DULLES. When was the paper bag covering that apparently he brought the rifle in, was that discovered in the sixth floor about the same time?
Mr. FRITZ. No, sir; that was recovered a little later. I wasn't down there when that was found.
Mr. DULLES. It was recovered on the sixth floor, was it not?
Mr. FRITZ. Yes, sir; I believe so. We can check here and see. I believe it was. But I wasn't there when that was recovered.
How is that possible?
-
If there had been a thousand pictures taken of the bag, it wouldn't make one iota of difference to CTers. They would then claim it was planted there or that it has no probative value in proving Oswald's guilt ("silly and irrelevant"). Some genius would ask if everyone who carried a long bag to work was a presidential assassin (as though there were no context to this bag). How do we know this? Because Oswald's rifle was found and photographed and they still go down that rabbit hole clinging to any straw. No photo was taken. Great - let's argue despite the assurance of multiple detectives that it wasn't there. If a photo had been taken, then it's on to plan B without missing a beat and suggest it was planted, Oswald's prints just happened to be on it because he worked there etc. A photo has no value when taken. Only when not taken. Round and round down the rabbit hole.
-
So, you're changing the subject rather than explaining your 'silly and irrelevant' charge about Oswald's fingerprints found on boxes in the sniper's nest. Typical CT 'whataboutism'.
Evasive! You brought up the photograph and basically claimed or at least implied it was taken before anybody had messed with the sniper's nest. If that was true then the paper bag should be in the photo and it isn't. My question is a valid one and you seem to lack an answer
One more time: Are you still claiming that my point about Oswald's fingerprints found on the box in a placement that would position the box in a specific direction (thus suggesting a rifle support built for a downrange firing position) somehow silly and irrelevant?
Yes, because you have no way of knowing how the boxes were really placed. Instead you rely on a photograph with questionable validity.
Describe this 'questionable validity' of yours and keep in mind that the angled tip of the front-most box was seen in Dilliard seconds after the final shot.
Re any 'evasiveness' from me, you've just answered that yourself in this comment to Charles:
Martin@Charles: "If I recall correctly, Alyea's film of the area also does not show the paper bag in situ, nor it's removal from the sniper's nest, which either indicates that the bag wasn't there to begin with or it was already removed by somebody"
-
In the sniper's nest, there were four boxes used in connection with the shooting. One large box containing books and then two of the smaller "Rolling Readers" boxes atop the large box of books. The fourth box was on the floor behind the stack of three,
obviously used as a seat.
On one of the Rolling Readers boxes at the window, Oswald's left palmprint and his right index fingerprint were found.
The employees laying the floor moved the large boxes of books from the west end of the floor over to the east end. However, the "Rolling Readers" boxes did not need to be moved, i.e. they weren't over on the west end where the new floor was being placed down. The two "Rolling readers" boxes in the sniper's nest were originally about three aisles over from the sniper's nest window and were taken to that window for the purposes of being used as a gun rest. The "Rolling Readers" boxes didn't contain books.
On the box on the floor, the one used as a seat, Day, using powder, dusted the box and developed a palmprint. Latona examined the print and found it to be from Oswald's right palm. Because Day used a powder to develop the print, Latona stated that not too long a time had passed between the time the print was placed on the box and the time it was developed by Day. Powder cannot develop prints beyond a certain point in time.
FBI experiments showed that twenty-four hours was a likely maximum time between the print being placed on the box and the time it was developed by the powder. However, Latona would only state that he could only testify with certainty that the print was less than three days old.
Arthur Mandella (fingerprint expert, NYPD), examined the prints and agreed that they belonged to Oswald. Mandella was of the opinion that the palmprint developed by Day (using the powder) from the box on the floor (the one used as a seat) was probably made within a day to a day and a half of the examination made on the 22nd.
Oswald could obviously have handled the boxes as part of his normal work duties. Fingerprints were taken from the twelve Depository employees who may have had cause to handle the boxes (found in the sniper's nest) as part of their normal work duties as well.
Other identifiable prints were developed on the boxes. These prints were compared with the fingerprints of all other employees as well as law enforcement personnel who handled the boxes. None of the identifiable prints belonged to any of the other employees.
Point being, the larger box on the sniper's nest floor used as a seat, was moved by the floor laying crew at some point earlier in the week. Day dusted this box with powder and developed a palmprint, which Latona said belonged to Oswald. The process of using the powder develops prints based on perspiration and therefore would not find prints older than one to three days (time frame dependent on which fingerprint expert you listen to).
While it's possible to handle the boxes and not leave a print at all, it's also likely as possible that Oswald was the only person to handle that box at any point in time past Tuesday the 19th (per Latona's three days out). Or, if you go by Mandella of the NYPD, Oswald could have been the only person to handle that box after Wednesday the 20th. If you go by the FBI's experiments, Oswald was possibly the only person to handle that box after Thursday the 21st.
Oswald's prints on the boxes prove he was in that window, but they can't prove when he was there exactly.
In "the Sniper's Nest"... LOL! There is no evidence supporting that there was a Sniper's Nest at 12:30 p.m. on November 22, 1963, therefore, the rest of your post is nothing but hypothetical.
-
"Oswald's prints on the boxes prove he was in that window, but they can't prove when he was there exactly."
Sorry Bill, it does nothing of the kind. It may prove he handled the boxes, but it doesn't prove he was there.
Bingo Ray. The FBI expert couldn't say how old the prints were either. LHO worked there so of course he touched boxes.
-
Yep. Just a coincidence that Oswald's prints were found in a position that would indicate handling the box in such a way so as to position it in a precise direction; ie straight down Broadway.
The prints are worthless. The FBI expert admitted without examining LHO's hands, and he never did, he was simply taking what were CLAIMED to be LHO's prints and going from there.
-
Describe this 'questionable validity' of yours and keep in mind that the angled tip of the front-most box was seen in Dilliard seconds after the final shot.
Re any 'evasiveness' from me, you've just answered that yourself in this comment to Charles:
Martin@Charles: "If I recall correctly, Alyea's film of the area also does not show the paper bag in situ, nor it's removal from the sniper's nest, which either indicates that the bag wasn't there to begin with or it was already removed by somebody"
Brilliant "logic"!
You claim that the photo was taken with the boxes in situ. For that claim to be true and of any value you need to presume that the crime scene was not previously contaminated, but you have in fact no way of knowing if anybody had messed with the scene already. In fact, by claiming at the same time that the paper bag had already been removed, you seem to accept and are in fact arguing that somebody did in fact tamper with the scene before the photo was taken, making your initial claim completely invalid.
Why in the world would anybody remove evidence from a crime scene before a picture of that scene was taken? And if the paper bag was indeed removed, who removed it and for what purpose? And how in the world can you be sure that anything in the photo is in fact in situ and authentic, when you already accept that evidence was removed from the scene prior to the picture being taken?
-
You haven't changed your very annoying habit of trying to tell people that they said something that they didn't say. Bill didn't say nobody messed with the crime scene before that picture was taken. He said the boxes were photographed in the position they were found before removing them for fingerprinting.
Yes, he did say that, but he presented the photograph as proof that the items were in situ, to support his claim that the prints on the boxes were pointing in a particular direction.
If you can't read between the lines or understand the connection between his first comment and the presentation of the picture, that's really not my problem, is it now?
Bill seems to have accepted since that at least the paper bag was removed from the scene prior to the photograph being taken. In my book removing evidence from a crime scene is evidence tampering and a contamination of the crime scene. Do you agree?
So, in your mind, what is the value of a picture taken of an already contaminated crime scene? Is there any way to determine that the contamination of the crime scene was limited to the removal of one item?
-
In "the Sniper's Nest"... LOL! There is no evidence supporting that there was a Sniper's Nest at 12:30 p.m. on November 22, 1963, therefore, the rest of your post is nothing but hypothetical.
Caprio,
Had there really been a sniper's nest at that window at 12:30, what kind of evidence of it would you reasonably expect to exist?
A well-exposed 35mm color film taken from that part of the sixth floor at the time, accompanied by notarized statements from the photographer and his or her helpers?
Or ... gasp ... boxes arranged in that configuration with ... gasp ... the sniper's fingerprints on them?
-- MWT :)
-
The prints are worthless. The FBI expert admitted without examining LHO's hands, and he never did, he was simply taking what were CLAIMED to be LHO's prints and going from there.
Name the expert and provide a link to that.
-
Bingo Ray. The FBI expert couldn't say how old the prints were either. LHO worked there so of course he touched boxes.
Poor Oswald was certainly an unlucky guy. Time and again the evidence points back to him due random bad luck. Let's see he is the only TSBD employee to leave prints on the boxes. Others worked there but Oswald's are the only employee prints they find. What are the odds? And his prints are on the bag and rifle. More bad luck. And he has no credible alibi like almost every other person who worked there. And he flees the scene. Gets a pistol. Happens to cross paths with the murder of a police officer less than an hour later (the only DPD officer killed within a several year period). He has the same two brands of ammo as Tippit's killer. He apparently looked just like the real killer. So much bad luck.
-
If there had been a thousand pictures taken of the bag, it wouldn't make one iota of difference to CTers. They would then claim it was planted there or that it has no probative value in proving Oswald's guilt ("silly and irrelevant"). Some genius would ask if everyone who carried a long bag to work was a presidential assassin (as though there were no context to this bag). How do we know this? Because Oswald's rifle was found and photographed and they still go down that rabbit hole clinging to any straw. No photo was taken. Great - let's argue despite the assurance of multiple detectives that it wasn't there. If a photo had been taken, then it's on to plan B without missing a beat and suggest it was planted, Oswald's prints just happened to be on it because he worked there etc. A photo has no value when taken. Only when not taken. Round and round down the rabbit hole.
"If there had been a thousand pictures taken of the bag, it wouldn't make one iota of difference to CTers. They would then claim it was planted there or that it has no probative value in proving Oswald's guilt ("silly and irrelevant")."
True. Since the bag in the archives contains zero forensic evidence of ever holding the TSBD Carcano and the 2 people who saw LHO carrying something that morning both describe a bag 27 inches long - too short to have carried the TSBD Carcano - the logical conclusion would be planted evidence.
-
"If there had been a thousand pictures taken of the bag, it wouldn't make one iota of difference to CTers. They would then claim it was planted there or that it has no probative value in proving Oswald's guilt ("silly and irrelevant")."
True. Since the bag in the archives contains zero forensic evidence of ever holding the TSBD Carcano and the 2 people who saw LHO carrying something that morning both describe a bag 27 inches long - too short to have carried the TSBD Carcano - the logical conclusion would be planted evidence.
Great. Then you have proved my point. And to take this to the logical extreme, if the bag had contained "forensic evidence of ever holding the TSBD Carcano" (whatever that might be) you would claim that was planted as well. And on and on and on down the yellow brick road. Any evidence of Oswald's guilt is dismissed as fake. So there is no evidence of Oswald's guilt. Catch 22 of CTer logic.
-
Great. Then you have proved my point. And to take this to the logical extreme, if the bag had contained "forensic evidence of ever holding the TSBD Carcano" (whatever that might be) you would claim that was planted as well. And on and on and on down the yellow brick road. Any evidence of Oswald's guilt is dismissed as fake. So there is no evidence of Oswald's guilt. Catch 22 of CTer logic.
The more evidence of Oswald's guilt is, for the conspiracy advocates, more evidence of his innocence. Why? Because it's faked and, thus, evidence of a conspiracy.
When Garrison said that you have to think that "Up is down and down is up" he was revealing how conspiracists look at this event. A thousand pieces of evidence that Oswald shot JFK is, for them, a thousand pieces of evidence that he didn't.
-
In the sniper's nest ....yadda yadda
What blog did that come off of? Why not say "Oswald's sniper nest"? As the words "Oswald's rifle" was stated umpty billions of times and so that made it a fact.
There was an entire wall of boxes in this picture.... Were fingerprints obtained from all of them? [Would prove the nest builder's presence most accurately]
(https://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/images/d/d2/Pict_essay_thomasbugfritz_4_snipersnest.jpg)
-
Caprio,
Had there really been a sniper's nest at that window at 12:30, what kind of evidence of it would you reasonably expect to exist?
A well-exposed 35mm color film taken from that part of the sixth floor at the time, accompanied by notarized statements from the photographer and his or her helpers?
Or ... gasp ... boxes arranged in that configuration with ... gasp ... the sniper's fingerprints on them?
-- MWT :)
Graves -- learn the evidence. The boxes were NOT in the shape or form that was claimed by the WC when the TSBD was entered by the police. Boxes were moved after the shooting.
Stop being a smart aleck and learn the evidence.
-
Name the expert and provide a link to that.
Already did countless times, but you LNers whined and had it removed. By the way, when do you cite for any of your claims?
-
Poor Oswald was certainly an unlucky guy. Time and again the evidence points back to him due random bad luck. Let's see he is the only TSBD employee to leave prints on the boxes. Others worked there but Oswald's are the only employee prints they find. What are the odds? And his prints are on the bag and rifle. More bad luck. And he has no credible alibi like almost every other person who worked there. And he flees the scene. Gets a pistol. Happens to cross paths with the murder of a police officer less than an hour later (the only DPD officer killed within a several year period). He has the same two brands of ammo as Tippit's killer. He apparently looked just like the real killer. So much bad luck.
You're wrong as usual as NO evidence points to LHO as you falsely claim. That's why this is still be discussed 55 years later. We have no way of knowing if his prints were on anything since the person working with the prints said that he had never seen LHO's hands to know what his prints looked like.
By the way, what paper bag?
-
You're wrong as usual as NO evidence points to LHO as you falsely claim. That's why this is still be discussed 55 years later. We have no way of knowing if his prints were on anything since the person working with the prints said that he had never seen LHO's hands to know what his prints looked like.
Caprio,
When, for example, considering whether or not to request extradition from another jurisdiction, do police departments have to see a suspect's hands if his or her fingerprints are already on file and available to them?
-- MWT :)
-
Great. Then you have proved my point. And to take this to the logical extreme, if the bag had contained "forensic evidence of ever holding the TSBD Carcano" (whatever that might be) you would claim that was planted as well. And on and on and on down the yellow brick road. Any evidence of Oswald's guilt is dismissed as fake. So there is no evidence of Oswald's guilt. Catch 22 of CTer logic.
"if the bag had contained"
You can "what if" all you want, the WC certainly did, but it won't change these facts.
1) The crime scene insitu photos don't show a home made gun bag in the alleged sniper's nest.
2) The bag in the archives contains zero forensic evidence of the TSBD Carcano ever being in it.
3) The 2 witnesses who saw LHO that morning both described a 27 inch bag. Too small to hold the TSBD Carcano.
-
Great. Then you have proved my point. And to take this to the logical extreme, if the bag had contained "forensic evidence of ever holding the TSBD Carcano" (whatever that might be) you would claim that was planted as well. And on and on and on down the yellow brick road. Any evidence of Oswald's guilt is dismissed as fake. So there is no evidence of Oswald's guilt. Catch 22 of CTer logic.
if the bag had contained "forensic evidence of ever holding the TSBD Carcano" (whatever that might be) you would claim that was planted as well.
Utterly irrelevant speculation since the bag did not contain any kind of forensic evidence to link it to any Carcano.
And on and on and on down the yellow brick road. Any evidence of Oswald's guilt is dismissed as fake.
There's the pot calling the kettle black! There is no evidence whatsoever that a Carcano was ever concealed or carried in that bag. There isn't even evidence that it is the bag Oswald carried, but despite those facts you will continue to claim that the bag somehow is evidence of Oswald's guilt. Even worse, even the slightest suggestion that evidence was possibly tampered with is considered proof by you that Oswald was guilty.
You considering Oswald to be guilty isn't based on the actual evidence. It's based on pure blind faith regardless of what the evidence really shows. It's truly pathetic.
-
if the bag had contained "forensic evidence of ever holding the TSBD Carcano" (whatever that might be) you would claim that was planted as well.
Utterly irrelevant speculation since the bag did not contain any kind of forensic evidence to link it to any Carcano.
And on and on and on down the yellow brick road. Any evidence of Oswald's guilt is dismissed as fake.
There's the pot calling the kettle black! There is no evidence whatsoever that a Carcano was ever concealed or carried in that bag. There isn't even evidence that it is the bag Oswald carried, but despite those facts you will continue to claim that the bag somehow is evidence of Oswald's guilt. Even worse, even the slightest suggestion that evidence was possibly tampered with is considered proof by you that Oswald was guilty.
You considering Oswald to be guilty isn't based on the actual evidence. It's based on pure blind faith regardless of what the evidence really shows. It's truly pathetic.
Weidmann,
If the Carcano had been carried in that bag, what kind of evidence indicating same would you reasonably expect to find?
-- MWT :)
-
Weidmann,
If the Carcano had been carried in that bag, what kind of evidence indicating same would you reasonably expect to find?
-- MWT :)
Graves,
It's a mute point. No evidence of a rifle having been carried in that bag was found. A far better question IMO would be why anybody would argue that a rifle had been carried in that bag when there is no evidence for it and it can not even be proven that the bag is the same one Oswald carried that morning.
Stop living in a dreamworld and try to deal with the known facts rather than what you want the outcome to be.
-
Graves,
It's a mute point. No evidence of a rifle having been carried in that bag was found. A far better question IMO would be why anybody would argue that a rifle had been carried in that bag when there is no evidence for it and it can not even be proven that the bag is the same one Oswald carried that morning.
Stop living in a dreamworld and try to deal with the known facts rather than what you want the outcome to be.
Weidmann,
I somehow knew you wouldn't want to answer that question.
For the simple reason that you can't.
-- MWT :)
-
Weidmann,
I somehow knew you wouldn't want to answer that question.
For the simple reason that you can't.
-- MWT :)
Just as I knew you wouldn't accept any answer I gave you anyway.
-
Weidmann,
If the Carcano had been carried in that bag, what kind of evidence indicating same would you reasonably expect to find?
-- MWT :)
Were both ends of CE142 folded over and sealed to contain the disassembled carcano? If so does anyone have any pictures of the bag that demonstrate that was the case?
-
You're wrong as usual as NO evidence points to LHO as you falsely claim. That's why this is still be discussed 55 years later. We have no way of knowing if his prints were on anything since the person working with the prints said that he had never seen LHO's hands to know what his prints looked like.
By the way, what paper bag?
Even the most outlandish fringe kook shouldn't use terms like "NO evidence." It's not only embarrassing but dishonest. Oswald's rifle, bullet casings, prints, lies, absence of an alibi, flight, and resisting arrest are classic examples of evidence in a crime. In fact, it's difficult to imagine what more evidence there could be. Perhaps you can enlighten us, though, as to what evidence is missing from the record relating to Oswald's guilt. While you are at it, maybe cite us to the "evidence" that links someone else to this crime. Use the same impossible, subjective interpretation of that term that you apply in the case of Oswald. Good luck.
btw: how is the search going for that dead SS agent? You must be spending countless hours going through the short list of agents to find the one who disappeared from history after 11.22. I know you want to solve the case and wouldn't just post a claim that you believe is baseless but go the extra mile to find the truth. Inspiring.
-
Already did countless times, but you LNers whined and had it removed. By the way, when do you cite for any of your claims?
What 'claims' might those be? You wouldn't happen to be mistaking those of my posts that are written in mocking fashion for a claim, now would you?
Re the prints on the gun bag, are you talking about JC Day and/or RL Studebaker by any chance?
And your series was removed because you were hogging the front pages. Duncan clearly explained that to you.
-
Bingo Ray. The FBI expert couldn't say how old the prints were either. LHO worked there so of course he touched boxes.
So the Oswald fingerprint and palm print aiming the top box right down Broadway were just a coincidence.
Got it. Ray & Ron. Holmes & Watson right there.
-
So the Oswald fingerprint and palm print aiming the top box right down Broadway were just a coincidence.
Got it. Ray & Ron. Holmes & Watson right there.
So the Oswald fingerprint and palm print aiming the top box right down Broadway were just a coincidence.
No, not a coincidence. Just something you like to make up without knowing any of it for certain.
-
Were both ends of CE142 folded over and sealed to contain the disassembled carcano? If so does anyone have any pictures of the bag that demonstrate that was the case?
Anyone?
-
Even the most outlandish fringe kook shouldn't use terms like "NO evidence." It's not only embarrassing but dishonest. Oswald's rifle, bullet casings, prints, lies, absence of an alibi, flight, and resisting arrest are classic examples of evidence in a crime. In fact, it's difficult to imagine what more evidence there could be. Perhaps you can enlighten us, though, as to what evidence is missing from the record relating to Oswald's guilt. While you are at it, maybe cite us to the "evidence" that links someone else to this crime. Use the same impossible, subjective interpretation of that term that you apply in the case of Oswald. Good luck.
btw: how is the search going for that dead SS agent? You must be spending countless hours going through the short list of agents to find the one who disappeared from history after 11.22. I know you want to solve the case and wouldn't just post a claim that you believe is baseless but go the extra mile to find the truth. Inspiring.
What's embarrassing is your inability to cite the evidence that you claim supports your contention that LHO shot JFK, JBC and JDT. Let's do it one piece at a time. Cite what you think links LHO to the rifle in terms of ownership.
I don't have to search for anything as three media sources CONFIRMED that a SS agent was killed. *You* claimed it was all a mistake without supporting that in the least. This is typical for you.
-
Quote from: Bill Chapman on May 15, 2019, 11:20:21 PM
And your series was removed because you were hogging the front pages. Duncan clearly explained that to you.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/50/Facebook_Thumb_icon.svg/205px-Facebook_Thumb_icon.svg.png)
Quote from: Rob Caprio on Today at 05:15:04 PM
My series was removed because it made the lies of the official narrative defenders much more difficult to get away with.
(https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php?action=dlattach;attach=158;type=avatar)
(https://media1.tenor.com/images/f4f4fd12c413c865bf00c8b53eebd734/tenor.gif?itemid=5598137)
-
You claim that LHO was a killer. Now support it.
My series was removed because it made the lies of the official narrative defenders much more difficult to get away with.
If you don't even know who the expert was you shouldn't be discussing this issue.
I'm 100% sure that Oswald probably did it.
Your series was removed because you broke forum rules.
Where exactly are you 'discussing' this issue? By refusing to repost your claims? And it's a resounding NO regarding Day and/or Studebaker as the expert(s) you are referring to, then? God forbid you should correct that.
-
I'm 100% sure that Oswald probably did it.
Your series was removed because you broke forum rules.
Where exactly are you 'discussing' this issue. By refusing to repost your claims? And it's a resounding NO regarding Day & Studebaker as the expert you are referring to then? God forbid you should correct that.
Hi Bill, you won't be getting an answer to that question any time soon. See the post before yours...Caprio's been suspended AGAIN. LOL :D :D
-
(http://i64.tinypic.com/24cedf5.jpg)
And yet another meaningless coincidence that the corner of the bag where the rifle fore-stock would have been, has the most severe wrinkles.
(http://i66.tinypic.com/5zfy9e.jpg)
-
Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Cadigan, did you notice when you looked at the bag whether there were---that is the bag found on the sixth floor, Exhibit 142--whether it had any bulges or unusual creases?
Mr. CADIGAN. I was also requested at that time to examine the bag to determine if there were any significant markings or scratches or abrasions or anything by which it could be associated with the rifle, Commission Exhibit 139, that is, could I find any markings that I could tie to that rifle.
Mr. EISENBERG. Yes?
Mr. CADIGAN. And I couldn't find any such markings.
Mr. EISENBERG. Now, was there an absence of markings which would be inconsistent with the rifle having been carried in the bag?
Mr. CADIGAN. No; I don't see actually, I don't know the condition of the rifle. If it were in fact contained in this bag, it could have been wrapped in cloth or just the metal parts wrapped in a thick layer of cloth, or if the gun was in the bag, perhaps it wasn't moved too much. I did observe some scratch marks and abrasions but was unable to associate them with this gun. The scratch marks in the paper could come from any place. They could have come from many places. There were no marks on this bag that I could say were caused by that rifle or any other rifle or any other given instrument.
-
Hi Bill, you won't be getting an answer to that question any time soon. See the post before yours...Caprio's been suspended AGAIN. LOL :D :D
Do the drawings accurately depict each and every wrinkle in the bag, or at least come reasonably close?
(Just wondering)
-- MWT :)
-
(http://i64.tinypic.com/24cedf5.jpg)
And yet another meaningless coincidence that the corner of the bag where the rifle fore-stock would have been, has the most severe wrinkles.
(http://i66.tinypic.com/5zfy9e.jpg)
Nice graphic work (as usual) Jerry. The images are illuminating. In the 1967 CBS Investigation of the Warren Report: A scrunched area at the top of the bag corresponds with the way Dan Rather closed it tight to demonstrate how Oswald could have carried it. If Oswald had carried the bottom of the bag cupped in the palm of his hand and the top through his armpit forward of his body: It explains why Buell Frazier failed to see the narrower (scrunched) portion of the bag above his shoulder.
-
Nice graphic work (as usual) Jerry. The images are illuminating. In the 1967 CBS Investigation of the Warren Report: A scrunched area at the top of the bag corresponds with the way Dan Rather closed it tight to demonstrate how Oswald could have carried it. If Oswald had carried the bottom of the bag cupped in the palm of his hand and the top through his armpit forward of his body: It explains why Buell Frazier failed to see the narrower (scrunched) portion of the bag above his shoulder.
Above his shoulder, or above his armpit?
-
Above his shoulder, or above his armpit?
Shoulder. As Dan Rather walked away in the direction of the TSBD: the top of the paper bag (scrunched) could be seen above his right shoulder.
Viewers could see the portion of the bag above Rather's shoulder as our attention was drawn to it by his statement. Buell Frazier was probably not looking closely (directly at Oswald?) and could have missed seeing it.
-
(http://i64.tinypic.com/24cedf5.jpg)
And yet another meaningless coincidence that the corner of the bag where the rifle fore-stock would have been, has the most severe wrinkles.
(http://i66.tinypic.com/5zfy9e.jpg)
Thanks Jerry,
I don?t doubt the rifle was in that bag. My question was however ...."Were both ends of CE142 folded over and sealed to contain the disassembled carcano? If so does anyone have any pictures of the bag that demonstrate that was the case?
Does anyone think that Oswald would carry a rifle in a bag with an opened end after wrapping?
-
Thanks Jerry,
I don?t doubt the rifle was in that bag. My question was however ...."Were both ends of CE142 folded over and sealed to contain the disassembled carcano? If so does anyone have any pictures of the bag that demonstrate that was the case?
Does anyone think that Oswald would carry a rifle in a bag with an opened end after wrapping?
Nice graphic Jerry
I have always wondered would the rifle have fit the length of the bag without the rifle being disassembled. The picture on the add and the add itself would have led LHO to believe his rifle was shorter than it really was. He received the rifle in the picture but they ae not 36" carcano's. A 36" carcano is a Calvary Carcano and has a different appearance.
-
Thanks Jerry,
I don?t doubt the rifle was in that bag. My question was however ...."Were both ends of CE142 folded over and sealed to contain the disassembled carcano? If so does anyone have any pictures of the bag that demonstrate that was the case?
Does anyone think that Oswald would carry a rifle in a bag with an opened end after wrapping?
The open end appears to have been folded over much like one would fold over the open end of a paper lunch bag.
-
@Newbies
A too-small blanket-fiber population was found in the gun bag which Stombaugh testified would very likely have been multiplied to a level identifying the Carcano as being in the blanket found in Paine's garage but for the fingerprint dusting in effect brushing away any needed extra fibres. Not-to-mention the blanket was threadbare to begin with, although it did produce evidence of Oswald's 'short & curlies'.
-
Brilliant "logic"!
You claim that the photo was taken with the boxes in situ. For that claim to be true and of any value you need to presume that the crime scene was not previously contaminated, but you have in fact no way of knowing if anybody had messed with the scene already. In fact, by claiming at the same time that the paper bag had already been removed, you seem to accept and are in fact arguing that somebody did in fact tamper with the scene before the photo was taken, making your initial claim completely invalid.
Why in the world would anybody remove evidence from a crime scene before a picture of that scene was taken? And if the paper bag was indeed removed, who removed it and for what purpose? And how in the world can you be sure that anything in the photo is in fact in situ and authentic, when you already accept that evidence was removed from the scene prior to the picture being taken?
I'm just reportin' the news: The WC claimed the positions were photographed before they were removed.
Point out where I claim the bag had already been removed..
-
I'm just reportin' the news: The WC claimed the positions were photographed before they were removed.
Point out where I claim the bag had already been removed..
I'm just reportin' the news: The WC claimed the positions were photographed before they were removed.
Which means you were just reporting the "news"
Point out where I claim the bag had already been removed..
So you deny you claimed that? Ok, does that mean that you claim the bag was not yet removed?
-
@Newbies
A too-small blanket-fiber population was found in the gun bag which Stombaugh testified would very likely have been multiplied to a level identifying the Carcano as being in the blanket found in Paine's garage but for the fingerprint dusting in effect brushing away any needed extra fibres. Not-to-mention the blanket was threadbare to begin with, although it did produce evidence of Oswald's 'short & curlies'.
A too-small blanket-fiber population was found in the gun bag which Stombaugh testified would very likely have been multiplied to a level identifying the Carcano as being in the blanket found in Paine's garage but for the fingerprint dusting in effect brushing away any needed extra fibres.
This would have been pure speculation on the part of Stombaugh if he ever said it, but he didn't.
-
The open end appears to have been folded over much like one would fold over the open end of a paper lunch bag.
Folded but not sealed? I see wrinkles not much else. Any tape remnants or evidence of taping?
-
Folded but not sealed? I see wrinkles not much else. Any tape remnants or evidence of taping?
The wrinkles are indicative of a type of folding in which one rolls it and crumples it in lieu of neatly folding it. Why do you ask about sealing it with tape? Is that important for some reason?
-
The wrinkles are indicative of a type of folding in which one rolls it and crumples it in lieu of neatly folding it. Why do you ask about sealing it with tape? Is that important for some reason?
I had always assumed that both ends would have been secured in some fashion that would prevent the disassembled rifle parts from falling out. In addition wouldn?t "scrunching" around the barrel tend to provide onlookers with more information regarding the contents than a flat taped end? Also has more tendency to tear the paper.
-
I had always assumed that both ends would have been secured in some fashion that would prevent the disassembled rifle parts from falling out. In addition wouldn?t "scrunching" around the barrel tend to provide onlookers with more information regarding the contents than a flat taped end? Also has more tendency to tear the paper.
What onlookers? Oswald's only concern would be curious fellow employees inside the TSBD... between the back door near the loading dock and the freight elevators. Even the ever-alert Jack Edwin Dougherty never saw Oswald's package as he passed by.
Onlookers getting information about the contents of a paper package from the method of folding the end of it?
Colin: Are you implying that "onlookers" have x-ray vision?
-
I had always assumed that both ends would have been secured in some fashion that would prevent the disassembled rifle parts from falling out. In addition wouldn?t "scrunching" around the barrel tend to provide onlookers with more information regarding the contents than a flat taped end? Also has more tendency to tear the paper.
One end needed to be left open until the rifle was put inside. There might not have been any suitable tape available at the Paine residence to seal it after that. The wrinkles appear to be roughly perpendicular to the long dimension of the bag and the rifle. So a rolled up end of the bag would tend to keep the contents inside. Unless perhaps someone were to turn it so that the rolled up end was on the bottom and shook it in a deliberate attempt to empty the bag.
-
What onlookers? Oswald's only concern would be curious fellow employees inside the TSBD... between the back door near the loading dock and the freight elevators. Even the ever-alert Jack Edwin Dougherty never saw Oswald's package as he passed by.
Onlookers getting information about the contents of a paper package from the method of folding the end of it?
Colin: Are you implying that "onlookers" have x-ray vision?
I don't know what Oswald's concerns were, are you able to read minds? I am not implying x-ray vision but the grasping of the barrel as I believe has been implied gives some information as to the shape of the contents underneath.
In the position he was assigned by the WC narrative one assumes his concerns would be; a) a secure means of transporting the weapon, ie. one that would make it impossible for the contents to be revealed by accident, b) some arrangement that would not arouse suspicion or curiosity before the event.
To my mind simply folding down and "scrunching" the open end satisfies neither whereas a fixed seal of some sort does. If nothing for the ability to prevent nosy onlookers, TSBD or otherwise, from asking for a peek.
Here is an onlooker's description of the bag.
Mr. BALL. What was he carrying?
Mrs. RANDLE. He was carrying a package in a sort of a heavy brown bag, heavier than a grocery bag it looked to me. It was about, if I might measure, about this long, I suppose, and he carried it in his right hand, had the top sort of folded down and had a grip like this, and the bottom, he carried it this way, you know, and it almost touched the ground as he carried it.
Mr. BALL. Let me see. He carried it in his right hand, did he?
Mrs. RANDLE. That is right.
Mr. BALL. And where was his hand gripping the middle of the package?
Mrs. RANDLE. No, sir; the top with just a little bit sticking up. You know just like you grab something like that.
Mr. BALL. And he was grabbing it with his right hand at the top of the package and the package almost touched the ground?
Mr. BALL. Now, was the length of it any similar, anywhere near similar?
Mrs. RANDLE. Well, it wasn't that long, I mean it was folded down at the top as I told you. It definitely wasn't that long.
Given LMR described the folding down of the top end, how long do you estimate the fold over to be?
-
One end needed to be left open until the rifle was put inside. There might not have been any suitable tape available at the Paine residence to seal it after that. The wrinkles appear to be roughly perpendicular to the long dimension of the bag and the rifle. So a rolled up end of the bag would tend to keep the contents inside. Unless perhaps someone were to turn it so that the rolled up end was on the bottom and shook it in a deliberate attempt to empty the bag.
I agree that the WC narrative requires Oswald's TSBD manufacture of a wrapper with one end sealed.
Mr. JENNER - Mrs. Paine, all I have to say is that this paper is startlingly like the wrapping paper that I exhibited to you in the Commission hearing last week.
Mrs. PAINE - It is wrapping paper for mailing books and other such articles.
Mr. JENNER - It is a good weight. You have, I notice, now in your hand, some sealing tape or paper sticky tape, am I correct?
Mrs. PAINE - Yes.
Mr. JENNER - From where did you obtain that?
Mrs. PAINE - From the same bottom drawer.
Mr. JENNER - Did you have a supply of that sticky tape in your home on November 22, 1963?
Mrs. PAINE - Yes; this is the remainder of that.
Mr. JENNER - This is the remainder of a roll you had at that time?
Mrs. PAINE - That's right.
Mr. JENNER - Would you cut a slip of that for us?
Mrs. PAINE - Yes.
Mr. JENNER - Off the record.
Miss Reporter, would you mark the strip of sticky tape I now hand you as "Ruth Paine Exhibit No. 273"?
There was also string in the garage for wrapping. I was going to securely transport the weapon I don't think I would trust folded scrunching. Then again, disassembling to save 3 inches in length makes no sense either.
-
I don't know what Oswald's concerns were, are you able to read minds? I am not implying x-ray vision but the grasping of the barrel as I believe has been implied gives some information as to the shape of the contents underneath.
In the position he was assigned by the WC narrative one assumes his concerns would be; a) a secure means of transporting the weapon, ie. one that would make it impossible for the contents to be revealed by accident, b) some arrangement that would not arouse suspicion or curiosity before the event.
To my mind simply folding down and "scrunching" the open end satisfies neither whereas a fixed seal of some sort does. If nothing for the ability to prevent nosy onlookers, TSBD or otherwise, from asking for a peek.
Here is an onlooker's description of the bag.
Mr. BALL. What was he carrying?
Mrs. RANDLE. He was carrying a package in a sort of a heavy brown bag, heavier than a grocery bag it looked to me. It was about, if I might measure, about this long, I suppose, and he carried it in his right hand, had the top sort of folded down and had a grip like this, and the bottom, he carried it this way, you know, and it almost touched the ground as he carried it.
Mr. BALL. Let me see. He carried it in his right hand, did he?
Mrs. RANDLE. That is right.
Mr. BALL. And where was his hand gripping the middle of the package?
Mrs. RANDLE. No, sir; the top with just a little bit sticking up. You know just like you grab something like that.
Mr. BALL. And he was grabbing it with his right hand at the top of the package and the package almost touched the ground?
Mr. BALL. Now, was the length of it any similar, anywhere near similar?
Mrs. RANDLE. Well, it wasn't that long, I mean it was folded down at the top as I told you. It definitely wasn't that long.
Given LMR described the folding down of the top end, how long do you estimate the fold over to be?
The fingerprints found on the bag indicate that Linnie May Randle was correct as to how LHO carried the bag. He held it by the barrel end with his right hand under the front sight and his left hand near the wrist of the stock. The rifle was never dissembled.
-
I agree that the WC narrative requires Oswald's TSBD manufacture of a wrapper with one end sealed.
Mr. JENNER - Mrs. Paine, all I have to say is that this paper is startlingly like the wrapping paper that I exhibited to you in the Commission hearing last week.
Mrs. PAINE - It is wrapping paper for mailing books and other such articles.
Mr. JENNER - It is a good weight. You have, I notice, now in your hand, some sealing tape or paper sticky tape, am I correct?
Mrs. PAINE - Yes.
Mr. JENNER - From where did you obtain that?
Mrs. PAINE - From the same bottom drawer.
Mr. JENNER - Did you have a supply of that sticky tape in your home on November 22, 1963?
Mrs. PAINE - Yes; this is the remainder of that.
Mr. JENNER - This is the remainder of a roll you had at that time?
Mrs. PAINE - That's right.
Mr. JENNER - Would you cut a slip of that for us?
Mrs. PAINE - Yes.
Mr. JENNER - Off the record.
Miss Reporter, would you mark the strip of sticky tape I now hand you as "Ruth Paine Exhibit No. 273"?
There was also string in the garage for wrapping. I was going to securely transport the weapon I don't think I would trust folded scrunching. Then again, disassembling to save 3 inches in length makes no sense either.
What is the minimal amount of disassembling of Oswald's MC rifle that it would take to make it fit the bag? The pictures that I have always seen depict the rifle in numerous pieces in what appears to be a state of complete disassembly, but is it possible to simply remove the barrel from the stock without completely disassembling the entire rifle to make it shorter? If so, it might be that the rifle was already disassembled in the blanket for cleaning purposes or that Oswald thought - per the magazine ad - that his rifle was a bit shorter than it actually was and he had no choice but to disassemble it to the fit a bag he made for a slightly shorter rifle. Regardless, all he has to do is fold down one end and carry that end in an upright position to securely transport the weapon. Not exactly rocket science on his part.
-
I agree that the WC narrative requires Oswald's TSBD manufacture of a wrapper with one end sealed.
Mr. JENNER - Mrs. Paine, all I have to say is that this paper is startlingly like the wrapping paper that I exhibited to you in the Commission hearing last week.
Mrs. PAINE - It is wrapping paper for mailing books and other such articles.
Mr. JENNER - It is a good weight. You have, I notice, now in your hand, some sealing tape or paper sticky tape, am I correct?
Mrs. PAINE - Yes.
Mr. JENNER - From where did you obtain that?
Mrs. PAINE - From the same bottom drawer.
Mr. JENNER - Did you have a supply of that sticky tape in your home on November 22, 1963?
Mrs. PAINE - Yes; this is the remainder of that.
Mr. JENNER - This is the remainder of a roll you had at that time?
Mrs. PAINE - That's right.
Mr. JENNER - Would you cut a slip of that for us?
Mrs. PAINE - Yes.
Mr. JENNER - Off the record.
Miss Reporter, would you mark the strip of sticky tape I now hand you as "Ruth Paine Exhibit No. 273"?
There was also string in the garage for wrapping. I was going to securely transport the weapon I don't think I would trust folded scrunching. Then again, disassembling to save 3 inches in length makes no sense either.
Are you suggesting it wasn?t made from the TSBD materials?
-
Are you suggesting it wasn?t made from the TSBD materials?
Which bag are you referring to?
The one Oswald carried that morning or the one found at the TSBD?
-
Are you suggesting it wasn?t made from the TSBD materials?
No, although Jenner seems to be commenting on the similarity. That testimony shows that there was tape in the garage.....something you queried in your post. Just informing you that there was.
-
The fingerprints found on the bag indicate that Linnie May Randle was correct as to how LHO carried the bag. He held it by the barrel end with his right hand under the front sight and his left hand near the wrist of the stock. The rifle was never dissembled.
Using a standard chemical method involving silver nitrates 180 the FBI Laboratory developed a latent palmprint and latent fingerprint on the bag. (See app. X, p. 565.) Sebastian F. Latona, supervisor of the FBI's Latent Fingerprint Section, identified these prints as the left index fingerprint and right palmprint of Lee Harvey Oswald.
There was only one partial fingerprint found. LMR said right hand. Anything to support your speculation Jack?
-
What is the minimal amount of disassembling of Oswald's MC rifle that it would take to make it fit the bag? The pictures that I have always seen depict the rifle in numerous pieces in what appears to be a state of complete disassembly, but is it possible to simply remove the barrel from the stock without completely disassembling the entire rifle to make it shorter? If so, it might be that the rifle was already disassembled in the blanket for cleaning purposes or that Oswald thought - per the magazine ad - that his rifle was a bit shorter than it actually was and he had no choice but to disassemble it to the fit a bag he made for a slightly shorter rifle. Regardless, all he has to do is fold down one end and carry that end in an upright position to securely transport the weapon. Not exactly rocket science on his part.
Was the rifle dissembled or not? Could it have been transported intact in that bag or not. You LN guys get back to us when you have worked that out.
-
No, although Jenner seems to be commenting on the similarity. That testimony shows that there was tape in the garage.....something you queried in your post. Just informing you that there was.
Actually, the tape was not in the garage as you state. It was stored in a bottom drawer in the dining room. In my opinion it is doubtful that LHO knew that it was there (without evidence to the contrary).
Reading that testimony, I also discovered that there were two packages (wrapped in paper) on an upper shelf in the garage. They contained Venetian blinds in one, and window shades in the other. On another shelf just below that one, there were some curtain rods (not wrapped). In my opinion, there is a good chance that LHO saw and noticed those items. And it could possibly be that he developed the idea for both the curtain rod story and making a paper bag to conceal the rifle in, from seeing those items on the shelf.
-
Actually, the tape was not in the garage as you state. It was stored in a bottom drawer in the dining room. In my opinion it is doubtful that LHO knew that it was there (without evidence to the contrary).
Reading that testimony, I also discovered that there were two packages (wrapped in paper) on an upper shelf in the garage. They contained Venetian blinds in one, and window shades in the other. On another shelf just below that one, there were some curtain rods (not wrapped). In my opinion, there is a good chance that LHO saw and noticed those items. And it could possibly be that he developed the idea for both the curtain rod story and making a paper bag to conceal the rifle in, from seeing those items on the shelf.
Your original comment was...."There might not have been any suitable tape available at the Paine residence to seal it after that."
Just attempting to correct your post......there was tape at the residence. My error by stating garage. The rest is your opinion which is now better informed.......actually......no need for thanks.......obviously.
-
Your original comment was...."There might not have been any suitable tape available at the Paine residence to seal it after that."
Just attempting to correct your post......there was tape at the residence. My error by stating garage. The rest is your opinion which is now better informed.......actually......no need for thanks.......obviously.
Yes, thanks. That testimony is long but enlightening.
-
Yes, thanks. That testimony is long but enlightening.
You are aware that curtain rods were delivered by SS Agent Howlett to Carl Day of the DPD crime lab for fingerprint processing a week or so before Jenner "discovered" curtain rods in the Paine garage?
-
You are aware that curtain rods were delivered by SS Agent Howlett to Carl Day of the DPD crime lab for fingerprint processing a week or so before Jenner "discovered" curtain rods in the Paine garage?
No, that is news to me. If it was a week earlier than Jenner?s visit, that is a long time after the assassination. Where did they come from? And why would the secret service employ Dallas PD instead of the FBI?
-
No, that is news to me. If it was a week earlier than Jenner?s visit, that is a long time after the assassination. Where did they come from? And why would the secret service employ Dallas PD instead of the FBI?
All good questions Charles, those and many more can be found over a discussion that lasted 70odd pages and started around here....
https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,1753.200.html (https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,1753.200.html)
Have the LN team decided whether the rifle could fit in the bag without dissembling yet?
-
All good questions Charles, those and many more can be found over a discussion that lasted 70odd pages and started around here....
https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,1753.200.html (https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,1753.200.html)
Have the LN team decided whether the rifle could fit in the bag without dissembling yet?
I read enough that I understand what the argument is about. I am not inclined to read the entire thread though. It appears to me that those curtain rods could not have been in the Paine garage on 3/23/64 if they were in the custody of the DPD as the document would indicate they were. Therefore, it is reasonable to believe that the date of 3/15/64 is in error.
-
Was the rifle dissembled or not? Could it have been transported intact in that bag or not. You LN guys get back to us when you have worked that out.
LOL. I asked a straightforward question. You apparently don't know the answer. So we get the usual CT commentary instead of answers. It seems pretty obvious that if Oswald carried the rifle in that bag (and he did) that it was dissembled if the assembled rifle is longer than the bag. I'm not sure why think that has to be "worked out." The question that I posed to you is what is meant by "dissembled" in this context. What is the fewest possible pieces that his rifle would be in to make it fit the bag? For example, could the barrel be removed from the stock and fit it in the bag? Only two large pieces rather than breaking the rifle completely down into multiple pieces. Far easier to carry the rifle in two large pieces than with multiple smaller pieces. And why folding it on one end constitutes some type of "security" issue for the contents is a mystifying concern. Anyone who carries a lunch bag just folds the top end and gravity does the rest. The contents don't fly out of the top to the moon. Same with Oswald's bag. He carries the folded end up and there is no problem.
-
LOL. I asked a straightforward question. You apparently don't know the answer. So we get the usual CT commentary instead of answers. It seems pretty obvious that if Oswald carried the rifle in that bag (and he did) that it was dissembled if the assembled rifle is longer than the bag. I'm not sure why think that has to be "worked out." The question that I posed to you is what is meant by "dissembled" in this context. What is the fewest possible pieces that his rifle would be in to make it fit the bag? For example, could the barrel be removed from the stock and fit it in the bag? Only two large pieces rather than breaking the rifle completely down into multiple pieces. Far easier to carry the rifle in two large pieces than with multiple smaller pieces. And why folding it on one end constitutes some type of "security" issue for the contents is a mystifying concern. Anyone who carries a lunch bag just folds the top end and gravity does the rest. The contents don't fly out of the top to the moon. Same with Oswald's bag. He carries the folded end up and there is no problem.
Part of removal up to where the Barrel can be realeased from the stock.
Remove bolt.
Remove bayonet lug screw.
Remove bayonet lug.
Unscrew the sling (Front barrel band) bracket.
Remove wooden barrel cover.
Remove the 2 action screws for trigger guard.(This releases the barrel from the stock.)
And the opposite to re assemble. Hardly a simple operation especially without a screwdriver.
-
Part of removal up to where the Barrel can be realeased from the stock.
Remove bolt.
Remove bayonet lug screw.
Remove bayonet lug.
Unscrew the sling (Front barrel band) bracket.
Remove wooden barrel cover.
Remove the 2 action screws for trigger guard.(This releases the barrel from the stock.)
And the opposite to re assemble. Hardly a simple operation especially without a screwdriver.
Pretty sure no screws are needed for the bolt or wooden barrel cover. And how does a screwdriver continue to be a factor in removing the bayonet lug after the bayonet lug has already been loosened by said screwdriver? You wouldn't be padding your list here, now would you?
-
Looks like we have lost a few days postings in this thread and another complete thread that Ross (?) started with the Dan Rather paper bag recreation. Are we working off a backup from 4 days ago?
-
Looks like we have lost a few days postings in this thread and another complete thread that Ross (?) started with the Dan Rather paper bag recreation. Are we working off a backup from 4 days ago?
Yes, something is wrong. Earlier today all posts after January 17th had disappeared. Perhaps we should stop posting until it is sorted to avoid an even bigger mess.
-
Yes, something is wrong. Earlier today all posts after January 17th had disappeared. Perhaps we should stop posting until it is sorted to avoid an even bigger mess.
Fwiw,
I've been posting just about every day since I joined. When I go to my profile page and click on "show posts," the most recent ones I see now are some I posted way back on May 19.
-- MWT ;)
-
Looks like we have lost a few days postings in this thread and another complete thread that Ross (?) started with the Dan Rather paper bag recreation. Are we working off a backup from 4 days ago?
Posted again, Colin.
A better narrative on the second go. ;D
In future, I'm saving original posts "text" in a WORD file on a hard drive.
-
Posted again, Colin.
A better narrative on the second go. ;D
In future, I'm saving original posts "text" in a WORD file on a hard drive.
Thanks Ross Thumb1:
-
Pretty sure no screws are needed for the bolt
It doesn't say a screwdriver is necessary to remove the bolt.- Learn to read correctly, Chappers.
or wooden barrel cover.
The top wooden barrel cover won't come off until the bayonet lug and the front sling holder are removed by a screwdriver.
And how does a screwdriver continue to be a factor in removing the bayonet lug after the bayonet lug has already been loosened by said screwdriver?
You have to unscrew the front sling holder after the bayonet lug again with a screwdriver.
You wouldn't be padding your list here, now would you?
No, but maybe you know your own tricks best, Chappers.
-
Looks like we have lost a few days postings in this thread and another complete thread that Ross (?) started with the Dan Rather paper bag recreation. Are we working off a backup from 4 days ago?
It’s deja vu, all over again.
Yogi Berra
-
Perhaps I can summarise the various points we may have lost from the past few days postings. My memory is not great so forgive me and please add where appropriate.
I asked if there was any evidence that the "open end" of the bag was ever sealed.
Richard Smith suggested that a fold over without fixed sealing might suffice.
Jack Nessan suggested that the sack was actually 42” in length and could have contained an assembled rifle.
JohnM suggested that the end could have been cut with scissors and therefore could have contained either a disassembled or an intact rifle.
Gary Craig provided an FBI (?) document that summarised a re-enactment with LMR that stated Oswald held the package like a baseballer would pick up and carry a bat at one end.
Ross Lidell provided a TV recreation by Dan Rather suggesting a possible solution to the Frazier observation of about 2 foot package.
During the discussion I claimed that LMR and BWF would have known Oswald was the suspect when she visited the Paine's to inform the cops of his "suspicious" package.
-
(https://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/fibersampbagsampblankets.gif1.gif)
-
MARY FERRELL FOUNDATION
Dealey Plaza Echo, Volume 1, Issue 1
Current Section: The Paper Bag That Never Was (Part I), by Ian Griggs
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=16233#relPageId=34&tab=page
Dealey Plaza Echo, Volume 1, Issue 2
Current Section: The Paper Bag That Never Was (Part II), by Ian Griggs
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=16234#relPageId=34&tab=page
-
It doesn't say a screwdriver is necessary to remove the bolt.- Learn to read correctly, Chappers.
>>> Learn to write correctly, Ray: Don't include an item that doesn't qualify to be included on your 'Hardly a simple operation especially without a screwdriver' list. It gives an alert observer the distinct impression of a padding attempt.
The top wooden barrel cover won't come off until the bayonet lug and the front sling holder are removed by a screwdriver. You have to unscrew the front sling holder after the bayonet lug again with a screwdriver.
>>> You kept part of that a secret, thus one does not get a down-to-the-last-screw count total.
No, but maybe you know your own tricks best, Chappers.
>>> Point out where I've padded any of my posts, Ray.
-
It doesn't say a screwdriver is necessary to remove the bolt.- Learn to read correctly, Chappers.
>>> Learn to write correctly, Ray: Don't include an item that doesn't qualify to be included on your 'Hardly a simple operation especially without a screwdriver' list. It gives an alert observer the distinct impression of a padding attempt.
Who said anywhere at the start that a screwdriver was required? When it was, I noted it. I was describing what was required to break the rifle down to its least components. Your comprehension leaves a lot to be desired.
The top wooden barrel cover won't come off until the bayonet lug and the front sling holder are removed by a screwdriver. You have to unscrew the front sling holder after the bayonet lug again with a screwdriver.
>>> You kept part of that a secret, thus one did not get a sense of how many screws in total would be involved in this partial break-down.
Once again your comprehension lets you down. I didn't keep anything "secret". I described how to dismantle the rifle, in several steps. I'm sorry I didn't mention exactly how many screws were necessary to be removed.
No, but maybe you know your own tricks best, Chappers.
>>> Point out where I've padded any of my posts, Ray.
Once again. note. I didn't say you did, but insinuated the you might. Not very good at this are you?
-
Who said anywhere at the start that a screwdriver was required? When it was, I noted it. I was describing what was required to break the rifle down to its least components. Your comprehension leaves a lot to be desired.Once again your comprehension lets you down. I didn't keep anything "secret". I described how to dismantle the rifle, in several steps. I'm sorry I didn't mention exactly how many screws were necessary to be removed.Once again. note. I didn't say you did, but insinuated the you might. Not very good at this are you?
Your not capable of supplying a clear, complete account of a Carcano break-down.
As it turns out, you didn't have to say 'anywhere at the start':You summed up the list with 'Hardly a simple operation especially without a screwdriver.' That seems a direct slam (or shall I say 'insinuation'?) about Oswald being able/unable to do the job with a coin.
You missed a couple of steps there so they were in effect hidden, or secreted from an observer's view. You're sorry for not mentioning a total screw count yet you still are not supplying that number. I don't remember how many Cunningham reported (3 or 5 I think) but if you can supply an exact number one can compare that to other screw-number claims.
So you can't identify any post of mine that you would consider 'padding' on my part. Instead you plead that you're only 'insinuating' that I might use such 'tricks'. Yeah, sure. Stop JAQing around.
Not good at what? breaking down a Carcano? You're right about that. And after reading your version, I still don't know how because you don't supply the full story, including a video on how fast that can be accomplished, and how few parts really have to be removed to break down that rifle.
-
Perhaps I can summarise the various points we may have lost from the past few days postings. My memory is not great so forgive me and please add where appropriate.
I asked if there was any evidence that the "open end" of the bag was ever sealed.
Richard Smith suggested that a fold over without fixed sealing might suffice.
Jack Nessan suggested that the sack was actually 42” in length and could have contained an assembled rifle.
JohnM suggested that the end could have been cut with scissors and therefore could have contained either a disassembled or an intact rifle.
Gary Craig provided an FBI (?) document that summarised a re-enactment with LMR that stated Oswald held the package like a baseballer would pick up and carry a bat at one end.
Ross Lidell provided a TV recreation by Dan Rather suggesting a possible solution to the Frazier observation of about 2 foot package.
During the discussion I claimed that LMR and BWF would have known Oswald was the suspect when she visited the Paine's to inform the cops of his "suspicious" package.
Based on LHO's rifle was found on the 6th floor and how did it get there.
The WC did not appear to decide who was right and who was wrong. They simply took the statements, investigated it, asked some questions and moved on. In the case of BWF, the WC attempted to make his memory of the bag work for the disassembled rifle and it does not. The only description of LHO carrying the rifle that works is LMR's WC statement tying the right hand "palm" print to her description of how he carried it and the sack nearly touching the ground. Estimating distances and lengths is not an exact science.
A 38" bag would require a disassembled carcano but if the bag is longer as stated by Weisberg then the rifle can be fully assembled and carried by the barrel or forearm stock and held under the sights. The top does not have to be secured and the bottom left open.
Harold Weisberg ------ Coverup.
"Two of those photos, CE1304 and CE142, show the bag lying alongside a tape measure and ruler. The very top of the bag in 1304 is folded down, making a length of 38 inches, which the Report mentions immediately after noting the 34.8 inch length of the disassembled Mannlicher Carcano (R133). Actually, CE142 is more accurate. It shows the bag was really 42 inches long and 9 inches wide. CE1304 was not photographed head-on, but from a slight angle that makes the bag measure only 71/2 inches wide—the difference is only perspective. "
-
Based on LHO's rifle was found on the 6th floor and how did it get there.
The WC did not appear to decide who was right and who was wrong. They simply took the statements, investigated it, asked some questions and moved on. In the case of BWF, the WC attempted to make his memory of the bag work for the disassembled rifle and it does not. The only description of LHO carrying the rifle that works is LMR's WC statement tying the right hand "palm" print to her description of how he carried it and the sack nearly touching the ground. Estimating distances and lengths is not an exact science.
A 38" bag would require a disassembled carcano but if the bag is longer as stated by Weisberg then the rifle can be fully assembled and carried by the barrel or forearm stock and held under the sights. The top does not have to be secured and the bottom left open.
Harold Weisberg ------ Coverup.
"Two of those photos, CE1304 and CE142, show the bag lying alongside a tape measure and ruler. The very top of the bag in 1304 is folded down, making a length of 38 inches, which the Report mentions immediately after noting the 34.8 inch length of the disassembled Mannlicher Carcano (R133). Actually, CE142 is more accurate. It shows the bag was really 42 inches long and 9 inches wide. CE1304 was not photographed head-on, but from a slight angle that makes the bag measure only 71/2 inches wide—the difference is only perspective. "
Have you convinced anyone else that CE142 was used to hold an assembled rifle?
-
Frazier uses the term folded in his 11.22 affidavit:
"Before I got in the car, I glanced in the back seat, and saw a big sack. It must have been about 2' long, and the top of the sack was sort of folded up, and the rest of the sack had been kind of folded under."
-
Frazier uses the term folded in his 11.22 affidavit:
"Before I got in the car, I glanced in the back seat, and saw a big sack. It must have been about 2' long, and the top of the sack was sort of folded up, and the rest of the sack had been kind of folded under."
Agreed Richard. Looks like he got a look at both ends. Each had a visible fold, one was a 4” taped folded end. The other had a fold in the opposite direction. Do we see that second fold line in any photo? The back seat was 62” wide. Frazier glanced over his right shoulder and his peripheral vision has to notice an end of the a that extended more than half way across the seat from the right rear door.
-
Agreed Richard. Looks like he got a look at both ends. Each had a visible fold, one was a 4” taped folded end. The other had a fold in the opposite direction. Do we see that second fold line in any photo? The back seat was 62” wide. Frazier glanced over his right shoulder and his peripheral vision has to notice an end of the a that extended more than half way across the seat from the right rear door.
It used to be a 3" flap now it is 4" flap? That wouldn't be because of the 39+" vs 38"overall resulting length?
Unfortunately the appearance of the bag nor palm print on the bag does not seem to support Frazier's statement.
It looks like Jerry Organ's excellent sketch seems to negate the whole question anyway and renders it a moot point. Jerry has been able to show how Frazier's odd observation is possible.
-
It used to be a 3" flap now it is 4" flap? That wouldn't be because of the 39+" vs 38"overall resulting length?
The bag, when opened, contains a section of tape, likely less than an inch wide, that adds to the overall length but doesn’t add to the functional size of the paper flap. It does not span the width of the bag as the corners of the flap were folded inward then the flap sealed with tape.
-
(https://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/twentyseven3.jpg)
"Then, in accordance with Mrs. Randle's observations, Special Agent McNeely grasped the top of this sack with his hand, much like a right handed batter would pickup a baseball bat when approaching the plate. When the proper length of the sack was reached according to Mrs. Randle's estimate it was measured and found to be 27 inches long."
(https://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/twentyseven2.jpg)
"Frazier designated an approximate spot on the back seat he felt the package extended to from the right rear door and measurement by Special Agents Bardwell D. Odum and Gibbon E. McNeely determined that this spot was 27 inches from the inside of the right rear door, indicating that Frazier estimates that as the length of the package."
-
Unfortunately the appearance of the bag nor palm print on the bag does not seem to support Frazier's statement.
Why would you assume that CE 142 is the same bag?
It looks like Jerry Organ's excellent sketch seems to negate the whole question anyway and renders it a moot point. Jerry has been able to show how Frazier's odd observation is possible.
Well that and 50 cents will get you a cup of coffee.
-
In the sniper's nest, there were four boxes used in connection with the shooting. One large box containing books and then two of the smaller "Rolling Readers" boxes atop the large box of books. The fourth box was on the floor behind the stack of three,
obviously used as a seat.
On one of the Rolling Readers boxes at the window, Oswald's left palmprint and his right index fingerprint were found.
The employees laying the floor moved the large boxes of books from the west end of the floor over to the east end. However, the "Rolling Readers" boxes did not need to be moved, i.e. they weren't over on the west end where the new floor was being placed down. The two "Rolling readers" boxes in the sniper's nest were originally about three aisles over from the sniper's nest window and were taken to that window for the purposes of being used as a gun rest. The "Rolling Readers" boxes didn't contain books.
On the box on the floor, the one used as a seat, Day, using powder, dusted the box and developed a palmprint. Latona examined the print and found it to be from Oswald's right palm. Because Day used a powder to develop the print, Latona stated that not too long a time had passed between the time the print was placed on the box and the time it was developed by Day. Powder cannot develop prints beyond a certain point in time.
FBI experiments showed that twenty-four hours was a likely maximum time between the print being placed on the box and the time it was developed by the powder. However, Latona would only state that he could only testify with certainty that the print was less than three days old.
Arthur Mandella (fingerprint expert, NYPD), examined the prints and agreed that they belonged to Oswald. Mandella was of the opinion that the palmprint developed by Day (using the powder) from the box on the floor (the one used as a seat) was probably made within a day to a day and a half of the examination made on the 22nd.
Oswald could obviously have handled the boxes as part of his normal work duties. Fingerprints were taken from the twelve Depository employees who may have had cause to handle the boxes (found in the sniper's nest) as part of their normal work duties as well.
Other identifiable prints were developed on the boxes. These prints were compared with the fingerprints of all other employees as well as law enforcement personnel who handled the boxes. None of the identifiable prints belonged to any of the other employees.
Point being, the larger box on the sniper's nest floor used as a seat, was moved by the floor laying crew at some point earlier in the week. Day dusted this box with powder and developed a palmprint, which Latona said belonged to Oswald. The process of using the powder develops prints based on perspiration and therefore would not find prints older than one to three days (time frame dependent on which fingerprint expert you listen to).
While it's possible to handle the boxes and not leave a print at all, it's also likely as possible that Oswald was the only person to handle that box at any point in time past Tuesday the 19th (per Latona's three days out). Or, if you go by Mandella of the NYPD, Oswald could have been the only person to handle that box after Wednesday the 20th. If you go by the FBI's experiments, Oswald was possibly the only person to handle that box after Thursday the 21st.
Oswald's prints on the boxes prove he was in that window, but they can't prove when he was there exactly.
-
In the sniper's nest, there were four boxes used in connection with the shooting. One large box containing books and then two of the smaller "Rolling Readers" boxes atop the large box of books. The fourth box was on the floor behind the stack of three,
obviously used as a seat.
On one of the Rolling Readers boxes at the window, Oswald's left palmprint and his right index fingerprint were found.
The employees laying the floor moved the large boxes of books from the west end of the floor over to the east end. However, the "Rolling Readers" boxes did not need to be moved, i.e. they weren't over on the west end where the new floor was being placed down. The two "Rolling readers" boxes in the sniper's nest were originally about three aisles over from the sniper's nest window and were taken to that window for the purposes of being used as a gun rest. The "Rolling Readers" boxes didn't contain books.
On the box on the floor, the one used as a seat, Day, using powder, dusted the box and developed a palmprint. Latona examined the print and found it to be from Oswald's right palm. Because Day used a powder to develop the print, Latona stated that not too long a time had passed between the time the print was placed on the box and the time it was developed by Day. Powder cannot develop prints beyond a certain point in time.
FBI experiments showed that twenty-four hours was a likely maximum time between the print being placed on the box and the time it was developed by the powder. However, Latona would only state that he could only testify with certainty that the print was less than three days old.
Arthur Mandella (fingerprint expert, NYPD), examined the prints and agreed that they belonged to Oswald. Mandella was of the opinion that the palmprint developed by Day (using the powder) from the box on the floor (the one used as a seat) was probably made within a day to a day and a half of the examination made on the 22nd.
Oswald could obviously have handled the boxes as part of his normal work duties. Fingerprints were taken from the twelve Depository employees who may have had cause to handle the boxes (found in the sniper's nest) as part of their normal work duties as well.
Other identifiable prints were developed on the boxes. These prints were compared with the fingerprints of all other employees as well as law enforcement personnel who handled the boxes. None of the identifiable prints belonged to any of the other employees.
Point being, the larger box on the sniper's nest floor used as a seat, was moved by the floor laying crew at some point earlier in the week. Day dusted this box with powder and developed a palmprint, which Latona said belonged to Oswald. The process of using the powder develops prints based on perspiration and therefore would not find prints older than one to three days (time frame dependent on which fingerprint expert you listen to).
While it's possible to handle the boxes and not leave a print at all, it's also likely as possible that Oswald was the only person to handle that box at any point in time past Tuesday the 19th (per Latona's three days out). Or, if you go by Mandella of the NYPD, Oswald could have been the only person to handle that box after Wednesday the 20th. If you go by the FBI's experiments, Oswald was possibly the only person to handle that box after Thursday the 21st.
Oswald's prints on the boxes prove he was in that window, but they can't prove when he was there exactly.
Thanks Bill, this thread was becoming yet another "paper bag" thread, because it seems that the CTs can't deal with your powerful evidence that places Oswald directly in the middle of the sniper's nest.
JohnM
-
Thanks Bill, this thread was becoming yet another "paper bag" thread, because it seems that the CTs can't deal with your powerful evidence that places Oswald directly in the middle of the sniper's nest.
JohnM
Exactly John. No evidence to show the CE142 was originally in the SN. Unlike the lunch sack and chicken ;).
-
Exactly John. No evidence to show the CE142 was originally in the SN. Unlike the lunch sack and chicken ;).
Too bad Oswald's rifle was found on the same floor but why worry about the actual Murder Weapon when Colin wants to run away and endlessly debate insignificant objects?
How about Bill's thread topic, any thoughts?
JohnM
-
Too bad Oswald's rifle was found on the same floor but why worry about the actual Murder Weapon when Colin wants to run away and endlessly debate insignificant objects?
How about Bill's thread topic, any thoughts?
JohnM
Too bad Oswald's rifle was found on the same floor
You mean the rifle with questionable documentation, which you can not show was ever in Ruth Paine's garage and which Marina, according to her first day affidavit, couldn't identify? Is that the rifle you mean?
the actual Murder Weapon
And you know this, how?
-
How about Bill's thread topic, any thoughts?
JohnM
"Oswald's prints on the boxes prove he was in that window, but they can't prove when he was there exactly." Bill Brown.
Sounds reasonable. Maybe, Oswald's prints on the boxes prove he handled the boxes but they can't prove when he handled them exactly.
-
Getting back on topic, the Rolling Reader boxes that were moved, were moved to the window ledge and were angled down Elm street as were Oswald's prints.
(https://i.postimg.cc/NMtSZsyL/Rolling-reader-boxes.jpg)
The following photos of Oswald's sniper's nest can be triangulated to show that the corner of the rolling reader box sat on the window ledge.
(https://i.postimg.cc/XNt7CBX9/Powell-Dillard2.gif)
Latona testifies that the prints were no older than 3 days and he later goes on to say in the lab that they put prints on boxes and that they only lasted 24 hours.
Mr. EISENBERG. You testified before concerning the aging of fingerprints. Considering the material on which this print was developed, 649, do you think you could form an opinion, any opinion at all, concerning the freshness or staleness of this print?
Mr. LATONA. Bearing in mind the fact that this is an absorbent material, and realizing, of course, that a print when it is left on a material of this type it starts to soak in. Now, the reason that we in the FBI do not use powder is because of the fact that in a short period of time the print will soak in so completely that there won't be any moisture left. Accordingly when you brush powder across there won't be anything developed. Under circumstances, bearing in mind that here the box was powdered, and a print was developed with powder, the conclusion is that this is comparatively a fresh print. Otherwise, it would not have developed. We know, too, that we developed two other fingerprints on this by chemicals. How long a time had elapsed since the time this print was placed on there until the time that it would have soaked in so that the resulting examination would have been negative I don't know, but that could not have been too long.
Mr. EISENBERG. When you say "not too long," would you say not 3 weeks, or not 3 days, or not 3 hours?
Mr. LATONA. Very definitely I'd say not 3 days. I'd say not 3 weeks.
Mr. EISENBERG. And not 3 days, either?
Mr. LATONA. No; I don't believe so, because I don't think that the print on here that is touched on a piece of cardboard will stay on a piece of cardboard for 3 days.
Mr. EISENBERG. Would you bring that any closer?
Mr. LATONA. I am afraid I couldn't come any closer.
Mr. EISENBERG. 3 days?
Mr. LATONA. That is right.
Mr. LATONA. We have conducted tests with various types of materials as to how long it could be before we would not develop a latent print.
Mr. EISENBERG. Yes?
Mr. LATONA. Assuming that the same print was left on an object or a series of similar prints were left on an object, and powdering them, say, at intervals of every 4 hours or so, we would fail to develop a latent print of that particular type on that particular surface, say, within a 24-hour period.
Mr. EISENBERG. So that is a maximum of 24 hours?
Mr. LATONA. That is right.
Before anything was moved, the sniper's nest was photographed and the original positions of the shells and the Rolling Reader box on the window ledge can be determined.
(https://i.postimg.cc/CMnwSMJ5/TSBD-Snipers-Nest-11-22-63.jpg)
JohnM
-
Before anything was moved, the sniper's nest was photographed and the original positions of the shells and the Rolling Reader box on the window ledge can be determined.
(https://i.postimg.cc/CMnwSMJ5/TSBD-Snipers-Nest-11-22-63.jpg)
JohnM
Before anything was moved, the sniper's nest was photographed
Are you sure about this?
And if so, where is the paper bag in those photos?
-
Too bad Oswald's rifle was found on the same floor
You mean the rifle with questionable documentation,
Why would the conspirators set up Oswald with questionable documentation?
JohnM
-
And if so, where is the paper bag in those photos?
For a start are you familiar where the paper bag was found?
And secondly, it's only a paper bag Martin and if Oswald made the bag disappear by flushing the paper bag, burning the paper bag or eating the paper bag, that in no way makes Oswald innocent, you do understand this basic concept, don't you?
JohnM
-
For a start are you familiar where the paper bag was found?
And secondly, it's only a paper bag Martin and if Oswald made the bag disappear by flushing the paper bag, burning the paper bag or eating the paper bag, that in no way makes Oswald innocent, you do understand this basic concept, don't you?
JohnM
For a start are you familiar where the paper bag was found?
Inside the sniper's nest, right?
And secondly, it's only a paper bag Martin and if Oswald made the bag disappear by flushing the paper bag, burning the paper bag or eating the paper bag, that in no way makes Oswald innocent, you do understand this basic concept, don't you?
Completely beside the point. You claimed that the photos were taken before anything was moved in the sniper's nest. If that were true that paper bag should also still be in situ and thus appear in the photographs. You do understand this basic concept, don't you?
And btw it's far more than "only a paper bag".... It's the most vital piece of "evidence" the WC had to explain how the rifle got from Irving to the TSBD! Without the paper bag all they would have had was a rifle found at the TSBD with a questionable link to Oswald.
-
Why would the conspirators set up Oswald with questionable documentation?
JohnM
Good question. Perhaps you should ask them….. Maybe it was only intended to fool some of the people some of the time...
Regardless, the purchase documentation from Klein's remains questionable. No doubt about it.
-
For a start are you familiar where the paper bag was found?
Inside the sniper's nest, right?
Inside the sniper's nest, right?
The paper bag was found to the left of where Oswald was sitting, which was nowhere near the shells in the following photo and this area seemed to be deemed not as important as the area where the actual shells that came from Oswald's rifle.
(https://i.postimg.cc/CMnwSMJ5/TSBD-Snipers-Nest-11-22-63.jpg)
JohnM
-
Good question. Perhaps you should ask them….. Maybe it was only intended to fool some of the people some of the time...
Regardless, the purchase documentation from Klein's remains questionable. No doubt about it.
Good question.
Yeah, sure is.
Perhaps you should ask them…..
It's not my conspiracy, you're the one who needs to find the answers?
Maybe it was only intended to fool some of the people some of the time...
Or maybe Oswald ordered, received and used his rifle, how about that!
Regardless, the purchase documentation from Klein's remains questionable. No doubt about it.
Was Waldman involved in setting up Oswald? Of course he was, right Martin?
JohnM
-
The paper bag was found to the left of where Oswald was sitting, which was nowhere near the shells in the following photo and this area seemed to be deemed not as important as the area where the actual shells that came from Oswald's rifle.
(https://i.postimg.cc/CMnwSMJ5/TSBD-Snipers-Nest-11-22-63.jpg)
JohnM
Yeah, I expected that you would go this way. Too bad you didn't think it through….
For one thing, you seem to be claiming that only this particular photo was taken before something was moved in the sniper's nest, but let's be real... do you really think the photographer was so incompetent that he only took one photo of half the alleged crime scene?
Secondly, as the photo does not show the entire sniper's nest, you have no way of knowing if nothing was moved before the photo was taken, making you original claim silly and invalid.
Want to try again, John?
-
Yeah, sure is.
It's not my conspiracy, you're the one who needs to find the answers?
Or maybe Oswald ordered, received and used his rifle, how about that!
Was Waldman involved in setting up Oswald? Of course he was, right Martin?
JohnM
It's not my conspiracy, you're the one who needs to find the answers?
It's not my conspiracy either.
Or maybe Oswald ordered, received and used his rifle, how about that!
Can not be ruled out either. Too bad that the available evidence does not support such a conclusion.
Was Waldman involved in setting up Oswald? Of course he was, right Martin?
I doubt it. He was a VP with no direct knowledge about the transaction. All he did in his testimony is explain the purchase procedure and what the documents said without actually having any real knowledge about their authenticity.
-
The paper bag was found to the left of where Oswald was sitting, which was nowhere near the shells in the following photo and this area seemed to be deemed not as important as the area where the actual shells that came from Oswald's rifle.
(https://i.postimg.cc/CMnwSMJ5/TSBD-Snipers-Nest-11-22-63.jpg)
JohnM
Who found the bag John? When was it found?
-
Who found the bag John? When was it found?
Six police officers testified to seeing Oswald's rifle bag to the left of Oswald's seat. Were they wrong?
(https://i.postimg.cc/NMJDYNWX/outline-bag.jpg)
Mr. BELIN. Did you find anything else up in the southeast corner of the sixth floor? We have talked about the rifle, we have talked about the shells, we have talked about the chicken bones and the lunch sack and the pop bottle by that second pair of windows. Anything else?
Mr. JOHNSON. Yes, sir. We found this brown paper sack or case. It was made out of heavy wrapping paper. Actually, it looked similar to the paper that those books was wrapped in. It was just a long narrow paper bag.
Mr. BELIN. Where was this found?
Mr. JOHNSON. Right in the corner of the building.
Mr. BELIN. On what floor?
Mr. JOHNSON. Sixth floor.
Mr. BELIN. Which corner?
Mr. JOHNSON. Southeast corner.
Mr. BELIN. Do you know who found it?
Mr. JOHNSON. I know that the first I saw of it, L. D. Montgomery, my partner, picked it up off the floor, and it was folded up, and he unfolded it.
--------------------------------------------------------
Mr. BALL. Where was the paper sack?
Mr. MONTGOMERY. Let's see--the paper sack--I don't recall for sure if it was on the floor or on the box, but I know it was just there----one of those pictures might show exactly where it was.
Mr. BALL. I don't have a picture of the paper sack.
Mr. MONTGOMERY. You don't? Well, it was there--I can't recall for sure if it was on one of the boxes or on the floor there.
Mr. BALL. It was over in what corner?
Mr. MONTGOMERY. It would be the southeast corner of the building there where the shooting was.
Mr. BALL. Did you turn the sack over to anybody or did you pick it up?
Mr. MONTGOMERY. Yes---let's see Lieutenant Day and Detective Studebaker came up and took pictures and everything, and then we took a Dr. Pepper bottle and that sack that we found that looked like the rifle was wrapped up in.
................
Mr. MONTGOMERY. Right over here is where we found that long piece of paper that looked like a sack, that the rifle had been in.
Mr. BALL. Does that have a number--that area--where you found that long piece of paper?
Mr. MONTGOMERY. It's No. 2 right here.
Mr. BALL. You found the sack in the area marked 2 on Exhibit J to the Studebaker deposition. Did you pick the sack up?
Mr. MONTGOMERY. Which sack are we talking about now?
Mr. BALL. The paper sack?
Mr. MONTGOMERY. The small one or the larger one?
Mr. BALL. The larger one you mentioned that was in position 2.
Mr. MONTGOMERY. Yes.
Mr. BALL. You picked it up?
Mr. MONTGOMERY. Wait just a minute no; I didn't pick it up. I believe Mr. Studebaker did. We left it laying right there so they could check it for prints.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. BALL. Now, did you at any time see any paper sack around there?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. Yes sir.
Mr. BALL. Where?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. Storage room there - in, the southeast corner of the building folded.
Mr. BALL. In the southeast corner of the building?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. It was a paper - I don't know what it was.
Mr. BALL. And it was folded, you say?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. Yes.
Mr. BALL. Where was it with respect to the three boxes of which the top two were Rolling Readers?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. Directly east.
Mr. BALL. There is a corner there, isn't it?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. Yes, sir; in the southeast corner.
Mr. BALL. It was in the southeast corner?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. I drew that box in for somebody over at the FBI that said you wanted it. It is in one of those pictures - one of the shots after the duplicate shot.
Mr. BALL. Let's mark this picture "Exhibit F."
(Instrument marked by the reporter as "Studebaker Exhibit F," for identification.)
Mr. BALL. Do you know who took that picture?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. No; I don't.
Mr. BALL. Do you recognize the diagram?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. Did you draw the diagram?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. I drew a diagram in there for the FBI, somebody from the FBI called me down - I can't think of his name, and he wanted an approximate location of where the paper was found.
Mr. BALL. Does that show the approximate location?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. Yes.
Mr. BALL. Where you have the dotted lines?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. Yes.
....
Mr. BALL. Now, how big was this paper.that you saw - you saw the wrapper - tell me about how big that paper bag was - how long was it?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. It was about, I would say, 3 1/2 to 4 feet long.
Mr. BALL. The paper bag?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. Yes.
Mr. BALL. And how wide was it? Approximately 8 inches.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. BELIN. Did you see anything else in the southeast corner?
Mr. BREWER. There was a paper, relatively long paper sack there.
Mr. BELIN. Where was that?
Mr. BREWER. It was there In the southeast corner.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. BELIN. What other kind of a sack was found?
Mr. DAY. A homemade sack, brown paper with 3-inch tape found right in the corner, the southeast corner of the building near where the slugs were found.
Mr. McCLOY. Near where the hulls were found?
Mr. DAY. Near where the hulls. What did I say?
Mr. McCLOY. Slugs.
Mr. DAY. Hulls.
......
Mr. BELIN. Where was the sack found with relation to the pipes and that box?
Mr. DAY. Between the sack and the south wall, which would be the wall at the top of the picture as shown here.
Mr. BELIN. You mean between--you said the sack.
Mr. DAY. I mean the pipe. The sack was between the pipe and the wall at the top of the picture.
Mr. BELIN. That wall at the top of the picture would be the east wall, would it not?
Mr. DAY. Yes, sir; laying parallel to the south wall.
Mr. BELIN. Did the sack--was it folded over in any way or just lying flat, if you remember?
Mr. DAY. It was folded over with the fold next to the pipe, to the best of my knowledge.
Mr. BELIN. I will now hand you what has been marked as Commission Exhibit 626 and ask you to state if you know what this is, and also appears to be marked as Commission Exhibit 142.
Mr. DAY. This is the sack found on the sixth floor in the southeast corner of the building on November 22, 1963.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. BALL. Did you ever see a paper bag?
Mr. SIMS. Well, we saw some wrappings--a brown wrapping there.
Mr. BALL. Where did you see it?
Mr. SIMS. It was there by the hulls.
Mr. BALL. Was it right there near the hulls?
Mr. SIMS. As well as I remember--of course, I didn't pay too much attention at that time, but it was, I believe, by the east side of where the boxes were piled up---that would be a guess--I believe that's where it was.
-
Six police officers testified to seeing Oswald's rifle bag to the left of Oswald's seat. Were they wrong?
(https://i.postimg.cc/NMJDYNWX/outline-bag.jpg)
Mr. BELIN. Did you find anything else up in the southeast corner of the sixth floor? We have talked about the rifle, we have talked about the shells, we have talked about the chicken bones and the lunch sack and the pop bottle by that second pair of windows. Anything else?
Mr. JOHNSON. Yes, sir. We found this brown paper sack or case. It was made out of heavy wrapping paper. Actually, it looked similar to the paper that those books was wrapped in. It was just a long narrow paper bag.
Mr. BELIN. Where was this found?
Mr. JOHNSON. Right in the corner of the building.
Mr. BELIN. On what floor?
Mr. JOHNSON. Sixth floor.
Mr. BELIN. Which corner?
Mr. JOHNSON. Southeast corner.
Mr. BELIN. Do you know who found it?
Mr. JOHNSON. I know that the first I saw of it, L. D. Montgomery, my partner, picked it up off the floor, and it was folded up, and he unfolded it.
--------------------------------------------------------
Mr. BALL. Where was the paper sack?
Mr. MONTGOMERY. Let's see--the paper sack--I don't recall for sure if it was on the floor or on the box, but I know it was just there----one of those pictures might show exactly where it was.
Mr. BALL. I don't have a picture of the paper sack.
Mr. MONTGOMERY. You don't? Well, it was there--I can't recall for sure if it was on one of the boxes or on the floor there.
Mr. BALL. It was over in what corner?
Mr. MONTGOMERY. It would be the southeast corner of the building there where the shooting was.
Mr. BALL. Did you turn the sack over to anybody or did you pick it up?
Mr. MONTGOMERY. Yes---let's see Lieutenant Day and Detective Studebaker came up and took pictures and everything, and then we took a Dr. Pepper bottle and that sack that we found that looked like the rifle was wrapped up in.
................
Mr. MONTGOMERY. Right over here is where we found that long piece of paper that looked like a sack, that the rifle had been in.
Mr. BALL. Does that have a number--that area--where you found that long piece of paper?
Mr. MONTGOMERY. It's No. 2 right here.
Mr. BALL. You found the sack in the area marked 2 on Exhibit J to the Studebaker deposition. Did you pick the sack up?
Mr. MONTGOMERY. Which sack are we talking about now?
Mr. BALL. The paper sack?
Mr. MONTGOMERY. The small one or the larger one?
Mr. BALL. The larger one you mentioned that was in position 2.
Mr. MONTGOMERY. Yes.
Mr. BALL. You picked it up?
Mr. MONTGOMERY. Wait just a minute no; I didn't pick it up. I believe Mr. Studebaker did. We left it laying right there so they could check it for prints.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. BALL. Now, did you at any time see any paper sack around there?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. Yes sir.
Mr. BALL. Where?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. Storage room there - in, the southeast corner of the building folded.
Mr. BALL. In the southeast corner of the building?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. It was a paper - I don't know what it was.
Mr. BALL. And it was folded, you say?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. Yes.
Mr. BALL. Where was it with respect to the three boxes of which the top two were Rolling Readers?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. Directly east.
Mr. BALL. There is a corner there, isn't it?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. Yes, sir; in the southeast corner.
Mr. BALL. It was in the southeast corner?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. I drew that box in for somebody over at the FBI that said you wanted it. It is in one of those pictures - one of the shots after the duplicate shot.
Mr. BALL. Let's mark this picture "Exhibit F."
(Instrument marked by the reporter as "Studebaker Exhibit F," for identification.)
Mr. BALL. Do you know who took that picture?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. No; I don't.
Mr. BALL. Do you recognize the diagram?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. Did you draw the diagram?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. I drew a diagram in there for the FBI, somebody from the FBI called me down - I can't think of his name, and he wanted an approximate location of where the paper was found.
Mr. BALL. Does that show the approximate location?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. Yes.
Mr. BALL. Where you have the dotted lines?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. Yes.
....
Mr. BALL. Now, how big was this paper.that you saw - you saw the wrapper - tell me about how big that paper bag was - how long was it?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. It was about, I would say, 3 1/2 to 4 feet long.
Mr. BALL. The paper bag?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. Yes.
Mr. BALL. And how wide was it? Approximately 8 inches.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. BELIN. Did you see anything else in the southeast corner?
Mr. BREWER. There was a paper, relatively long paper sack there.
Mr. BELIN. Where was that?
Mr. BREWER. It was there In the southeast corner.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. BELIN. What other kind of a sack was found?
Mr. DAY. A homemade sack, brown paper with 3-inch tape found right in the corner, the southeast corner of the building near where the slugs were found.
Mr. McCLOY. Near where the hulls were found?
Mr. DAY. Near where the hulls. What did I say?
Mr. McCLOY. Slugs.
Mr. DAY. Hulls.
......
Mr. BELIN. Where was the sack found with relation to the pipes and that box?
Mr. DAY. Between the sack and the south wall, which would be the wall at the top of the picture as shown here.
Mr. BELIN. You mean between--you said the sack.
Mr. DAY. I mean the pipe. The sack was between the pipe and the wall at the top of the picture.
Mr. BELIN. That wall at the top of the picture would be the east wall, would it not?
Mr. DAY. Yes, sir; laying parallel to the south wall.
Mr. BELIN. Did the sack--was it folded over in any way or just lying flat, if you remember?
Mr. DAY. It was folded over with the fold next to the pipe, to the best of my knowledge.
Mr. BELIN. I will now hand you what has been marked as Commission Exhibit 626 and ask you to state if you know what this is, and also appears to be marked as Commission Exhibit 142.
Mr. DAY. This is the sack found on the sixth floor in the southeast corner of the building on November 22, 1963.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. BALL. Did you ever see a paper bag?
Mr. SIMS. Well, we saw some wrappings--a brown wrapping there.
Mr. BALL. Where did you see it?
Mr. SIMS. It was there by the hulls.
Mr. BALL. Was it right there near the hulls?
Mr. SIMS. As well as I remember--of course, I didn't pay too much attention at that time, but it was, I believe, by the east side of where the boxes were piled up---that would be a guess--I believe that's where it was.
You cannot answer either question. No chain of custody. It was "discovered" after Studebaker had finished dusting the bottle and chicken lunch sack where Johnson was. Johnson then moved into the SN. After Day had left the building with the rifle. Day did not see the bag in the corner. Neither did Sims....."didn’t pay too much attention"....LOL. He was going back and forth between the rifle and the shells......not wrapper.....bad transcription.
-
You cannot answer either question. No chain of custody. It was "discovered" after Studebaker had finished dusting the bottle and chicken lunch sack where Johnson was. Johnson then moved into the SN. After Day had left the building with the rifle. Day did not see the bag in the corner. Neither did Sims....."didn’t pay too much attention"....LOL. He was going back and forth between the rifle and the shells......not wrapper.....bad transcription.
Looks like Studebaker knew where it was.
(https://i.postimg.cc/NMJDYNWX/outline-bag.jpg)
Mr. BALL. Now, did you at any time see any paper sack around there?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. Yes sir.
Mr. BALL. Where?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. Storage room there - in, the southeast corner of the building folded.
Mr. BALL. In the southeast corner of the building?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. It was a paper - I don't know what it was.
Mr. BALL. And it was folded, you say?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. Yes.
Mr. BALL. Where was it with respect to the three boxes of which the top two were Rolling Readers?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. Directly east.
Mr. BALL. There is a corner there, isn't it?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. Yes, sir; in the southeast corner.
Mr. BALL. It was in the southeast corner?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. I drew that box in for somebody over at the FBI that said you wanted it. It is in one of those pictures - one of the shots after the duplicate shot.
Mr. BALL. Let's mark this picture "Exhibit F."
(Instrument marked by the reporter as "Studebaker Exhibit F," for identification.)
Mr. BALL. Do you know who took that picture?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. No; I don't.
Mr. BALL. Do you recognize the diagram?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. Did you draw the diagram?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. I drew a diagram in there for the FBI, somebody from the FBI called me down - I can't think of his name, and he wanted an approximate location of where the paper was found.
Mr. BALL. Does that show the approximate location?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. Yes.
Mr. BALL. Where you have the dotted lines?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. Yes.
....
Mr. BALL. Now, how big was this paper.that you saw - you saw the wrapper - tell me about how big that paper bag was - how long was it?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. It was about, I would say, 3 1/2 to 4 feet long.
Mr. BALL. The paper bag?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. Yes.
Mr. BALL. And how wide was it? Approximately 8 inches.
The bag was photographed leaving the building, the same bag as described by 6 Police Officers but for some reason that's not good enough and instead of accepting conclusive repeated corroborated evidence you attack it, go figure?
(http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/images/bag1.jpg)
JohnM
-
I have no doubt the bag that was photographed leaving the building at 3pm is the same bag that was not photographed in the corner. The bag and bottle also leaving were photographed. As were the shells and rifle. The same rifle that was removed by Day at 2pm. Why is the bag the odd one out?
Did Montgomery first "find the bag"? Seems Johnson claimed he did, as did Montgomery in later interviews. It was so obvious to them it was perfect to transport a rifle......why no photo in place?
-
I have no doubt the bag that was photographed leaving the building at 3pm is the same bag that was not photographed in the corner. The bag and bottle also leaving were photographed. As were the shells and rifle. The same rifle that was removed by Day at 2pm. Why is the bag the odd one out?
Did Montgomery first "find the bag"? Seems Johnson claimed he did, as did Montgomery in later interviews. It was so obvious to them it was perfect to transport a rifle......why no photo in place?
The bag was in the building, why didn't they just put the bag in the sniper's nest and just photograph it?
Or did they come up with the idea later?
Or are they using the bag to transport the window ledge strip? LOL!
JohnM
-
The bag was in the building, why didn't they just put the bag in the sniper's nest and just photograph it?
Or did they come up with the idea later?
Or are they using the bag to transport the window ledge strip? LOL!
JohnM
They obviously think it’s evidence.......fail to photograph in place. Then remove from the building upside down and contaminating the inside with something. Are they trying to get all those fibres out before the FBI can check?
As for the window strip. You need to ask which one was originally removed. The left or right. Which way did the cops in the SN believe the assassin fired before 3 pm? Facing towards the underpass or towards Houston?
-
They obviously think it’s evidence.......fail to photograph in place. Then remove from the building upside down and contaminating the inside with something. Are they trying to get all those fibres out before the FBI can check?
As for the window strip. You need to ask which one was originally removed. The left or right. Which way did the cops in the SN believe the assassin fired before 3 pm? Facing towards the underpass or towards Houston?
They obviously think it’s evidence.......fail to photograph in place. Then remove from the building upside down and contaminating the inside with something. Are they trying to get all those fibres out before the FBI can check?
Geez Colin, it's easy to take weak jabs at Policing from over half a century ago but how does any of that change the fact that 6 Police Officers testified to seeing a long Paper bag with Oswald's prints right next a large box which also had Oswald's fingerprints, how much evidence do you need??
JohnM
-
Geez Colin, it's easy to take weak jabs at Policing from over half a century ago but how does any of that change the fact that 6 Police Officers testified to seeing a long Paper bag with Oswald's prints right next a large box which also had Oswald's fingerprints, how much evidence do you need??
JohnM
Sorry to evoke gravity John but Richard Smith felt it appropriate to "use the force" to explain how an unsealed paper bag end could be folded so that an 8 lb rifle could be contained during transport. Had the Dallas police never heard of it?
Weak jabs eh....seems the process of photographing evidence in place was known to Studebaker, he did do that for the other pieces of evidence didn’t he? Shells, rifle, lunch sacks, pop bottles and boxes. There is even news film of some of these being dusted but no bag. Why not the wrapper that all felt so strongly was used to transport a rifle? He even dusted it for prints didn’t he? Found a partial print and taped it, right.
Or we getting our bags confused? Perhaps the long sack was made to hold the rifle and the rifle had actually been inside. Made from materials on the first floor just like the FBI determined. When was it made? When it was in the SN were Oswald's prints on it? It was taken to HQ at 3pm and locked away until given to Vince Drain wasn’t it? No one else saw it according to the documentation. Oh, except for Buell Frazier, just before Drain took it. No one else though. After all, the police wouldn’t confront the accused with material evidence would they.
-
Sorry to evoke gravity John but Richard Smith felt it appropriate to "use the force" to explain how an unsealed paper bag end could be folded so that an 8 lb rifle could be contained during transport. Had the Dallas police never heard of it?
Weak jabs eh....seems the process of photographing evidence in place was known to Studebaker, he did do that for the other pieces of evidence didn’t he? Shells, rifle, lunch sacks, pop bottles and boxes. There is even news film of some of these being dusted but no bag. Why not the wrapper that all felt so strongly was used to transport a rifle? He even dusted it for prints didn’t he? Found a partial print and taped it, right.
Or we getting our bags confused? Perhaps the long sack was made to hold the rifle and the rifle had actually been inside. Made from materials on the first floor just like the FBI determined. When was it made? When it was in the SN were Oswald's prints on it? It was taken to HQ at 3pm and locked away until given to Vince Drain wasn’t it? No one else saw it according to the documentation. Oh, except for Buell Frazier, just before Drain took it. No one else though. After all, the police wouldn’t confront the accused with material evidence would they.
If you believe Oswald was framed, what difference would it make had the bag been photographed? The rifle and shells were photographed and CTers still believe those were planted. I'm not sure how photographing the bag moves the ball or how not photographing it makes any difference. It's difficult to also understand what is being suggested. That Oswald didn't carry a long bag that day? That Frazier lied about this for some unknown reason. That the conspirators/police behind the frame up of Oswald forgot to plant it, but then it suddenly occurred to them after months or years of planning. And that they constructed one and somehow got six DPD members to lie about it but for some reason couldn't photograph it on the 6th floor? That counter narrative doesn't add up to anything plausible. It's grasping at straws. We will never know for certain why it wasn't photographed. My best guess is that the authorities were not initially looking for a bag or paying it much attention. The floor was full of stuff. They are looking for a gun, shells, a suspect. It takes them a while to link the bag to the assassin. Maybe it gets moved around during the search etc. Memories get confused because they didn't take much notice, it gets moved, some notice it but others do not. Who knows? The fact remains that Oswald carried a long bag, this is the only such bag found, it has Oswald's prints on it, it is located next to the SN. I don't think it takes Sherlock Holmes to connect the dots. The implication, however, that it was planted necessitates a wildly implausible scenario.
-
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=40395&relPageId=86
Lillian Mooneyham
a.Dallas County clerk watching motorcade from Judge King's windows on the second floor, southwest corner, Criminal
Courts Building, with Mrs. Rose Clark and Jeanette hooker.
b.Heard three shots(?)
c.Heard first shot;saw President slump; thought it was Firecracker.
d.Second and third shots were closer together.
e.Saw Mrs. Kennedy climb on back of car.
f.Mooneyham went Judge Hyer's windows on the third floor of Records Building.
g.People running to pergola.
h.41/2 to 5 minutes after shots she sees man standing behind some boxes on the 6th floor, TSBD.
---------------------
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?mode=searchResult&absPageId=69117
"The panel studied two photographs taken within minutes of the assassination. While no human face or form could be detected
in the sixth floor southeast window, the panel was able to conclude that a stack of boxes had been rearranged during the
interval of the taking of the two photographs."
-
If you believe Oswald was framed, what difference would it make had the bag been photographed? The rifle and shells were photographed and CTers still believe those were planted. I'm not sure how photographing the bag moves the ball or how not photographing it makes any difference. It's difficult to also understand what is being suggested. That Oswald didn't carry a long bag that day? That Frazier lied about this for some unknown reason. That the conspirators/police behind the frame up of Oswald forgot to plant it, but then it suddenly occurred to them after months or years of planning. And that they constructed one and somehow got six DPD members to lie about it but for some reason couldn't photograph it on the 6th floor? That counter narrative doesn't add up to anything plausible. It's grasping at straws. We will never know for certain why it wasn't photographed. My best guess is that the authorities were not initially looking for a bag or paying it much attention. The floor was full of stuff. They are looking for a gun, shells, a suspect. It takes them a while to link the bag to the assassin. Maybe it gets moved around during the search etc. Memories get confused because they didn't take much notice, it gets moved, some notice it but others do not. Who knows? The fact remains that Oswald carried a long bag, this is the only such bag found, it has Oswald's prints on it, it is located next to the SN. I don't think it takes Sherlock Holmes to connect the dots. The implication, however, that it was planted necessitates a wildly implausible scenario.
The implication, however, that it was planted necessitates a wildly implausible scenario.
Planted by whom? Don't you first need to determine that before you dismiss it als a "wildly implausible scenario"?
-
The implication, however, that it was planted necessitates a wildly implausible scenario.
Planted by whom? Don't you first need to determine that before you dismiss it als a "wildly implausible scenario"?
No. The implications of the bag being planted necessitate an implausible alternative chain of events regardless of "who" was responsible. And it is difficult to understand how anyone other than the DPD could have been responsible for planting the bag since they are the ones who controlled the crime scene, claimed to have seen it next to the SN, recovered it, and found Oswald's prints on it. Are you saying someone else could have done all that? The bag is photographed coming out of the building shortly after 2PM. So who else had access and control of the evidence within the TSBD to do all that before the bag emerges at that time?
-
No. The implications of the bag being planted necessitate an implausible alternative chain of events regardless of "who" was responsible. And it is difficult to understand how anyone other than the DPD could have been responsible for planting the bag since they are the ones who controlled the crime scene, claimed to have seen it next to the SN, recovered it, and found Oswald's prints on it. Are you saying someone else could have done all that? The bag is photographed coming out of the building shortly after 2PM. So who else had access and control of the evidence within the TSBD to do all that before the bag emerges at that time?
Are you saying someone else could have done all that?
I don't know. You seem to believe only the DPD could have done it. I'm not so sure. The bag they allegedly found was made from materials common to the TSBD. For all we know, it could have been on the 6th floor for days and Oswald, just like others, could have touched it there. After all, it was a location where he and others worked and there were unidentifiable prints on the bag as well, right?
-
No. The implications of the bag being planted necessitate an implausible alternative chain of events regardless of "who" was responsible. And it is difficult to understand how anyone other than the DPD could have been responsible for planting the bag since they are the ones who controlled the crime scene, claimed to have seen it next to the SN, recovered it, and found Oswald's prints on it. Are you saying someone else could have done all that? The bag is photographed coming out of the building shortly after 2PM. So who else had access and control of the evidence within the TSBD to do all that before the bag emerges at that time?
Who is claiming the bag was planted?
I think we can agree the crime scene was less than securely controlled.
We have a number of police officers documented to have found it.....surely it can only be one. I believe Montgomery gets that nod.
They did not find Oswald's prints on the bag. That was the FBI on the 23rd.
The bag came out at 3pm.
Can you give us an idea when (approximately) it was discovered?
-
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=40395&relPageId=86 (http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=40395&relPageId=86)
Lillian Mooneyham
a.Dallas County clerk watching motorcade from Judge King's windows on the second floor, southwest corner, Criminal
Courts Building, with Mrs. Rose Clark and Jeanette hooker.
b.Heard three shots(?)
c.Heard first shot;saw President slump; thought it was Firecracker.
d.Second and third shots were closer together.
e.Saw Mrs. Kennedy climb on back of car.
f.Mooneyham went Judge Hyer's windows on the third floor of Records Building.
g.People running to pergola.
h.41/2 to 5 minutes after shots she sees man standing behind some boxes on the 6th floor, TSBD.
"Mrs. MOONEYHAM estimated that it was about 4 to 5 minutes following the shots fired
by the assassin that she looked up towards the sixth floor of the TSBD and observed
the figure of a man standing in a sixth floor window behind some cardboard boxes."
(https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/userpics/10001/normal_powell.jpg)
Mooneyham doesn't specify she saw the man in the SN window.
---------------------
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?mode=searchResult&absPageId=69117 (http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?mode=searchResult&absPageId=69117)
"The panel studied two photographs taken within minutes of the assassination. While no human face or form could be detected
in the sixth floor southeast window, the panel was able to conclude that a stack of boxes had been rearranged during the
interval of the taking of the two photographs."
The interval the panel refers to is between the taking of the Powell and Dillard photographs, and so has nothing to do with Mooneyham's obversation four to five minutes after that. The panel thought the sunlit boxes in the background seen in the open window in Powell were added to the scene when compared with the Dillard photograph take a minute before. But 3D demonstrates the sunlit boxes are the same in both photographs.
(https://image.ibb.co/eYizUF/dillard-powell-dissolve.gif)
The box-rearrangment claim was the only conclusion in the HSCA Photographic Panel report that HSCA consultant Robert Groden didn't take issue with.
-
Too bad Oswald's rifle was found on the same floor
You mean the rifle with questionable documentation, which you can not show was ever in Ruth Paine's garage and which Marina, according to her first day affidavit, couldn't identify? Is that the rifle you mean?
the actual Murder Weapon
And you know this, how?
He doesn't. He thinks that if he repeats the same claim over and over again that it somehow becomes "evidence".
-
The panel thought the sunlit boxes in the background seen in the open window in Powell were added to the scene when compared with the Dillard photograph take a minute before. But 3D demonstrates the sunlit boxes are the same in both photographs.
Are you suggesting that the HSCA photographic panel didn't understand simple perspective? Wouldn't that call their other conclusions into question?
-
Are you suggesting that the HSCA photographic panel didn't understand simple perspective?
Maybe the Panel would accept the 3D study. Maybe not. What I know for sure is that a good many conspiracy kooks don't, as they keep trotting-out the box-rearrangement claim.
-
Are you suggesting that the HSCA photographic panel didn't understand simple perspective? Wouldn't that call their other conclusions into question?
Wouldn't that call their other conclusions into question?
WHAT? Another illogical self serving Iacoletti generalization but sure if you want, go ahead and discard all their studies of multiple photographs showing cardboard box positioning.
JohnM
-
WHAT? Another illogical self serving Iacoletti generalization but sure if you want, go ahead and discard all their studies of multiple photographs showing cardboard box positioning.
Did they or did they not conclude that the boxes were repositioned after the shooting? Do you agree with their conclusion?
-
Thanks Bill, this thread was becoming yet another "paper bag" thread, because it seems that the CTs can't deal with your powerful evidence that places Oswald directly in the middle of the sniper's nest.
JohnM
(https://i.imgur.com/5WIHwcJ.jpg)
-
Did they or did they not conclude that the boxes were repositioned after the shooting? Do you agree with their conclusion?
After the fingerprinting, or before?
-
"Mrs. MOONEYHAM estimated that it was about 4 to 5 minutes following the shots fired
by the assassin that she looked up towards the sixth floor of the TSBD and observed
the figure of a man standing in a sixth floor window behind some cardboard boxes."
(https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/userpics/10001/normal_powell.jpg)
Mooneyham doesn't specify she saw the man in the SN window.
The interval the panel refers to is between the taking of the Powell and Dillard photographs, and so has nothing to do with Mooneyham's obversation four to five minutes after that. The panel thought the sunlit boxes in the background seen in the open window in Powell were added to the scene when compared with the Dillard photograph take a minute before. But 3D demonstrates the sunlit boxes are the same in both photographs.
(https://image.ibb.co/eYizUF/dillard-powell-dissolve.gif)
The box-rearrangment claim was the only conclusion in the HSCA Photographic Panel report that HSCA consultant Robert Groden didn't take issue with.
"Mooneyham doesn't specify she saw the man in the SN window."
What she saw:
"h.41/2 to 5 minutes after shots she sees man standing behind some boxes on the 6th floor, TSBD."
So who was it standing behind boxes on the 6th floor TSBD 4 1/2 to 5 minutes after the shots?
"But 3D demonstrates the sunlit boxes are the same in both photographs."
No it doesn't.
The boxes were moved between the time Dillard took his photo of the window and Powell took his.
Just like the HSCA said.
-
It’s deja vu, all over again.
Yogi Berra
'Ninety percent of the game is mental. The other half is physical'-- Yogi Berra
'Don't look back. Somethin' might be catchin' up'-- Satchel Paige