JFK Assassination Forum
JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion & Debate => JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion And Debate => Topic started by: Lance Payette on May 09, 2025, 08:39:50 PM
-
Yes, the curtain rod issue, like every other JFKA issue, has been beaten to death and beyond. I simply want to approach it from the standpoint of epistemology, the plausibility of my analysis versus the plausibility of a CT-oriented analysis.
When the “two wallets” thread evolved into a “brown paper package” thread, CTers suggested that I failed to give sufficient weight to Frazier and Randle, “the only two people who actually saw the package.”
I don’t, of course, give no weight. I don’t insist Frazier and Randle were lying. I recognize their testimony as problematical for the LN narrative; Randle in particular was impressive. If they had said Oswald was carrying nothing but a small sandwich bag, I would recognize this as a huge problem for the LN narrative.
As it is, they established a package of 24"-28.5” that must have been quite stiff since Randle said Oswald held it in his right hand with the other end toward the ground and Frazier said he carried it toward the TSBD tight against his side with one end under his armpit. All things considered, I see the most plausible explanation being that the package contained the disassembled Carcano and that Frazier and Randle were simply mistaken about the length by 7"-10”.
I once again focus on what I call epistemology, meaning trying to think through how much sense any other explanation would make. For an explanation to be epistemologically justified, it doesn’t have to be true; it merely has to be rational.
“I don’t need an explanation” is not a justification; it’s an avoidance. “All I need to do is create doubt about your explanation” is not a justification either; even in a criminal trial, the doubt must be reasonable. I will accept that there is doubt about my explanation; I'm interested in whether you have one that is more plausible.
These are the facts known to me as I attempt to work toward an alternative explanation:
- Frazier said Oswald had told him he needed a ride to the Paine home on Thursday to get curtain rods.
- Randle said Frazier told her on Thursday that Oswald had ridden home with him to get curtain rods.
- Frazier said Oswald reminded him on Friday morning that the package in the back seat contained curtain rods.
- Frazier said Oswald also said he had brought no lunch and was going to buy lunch that day.
- Marina said Oswald never mentioned curtain rods during his visit.
- Ruth said Oswald never mentioned curtain rods during his visit.
- I once researched what simple curtain rods cost in 1963; it was $1 or less (they are still only about $4 at Walmart).
- During interrogation, Oswald denied to at least Fritz and Holmes having said anything about curtain rods or bringing anything other than a sack lunch. When pressed by Holmes, he said his lunch might have been in a long grocery bag.
- After his arrest, Oswald said nothing to Marina, Robert or the press about curtain rods.
What are we to make of all this?
- Were Frazier and Randle lying? Why would they have invented the curtain rod story? Why would they have invented a package too short to hold the Carcano? Why would they have stubbornly clung to the curtain rod story and too-short length when other Warren Commission witnesses were supposedly intimidated into toeing the party line? Why did the WC allow them to testify about the length of the package at all?
- If Oswald had simply been going to the Paine home to attempt to reconcile with Marina, why did he need the curtain rod story? Why did he need any explanation other than “I want to see my wife and kids”? What answer can there be, other than “because he knew he was going to have a long, stiff package the next morning”?
- Since Ruth and Marina were both surprised by Oswald’s visit, why would he not have mentioned that the purpose was curtain rods? Why would he not have continued to lay the groundwork for an alibi as he had done with Frazier? Considering all that Ruth had done for him and Marina, and the reality that current rods cost almost nothing, why would he not have asked Ruth if he could borrow or buy a couple of current rods from her?
- Why would Oswald have denied the current rod story during interrogation? He had already laid the groundwork for this alibi. What explanation can there be, other than “he knew there were no curtain rods”? If he in fact didn’t deny this, why would Fritz and Holmes have invented this denial? Why would they have invented a claim that he had brought his lunch? Does not all of this make the LN case more complicated than it needs to be?
- If Oswald actually didn’t deny the curtain rod story, why did he not say “Look in the TSBD, the curtain rods are up on the sixth floor” or “Look in my room on Beckley, I set the curtain rods in the corner after Whaley dropped me off”? Why did he say nothing to Marina, Robert or the press?
- What, other than the disassembled Carcano, was in the long, stiff package that Randle and Frazier saw and that Oswald carried tight against his side into the TSBD? Is it even vaguely plausible that this package contained a sandwich and an apple?
Plausible answers to these questions lead me to the explanation that Frazier and Randle were simply mistaken. I cannot answer them in a CT-oriented way that does not seem fantastically implausible.
Most CT-oriented explanations these days seem to focus on Oswald being a dupe, the rifle having been placed in the TSBD sometime before the JFKA, and Oswald carrying a mysterious something else in a long, stiff package on that day. (I believe Pat Speer inclines toward the explanation that the package actually contained curtain rods.)
Greg Doudna, who seems obsessed with this issue, has offered at least two complex scenarios that strike me as laugh-out-loud implausible. The least complex was something about Oswald having the rifle sighted in by Dial Ryder on November 11; thereafter selling it to some third party who was, alas, up to no good; agreeing to leave it in a storage locker in a brown paper bag created from TSBD wrapping paper (thus explaining Oswald’s prints on the bag); giving the locker key to the purchaser; the purchaser sneaking the rifle into the TSBD (in the bag) shortly before the JFKA; and Oswald carrying a long, stiff package unrelated to either curtain rods or the Carcano on the morning of the JFKA.
Does something like this strike you as more plausible and as a better answer to all of the above questions than “Frazier and Randle were simply mistaken about the length of the package by 7-10”? Is it not completely ad hoc and obviously driven by an agenda to make Oswald an innocent patsy?
Well, anyway, take your best shot at an explanation that seems more plausible to you than “Frazier and Randle were simply mistaken.“
-
Well that’s an interesting idea of Oswald’s rifle being sold to the conspirator shooter on Nov/11/63.
The problem with it is that the rifle was found with the scope Out of alignment and requiring shims under the mount to readjust the angle of the mount.
One would think the conspirator having bought the rifle on Nov 11th would have made sure the scope was aligned properly so that he could use the scope to aim more accurately.
And of course if the purpose was to use Oswald’s rifle and leave it at the scene,to frame Oswald, then an out of alignment and defective scope with tendency to drift off zero after just one shot, would be introducing unnecessary doubt.
There are 2 options as I see it:
A. Oswald was the shooter and he purposely made sure the scope was out of alignment and he practiced using the iron sights. His idea was that the out of alignment defective scope would aid his “I’m a patsy being set up” if he were to ever get arrested.
B. Conspirator shooter never bothered to check out the scope, because the MC rifle was simply a pre planted gimmick left behind to cause maximum angst for the authorities whom the conspirator probably knew would be under pressure to avoid any conspiracy investigation. The conspirator wished to problems for the authority while also causing the general public to be suspicious of the authority.
An ex CIA BOP survivor whom had a vendetta against Oswald for having been working with Guy Bannister as an informant? Also maybe the conspirator(s) wanted the general public to experience some pain as retribution for supporting JFK even as they knew that JFK had betrayed the conspirators BOP comrades.
-
Why would Frazier and Randle have invented the curtain rod story?
Because Frazier was a conspirator (or at least felt culpable for not informing someone in authority at the TSBD that Oswald had taken a suspiciously long package into the building just a few hours before JFK was scheduled to pass by), and his sister was covering for him?
Why would they have invented a package too short to hold the Carcano?
Didn't Randle originally say that the bag was about three-feet (36 inches) long?
Regardless, the bag was actually long enough to effectively hide the disassembled Carcano, IIRC.
Why would they have stubbornly clung to the curtain rod story and too-short length when other Warren Commission witnesses were supposedly intimidated into toeing the party line?
Because to admit that the bag looked as long as it turned out to be would raise the question, "Why in tarnation didn't you warn somebody, Buell???"
-
Because Frazier was a conspirator (or at least felt culpable for not informing someone in authority at the TSBD that Oswald had taken a suspiciously long package into the building just a few hours before JFK was scheduled to pass by), and his sister was covering for him?
That's not too bad! Would a 36" bag look inherently more suspicious than a 24" or 28.5" bag - and suspicious enough to make two unsophisticated characters like Frazier and Randle stick with this elaborate lie even at the WC? In any event, if what Frazier and Randle saw actually was longer, that would simply support the conclusion that Oswald was carrying the rifle.
I do find Frazier's and Randle's persistence with their story both impressive and puzzling. Either they were simply rock-solid honest and could not be budged or "something else" was going on. Your theory is at least a candidate for the "something else."
Didn't Randle originally say that the bag was about three-feet (36 inches) long?
No. When she was originally questioned (by the FBI, as I recall), the demonstration came up with 27". At the WC, the demonstration came up with 28.5". I'd love it if she ever said 36", but I don't believe she did. [OOPS, MY BAD - TOM IS CORRECT]
-
That's not too bad! Would a 36" bag look inherently more suspicious than a 24" or 28.5" bag - and suspicious enough to make two unsophisticated characters like Frazier and Randle stick with this elaborate lie even at the WC? In any event, if what Frazier and Randle saw actually was longer, that would simply support the conclusion that Oswald was carrying the rifle.
I do find Frazier's and Randle's persistence with their story both impressive and puzzling. Either they were simply rock-solid honest and could not be budged or "something else" was going on. Your theory is at least a candidate for the "something else."
No. When she was originally questioned (by the FBI, as I recall), the demonstration came up with 27". At the WC, the demonstration came up with 28.5". I'd love it if she ever said 36", but I don't believe she did.
In a 11/23/63 FBI report they say she believed it was "approximately 3 feet by 6 inches."
https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/testimony/randl_l1.htm
and complete report is here: https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=10406#relPageId=325
Interesting that in the latter fuller account she says Buell Frazier told her that Oswald told Frazier that Ruth Paine was giving him the curtain rods because he was "fixing up his apartment."
-
Well that’s an interesting idea of Oswald’s rifle being sold to the conspirator shooter on Nov/11/63.
The problem with it is that the rifle was found with the scope Out of alignment and requiring shims under the mount to readjust the angle of the mount.
One would think the conspirator having bought the rifle on Nov 11th would have made sure the scope was aligned properly so that he could use the scope to aim more accurately.
And of course if the purpose was to use Oswald’s rifle and leave it at the scene,to frame Oswald, then an out of alignment and defective scope with tendency to drift off zero after just one shot, would be introducing unnecessary doubt.
I'm speaking from memory, but I believe the theory was that Oswald had Ryder mount a scope and that Oswald was then able to offer a fully aligned, sighted-in Carcano to the purchaser - but that would not explain the condition of the rifle when found in the TSBD. Maybe "they" used the sighted-in rifle for the assassination and switched out the scope before leaving? Nah, that makes no sense. Maybe I'd better stop trying to defend a theory I barely remember.
There are 2 options as I see it:
A. Oswald was the shooter and he purposely made sure the scope was out of alignment and he practiced using the iron sights. His idea was that the out of alignment defective scope would aid his “I’m a patsy being set up” if he were to ever get arrested.
B. Conspirator shooter never bothered to check out the scope, because the MC rifle was simply a pre planted gimmick left behind to cause maximum angst for the authorities whom the conspirator probably knew would be under pressure to avoid any conspiracy investigation. The conspirator wished to problems for the authority while also causing the general public to be suspicious of the authority.
An ex CIA BOP survivor whom had a vendetta against Oswald for having been working with Guy Bannister as an informant? Also maybe the conspirator(s) wanted the general public to experience some pain as retribution for supporting JFK even as they knew that JFK had betrayed the conspirators BOP comrades.
Of course, the scope issue is outside the scope (pun?) of the "curtain rods" issue I'm trying to get at. Concerning the scope, I do think your two options are about it.
In regard to "A," my actual belief is that the JFKA was an unplanned, last-minute decision by Oswald and he either used the iron sights or knew the rifle shot 2" low and to the right (or whatever) with the scope. There is also the possibility, I suppose, that the scope could have been knocked significantly out of alignment in post-assassination handling.
In regard to "B," my guess would be that the rifle was simply a plant and the conspirators really didn't care what shape it was in. That's one of my problems with any conspiracy theory. In 1975, I bought a pristine Remington 30.06 with an excellent 4X Weaver scope out of a guy's trunk in a Phoenix parking lot for a mere $75 - a much more plausible assassination weapon that presumably could have been bought for $50 in 1963. If Oswald was a patsy, why was he not equipped with a less problematical weapon?
It all adds up to me that on 11-22 Oswald was stuck with the rifle he actually owned on 11-21 and made do with what he had.
-
I'd love it if she ever said 36", but I don't believe she did.
RANDLE stated that about 7:15 a.m., November 22, 1963, she looked out of a window of her residence and observed LEE HARVEY OSWALD walking up her driveway and saw him put a long brown package, approximately 3 feet by 6 inches, in the back seat area of WESLEY FRAZIER's 1954 black Chevrolet four door automobile. Thereafter, she observed OSWALD walk to the front, or entrance area, of her residence where he waited for FRAZIER to come out of the house and give him a ride to work.
https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/testimony/randl_l1.htm
In Randle's WC testimony, she wants to shrink the bag even more by suddenly interjecting with the "27 last time" comment. And even a 27 inch bag would be too long for anybody Oswald's size to store it from armpit to cupped hand. I'm over 6 feet tall and I can barely get 24 inches in there.
Mrs. RANDLE. This is the bottom here, right. This is the bottom, this part down here.
Mr. BALL. I believe so, but I am not sure. But let's say it is.
Mrs. RANDLE. And this goes this way, right? Do you want me to hold it?
Mr. BALL. Yes.
Mrs. RANDLE. About this.
Mr. BALL. Is that about right? That is 28 1/2 inches.
Mrs. RANDLE. I measured 27 last time.
Mr. BALL. You measured 27 once before?
Mrs. RANDLE. Yes, sir.
My interpretation of Randle's testimony.
(https://i.postimg.cc/C57B7FPS/Oswalds-package-Randle-a-zps81qohh9k.jpg)
Frazier's size estimates were a bit iffy.
Q: What kind of rifle did you use in the Service?
A: An M14.
Q: Approximately how long was the M14 that you used?
A: I believe the correct length is 30 some odd inches long?
Q: 30 something inches long?
A: Yes.
Q: Did you ever break that rifle down?
A: Yes, sir, I broke it down many times.
https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/testimony/frazierb3.htm
(https://i.postimg.cc/8CW4rqPg/M14.jpg)
But whatever it was, it was sure too long for an apple and a sandwich.
(https://i.postimg.cc/pX05nL5B/buellbagest.jpg)
JohnM
-
In the 11/23/63 FBI report they say she believed it was "approximately 3 feet by 6 inches."
https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/testimony/randl_l1.htm
Great - I either didn't know that or had forgotten it. I was thinking of the visit a week or two later where Odum tried to replicate the sack with Frazier and Randle and she came up with the 27". The suspicion, I would think, would have to be that she was trying to make her story conform more closely to Frazier's. It seems surprising that she was then so adamant with the WC and that they didn't challenge her with her original estimate. I also see that on Odum's visit she emphasized the package being "heavy," which would seem an unlikely description for curtain rods. Since CTers are so emphatic about Frazier and Randle being "the only ones who actually saw the package," it's interesting how they conveniently ignore that Randle's original estimate, the day after the assassination, was right on the money.
-
In Randle's WC testimony, she wants to shrink the bag even more by suddenly interjecting with the "27 last time" comment. And even a 27 inch bag would be too long for anybody Oswald's size to store it from armpit to cupped hand. I'm over 6 feet tall and I can barely get 24 inches in there.
I'm exactly 6 feet and have tried the experiment numerous times. I likewise can get about 25" in there. And why would anyone carry a wrapped package that way at all unless they were trying to make it as inconspicuous as possible?
My interpretation of Randle's testimony.
That has always been my interpretation as well, and I can easily carry a 40" golf club that way!
I'm not getting a lot of takers for my request to provide a plausible CT-oriented explanation. Is "plausible" the problem, as it so often seems to be? Gee, you folks are so quick to chime in when you think I'm giving insufficient weight to Frazier and Randle, but then when asked to provide a plausible explanation for curtain rods or any too-short package, you go silent. Now that it's been brought to my attention, be sure to address why Randle originally said the bag was 36" and why we should not "give more weight" to that estimate?
This thread, of course, is not really about curtain rods. As always, it's really about Conspiracy Think.
-
I'm exactly 6 feet and have tried the experiment numerous times. I likewise can get about 25" in there. And why would anyone carry a wrapped package that way at all unless they were trying to make it as inconspicuous as possible?
That has always been my interpretation as well, and I can easily carry a 40" golf club that way!
I'm not getting a lot of takers for my request to provide a plausible CT-oriented explanation. Is "plausible" the problem, as it so often seems to be? Gee, you folks are so quick to chime in when you think I'm giving insufficient weight to Frazier and Randle, but then when asked to provide a plausible explanation for curtain rods or any too-short package, you go silent. Now that it's been brought to my attention, be sure to address why Randle originally said the bag was 36" and why we should not "give more weight" to that estimate?
This thread, of course, is not really about curtain rods. As always, it's really about Conspiracy Think.
I've brought up the 3 foot bag which is instantly dismissed as an FBI alteration. -sigh-
Also Randle's description of the heavy looking bag which tapers towards the bulky bottom end is entirely consistent with a heavy rifle within, and hardly represents "curtain rods" but this bone jarring revelation is subsequently rejected for the "armpit to cupped hand" theory, which is ALWAYS the fall back.
Mr. BALL. I have one question, Mr. Chief Justice.
You used an expression there, that the bag appeared heavy.
Mrs. RANDLE. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. You meant that there was some weight appeared to--
Mrs. RANDLE. To the bottom.
Mr. BALL. To the bottom?
Mrs. RANDLE. Yes. It tapered like this as he hugged it in his hand. It was more bulky toward the bottom than it was this way.
Mr. BELIN. Toward the top? More bulky toward the bottom than toward the top?
Mrs. RANDLE. That is right.
JohnM
-
Just so I don't mangle Greg Doudna's idea any further, here is the thread where he introduced it: https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/29747-a-new-look-at-paper-bags-curtain-rods-and-oswald/
Just his first post is beyond me, but maybe someone can parse it out. I'm really not interested in it unless someone wants to defend it as plausible. He also has another one involving a planted conspirator in the Beckley rooming house and a woman (in either the TSBD or Dal-Tex Building, I can't remember which) who falsely befriends Oswald. ::)
-
I've brought up the 3 foot bag which is instantly dismissed as an FBI alteration. -sigh-
You lost me there. Where was it instantly dismissed? Do you mean this is the standard CT dodge?
-
You lost me there. Where was it instantly dismissed? Do you mean this is the standard CT dodge?
Do you mean this is the standard CT dodge?
Yes. An alteration, a mistake or something to that effect.
- Why would Bookhout's second-hand account of what Randle said trump what she said directly?
JohnM
-
I'm not getting a lot of takers for my request to provide a plausible CT-oriented explanation.
If Buell Wesley Frazier was a witting conspirator (preferably with just self-described Marxist and former sharpshooting Marine Lee Harvey Oswald to keep it nice and simple), he could have planned to say afterwards, if asked, "Gosh, Lee had told me the previous afternoon that he was gonna pick up some curtain rods from the Paine residence, and since the package looked to me to be only 24" to 28.5" in length when I kinda glanced at it over my shoulder and out of the corner of my eye real quick-like on the back seat of my car this morning, I figured that's what it was, especially after I asked him, 'What's in that twenty-four-inch to twenty-eight-and-a-half-inch-long package you put on the back seat before we got into my 1954 Chevy sedan, Lee?' and he said, 'Don't you remember, You Big Dummy, I told you yesterday TWENTY-FOUR TO TWENTY-EIGHT-AND-A-HALF-INCH-LONG CURTAIN RODS!!!!'"
-
If Buell Wesley Frazier was a witting conspirator (preferably with just self-described Marxist and former sharpshooting Marine Lee Harvey Oswald to keep it nice and simple), he could have planned to say afterwards, if asked, "Gosh, Lee had told me the previous afternoon that he was gonna pick up some curtain rods from the Paine residence, and since the package looked to me to be only 24" to 28.5" in length when I kinda glanced at it over my shoulder and out of the corner of my eye real quick-like on the back seat of my car this morning, I figured that's what it was, especially after I asked him, 'What's in that twenty-four-inch to twenty-eight-and-a-half-inch-long package you put on the back seat before we got into my 1954 Chevy sedan, Lee?' and he said, 'Don't you remember, You Big Dummy, I told you yesterday TWENTY-FOUR TO TWENTY-EIGHT-AND-A-HALF-INCH-LONG CURTAIN RODS!!!!'"
What would 19-year-old dumbass Frazier have added to a conspiracy - just to offer some convoluted explanation that Oswald was carrying a package too short to be the rifle but was in fact the curtain rods that were never found? And why would Oswald then deny having said anything about curtain rods? Whatever one may think of Oswald, I see him as far too intelligent to have trusted 19-year-old dumbass Frazier with anything. Or is the theory that Frazier was in fact the shooter? Either way, I'm having a hard time making sense of it.
Now that I realize Randle originally did say 3 feet, I lean toward this being the reality, Frazier locking himself into a much shorter length during Odum's visit, and Randle playing along for Frazier's sake. I can't say I find this entirely plausible - she seemed adamant at the WC when she seemingly could have danced out of it by saying "Oh, I really can't be sure - somewhere between two and three feet" - but it's the only explanation that seems plausible to me other than my original "They both simply didn't pay that much attention and were simply mistaken."
I am now 11 minutes past my bedtime, so if I don't sign off now Martin will be accusing me of living in Australia. G'night, mate.
-
What would 19-year-old dumbass Frazier have added to a conspiracy - just to offer some convoluted explanation that Oswald was carrying a package too short to be the rifle but was in fact the curtain rods that were never found? And why would Oswald then deny having said anything about curtain rods? Whatever one may think of Oswald, I see him as far too intelligent to have trusted 19-year-old dumbass Frazier with anything. Or is the theory that Frazier was in fact the shooter? Either way, I'm having a hard time making sense of it.
Now that I realize Randle originally did say 3 feet, I lean toward this being the reality, Frazier locking himself into a much shorter length during Odum's visit, and Randle playing along for Frazier's sake. I can't say I find this entirely plausible - she seemed adamant at the WC when she seemingly could have danced out of it by saying "Oh, I really can't be sure - somewhere between two and three feet" - but it's the only explanation that seems plausible to me other than my original "They both simply didn't pay that much attention and were simply mistaken."
Yes, I suppose you're right.
He should have been at least as old as "Old Man" Oswald.
Hey! Maybe youngster Frazier was just gullible or really, really bad at estimating the lengths of things lying on the back seat of his car!
After all, it's easy to mistakenly believe something that's really three feet long to be two feet long, and vice-versa!!!
-
Buell Frazier testified at the Shaw trial in February of 1969...
Q: Mr. Frazier, have you been in the Armed Services of the United States?
A: Yes, sir, I have.
Q: What branch of the Service?
A: Army.
Q: Were you in the Infantry?
A: Yes, sir, I have had Infantry training.
Q: Did you have any rifle training?
A: Yes, sir, I did.
Q: During the course of that training did you ever have occasion to break a rifle down?
A: Yes, sir, quite frequently.
Q: What kind of rifle did you use in the Service?
A: An M14.
Q: Approximately how long was the M14 that you used?
A: I believe the correct length is 30 some odd inches long?
Q: 30 something inches long?
A: Yes.
Q: Did you ever break that rifle down?
A: Yes, sir, I broke it down many times.
The M-14 is over 44 inches long.
-
Buell Frazier testified at the Shaw trial in February of 1969...
Q: Mr. Frazier, have you been in the Armed Services of the United States?
A: Yes, sir, I have.
Q: What branch of the Service?
A: Army.
Q: Were you in the Infantry?
A: Yes, sir, I have had Infantry training.
Q: Did you have any rifle training?
A: Yes, sir, I did.
If it wasn't for the fact that Linnie originally told the FBI that the package was about three feet long, one would think that she and her brother had a genetic problem.
Q: During the course of that training did you ever have occasion to break a rifle down?
A: Yes, sir, quite frequently.
Q: What kind of rifle did you use in the Service?
A: An M14.
Q: Approximately how long was the M14 that you used?
A: I believe the correct length is 30 some odd inches long?
Q: 30 something inches long?
A: Yes.
Q: Did you ever break that rifle down?
A: Yes, sir, I broke it down many times.
The M-14 is over 44 inches long.
If Linnie hadn't originally told the FBI that she thought the package was about three feet long, one would have to wonder if she and Buell didn't suffer from some sort of genetic problem.
-
Buell Frazier testified at the Shaw trial in February of 1969...
Q: Mr. Frazier, have you been in the Armed Services of the United States?
A: Yes, sir, I have.
Q: What branch of the Service?
A: Army.
Q: Were you in the Infantry?
A: Yes, sir, I have had Infantry training.
Q: Did you have any rifle training?
A: Yes, sir, I did.
Q: During the course of that training did you ever have occasion to break a rifle down?
A: Yes, sir, quite frequently.
Q: What kind of rifle did you use in the Service?
A: An M14.
Q: Approximately how long was the M14 that you used?
A: I believe the correct length is 30 some odd inches long?
Q: 30 something inches long?
A: Yes.
Q: Did you ever break that rifle down?
A: Yes, sir, I broke it down many times.
The M-14 is over 44 inches long.
How do we know that Buell was telling the truth, i.e., that he really, really, really thought an M-14 was only about 30 inches long?
Because he was under oath?
LOL!
-
The links below contain my $0.02 (or maybe a touch more than that 😁) regarding such things as Curtain Rods, Linnie Randle, Buell Frazier, Carport Slats, and the Large-ish Paper Bag (which was photographed on the sixth floor by the police, albeit by accident; see 3rd link):
https://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/curtain-rods.html
https://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2014/05/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-709.html
https://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/07/frazier-randle-and-paper-bag.html
https://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/03/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-914.html
https://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2018/03/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-1275.html
-
This just occurred to me regarding Buell Wesley Frazier. He testified that he had served in the US Army. Yet he was only 19-years old on 11/22/63. So, what do we know about Frazier’s record in the Army? How long of a term did Frazier sign up for? Going from memory only, it does seem like there was a two-year and a four-year option back then. So, it might be possible he joined at 17-years old and had already finished a two-year term. But is that what actually happened? Did he serve his entire term? Was he honorably discharged? Were any of these questions answered in his testimonies or in his book? I am just curious to know what kind of a person we are talking about when discussing the BWF of 1963.
-
FWIW, I also noticed at the mock trial that Frazier agreed with Bugliosi that the rifle "could have" extended beyond Oswald's hand because he "only glanced" at it. Spence treated him as a hostile witness, trying to get him to say that the FBI had tried to twist his arm for a longer package and that Bugliosi had extensively prepped him, but Frazier didn't take the bait. He did acknowledge saying the package was under the armpit and cupped in the hand, whereupon Spence let the matter drop. Later, of course, he said that he and Randle had been extensively pressured to change their stories - which, if true, makes it seem odd that they were questioned so extensively about the package at the WC, no?
Pat Speer made a slightly comical remark (I thought) in regard to the 30" M14. Pat emphasized that, regarding the package, Frazier was talking about something he had recently seen, whereas his experience with the M14 had been long ago. But wait - he repeatedly said he had not paid much attention to the package, whereas he "quite frequently" and "many times" BROKE DOWN an M14. Moreover, my understanding is that both of his stints in the Army were after the JFKA (the second ending in 1977), so the 1969 Shaw trial testimony would scarcely qualify as long ago.
I'm a bit disappointed that JFKA threads always turn into "evidentiary" threads and that the "epistemological" questions fall by the wayside. There has been 62 years of he said, she said, what about this, what about this over here, etc., etc. I just don't think they go anywhere anymore and that this aspect of the JFKA is dying on the vine. (Look at the Ed Forum these days - it's a pathetic shadow of its former self.) It seems to me that the more interesting discussions, on specific issues and the JFKA as a whole, would be more in the vein of "OK, explain how, at least in your mind, what you are saying makes logical sense and is at least reasonably plausible."
-
FWIW, I also noticed at the mock trial that Frazier agreed with Bugliosi that the rifle "could have" extended beyond Oswald's hand because he "only glanced" at it. Spence treated him as a hostile witness, trying to get him to say that the FBI had tried to twist his arm for a longer package and that Bugliosi had extensively prepped him, but Frazier didn't take the bait. He did acknowledge saying the package was under the armpit and cupped in the hand, whereupon Spence let the matter drop. Later, of course, he said that he and Randle had been extensively pressured to change their stories - which, if true, makes it seem odd that they were questioned so extensively about the package at the WC, no?
Pat Speer made a slightly comical remark (I thought) in regard to the 30" M14. Pat emphasized that, regarding the package, Frazier was talking about something he had recently seen, whereas his experience with the M14 had been long ago. But wait - he repeatedly said he had not paid much attention to the package, whereas he "quite frequently" and "many times" BROKE DOWN an M14. Moreover, my understanding is that both of his stints in the Army were after the JFKA (the second ending in 1977), so the 1969 Shaw trial testimony would scarcely qualify as long ago.
I'm a bit disappointed that JFKA threads always turn into "evidentiary" threads and that the "epistemological" questions fall by the wayside. There has been 62 years of he said, she said, what about this, what about this over here, etc., etc. I just don't think they go anywhere anymore and that this aspect of the JFKA is dying on the vine. (Look at the Ed Forum these days - it's a pathetic shadow of its former self.) It seems to me that the more interesting discussions, on specific issues and the JFKA as a whole, would be more in the vein of "OK, explain how, at least in your mind, what you are saying makes logical sense and is at least reasonably plausible."
Moreover, my understanding is that both of his stints in the Army were after the JFKA (the second ending in 1977), so the 1969 Shaw trial testimony would scarcely qualify as long ago.
Thanks, I failed to notice that the testimony regarding the army service was part of the Shaw trial. That makes my earlier questions moot. Please disregard them.
-
All things considered, I see the most plausible explanation being that the package contained the disassembled Carcano and that Frazier and Randle were simply mistaken about the length by 7"-10”.
Of course you do.
I once again focus on what I call epistemology, meaning trying to think through how much sense any other explanation would make. For an explanation to be epistemologically justified, it doesn’t have to be true; it merely has to be rational.
The rational conclusion is that the contents of the package are unknown and unknowable. "Not curtain rods" does not equal "disassembled Carcano rifle".
-
Great - I either didn't know that or had forgotten it. I was thinking of the visit a week or two later where Odum tried to replicate the sack with Frazier and Randle and she came up with the 27". The suspicion, I would think, would have to be that she was trying to make her story conform more closely to Frazier's.
Why wouldn't you consider that Bookhout just misreported what she told him?
Yes, It would have been nice if the Warren Commission had asked Randle about the discrepancy. But they were more interested in furthering their predetermined conclusion.
-
Of course you do.
The rational conclusion is that the contents of the package are unknown and unknowable. "Not curtain rods" does not equal "disassembled Carcano rifle".
Once again, you demonstrate the astonishing shallowness of your thinking - which was precisely the point I made about the arguments of internet atheists.
We do have (1) the curtain rod testimony as outlined in my original post and the questions it raises, which demand the most plausible answers we can give them; (2) Oswald's story of having brought a sandwich and apple, possibly (when suggested by Holmes) in a very large grocery bag, the plausibility of which (and lack of evidence for which) we can assess; (3) the rifle and bag ostensibly found on the sixth floor, the evidentiary value of which we can assess; and (4) the totality of the circumstances concerning the purchase of the rifle, Oswald's pre- and post-assassination behavior, and other considerations that provide a lens through which to assess items 1-3.
No, we do not know to an ontological certainty what the package Oswald brought into the TSBD contained, just as we do not know to an ontological certainty that there is (or isn't) a deity. We can, however, assess all the available evidence, make the most reasonable inferences we can, and arrive at a high level of conviction that the package contained the disassembled Carcano. I have a difficult time articulating any alternative CT-oriented theory that seems even vaguely as plausible - indeed, that isn't as comically ad hoc, speculative and agenda-driven as those Greg Doudna has suggested.
In this thread, I invited alternative theories that struck CTers as reasonably plausible. Instead, I get crickets or non sequiturs like yours.
This is the internet atheist game. One can't know to an ontological certainty that there is a deity, hence any belief in a deity is, ipso facto, mindless faith. Uh, no. One can reach an informed conviction (including, yes, an informed conviction there is no deity) on the basis of long and intense study of philosophy, theology, science, human experience and everything else that may seem relevant. Ditto with every aspect of the JFKA.
Thank you for this opportunity to expose the game you are playing and the shallowness of your thinking. I don't suppose it will shut you up since you appear to derive some weird satisfaction from this game, but I am confident that the shallowness of your thinking has indeed been exposed.
-
Why wouldn't you consider that Bookhout just misreported what she told him?
Yes, It would have been nice if the Warren Commission had asked Randle about the discrepancy. But they were more interested in furthering their predetermined conclusion.
They "furthered their predetermined conclusion" by allowing Randle to demonstrate and testify at length about a 28.5" bag? I don't think that quite works. One might think that at least getting her original 36" estimate on the record would have been more useful in "furthering their predetermined conclusion."
I find it useful to ask myself "Does this make any sense?" before I hit "Post," but maybe I'm just fussy.
-
They put the bag in front of her.
It was too long.
Mr. BALL. Now, with reference to the width of this bag, does that look about the width of the bag that he was carrying?
Mrs. RANDLE. I would say so; yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. What about length?
Mrs. RANDLE. You mean the entire bag?
Mr. BALL. Yes.
Mrs. RANDLE. There again you have the problem of all this down here. It was folded down, of course, if you would take it from the bottom--
Mr. BALL. Fold it to about the size that you think it might be.
Mrs. RANDLE. This is the bottom here, right. This is the bottom, this part down here.
Mr. BALL. I believe so, but I am not sure. But let's say it is.
Mrs. RANDLE. And this goes this way, right? Do you want me to hold it?
Mr. BALL. Yes.
Mrs. RANDLE. About this.
Mr. BALL. Is that about right? That is 28 1/2 inches.
Mrs. RANDLE. I measured 27 last time.
Mr. BALL. You measured 27 once before?
Mrs. RANDLE. Yes, sir
-
No, we do not know to an ontological certainty what the package Oswald brought into the TSBD contained,
That's the overstatement of the year. You don't know to ANY certainty whatsoever. At best you can make a weak argument that it wasn't curtain rods.
In this thread, I invited alternative theories that struck CTers as reasonably plausible. Instead, I get crickets or non sequiturs like yours.
Who do you think you're fooling? What you are doing is the usual LN shift-the-burden game: prove that it was something else, or disassembled Carcano wins by default.
I don't claim to know if there is a deity or not. There is just no good reason to believe in one. Just like there is no good reason to believe that Oswald killed JFK.
"Oh yeah, prove it's false" is not a good reason to believe something. You can try to dress it up in all kinds of flowery language and philosophical deepities in order to feel arrogant and superior, but that doesn't turn it into a good reason. Nor does it make you right.
-
They "furthered their predetermined conclusion" by allowing Randle to demonstrate and testify at length about a 28.5" bag?
Did that change their conclusion at all? No, they just declared her "mistaken". That's how predetermined conclusions work.
-
Someone who is truly and honestly neutral on what happened, is agnostic on what occurred that day in Dallas and has no set opinion on whether it was Oswald alone or a cast of thousands, would, on the bag question (and others), challenge every explanation as to what it contained and not just one. Viz., that it contained a rifle, that it contained curtain rods, that it contained a lunch, or that it contained something else. Each theory would be challenged.
But we don't see that here (or with the other questions). We have this challenge against the "bag had the rifle" theory but not challenges of the curtain rod or lunch or "something else" theory. This from the person who says he has no theory as to what happened (and isn't interested, he adds, in any one of them anyway). The intellectual inconsistency is obvious to everyone.
-
Someone who is truly and honestly neutral on what happened, is agnostic on what happened that day in Dallas and has no set opinion on whether it was Oswald alone or a cast of thousands, would, on the bag question, challenge any and every explanation as to what was in it. Viz., that it contained a rifle, that it contained curtain rods, that it contained a lunch, or that it contained something else. Each theory would be scrutinized, questioned. But we don't see that. We have the challenge made against the rifle theory but not the curtain rod or lunch or something else theory.
The intellectual inconsistency is obvious to everyone.
Dear Steve M.,
Do you think the bag (with Oswald's prints on it) was planted in the Sniper's Nest by the bad guys?
If not, what do you think it had contained, if anything?
-- Tom
-
Seems like it would be a lot easier to swing , with just one hand, a 27” length paper bag package containing light weight curtain rods than it would be to swing a 35” length paper bag package containing 8lbs of disassembled rifle stock and barrel.
That was rather a risky thing to do, carrying
8lbs of rifle parts in a flimsy paper bag , with just one hand at the top. Oswald loses his grip and the bag tears apart or slides thru the unsecured folded over flap?
And why is that upper flap not taped securely, but just folded over? Is Oswald crazy, stupid , or what?
-
Seems like it would be a lot easier to swing , with just one hand, a 27” length paper bag package containing light weight curtain rods than it would be to swing a 35” length paper bag package containing 8lbs of disassembled rifle stock and barrel.
That was rather a risky thing to do, carrying
8lbs of rifle parts in a flimsy paper bag , with just one hand at the top. Oswald loses his grip and the bag tears apart or slides thru the unsecured folded over flap?
And why is that upper flap not taped securely, but just folded over? Is Oswald crazy, stupid , or what?
You're right, of course, Neon, so we're forced to conclude that Buell and his sister lied about how long the package was and how Oswald had carried it.
Why in the world would they do that?
One possible answer is that Buell conspired with Oswald to kill JFK.
Another possible answer is that, despite what Oswald told him about "curtain rods," Buell suspected that he might have a rifle in that package and was duping him into transporting it to their seven-story place of work a few hours before JFK and Jackie were scheduled to pass by it.
In this scenario, after the assassination Buell must have felt culpable for not having reported his suspicions to someone in authority at the TSBD.
I mean . . . wouldn't you?
Bottom line: Buell may have decided to lie about how long he thought the package was in order to make him look less naive and/or less culpable!!!
-
Someone who is truly and honestly neutral on what happened, is agnostic on what occurred that day in Dallas and has no set opinion on whether it was Oswald alone or a cast of thousands, would, on the bag question (and others), challenge every explanation as to what it contained and not just one. Viz., that it contained a rifle, that it contained curtain rods, that it contained a lunch, or that it contained something else. Each theory would be challenged.
But we don't see that here (or with the other questions). We have this challenge against the "bag had the rifle" theory but not challenges of the curtain rod or lunch or "something else" theory. This from the person who says he has no theory as to what happened (and isn't interested, he adds, in any one of them anyway). The intellectual inconsistency is obvious to everyone.
I thought that's what I was trying to do with this entire thread?
OK, the package contained curtain rods: Answer the questions I posed and explain how that makes sense.
OK, it contained a lunch: Answer the questions I posed and explain how that makes sense.
OK, it contained something other than a rifle, curtain rods or a lunch: Answer the questions I posed and explain how that makes sense.
Then we'll assess the plausibility of each explanation and see if any reaches the same level of plausibility as the disassembled rifle.
We will reach some level of conviction that the package contained whatever the most plausible explanation suggests it contained.
That's how reasoning works, except in conspiracy world.
-
Who do you think you're fooling? What you are doing is the usual LN shift-the-burden game: prove that it was something else, or disassembled Carcano wins by default.
It is a reasonable inference that Oswald brought the gun to work that morning:
A. Oswald's gun was found at the murder scene.
B. Oswald's gun was last seen in Ruth Paine's garage wrapped in a blanket made with brown and green fibres.
C. Oswald was in Ruth Paine's garage the night before the murder
D. Oswald took a long package wrapped in brown paper to work on the day of the murder.
E. Oswald told Buell Frazier that it contained curtain rods for his room.
F. Oswald's room did not need curtains.
G. No curtain rods were found at the TSBD and Oswald did not leave the TSBD carrying a long package.
H. A long paper package similar to the package described by Buell Frazier and Linnie Mae Randle was found in the murder scene and it was found to have Oswald's palm print on it. It also contained fibres that were indistinguishable from fibres from the blanket in which the rifle had been wrapped.
Any juror could easily draw the inference that Oswald took his gun to work on the morning of 22Nov63.
-
I will offer my chain of reasoning:
1. Oswald requested to go to the Paine home on Thursday, which was unusual, because he needed his rifle for use on Friday.
2. When Frazier asked why, Oswald answered curtain rods because he knew he would have a long, stiff, possibly metallic-sounding package the next morning.
3. Oswald said nothing to Marina or Ruth about curtain rods because (1) he didn't want to be burdened with curtain rods as well as his rifle and (2) he wanted to be alone in the garage on his own terms and not with either woman observing him.
4. Ruth and Marina said that Oswald had said nothing about curtain rods; there was no reason for them to lie, and it would have been odd for Oswald not to offer this explanation if it were true.
5. Marina said the disassembled rifle was wrapped in a blanket in the Paine garage. There was no reason for her to lie, especially since she thought it was still there.
6. Michael Paine testified about the contents of the blanket, his testimony being a near-perfect match for the disassembled rifle and his estimate of the length being 37".
7. The curtain rod story makes little sense for a frugal character like Oswald, who was merely renting his tiny room. The only curtain rods in the Paine garage belonged to Ruth, so Oswald would either have had to steal them or lower himself to asking Ruth if he could have them; this is unlikely for the proud Oswald, especially since curtain rods cost only $1 or less.
8. Frazier told Randle about the curtain rod story on Thursday evening, just as Randle said.
9. Randle saw Oswald carrying the package in one hand with the other end nearly touching the ground and observed that the package seemed bulky and heavy, which would fit the disassembled rifle better than curtain rods or a lunch; there was no reason for her to lie about this.
10. Oswald told Frazier the package contained curtain rods and that he had not brought his lunch; there was no reason for Frazier to lie about this.
11. At the TSBD, Oswald walked rapidly ahead of Frazier with the package close against his side, just as Frazier said, because he wanted the package to be as inconspicuous as possible.
12. Even if the contents of the package were discovered, Oswald would have had the convenient explanation that other rifles had recently been brought into the building and he just wanted to show his; the project was not as risky as it might seem.
13. A rifle that was traceable to Oswald and that had been stored in the Paine garage was found on the sixth floor where Oswald had been working.
14. Oswald was not observed with anything but a Coke by Mrs. Reid and was not observed with anything in his hands on the bus, by Whaley or by Earlene Roberts.
15. No curtain rods were found in the TSBD or Oswald's room.
16. Oswald denied the curtain rod story during interrogation, making Frazier and Randle appear to be liars because (1) he knew there were no curtain rods and (2) a package of curtain rods would have sounded suspiciously like a disassembled rifle; better to just deny the whole thing. If he actually had brought curtain rods, this would have been an excellent alibi.
17. Oswald said he had brought a lunch, again making Frazier appear to be a liar; when Holmes asked if it had possibly been brought in a large grocery sack, Oswald quickly agreed with this highly improbable suggestion because he knew he had been carrying a large package.
18. The likelihood of someone carrying a sandwich and apple in a large grocery sack is close to nil; Oswald offered no explanation for where the sack might be.
Based on the above, the conclusion that Oswald was carrying the disassembled rifle seems to have a very high degree of plausibility. Everything fits together nicely.
The flies in the ointment are the length estimates of Frazier and Randle.
1. Randle originally estimated the length at three feet.
2. The discrepancy arose when Frazier and Randle were questioned at the car by Odum.
a. Did Frazier, who had initially been a suspect, perhaps have a motive for suggesting the package seemed too small to hold a rifle?
b. Did Randle perhaps have a motive not to make her brother look like a fool, whereupon she settled on a length of 27"?
3. At the Warren Commission, Randle was pretty well locked into her prior story since it had involved recreating the package, but at the WC the length did increase to 28.5."
4. Although Randle impressively stuck by her estimate, we can reasonably question how much attention either she or Frazier would have paid under the circumstances (i.e., the importance of Oswald and the package being completely unknown before the assassination). This applies as well to Frazier's observation of the way Oswald supposedly carried the package into the TSBD; he was some 50 feet ahead of Frazier, and Frazier acknowledged at the mock trial that the end might have been protruding.
Hence, I see Frazier's and Randle's estimates as being problematical but explainable and not sufficient to dent the high plausibility of the disassembled rifle explanation.
I would invite those who disagree to take us through a similar chain of reasoning for curtain rods, a sandwich and an apple, or whatever else the package might have held.
-
Seems like it would be a lot easier to swing , with just one hand, a 27” length paper bag package containing light weight curtain rods than it would be to swing a 35” length paper bag package containing 8lbs of disassembled rifle stock and barrel.
That was rather a risky thing to do, carrying
8lbs of rifle parts in a flimsy paper bag , with just one hand at the top. Oswald loses his grip and the bag tears apart or slides thru the unsecured folded over flap?
And why is that upper flap not taped securely, but just folded over? Is Oswald crazy, stupid , or what?
The rifle would have only been broken down into two parts, wouldn't it? (See photo)
Presumably wrapping paper used at a book warehouse would not be flimsy. The 12/2/63 report on Randle emphasizes a "heavy grade of paper."
At no time did Randle say Oswald "swung" the package. She described it as "bulky" and "heavy" and said the wider end (butt of the rifle) was at the bottom.
We don't know exactly what he took from the TSBD, how he transported it to the Paine home, or how much time he had in the Paine garage or exactly what he did. My guess would be that he basically created the bag at the TSBD but left the top open so he could slide the disassembled rifle into it.
(https://c7.alamy.com/comp/D18JTN/warren-commission-exhibit-gun-used-by-lee-harvey-oswald-to-assassinate-D18JTN.jpg)
-
This is just my opinion, but I don’t believe that there is conclusive evidence that the rifle was disassembled in order to take it into the TSBD. I can think of a few ways to conceal the short section of the end of the muzzle of a fully assembled rifle that would have been sticking out of the open end of the homemade bag. A small lunch sack would have covered it very easily. And even if it stuck out exposed, there are ways to carry it so that the end of the muzzle would be hidden inside his jacket sleeve or jacket front. This would also eliminate the time needed to reassemble it and also eliminate potential rattling sounds that might attract unwanted attention to the package. But, either way, I think that the circumstantial evidence is overwhelming that LHO snuck the rifle into the TSBD the morning of 11/22/63. Just my two cents worth.
-
This is just my opinion, but I don’t believe that there is conclusive evidence that the rifle was disassembled in order to take it into the TSBD. I can think of a few ways to conceal the short section of the end of the muzzle of a fully assembled rifle that would have been sticking out of the open end of the homemade bag. A small lunch sack would have covered it very easily. And even if it stuck out exposed, there are ways to carry it so that the end of the muzzle would be hidden inside his jacket sleeve or jacket front. This would also eliminate the time needed to reassemble it and also eliminate potential rattling sounds that might attract unwanted attention to the package. But, either way, I think that the circumstantial evidence is overwhelming that LHO snuck the rifle into the TSBD the morning of 11/22/63. Just my two cents worth.
You make some very good points there Charles, the difference between the disassembled rifle and the actual length is only a few inches and the bag was made of paper. The reasoning for the rifle being broken down was to fit the bag but what if the bag was actually long enough and Oswald's bag had both ends sealed and Oswald simply cut off one end to access the rifle? The end of the bag seems to be squared off so I don't know how practical my theory is but hey it's food for thought?
And your observation re the "potential rattling sounds" is interesting and indeed if the rifle was disassembled then the separate parts would need to be secured tightly and maybe this extra wrapping is what prevented Cadigan from discovering a distinct connection between the rifle and scratches or dents in the bag?
JohnM
-
I am trapped inside the house by 60 mph winds and thus have given a bit more thought to Frazier's possible motive for the "short package" story. It now seems pretty obvious.
Some of the early reports on the assassination identified the weapon as a British Enfield .303. My source for this is a post by Mick Purdy at Greg Parker's old site, wherein he sounded as though he knew what he was talking about. I also found this: "NBC and WBAP radio identified it as a British Enfield .303." https://assassinationresearch.com/v1n2/gtds.html.
Frazier was arrested as a conspirator in the assassination on the evening of Nov. 22. Fritz actually asked him to sign a confession. When he was interrogated, the police had already confiscated at Randle's house Frazier's British Enfield No. 4, Mark 1 rifle with a clip and ten rounds of .303 ammunition, with which they confronted Frazier. Here is the DPD property clerk's receipt:
(https://i0.wp.com/www.prayer-man.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/FrasiersrifletoDPD0148-001.gif)
One can imagine the trauma of this ordeal for the 19-year-old, minimum-wage, living-with-his-sister Frazier.
The Enfield No. 4, Mark 1 is one of the classic WW2 rifles. You can watch a slightly goofy video about it here:
It was 44.5" long - more than 4" longer than the Carcano. I couldn't find a disassembled length, but you can be sure it was at least as long as the Carcano.
When Frazier was interviewed next to the car at Randle's house by FBI agents Odum and McNeely on 12-1-63 (not 12-2 as I stated, which is the date of their report) - little more than a week after the assassination - he was surely still rattled from his arrest. NO WAY was the package going to be one that might have contained a Carcano or an Enfield. Randle, knowing what her brother had experienced, went along with his story.
That's my theory anyway.
-
You make some very good points there Charles, the difference between the disassembled rifle and the actual length is only a few inches and the bag was made of paper. The reasoning for the rifle being broken down was to fit the bag but what if the bag was actually long enough and Oswald's bag had both ends sealed and Oswald simply cut off one end to access the rifle? The end of the bag seems to be squared off so I don't know how practical my theory is but hey it's food for thought?
And your observation re the "potential rattling sounds" is interesting and indeed if the rifle was disassembled then the separate parts would need to be secured tightly and maybe this extra wrapping is what prevented Cadigan from discovering a distinct connection between the rifle and scratches or dents in the bag?
JohnM
If it were not disassembled, the difference in length seemingly would be enough that it would push us away from an "innocent mistake" by Frazier and Randle and toward "flat-out lying" by Frazier and Randle, perhaps for the reason suggested by me immediately above. On the other hand, I would think a disassembled rifle would more plausibly resemble curtain rods. The FBI guy was able to assemble the Carcano in six minutes with a coin and reassemble it even faster, so disassembling it would not have been a major task. (David Lifton swore he had a witness who encountered Oswald on the elevator and that Oswald said the package was a "fishing pole"!!!)
-
As the rifle he received was a few inches longer that the one he ordered it's likely IMO that Oswald didn't take it into account when constructing the bag, hence the tight fit.
-
You make some very good points there Charles, the difference between the disassembled rifle and the actual length is only a few inches and the bag was made of paper. The reasoning for the rifle being broken down was to fit the bag but what if the bag was actually long enough and Oswald's bag had both ends sealed and Oswald simply cut off one end to access the rifle? The end of the bag seems to be squared off so I don't know how practical my theory is but hey it's food for thought?
And your observation re the "potential rattling sounds" is interesting and indeed if the rifle was disassembled then the separate parts would need to be secured tightly and maybe this extra wrapping is what prevented Cadigan from discovering a distinct connection between the rifle and scratches or dents in the bag?
JohnM
JohnM,
Whether Oswald made the bag at the TSBD or at Russophile Ruthie's, he probably got the paper for it at the former and simply underestimated how much he needed.
-
This is just my opinion, but I don’t believe that there is conclusive evidence that the rifle was disassembled in order to take it into the TSBD. I can think of a few ways to conceal the short section of the end of the muzzle of a fully assembled rifle that would have been sticking out of the open end of the homemade bag. A small lunch sack would have covered it very easily. And even if it stuck out exposed, there are ways to carry it so that the end of the muzzle would be hidden inside his jacket sleeve or jacket front. This would also eliminate the time needed to reassemble it and also eliminate potential rattling sounds that might attract unwanted attention to the package. But, either way, I think that the circumstantial evidence is overwhelming that LHO snuck the rifle into the TSBD the morning of 11/22/63. Just my two cents worth.
I'll toss this out to add to our confusion: Marina said that the rifle was wrapped in paper of some sort/type and then placed in the blanket.
So, could he have used that paper to cover the top of the assembled rifle? No extra paper was found so what happened to it?
(https://www.drivehq.com/file/DFPublishFile.aspx/FileID12412635195/Key9aolfid2dd1i/rifle one.JPG)
(https://www.drivehq.com/file/DFPublishFile.aspx/FileID12412635180/Keyq4lpi43soq50/rifle two.JPG)
-
Michael Paine testified extensively about the blanket. He repeatedly refers to "the package" inside the blanket, but it's not clear if by "the package" he simply means "the items." He did have the impression the package was wrapped with a couple of strings, but he also says he doesn't think the package was wrapped in paper because "when we practiced wrapping that rifle yesterday I would have guessed that any paper around the barrel in there, which I could feel with some clarity, would have crinkled."
-
As the rifle he received was a few inches longer that the one he ordered it's likely IMO that Oswald didn't take it into account when constructing the bag, hence the tight fit.
Hi Steve, good to see you posting.
(https://i.postimg.cc/fR8KPQdD/Oswaldsriflebag.jpg)
JohnM
-
JohnM,
Whether Oswald made the bag at the TSBD or at Russophile Ruthie's, he probably got the paper for it at the former and simply underestimated how much he needed.
The paper that made up Oswald's sack(CE 142) showed the same characteristics as paper(CE 677) obtained on the 22nd but IIRC there was a discrepancy with paper obtained at a later date which simply meant that the rolls were changed.
Mr. EISENBERG. Have you now reviewed all the points in which you compared the paper sack obtained from the TSBD, Exhibit 142, and the known sample obtained on November 22, Exhibit 677?
Mr. CADIGAN. Yes.
Mr. EISENBERG. Did you find any points of nonidentity?
Mr. CADIGAN. No; I found none.
Mr. EISENBERG. They were identical on every point on which you measured them?
Mr. CADIGAN. Yes.
(https://i.postimg.cc/SxcXX6y5/ce-677-paper-sample-from-22nd.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/fbKJCMSf/ce-142-oswald-s-rifle-sack-bag-b.jpg)
The tape that was on CE 142 went through the dispenser on the first floor shipping department, this tape showed a number of evenly spaced pock marks which is indicative of having to pass through the dispenser and then the tape was wetted as it passed out of the machine, so I believe Oswald had to have made the rifle sack at the Depository. Now I'm not familiar enough with the machine to know if the tape could pass through the dispenser and be removed without having water applied, or if the water reservoir could be removed?
Mr. CADIGAN. Once it is in that machine then that wheel will mark the tape going through the dispenser just before it wets it and you paste it down.
West who worked the tape dispenser was asked if you could get the tape out without the tape getting water on it and he says you have to take the tape out of the machine because the tape within the machine has to get wet before the tape is removed but he never elaborates on the possibility of having no water in the machine or a method of removing the water and/or the reservoir?
Mr. BELIN - If I wanted to pull the tape, pull off a piece without getting water on it, would I just lift it up without going over the wet roller and get the tape without getting it wet?
Mr. WEST - You would have to take it out. You would have to take it out of the machine. See, it's put on there and then run through a little clamp that holds it down, and you pull it, well, then the water, it gets water on it.
Another problem is that West rarely left the area, at lunch he washed up and I guess occasionally he went to the toilet which leaves only before and after work.
West had an established routine of getting to work 5 to 10 minutes early, easy for Oswald to work around.
Mr. BELIN - Do you remember what time you got to work that particular morning?
Mr. WEST - It was about 10 minutes to 8. I always be 5 or 10 minutes early.
And while at work, West made his coffee in the same department, kept his lunch by the wrapping machine and seemingly sat right down while he was there and ate his lunch,
Mr. BELIN - Where did you go when you got to work?
Mr. WEST - Well, When I first got to work I always made coffee in the morning at the store. This is the first thing I do in the morning.
Mr. BELIN - Where did you make the coffee?
Mr. WEST - Sir?
Mr. BELIN - Where did you make the coffee?
Mr. WEST - Well, it is down on the first floor in the same department where I wrap mail at.
Mr. BELIN - Where did you get your lunch?
Mr. WEST - Well, I always kept my lunch right there close by my machine, by my wrapping machine that I use all the time, that I always kept my lunch. I have a little place underneath and I keep it there all the time.
Mr. BELIN - Now, after you quit for lunch, you made the coffee then?
Mr. WEST - Yes, sir.
Mr. BELIN - Were did you make the coffee?
Mr. WEST - I made the coffee right there close to the wrapping mail table where I wrap mail.
Mr. BELIN - Then what did you do?
Mr. WEST - Well, I sit down to eat my lunch.
JohnM
-
A lot of made up assumptions by nutters, excuses really, throughout this thread are not reflected in the WC conclusions.
-
Of course, the rifle was ALREADY disassembled in the Paine garage. Which makes more sense: that he would take the time and risk to assemble it there or that he would carry it disassembled, thereby closer resembling curtain rods, and assemble it at the TSBD? I would lean toward the latter. In regard to the length of the disassembled rifle, the assembled rifle and the bag, we're talking about mere inches either way, so I don't see that we can conclude anything from the length of the bag.
-
Of course, the rifle was ALREADY disassembled in the Paine garage. Which makes more sense: that he would take the time and risk to assemble it there or that he would carry it disassembled, thereby closer resembling curtain rods, and assemble it at the TSBD? I would lean toward the latter. In regard to the length of the disassembled rifle, the assembled rifle and the bag, we're talking about mere inches either way, so I don't see that we can conclude anything from the length of the bag.
Except the rifle is too long to fit under the arm and there is nothing u can do to make it look like a curtain rod.
-
A lot of made up assumptions by nutters, excuses really, throughout this thread are not reflected in the WC conclusions.
And your point is? There is nothing epistemologically suspect about assumptions. All of science is based on the assumption that the universe operates according to principles that will be the same tomorrow as they are today and were 100,000 years ago. I operate on the assumptions that the sun will rise in the morning, my wife will not have left me, and my car will still be in my garage. If you think the assumptions in this thread are "made up" or otherwise flawed, point out the flaws. If you think the inferences in this thread are unreasonable, point out why they are unreasonable and what you believe more reasonable inferences would be.
The fact is, the evidence pretty well screams that Oswald got his rifle from the garage, carried it into the TSBD and shot JFK. The WC did not have to go through the level of analysis we are attempting here, although they did have to account for Frazier's and Randle's testimony regarding the length of the package and the way Oswald carried it. "No, he was really carrying curtain rods" and "No, he was really carrying his lunch" are simply not plausible theories - they simply don't fit the evidence and most reasonable inferences from it. This is precisely why I challenged CTers to present a rational, coherent, evidence-based explanation for either curtain rods or a lunch. Go for it, if you can.
Yes, I assume Ruth and Marina were not lying. I assume neither Frazier nor Randle was a participant in an assassination conspiracy. I assume Frazier and Randle did not invent the curtain rod story. I assume the rifle was still in the Paine garage on 11-21. Those are probably the only real assumptions. The rest of the scenario is either evidence-based or based on reasonable inferences that flow from the evidence. Based on the totality of assumptions, evidence and reasonable inferences, I conclude that Frazier and Randle were either mistaken about the length of the package or intentionally invented a shorter package because Frazier was a suspect and owned an even longer rifle.
If you can do better, show us. Be sure to recognize the critical distinction between "reasonable assumptions and inferences" on the one hand and "raw ad hoc speculation" on the other.
-
And your point is? There is nothing epistemologically suspect about assumptions. All of science is based on the assumption that the universe operates according to principles that will be the same tomorrow as they are today and were 100,000 years ago. I operate on the assumptions that the sun will rise in the morning, my wife will not have left me, and my car will still be in my garage. If you think the assumptions in this thread are "made up" or otherwise flawed, point out the flaws. If you think the inferences in this thread are unreasonable, point out why they are unreasonable and what you believe more reasonable inferences would be.
The fact is, the evidence pretty well screams that Oswald got his rifle from the garage, carried it into the TSBD and shot JFK. The WC did not have to go through the level of analysis we are attempting here, although they did have to account for Frazier's and Randle's testimony regarding the length of the package and the way Oswald carried it. "No, he was really carrying curtain rods" and "No, he was really carrying his lunch" are simply not plausible theories - they simply don't fit the evidence and most reasonable inferences from it. This is precisely why I challenged CTers to present a rational, coherent, evidence-based explanation for either curtain rods or a lunch. Go for it, if you can.
Yes, I assume Ruth and Marina were not lying. I assume neither Frazier nor Randle was a participant in an assassination conspiracy. I assume Frazier and Randle did not invent the curtain rod story. I assume the rifle was still in the Paine garage on 11-21. Those are probably the only real assumptions. The rest of the scenario is either evidence-based or based on reasonable inferences that flow from the evidence. Based on the totality of assumptions, evidence and reasonable inferences, I conclude that Frazier and Randle were either mistaken about the length of the package or intentionally invented a shorter package because Frazier was a suspect and owned an even longer rifle.
If you can do better, show us. Be sure to recognize the critical distinction between "reasonable assumptions and inferences" on the one hand and "raw ad hoc speculation" on the other.
All based on your preset bias conclusion.
It doesn't prove anything
-
Except the rifle is too long to fit under the arm and there is nothing u can do to make it look like a curtain rod.
And your point is? Yes, either the assembled or disassembled rifle was too long to fit under the armpit and be cupped in the hand. Hence, because Frazier repeatedly said at the WC that he didn't pay much attention and acknowledged at the mock trial that the end could have been protruding, the most reasonable inference in light of the totality of the evidence is that Frazier was simply mistaken. If you wish to make this aspect of Frazier's testimony the linchpin of your theory, then you need to address all the rest of the evidence (and lack thereof in the case of curtain rods) and the sorts of questions I posed in my original post.
Eyewitnesses make mistakes all the time, which is precisely why eyewitness testimony is widely regarded as unreliable. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/do-the-eyes-have-it/. "Frazier was simply mistaken about the way Oswald carried the package" is an entirely plausible conclusion and one that fits the totality of the evidence better than "Oswald was actually carrying the package wedged under his armpit and cupped in his hand" (which would, in fact, require a package shorter than either 27" or 28.5").
Nobody said the package "looked like" a curtain rod. "Curtain rods" was the explanation given by Oswald and accepted by Frazier. Randle described the package as bulky, heavy and wider at one end, which scarcely fits curtain rods. Curtain rods might be at least a superficially plausible explanation for the disassembled rifle, which is why I tend to think the rifle remained disassembled until its arrival in the TSBD.
-
Nobody said the package "looked like" a curtain rod. "Curtain rods" was the explanation given by Oswald and accepted by Frazier.
Frazier, said he had no reason not to believe him, because Lee had never lied to him before. Well then, Lee had better make a package that looks like curtain rods. Not one to be held like a soldier walking with a rifle. Buell, has always maintained the package was tucked under his armpit. That could not be the gun. Disassembled, the rifle is 34.8 inches long. It would go past his ear.
Here is Frazier demonstrating what he saw and did not see that morning. It was not the rifle.
(https://preview.ibb.co/cqGmgw/Slide18.gif)
-
All based on your preset bias conclusion.
It doesn't prove anything
Are you sure you're Michael Capasse? I would've expected better from the longtime administrator of JFKBioards.net. Maybe you're just having a bad day?
I absolutely do not start with any preset conclusion that the package contained the rifle. I would LOVE IT if curtain rods were the answer! Then we could have a fascinating discussion as to whether this would preclude Oswald from being the assassin (I think not) or was just a clever well-planned alibi.
The fact is that my attempt to arrive at the most rational, coherent, plausible, evidence-based and reasonable-inference-based explanations LEADS ME to the conviction that the package contained the disassembled rifle. I invite you to give us an analysis that is equally comprehensive and equally (or at least reasonably) plausible. Can you do it?
People are imprisoned and executed because a jury concluded they were guilty beyond a reasonable doubt - a reasonable doubt, not beyond any doubt. There is virtually nothing we know to an ontological certainty, which is how Descartes ended up at "I think, therefore I am." No, we cannot prove to an ontological certainty that Oswald carried a rifle, curtain rods, a lunch or anything at all. The demand for "proof" thus is a red herring. What is required is simply tne most plausible, the most doubt-free, of the available explanations.
-
I absolutely do not start with any preset conclusion that the package contained the rifle.
You absolutely do and it is in every post you have written about it.
The fact is that my attempt to arrive at the most rational, coherent, plausible, evidence-based and reasonable-inference-based explanations LEADS ME to the conviction that the package contained the disassembled rifle. I invite you to give us an analysis that is equally comprehensive and equally (or at least reasonably) plausible. Can you do it?
BS: "...most rational, coherent, plausible, evidence-based and reasonable-inference-based explanations..."
Sorry, I don't waste my time with tests or nutter challenges
Thumb1: You only have to prove Lee Oswald killed John Kennedy.
-
Frazier, said he had no reason not to believe him, because Lee had never lied to him before. Well then, Lee had better make a package that looks like curtain rods. Not one to be held like a soldier walking with a rifle. Buell, has always maintained the package was tucked under his armpit. That could not be the gun. Disassembled, the rifle is 34.8 inches long. It would go past his ear.
Here is Frazier demonstrating what he saw and did not see that morning. It was not the rifle.
(https://preview.ibb.co/cqGmgw/Slide18.gif)
OK, that's a substantive point. It appears you are agreeing with me that Oswald would not have carried the assembled rifle in the package. If he was going to carry the rifle, I think we can agree that the disassembled rifle would be more "curtain rods like" than would the assembled one. I believe Oswald did make a package that looked and sounded as much like curtain rods as he could make the Carcano look and sound. Again, Randle's description of a heavy, bulky package that was wider at one end scarcely sounds like curtain rods.
Yes, I have seen the video where Frazier does his demonstration. I don't happen to believe the protruding end was at the top. I believe it was at the bottom. Because Oswald was trying to make the package as inconspicuous as possible, I believe he probably did wedge it under his armpit and hold it close to his side. My Odyssey putter happens to be 34.5" When I wedge the grip under my armpit and hold the putter tight to my side, it quite easily lays in a position where, from behind, it could give the appearance that it was cupped in my fingers. In every demonstration, Frazier has had the package cupped in the ends of the fingers, not in the palm.
Again: If you want to allow this eyewitness observation by Frazier to drive the bus, then you need to answer all the other questions and improbabilities raised by the explanation that the package contained curtain rods.
-
This is meant to be a rough idea for how the assembled rifle would fit in the bag. I have not tried to be exact with the measurements due to the apparent partially rolled up closed end of the bag. It appears to me that the open end of the bag was crumpled closed around the muzzle end of the rifle. We can also see a few other crumpled zones that seem to match up with likely points where the package might have been held. The image of the bag is from a photo of it being taken out of the TSBD on 11/22/63. A hold on the package while letting a few inches of the exposed end of the muzzle extend inside his jacket (with the large sleeves per BWF) might be the way LMR described seeing it being carried. It would tend to look a little shorter to LMR if carried the way I just described above. LHO had an opportunity to arrange the rifle in the back seat before BWF ever saw it. Stuffing the muzzle end into the crevice between the seat bottom and the seat back and pointing away from BWF's driving position would tend to make the package appear shorter to BWF. Carrying it into the TSBD with BWF well behind him, LHO could have had the muzzle end possibly inside his jacket in front of his left shoulder. From a distance and behind it might appear to be tucked into his right underarm pit.
(https://i.vgy.me/K55Kps.jpg)
-
This is meant to be a rough idea for how the assembled rifle would fit in the bag. I have not tried to be exact with the measurements due to the apparent partially rolled up closed end of the bag. It appears to me that the open end of the bag was crumpled closed around the muzzle end of the rifle. We can also see a few other crumpled zones that seem to match up with likely points where the package might have been held. The image of the bag is from a photo of it being taken out of the TSBD on 11/22/63. A hold on the package while letting a few inches of the exposed end of the muzzle extend inside his jacket (with the large sleeves per BWF) might be the way LMR described seeing it being carried. It would tend to look a little shorter to LMR if carried the way I just described above. LHO had an opportunity to arrange the rifle in the back seat before BWF ever saw it. Stuffing the muzzle end into the crevice between the seat bottom and the seat back and pointing away from BWF's driving position would tend to make the package appear shorter to BWF. Carrying it into the TSBD with BWF well behind him, LHO could have had the muzzle end possibly inside his jacket in front of his left shoulder. From a distance and behind it might appear to be tucked into his right underarm pit.
It would go past his ear. - look at the picture
-
OK, that's a substantive point. It appears you are agreeing with me that Oswald would not have carried the assembled rifle in the package. If he was going to carry the rifle, I think we can agree that the disassembled rifle would be more "curtain rods like" than would the assembled one.
I don't agree with that at all. He only shortens the rifle by 5 inches when disassembled. It still looks like a fishing rod, baseball bat or a RIFLE.
Curtain rods are collapsible. Frazier never suspected anything but curtain rods.
Yes, I have seen the video where Frazier does his demonstration. I don't happen to believe the protruding end was at the top. I believe it was at the bottom.
A golf club is very easy. It is a pole. Demonstrate how one can hold a 5-6 inch wide package along the body (not gripped at the bottom) and
bend your knees and walk normal. Frazier was sure it was tucked under the arm and cupped at the bottom.
Mr. BALL - You say he had the package under his arm when you saw him?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL - You mean one end of it under the armpit?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir; he had it up just like you stick it right under your arm like that.
Mr. BALL - And he had the lower part--
Mr. FRAZIER - The other part with his right hand.
Mr. BALL - Right hand?
Mr. FRAZIER - Right.
Mr. BALL - He carried it then parallel to his body?
Mr. FRAZIER - Right, straight up and down.
Representative FORD - Under his right arm?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes.
and the bottom:
Mr. FRAZIER - I didn't pay much attention, but when I did, I say, he had this part down here,
like the bottom would be short he had cupped in his hand like that...".
Again: If you want to allow this eyewitness observation by Frazier to drive the bus, then you need to answer all the other questions and improbabilities raised by the explanation that the package contained curtain rods.
I don't NEED to answer anything
When did I say the package contained curtain rods?
-
It would go past his ear. - look at the picture
Not when held diagonally across the body (think of the hypotenuse of a right triangle). I have a ~40" rifle and relatively short arms. When held like that, the muzzle of the rifle is in front of my left shoulder as I described earlier.
-
Not when held diagonally across the body (think of the hypotenuse of a right triangle). I have a ~40" rifle and relatively short arms. When held like that, the muzzle of the rifle is in front of my left shoulder as I described earlier.
It was straight up & down
Mr. BALL - You say he had the package under his arm when you saw him?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL - You mean one end of it under the armpit?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir; he had it up just like you stick it right under your arm like that.
Mr. BALL - And he had the lower part--
Mr. FRAZIER - The other part with his right hand.
Mr. BALL - Right hand?
Mr. FRAZIER - Right.
Mr. BALL - He carried it then parallel to his body?
Mr. FRAZIER - Right, straight up and down.
Representative FORD - Under his right arm?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes
-
It was straight up & down
Mr. BALL - You say he had the package under his arm when you saw him?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL - You mean one end of it under the armpit?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir; he had it up just like you stick it right under your arm like that.
Mr. BALL - And he had the lower part--
Mr. FRAZIER - The other part with his right hand.
Mr. BALL - Right hand?
Mr. FRAZIER - Right.
Mr. BALL - He carried it then parallel to his body?
Mr. FRAZIER - Right, straight up and down.
Representative FORD - Under his right arm?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes
With the right hand slightly away from the body, the portion of the package that could be seen from well behind might appear to be tucked under the armpit. However when viewed from in front the muzzle is in front of the left shoulder.
-
You absolutely do and it is in every post you have written about it.
I didn't just fall off the turnip truck onto this thread or this forum. Yes, I have studied the JFKA at some level for more than 50 years. Yes, at this point I do have a strong conviction that the Lone Nut narrative is essentially correct. Hence, this thread and indeed almost all of my posts are written from that perspective. Nevertheless, I would LOVE IT if there were even a reasonably plausible alternative narrative and would LOVE IT even more if Oswald were actually an innocent patsy. This would simply be WAY more interesting.
Sorry, I don't waste my time with tests or nutter challenges
Thumb1: You only have to prove Lee Oswald killed John Kennedy.
You finally went there. The "I don't waste my time" ploy, which is typically understood to mean "I can't answer your arguments in a substantive way."
This isn't a test. It's an opportunity. As someone who self-identifies as an Independent Researcher of the JFK Assassination since 1980, surely you have thought through the curtain rod issue and arrived at what seems to you a plausible explanation, have you not? This is your opportunity to state it, clearly and succinctly. Make the disassembled rifle explanation look silly if you can! Why would you not welcome this opportunity?
-
I didn't just fall off the turnip truck onto this thread or this forum. Yes, I have studied the JFKA at some level for more than 50 years. Yes, at this point I do have a strong conviction that the Lone Nut narrative is essentially correct. Hence, this thread and indeed almost all of my posts are written from that perspective. Nevertheless, I would LOVE IT if there were even a reasonably plausible alternative narrative and would LOVE IT even more if Oswald were actually an innocent patsy. This would simply be WAY more interesting.
You finally went there. The "I don't waste my time" ploy, which is typically understood to mean "I can't answer your arguments in a substantive way."
This isn't a test. It's an opportunity. As someone who self-identifies as an Independent Researcher of the JFK Assassination since 1980, surely you have thought through the curtain rod issue and arrived at what seems to you a plausible explanation, have you not? This is your opportunity to state it, clearly and succinctly. Make the disassembled rifle explanation look silly if you can! Why would you not welcome this opportunity?
Sorry dude. - I have nothing to prove. Therefore, no need to play any nutter games
You only have to prove Lee Oswald killed john Kennedy
-
Why does Frazier need to lie?
Is he lying about "curtain rods"? - or is it the size of the package.
Lee told the interrogators:
" I didn't tell Buell Wesley Frazier anything about bringing back some curtain rods."
-
I don't agree with that at all. He only shortens the rifle by 5 inches when disassembled. It still looks like a fishing rod, baseball bat or a RIFLE.
Curtain rods are collapsible. Frazier never suspected anything but curtain rods.
A golf club is very easy. It is a pole. Demonstrate how one can hold a 5-6 inch wide package along the body (not gripped at the bottom) and
bend your knees and walk normal. Frazier was sure it was tucked under the arm and cupped at the bottom.
Mr. BALL - You say he had the package under his arm when you saw him?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL - You mean one end of it under the armpit?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir; he had it up just like you stick it right under your arm like that.
Mr. BALL - And he had the lower part--
Mr. FRAZIER - The other part with his right hand.
Mr. BALL - Right hand?
Mr. FRAZIER - Right.
Mr. BALL - He carried it then parallel to his body?
Mr. FRAZIER - Right, straight up and down.
Representative FORD - Under his right arm?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes.
and the bottom:
Mr. FRAZIER - I didn't pay much attention, but when I did, I say, he had this part down here,
like the bottom would be short he had cupped in his hand like that...".
I don't NEED to answer anything
When did I say the package contained curtain rods?
Goodness, your "I don't waste my time" philosophy was short-lived! "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds." - Ralph Waldo Emerson.
Well, you did say that nothing can make a rifle look like a curtain rod. But OK, we will now put you in the column of "Doesn't know what the package contained, but it was too short to be Oswald's rifle."
I think there is some confusion. I, and I believe you, are talking about Oswald walking quickly away from Frazier at the TSBD, not when Randle saw him. My belief is that the rifle remained disassembled just as it was at the Paine garage because (1) it would have been fatal to his plan if Ruth or Marina had observed him assembling the rifle and (2) the disassembled rifle would more closely have resembled curtain rods - not a perfect match, as Randle's testimony establishes, but better than the assembled rifle. I believe he was holding the package straight up and down as Frazier said and you suggest. I don't believe there would be any difficulty in wedging the butt end under his armpit and walking with the package tight to his side with the barrel end between his fingers, which could well give the impression from behind that the barrel end was cupped in his fingers when in fact it was protruding a few inches. When I do the putter experiment, with the putter head under my armpit and the grip end between my fingers, the grip end is indeed scarcely visible from behind. This is exactly what I would do if I wanted the putter to be as inconspicuous and invite as few questions as possible.
As for Randle's observation, I have always pictured him as John Mytton does - simply holding the butt end in his right hand because that's where the bag was open, with the barrel end hanging down toward the ground but not touching it.
-
I don't believe there would be any difficulty in wedging the butt end under his armpit and walking with the package tight to his side with the barrel end between his fingers, which could well give the impression from behind that the barrel end was cupped in his fingers when in fact it was protruding a few inches
made up BS: - put to a preset conclusion
Not consistent with what Frazier described.
-
FWIW
-
FWIW
27 inches. Carried in his right hand ONLY.
thank you
-
Why does Frazier need to lie?
Is he lying about "curtain rods"? - or is it the size of the package.
Lee told the interrogators:
" I didn't tell Buell Wesley Frazier anything about bringing back some curtain rods."
My best estimate is that Frazier isn't lying at all. He is honestly reporting what Oswald said and what he (Frazier) observed. He would be much more likely to accurately remember Oswald's curtain rod tale since Oswald gave it as an explanation at the TSBD in response to a specific question, Frazier repeated it to Randle that evening, and Oswald repeated in answer to a specific question the next morning. Ditto for Oswald saying he was going to buy his lunch, since here again this was in response to a specific question and was contrary to Oswald's usual practice when returning from Irving. There is no disconnect between Frazier accurately recalling what Oswald said and being mistaken in his observation of the package.
It is Oswald who is lying because, as I've previously suggested, he (1) knew there were no curtain rods and (2) a package of curtain rods sounds suspiciously like a disassembled rifle. It's also rather telling how quickly he agreed with Holmes' absurd suggestion that he might have brought a sandwich and an apple in a full-sized grocery bag.
There is the possibility, as we've previously noted, of Frazier being freaked by his own arrest and ownership of the even longer Enfield .303. There is at least the possibility that he, with Randle's sisterly support, wanted to distance himself from any package that could possibly have been a rifle. This would support why he and Randle both insisted the package was too short and why he said Oswald carried it the way he did. I don't find it likely that unsophisticated characters like Frazier and Randle would have held up as well as they did under intense questioning (and even pressure) if they were lying, so I lean toward an honest mistake by Frazier and Randle of the sort that eyewitnesses make all the time.
If Frazier and Randle had insisted Oswald was carrying nothing, or an ordinary little lunch sack, the problem would be much larger than it is.
-
made up BS: - put to a preset conclusion
Not consistent with what Frazier described.
Eyewitnesses make mistakes ALL THE TIME. An eyewitness says the suspect was driving a dark gray vehicle with Texas plates ending in 079. In fact, the evidence establishes that the suspect, who has been identified by fingerprints, DNA samples and video footage, was driving a 2021 Ford Bronco that simply appears dark in the black-and-white footage. He in fact owns a 2021 Ford Bronco, but it is maroon and has plates ending in 077. The jury concludes on the basis of all the evidence that the suspect is guilty and the eyewitness was telling in good faith what she thought she saw but she was simply mistaken.
Is the jury's conclusion that the suspect was driving a maroon 2021 Ford Bronco with plates ending in 077 "made up BS:"? Should the jury have acquitted the suspect on the basis of the eyewitness's testimony? Should the jury have concluded that there must have been a second suspect driving a dark gray vehicle with plates ending in 079?
-
I am trapped inside the house by 60 mph winds and thus have given a bit more thought to Frazier's possible motive for the "short package" story. It now seems pretty obvious.
Some of the early reports on the assassination identified the weapon as a British Enfield .303. My source for this is a post by Mick Purdy at Greg Parker's old site, wherein he sounded as though he knew what he was talking about. I also found this: "NBC and WBAP radio identified it as a British Enfield .303." https://assassinationresearch.com/v1n2/gtds.html.
Frazier was arrested as a conspirator in the assassination on the evening of Nov. 22. Fritz actually asked him to sign a confession. When he was interrogated, the police had already confiscated at Randle's house Frazier's British Enfield No. 4, Mark 1 rifle with a clip and ten rounds of .303 ammunition, with which they confronted Frazier. Here is the DPD property clerk's receipt:
(https://i0.wp.com/www.prayer-man.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/FrasiersrifletoDPD0148-001.gif)
One can imagine the trauma of this ordeal for the 19-year-old, minimum-wage, living-with-his-sister Frazier.
The Enfield No. 4, Mark 1 is one of the classic WW2 rifles. You can watch a slightly goofy video about it here:
It was 44.5" long - more than 4" longer than the Carcano. I couldn't find a disassembled length, but you can be sure it was at least as long as the Carcano.
When Frazier was interviewed next to the car at Randle's house by FBI agents Odum and McNeely on 12-1-63 (not 12-2 as I stated, which is the date of their report) - little more than a week after the assassination - he was surely still rattled from his arrest. NO WAY was the package going to be one that might have contained a Carcano or an Enfield. Randle, knowing what her brother had experienced, went along with his story.
That's my theory anyway.
Frazier was arrested as a conspirator in the assassination on the evening of Nov. 22. Fritz actually asked him to sign a confession.
What is known about the “confession”? Just that BWF claimed it to be a confession? I can understand that they might ask him to sign a statement. And it would be understandable that, based on his interrogation, they would include that he transported LHO (and a long package) to the TSBD on 11/22/63. They might even try to include in the statement, based on other circumstantial evidence, that the long package contained the rifle. I can understand why BWF would balk at signing such a statement. And if this is something like what actually transpired, I can understand BWF subsequently trying to claim the package was too short for a rifle. I doubt that a perjury charge would result from his “estimating” that it was a shorter package. After all, that’s only a subjective estimate, not an out and out lie.
-
Undoubtedly others are more knowledgeable than I about the incident. I just recall that it almost turned into a fistfight. This is one description:
"Frazier is taken to Dallas Police headquarters and placed in a small interrogation room for more than six hours. He is interrogated for hours at a time by two different teams of detectives who insist that he’s a killer, although there is nothing in his past to remotely suggest that he could be capable of committing such a crime. Frazier doesn’t have so much as a traffic ticket on his record. Frazier holds firm and denies the charges. Finally, Captain Will Fritz, frustrated by Frazier’s resolve, comes into the interrogation room with a typewritten confession and demands that Frazier sign in it, without even reading it. Frazier refuses, causing Fritz to lose his temper. When Fritz tries to hit him, Frazier parries the blow and prepares to defend himself. At that point, Fritz throws up his hands in frustration and leaves the room. At around 3 a.m. the next morning, police let Frazier go."
If that's accurate, it would certainly have rattled me when I was 19 years old!
(There does seem to be remarkably little documentation or discussion of the incident, so hopefully someone will know more than I do.)
-
Undoubtedly others are more knowledgeable than I about the incident. I just recall that it almost turned into a fistfight. This is one description:
"Frazier is taken to Dallas Police headquarters and placed in a small interrogation room for more than six hours. He is interrogated for hours at a time by two different teams of detectives who insist that he’s a killer, although there is nothing in his past to remotely suggest that he could be capable of committing such a crime. Frazier doesn’t have so much as a traffic ticket on his record. Frazier holds firm and denies the charges. Finally, Captain Will Fritz, frustrated by Frazier’s resolve, comes into the interrogation room with a typewritten confession and demands that Frazier sign in it, without even reading it. Frazier refuses, causing Fritz to lose his temper. When Fritz tries to hit him, Frazier parries the blow and prepares to defend himself. At that point, Fritz throws up his hands in frustration and leaves the room. At around 3 a.m. the next morning, police let Frazier go."
If that's accurate, it would certainly have rattled me when I was 19 years old!
(There does seem to be remarkably little documentation or discussion of the incident, so hopefully someone will know more than I do.)
Thanks, yes that’s about all I have read about it also. Regardless of whether or not all of that happened the way it has been suggested, I can certainly understand BWF asserting his position that he did not know what was in the package. If the DPD was looking at him as potentially an accomplice, or even if BWF only sensed that they were, then it is understandable to me that he would deny the that bag appeared to be the same one he saw and then become more uncooperative.
-
Thanks, yes that’s about all I have read about it also. Regardless of whether or not all of that happened the way it has been suggested, I can certainly understand BWF asserting his position that he did not know what was in the package. If the DPD was looking at him as potentially an accomplice, or even if BWF only sensed that they were, then it is understandable to me that he would deny the that bag appeared to be the same one he saw and then become more uncooperative.
Frazier describes the incident beginning shortly after the 19-minute mark here:
https://aarclibrary.org/buell-wesley-frazier-recollections-and-reflections-lee-harvey-oswald/
-
Undoubtedly others are more knowledgeable than I about the incident. I just recall that it almost turned into a fistfight. This is one description:
"Frazier is taken to Dallas Police headquarters and placed in a small interrogation room for more than six hours. He is interrogated for hours at a time by two different teams of detectives who insist that he’s a killer, although there is nothing in his past to remotely suggest that he could be capable of committing such a crime. Frazier doesn’t have so much as a traffic ticket on his record. Frazier holds firm and denies the charges. Finally, Captain Will Fritz, frustrated by Frazier’s resolve, comes into the interrogation room with a typewritten confession and demands that Frazier sign in it, without even reading it. Frazier refuses, causing Fritz to lose his temper. When Fritz tries to hit him, Frazier parries the blow and prepares to defend himself. At that point, Fritz throws up his hands in frustration and leaves the room. At around 3 a.m. the next morning, police let Frazier go."
If that's accurate, it would certainly have rattled me when I was 19 years old!
(There does seem to be remarkably little documentation or discussion of the incident, so hopefully someone will know more than I do.)
What is the source of that?
Still, Frazier has absolutely nothing to worry about and no reason to lie, whatsoever.
If he is caught in any lie it will lead to trouble. Besides, what is the lie?
-
What is the source of that?
Still, Frazier has absolutely nothing to worry about and no reason to lie, whatsoever.
If he is caught in any lie it will lead to trouble. Besides, what is the lie?
One possible lie is that he believed Oswald when Oswald told him the package contained curtain rods.
-
One possible lie is that he believed Oswald when Oswald told him the package contained curtain rods.
Why would Frazier lie? - he had nothing to be afraid of (and he wasn't).
-
What is the source of that?
Still, Frazier has absolutely nothing to worry about and no reason to lie, whatsoever.
If he is caught in any lie it will lead to trouble. Besides, what is the lie?
See the video I posted. I believe he's told a pretty consistent story all along. He is clearly bitter. The source of what I posted was some CT site - something about "The Girl that Killed Kennedy."
The lie, if there was one, would be that the package was shorter than it actually was and that Oswald carried it differently than he actually did. As Charles notes, that would not be fodder for a perjury charge. I can see twin motivations - I'm not going to help these damn police one bit and I'm not going to say anything that provides a basis for more suspicion toward me.
With the .303 rifle, clip and ammunition at his sister's house, I'm not sure it's accurate to say he "has absolutely nothing to worry about and no reason to lie" a mere week after the assassination. I would agree that by the time of the WC, he could have played ball and said "Oh, I don't know, maybe it was longer than I thought and maybe it was protruding when I saw him carrying it." But he didn't, which is why I'm willing to chalk up his observations to an innocent eyewitness mistake.
-
Why would Frazier lie? - he had nothing to be afraid of (and he wasn't).
Okay.
-
".... I'm willing to chalk up his observations to an innocent eyewitness mistake."
There's that preset again. The distance from the armpit past the ear is no innocent eyewitness mistake.
How do you mistakenly NOT see something?
Lee walked ahead of Frazier - at one point 50 feet - They have about 2 blocks to walk from the Aux parking lot.
Frazier didn't have to pay attention to the bag -- BUT just has to look at the figure of the man walking ahead.
There was no bag along side his head.
(https://preview.ibb.co/cqGmgw/Slide18.gif)
-
This is quite mind-blowing. I admit I'm not entirely sober at the moment, but I can find NOTHING except Frazier's description of this incident. Did Fritz, Stovall, Rose or anyone else discuss this incident at all??? Is there any reasonably contemporaneous documentation of it? Frazier seems entirely too unsophisticated and folksy to have invented it, but then any number of UFO hoaxers have seemed too unsophisticated and folksy to pull off the hoaxes they did. It isn't even touched upon in Frazier's WC testimony.
-
There's that preset again. The distance from the armpit past the ear is no innocent eyewitness mistake.
How do you mistakenly NOT see something?
Lee walk ahead of Frazier - at one point 50 feet - They have about 2 blocks to walk from the Aux parking lot.
Frazier didn't have to pay attention to the bag -- BUT just has to look at the figure of the man walking ahead.
There was no bag along side his head.
No, no preset. As Dan Rather demonstrated in the video Duncan posted, a protrusion above the shoulder isn't screamingly obvious. Moreover, yours truly tends to think the protrusion was at the bottom. It's quite easy to mistakenly not see something or misinterpret what you're seeing. Eyewitnesses do it all the time. Again, we have to fit this supposed observation into the totality of what occurred. It is not reasonable to allow Frazier's observation to drive the epistemological bus. This was precisely the point of my 2021 Ford Bronco example. It's POSSIBLE Frazier didn't make a mistake and the package didn't contain the disassembled rifle, but this is not the most PLAUSIBLE or REASONABLE conclusion. That's not my "preset" but the conclusion of a vast number of folks who have investigated the case. If you want to insist it wasn't the rifle, you need at least a reasonably plausible alternative explanation of all the facts and circumstances as set forth in my original post.
-
No, no preset. As Dan Rather demonstrated in the video Duncan posted, a protrusion above the shoulder isn't screamingly obvious. Moreover, yours truly tends to think the protrusion was at the bottom. It's quite easy to mistakenly not see something or misinterpret what you're seeing. Eyewitnesses do it all the time. Again, we have to fit this supposed observation into the totality of what occurred. It is not reasonable to allow Frazier's observation to drive the epistemological bus. This was precisely the point of my 2021 Ford Bronco example. It's POSSIBLE Frazier didn't make a mistake and the package didn't contain the disassembled rifle, but this is not the most PLAUSIBLE or REASONABLE conclusion. That's not my "preset" but the conclusion of a vast number of folks who have investigated the case. If you want to insist it wasn't the rifle, you need at least a reasonably plausible alternative explanation of all the facts and circumstances as set forth in my original post.
Rather doesn't say what size his "exact" Carcano is.
Frazier is very clear how it was held and sure it was palmed at the base - it should then extend to the ear.
Mr. FRAZIER - I said from where I noticed he had it cupped in his hands. And I don't see how you could have it anywhere other than under your armpit,
because if you had it cupped in your hand it would stick over it.
Mr. BALL - Could he have carried it this way?
Mr. FRAZIER - No, sir. Never in front here. Like that. Now, that is what I was talking to you about.
No, I say he couldn't because if he had you would have seen the package sticking up like that.
From what I seen walking behind he had it under his arm and you couldn't tell that he had a package from the back.
Mr. BALL - When you cupped the bottom of your package in the hands, will you stand up, again, please, and the upper part
of the package is not under the armpit, the top of the package extends almost up to the level of your ear.
Mr. FRAZIER - Right.
-
Why does Frazier need to lie?
Is he lying about "curtain rods"? - or is it the size of the package.
Lee told the interrogators:
" I didn't tell Buell Wesley Frazier anything about bringing back some curtain rods."
Huh?
Both statements can't be true and either Frazier lied about the contents or Oswald lied in trying to save his ass.
Also where Oswald placed the package in Frazier's car, both Frazier and Linnie said in the back seat but obviously the package was way too long to be kept up front, so Oswald lied and said he kept his "lunch" up front.
Now we have a dilemma, who was more likely to lie, innocent Frazier or double Murderer Oswald? Hmmm?
JohnM
-
LHO’s prints on the bag (CE142) seem to me to support the idea that LHO carried the package into the TSBD with the right hand palm print (CE636) on the bottom of the package (per BWF) and the left hand index finger (CE633) elsewhere on the package. At this point in time I am not sure exactly where on the bag the left index finger print was located CE633. If anyone has that information handy please let us know. I can see the photo that shows the portion of the package that the fingerprint was found on. But I do not know what section of the overall package that section is from.
-
made up BS: - put to a preset conclusion
Oh, the delicious irony, it is you Capasse that is constantly making up stuff in your preset conclusion of Oswald being innocent, you present simple circular logic, Oswald was innocent therefore everything that convicts Oswald is a lie.
For example;
Oswald defected to the enemy, no he didn't he was a secret agent.
Oswald attempted suicide when he was denied entry, no he didn't, all the blood, the 2 inch deep slash requiring stitches and Oswald's confession in his "historic diary" was all for show. BTW "Historic Diary" LOL!
Oswald ordered a rifle back in March, no he didn't, the mail order coupon was fabricated, Kleins records were fabricated and no postal employee remembered giving the rifle to Oswald and of course a postal worker would remember a single transaction out of literally thousands, eight months earlier!!
Oswald was photographed with the rifle, no he wasn't the photo was fabricated and the impossible to fabricate original negative which was exclusively taken with Oswald's camera was a fake, the government can literally do anything, except that is to conduct a fool proof assassination.
Oswald tried to assassinate General Walker, no he didn't, the map with the cross on Walker's house was a coincidence, the photos taken in March with Oswald's camera were fabricated and the Walker note was about some other incident and/or fabricated.
Oswald's rifle was discovered on the sixth floor, no it wasn't, it was planted and besides he never owned the rifle.
Oswald's palm print was on the rifle, no it wasn't, Lt. Day lied and the rifle was taken to the morgue and Oswald's rigor mortised dead hand which doesn't produce sweat was placed on the rifle.
Oswald was on the 6th floor at the time, no he wasn't he was told to hide in a lunchroom because hiding in a public space makes perfect sense!
Oswald shot Kennedy from behind forcing only Kennedy's head to go forward an inch or two and leaving a huge wound over his right ear, no Kennedy's forward motion is a blur, the violent back and to the left motion was caused by a physics defying eleven gram bullet and the rear head wound was surgically altered and the Zapruder/Muchmore/Nix films are all faked
Oswald immediately fled from the scene, no Oswald realized that he was going to be blamed for the assassination and ran.
Oswald got on and off a bus, no he didn't, Bledsoe lied and the bus transfer was planted.
Oswald got his revolver which was exclusively matched to the shells at the Tippit crime scene, no the revolver was exchanged by the Police and the shells were planted.
Oswald was positively identified by a bunch of eyewitnesses, no you can't trust a bunch of eyewitnesses who all see the same event.
Oswald was seen by Markham killing Tippit, no she was a "screwball" except that is when she was a valuable time eyewitness and then she was suddenly infallible!
Oswald tried to kill more Police at the Texas Theatre, no he didn't, he was protecting himself and/or the Police lied.
Oswald repeatedly lied while being interrogated, no he didn't and besides there was no recording so the interrogators could say anything, except of course to invent evidence that would conclusively prove Oswald did it! Doh!
ETC, ETC, ETC...
So as you can see Capasse, CT's such as yourself will manipulate the evidence so as to arrive at your preconceived conclusion of Oswald's innocence whereas LNers just go where the evidence leads, which is a powerful indisputable narrative!
Whereas after 60+ years, we still haven't seen a single conspiracist that uses your conspiracy evidence to make a logical narrative because your evidence of Oswald's innocence has no rhyme or reason and is just jumbled up nonsense which goes nowhere!
JohnM
-
Oh, the delicious irony, it is you Capasse that is constantly making up stuff in your preset conclusion of Oswald being innocent, you present simple circular logic, Oswald was innocent therefore everything that convicts Oswald is a lie.
For example;
Oswald defected to the enemy, no he didn't he was a secret agent.
Oswald attempted suicide when he was denied entry, no he didn't, all the blood, the 2 inch deep slash requiring stitches and Oswald's confession in his "historic diary" was all for show. BTW "Historic Diary" LOL!
Oswald ordered a rifle back in March, no he didn't, the mail order coupon was fabricated, Kleins records were fabricated and no postal employee remembered giving the rifle to Oswald and of course a postal worker would remember a single transaction out of literally thousands, eight months earlier!!
Oswald was photographed with the rifle, no he wasn't the photo was fabricated and the impossible to fabricate original negative which was exclusively taken with Oswald's camera was a fake, the government can literally do anything, except that is to conduct a fool proof assassination.
Oswald tried to assassinate General Walker, no he didn't, the map with the cross on Walker's house was a coincidence, the photos taken in March with Oswald's camera were fabricated and the Walker note was about some other incident and/or fabricated.
Oswald's rifle was discovered on the sixth floor, no it wasn't, it was planted and besides he never owned the rifle.
Oswald's palm print was on the rifle, no it wasn't, Lt. Day lied and the rifle was taken to the morgue and Oswald's rigor mortised dead hand which doesn't produce sweat was placed on the rifle.
Oswald was on the 6th floor at the time, no he wasn't he was told to hide in a lunchroom because hiding in a public space makes perfect sense!
Oswald shot Kennedy from behind forcing only Kennedy's head to go forward an inch or two and leaving a huge wound over his right ear, no Kennedy's forward motion is a blur, the violent back and to the left motion was caused by a physics defying eleven gram bullet and the rear head wound was surgically altered and the Zapruder/Muchmore/Nix films are all faked
Oswald immediately fled from the scene, no Oswald realized that he was going to be blamed for the assassination and ran.
Oswald got on and off a bus, no he didn't, Bledsoe lied and the bus transfer was planted.
Oswald got his revolver which was exclusively matched to the shells at the Tippit crime scene, no the revolver was exchanged by the Police and the shells were planted.
Oswald was positively identified by a bunch of eyewitnesses, no you can't trust a bunch of eyewitnesses who all see the same event.
Oswald was seen by Markham killing Tippit, no she was a "screwball" except that is when she was a valuable time eyewitness and then she was suddenly infallible!
Oswald tried to kill more Police at the Texas Theatre, no he didn't, he was protecting himself and/or the Police lied.
Oswald repeatedly lied while being interrogated, no he didn't and besides there was no recording so the interrogators could say anything, except of course to invent evidence that would conclusively prove Oswald did it! Doh!
ETC, ETC, ETC...
So as you can see Capasse, CT's such as yourself will manipulate the evidence so as to arrive at your preconceived conclusion of Oswald's innocence whereas LNers just go where the evidence leads, which is a powerful indisputable narrative!
Whereas after 60+ years, we still haven't seen a single conspiracist that uses your conspiracy evidence to make a logical narrative because your evidence of Oswald's innocence has no rhyme or reason and is just jumbled up nonsense which goes nowhere!
JohnM
So many words wasted. Sorry, I didn't read them all.
There is no alternate narrative that can be proven. All the evidence against Lee Oswald is broken and inconsistent. Sometimes appears fraudulent.
If Frazier was all that was wrong with getting the rifle in - it could be accepted as a mistake, but witnesses - fibers - markings - ownership - or
fingerprint evidence against him is crap - sorry - it is - all of it. There is doubt attached to EVERY single piece of evidence in this case.
There is nothing like it in the world - there should be no questions or doubts - about wounds - shooter locations - number of shots.
Now, I'm required to create some fairy tale that can never be proven because 60+ years on it is left in rags with lame excuses - after the fact .
I don't play that game. You are only required to prove Lee Oswald killed John Kennedy and the evidence against the accused is a complete mess.
-
A snip from “Reclaiming History” by Vincent Bugliosi, page 3769-3770:
Yet, Frazier’s statements that the rifle was tucked under Oswald’s armpit is hardly as definitive as the critics claim. While Frazier’s description of how Oswald carried the rifle was consistent in all of his statements to investigators (CE 2009, 24 H 409, FBI interview of Wesley Frazier on December 1, 1963; 2 H 228, 229, 239, 243, WCT Buell Wesley Frazier), it was clearly inferable from his Warren Commission testimony that this was only an assumption on his part based on his limited view. Frazier told the Commission that “the only time” he saw the way Oswald was carrying the package was from the back, and that all that was visible was “just a little strip [of the package] running down” along the inside of Oswald’s arm (2 H 240). Under Frazier’s supervision, the FBI measured the length of that visible portion to be 9 × 1 inch (CE 2009, 24 H 409). Since he could only see this small portion of the package under Oswald’s right arm, and because he didn’t notice any part of the package sticking above his right shoulder (“you couldn’t tell that he had a package from the back”), Frazier assumed that it must have been tucked under his armpit, telling the Commission, “I don’t see how you could have it anywhere other than under your armpit” (2 H 243). Although the critics have been quick to embrace Frazier’s conclusion, it should be repeated that he told the Commission over and over (no less than five separate times) that he didn’t pay much attention to the package or to the way Oswald carried it (2 H 228, 229, 239, 241, 243).
At the London trial I asked Frazier, “So the bag could have been protruding out in front of his body and you wouldn’t have been able to see it?” and he responded, “That’s true” (Transcript of On Trial, July 23, 1986, p.35).
-
Mr. BALL - You say he had the package under his arm when you saw him?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL - You mean one end of it under the armpit?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir; he had it up just like you stick it right under your arm like that.
Mr. BALL - And he had the lower part--
Mr. FRAZIER - The other part with his right hand.
Mr. BALL - Right hand?
Mr. FRAZIER - Right.
Mr. BALL - He carried it then parallel to his body?
Mr. FRAZIER - Right, straight up and down.
Representative FORD - Under his right arm?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes.
and the bottom:
Mr. FRAZIER - I didn't pay much attention, but when I did, I say, he had this part down here,
like the bottom would be short he had cupped in his hand like that...".
-
There's that preset again. The distance from the armpit past the ear is no innocent eyewitness mistake.
How do you mistakenly NOT see something?
Lee walked ahead of Frazier - at one point 50 feet - They have about 2 blocks to walk from the Aux parking lot.
Frazier didn't have to pay attention to the bag -- BUT just has to look at the figure of the man walking ahead.
There was no bag along side his head.
(https://preview.ibb.co/cqGmgw/Slide18.gif)
That graphic is just so damn dishonest, Frazier and his Sister were consistent that the package was 27 or slightly more inches long.
Mrs. RANDLE. And this goes this way, right? Do you want me to hold it?
Mr. BALL. Yes.
Mrs. RANDLE. About this.
Mr. BALL. Is that about right? That is 28 1/2 inches.
Mrs. RANDLE. I measured 27 last time.
Mr. BALL. You measured 27 once before?
Mrs. RANDLE. Yes, sir.
https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/testimony/randlelm.htm
(https://i.postimg.cc/NFCRvWtH/Frazier-backseat-27-inch-estimate.jpg)
https://aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh24/pdf/WH24_CE_2009.pdf
But in your demonstration that you have repeatedly posted, was run by Conspiracy Kooks who have shrunk the bag even further to 24 inches and we all know why, because the fraudulent experiment barely works at 24 inches and then when you factor in Oswald's height being another three inches shorter than Frazier that would mean the bag would have to be shorter again! Wouldn't it be more realistic to have a man five foot nine with similar proportions to Oswald do the demonstration instead of the relatively giant Frazier?
(https://preview.ibb.co/cqGmgw/Slide18.gif)
JohnM
-
There is no alternate narrative that can be proven.
No one is asking CTers to "prove" anything. Whether Oswald did or did not kill JFK, and who did if he didn't, can never be proven to a level of ontological certainty. The LN narrative is a rational, coherent, evidence-based, plausible explanation for what occurred. It isn't proof of what occurred. Even a trial and guilty verdict would not have been proof of what occurred. All we'd like to see from CTers is an equally (or at least reasonably) rational, coherent, evidence-based, plausible explanation.
The fact that CTers always decline to provide such an explanation is rather telling. "It isn't worth my time" ... "it couldn't be proven anyway" ... etc., etc. But endless sniping at the LN narrative is worth your time? Why is that?
There could be (and is) some doubt about numerous aspects of the LN narrative without creating reasonable doubt about the narrative as a whole being the most plausible explanation for what occurred. To kill the LN narrative, CTers would need to unequivocally show that some critical link in the narrative is flat-out false or impossible. (This is called a defeater in philosophical terms.) Attempting to do this would be a legitimate objective for CTers, but after 60 years there has been no such defeater and likely never will be. If there is, I'll be the first to admit it.
The other avenue of attack would be to establish a more plausible CT-oriented explanation. Here, sniping at aspects of the LN narrative might be productive if the sniping would support the alternative explanation. This is what I attempted with this thread: How and where does the curtain rod story fit into a plausible CT narrative? Without a compelling alternative narrative, the problem areas - meaning Frazier's and Randle's statements about the length - do not seem to me sufficient even to create reasonable doubt about this aspect of the LN narrative (i.e., that Oswald was actually carrying the rifle).
Just flailing at every aspect of the LN narrative without a plausible alternative narrative really goes nowhere, or so it seems to me. That's why I call it the Oswald defense counsel approach. Defense counsel don't need any theory of the case. Nothing they say has to make sense or hang together coherently. They just have to fling mud and hope enough sticks to create reasonable doubt about guilt. There's some old joke about "My client wasn't even at the scene, and if he was at the scene he didn't pull the trigger, and if he did pull the trigger he didn't know the gun was loaded, and if he did know the gun was loaded he shot in self-defense, and if he didn't shoot in self-defense he was completely insane, and therefore, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, you must acquit."
-
No one is asking CTers to "prove" anything. Whether Oswald did or did not kill JFK, and who did if he didn't, can never be proven to a level of ontological certainty. The LN narrative is a rational, coherent, evidence-based, plausible explanation for what occurred. It isn't proof of what occurred. Even a trial and guilty verdict would not have been proof of what occurred. All we'd like to see from CTers is an equally (or at least reasonably) rational, coherent, evidence-based, plausible explanation.
The fact that CTers always decline to provide such an explanation is rather telling. "It isn't worth my time" ... "it couldn't be proven anyway" ... etc., etc. But endless sniping at the LN narrative is worth your time? Why is that?
There could be (and is) some doubt about numerous aspects of the LN narrative without creating reasonable doubt about the narrative as a whole being the most plausible explanation for what occurred. To kill the LN narrative, CTers would need to unequivocally show that some critical link in the narrative is flat-out false or impossible. (This is called a defeater in philosophical terms.) Attempting to do this would be a legitimate objective for CTers, but after 60 years there has been no such defeater and likely never will be. If there is, I'll be the first to admit it.
The other avenue of attack would be to establish a more plausible CT-oriented explanation. Here, sniping at aspects of the LN narrative might be productive if the sniping would support the alternative explanation. This is what I attempted with this thread: How and where does the curtain rod story fit into a plausible CT narrative? Without a compelling alternative narrative, the problem areas - meaning Frazier's and Randle's statements about the length - do not seem to me sufficient even to create reasonable doubt about this aspect of the LN narrative (i.e., that Oswald was actually carrying the rifle).
Just flailing at every aspect of the LN narrative without a plausible alternative narrative really goes nowhere, or so it seems to me. That's why I call it the Oswald defense counsel approach. Defense counsel don't need any theory of the case. Nothing they say has to make sense or hang together coherently. They just have to fling mud and hope enough sticks to create reasonable doubt about guilt. There's some old joke about "My client wasn't even at the scene, and if he was at the scene he didn't pull the trigger, and if he did pull the trigger he didn't know the gun was loaded, and if he did know the gun was loaded he shot in self-defense, and if he didn't shoot in self-defense he was completely insane, and therefore, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, you must acquit."
Thumb1: ...and there's that preset. AGAIN.
-
That graphic is just so damn dishonest, Frazier and his Sister were consistent that the package was 27 or slightly more inches long.
That guy is Frazier.
But in your demonstration that you have repeatedly posted, was run by Conspiracy Kooks who have shrunk the bag even further to 24 inches and we all know why, because the fraudulent experiment barely works at 24 inches and then when you factor in Oswald's height being another three inches shorter that Frazier that would mean the bag would have to be shorter again! Wouldn't it be more realistic to have a man five foot nine do the demonstration instead of the relatively giant Frazier? JohnM
no idea what you are talking about
-
So many words wasted. Sorry, I didn't read them all.
There is no alternate narrative that can be proven. All the evidence against Lee Oswald is broken and inconsistent. Sometimes appears fraudulent.
If Frazier was all that was wrong with getting the rifle in - it could be accepted as a mistake, but witnesses - fibers - markings - ownership - or
fingerprint evidence against him is crap - sorry - it is - all of it. There is doubt attached to EVERY single piece of evidence in this case.
There is nothing like it in the world - there should be no questions or doubts - about wounds - shooter locations - number of shots.
Now, I'm required to create some fairy tale that can never be proven because 60+ years on it is left in rags with lame excuses - after the fact .
I don't play that game. You are only required to prove Lee Oswald killed John Kennedy and the evidence against the accused is a complete mess.
So many words wasted. Sorry, I didn't read them all.
No need to be sorry, if I was you I wouldn't want my world view smashed to pieces either. Besides I wasn't specifically addressing you, but more for the uninformed reader, and who do you think would come off more convincing, CT's with their wishy-washy highly flexible contradictory conspiracy or the LNer's who base their stance on a rock solid Mountain of evidence.
If Frazier was all that was wrong with getting the rifle in - it could be accepted as a mistake, but witnesses - fibers - markings - ownership - or fingerprint evidence against him is crap - sorry - it is - all of it.
What are you talking about? Oswald provably owned the rifle, Oswald's relatively fresh prints were all over the sniper's nest, Oswald's prints were on the rifle and Oswald's arrest shirt matched fibers found on the rifle and while not conclusive the prohibitive probability was that the rifle fibers came from Oswald's shirt.
There is doubt attached to EVERY single piece of evidence in this case.
"EVERY"?
There is nothing like it in the world - there should be no questions or doubts - about wounds - shooter locations - number of shots.
That's why you have an autopsy and at this autopsy stereoscopic photos were taken which rules out any fakery or falsification.
The shots were ALL from high and behind.
Kennedy had no exit wound on the back of his head.
The number of shots was three as confirmed by the vast majority of earwitnesses which also matched the number of shells found in Oswald's sniper's nest.
Now, I'm required to create some fairy tale that can never be proven because 60+ years on it is left in rags with lame excuses - after the fact .
I don't play that game. You are only required to prove Lee Oswald killed John Kennedy and the evidence against the accused is a complete mess.
This murder is the most investigated murder in the history of the World with 60+ years of intense research and a plethora of interviews and based on this you supposedly know what didn't happen, which should lead you in the direction of what did happen. For instance if pieces of evidence were "fraudulent" then we know where that evidence comes from and is one link to an alternative narrative and with so many conspiracy links, it should be easy to say what actually happened, yes?
JohnM
-
That guy is Frazier.
no idea what you are talking about
Seriously?, the estimates of the length of the bag by both Frazier and his sister were well over 24 inches and a 24 inch bag barely fits Frazier when measured from armpit to cupped hand, capiche Capasse?
Randle estimated the size of the bag to be 27 inches and demonstrated a size of 28 and a half inches, and Frazier using the actual dimensions of the back seat of his car where he specifically saw the rifle package estimated 27 inches, so why in your graphic is the size of the package Frazier used only 24 inches? Someone's lying, it's not rocket science!
Mrs. RANDLE. And this goes this way, right? Do you want me to hold it?
Mr. BALL. Yes.
Mrs. RANDLE. About this.
Mr. BALL. Is that about right? That is 28 1/2 inches.
Mrs. RANDLE. I measured 27 last time.
Mr. BALL. You measured 27 once before?
Mrs. RANDLE. Yes, sir.
https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/testimony/randlelm.htm
(https://i.postimg.cc/NFCRvWtH/Frazier-backseat-27-inch-estimate.jpg)
https://aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh24/pdf/WH24_CE_2009.pdf
JohnM
-
Or try it this way, Michael:
We will stipulate for the sake of argument whatever you like: the package contained curtain rods ... or the package contained a lunch ... or the package contained something else ... or there was no package at all. WHATEVER MAKES YOU HAPPY.
Now simply tell us how you would answer the questions posed in my original post and how the explanation that makes you happy would fit into a narrative of the JFKA as a whole.
If your point is simply "We don't know for sure what was in the package, and what it actually was can never be proven" - I'll stipulate to that without reservation, but the fact remains that (to me) by far the most plausible explanation is "the disassembled rifle." Your posts read as though "can't be known or proven with certainty" equates to "is completely meaningless to talk about," as though we aren't allowed to reason our way to what seems the most plausible explanation.
-
Thumb1: ...and there's that preset. AGAIN.
Just answer one question, Oswald without prior arrangement with Ruth, made a specific unique visit to Irving mid-week to get curtain rods but Oswald's room at the rooming house was already fitted with curtains which were hanging on curtain rods and the length of those curtain rods would in no way fit between Oswald's armpit to cupped hand, so explain why Oswald needed curtain rods?
(https://i.postimg.cc/x1VHLG6M/Osw-ald-room-had-curtain-rods.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/9F7Z4gYc/Osw-ald-room-had-curtain-rods-2.jpg)
And just to be clear, the owners of the Rooming House reinforced that Oswald's room already had curtains and curtain rods and that Oswald never said anything about getting new curtain rods.
Mr. BELIN. There were already curtain rods in the room, then, when this O.H. Lee came there is that correct?
Mr. JOHNSON. Yes, uh-huh.
Mr. BALL. Were the curtains on curtain rods?
Mrs. JOHNSON. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. They were in the room when he rented it?
Mrs. JOHNSON. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. Did Oswald ever talk to you about redecorating his room?
Mrs. JOHNSON. No sir; never mentioned it.
Mr. BALL. Did he ever talk to you about putting up new curtains in his room?
Mrs. JOHNSON. No, sir.
Mr. BALL. Did he ever tell you he was going to get some curtain rods?
Mrs. JOHNSON. No; he didn't.
Mr. BALL. The room had curtain rods on the window when he came in there?
Mrs. JOHNSON. Yes, sir; sure did.
Mr. BALL. Also curtains?
Mrs. JOHNSON. Yes, sir.
And as for Oswald's visit to Irving, Ruth seemed to be quite annoyed that Oswald just unexpectedly turned up without permission. It wasn't Oswald's house!!
Mr. JENNER - Let's proceed with the 21st. Did anything occur on the 21st with respect to Lee Harvey Oswald, that is a Thursday?
Mrs. PAINE - I arrived home from grocery shopping around 5:30, and he was on the front lawn. I was surprised to see him.
Mr. JENNER - You had no advance notice?
Mrs. PAINE - I had no advance notice and he had never before come without asking whether he could.
Mr. JENNER - Never before had he come to your home in that form without asking your permission to come?
Mrs. PAINE - Without asking permission; that is right.
JohnM
-
Just answer one question, Oswald without prior arrangement with Ruth, made a specific unique visit to Irving mid-week to get curtain rods but Oswald's room at the rooming house was already fitted with curtains which were hanging on curtain rods and the length of those curtain rods would in no way fit between Oswald's armpit to cupped hand, so explain why Oswald needed curtain rods?
And just to be clear, the owners of the Rooming House reinforced that Oswald's room already had curtains and curtain rods and that Oswald never said anything about getting new curtain rods.
Mr. BELIN. There were already curtain rods in the room, then, when this O.H. Lee came there is that correct?
Mr. JOHNSON. Yes, uh-huh.
Mr. BALL. Were the curtains on curtain rods?
Mrs. JOHNSON. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. They were in the room when he rented it?
Mrs. JOHNSON. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. Did Oswald ever talk to you about redecorating his room?
Mrs. JOHNSON. No sir; never mentioned it.
Mr. BALL. Did he ever talk to you about putting up new curtains in his room?
Mrs. JOHNSON. No, sir.
Mr. BALL. Did he ever tell you he was going to get some curtain rods?
Mrs. JOHNSON. No; he didn't.
Mr. BALL. The room had curtain rods on the window when he came in there?
Mrs. JOHNSON. Yes, sir; sure did.
Mr. BALL. Also curtains?
Mrs. JOHNSON. Yes, sir.
And as for Oswald's visit to Irving, Ruth seemed to be quite annoyed that Oswald just unexpectedly turned up without permission. It wasn't Oswald's house!!
Mr. JENNER - Let's proceed with the 21st. Did anything occur on the 21st with respect to Lee Harvey Oswald, that is a Thursday?
Mrs. PAINE - I arrived home from grocery shopping around 5:30, and he was on the front lawn. I was surprised to see him.
Mr. JENNER - You had no advance notice?
Mrs. PAINE - I had no advance notice and he had never before come without asking whether he could.
Mr. JENNER - Never before had he come to your home in that form without asking your permission to come?
Mrs. PAINE - Without asking permission; that is right.
JohnM
How is his rooming accommodations relevant to the size of the package and the specific way Frazier saw it was carried?
Thumb1: Frazier saw a package that was too small to be the rifle. He was sure of how it was held. FACT.
"...and the length of those curtain rods would in no way fit between Oswald's armpit to cupped hand..."
Curtain rods collapse.
-
It might almost appear to some, Michael, that you are operating on the basis of preset conclusions.
For the benefit of those who don't grasp the fine but critical distinction between my "preset" LN agenda and conclusions and your carefully crafted CT observations, perhaps you might want to explain the differences?
-
It might almost appear to some, Michael, that you are operating on the basis of preset conclusions.
For the benefit of those who don't grasp the fine but critical distinction between my "preset" LN agenda and conclusions and your carefully crafted CT observations, perhaps you might want to explain the differences?
Sure, broken and inconsistent evidence against Oswald is proof he was framed.
-
Is the rifle on the floor proof that Lee brought it in?
Thumb1: It's a very simple question.
-
How is his rooming accommodations relevant to the size of the package and the specific way Frazier saw it was carried?
Thumb1: Frazier saw a package that was too small to be the rifle. He was sure of how it was held. FACT.
Curtain rods collapse.
How is his rooming accommodations relevant to the size of the package and the specific way Frazier saw it was carried?
WTF? The curtain rods are the very reason we are debating. Duh!
Listen closely, the reason Oswald went to Irving was to get Curtain rods, Oswald told Frazier that the package lying on the back seat of his car contained curtain rods. And of course Oswald's room is relevant.
Mr. FRAZIER - Let's see, when I got in the car I have a kind of habit of glancing over my shoulder and so at that time I noticed there was a package laying on the back seat, I didn't pay too much attention and I said, "What's the package, Lee?"
And he said, "Curtain rods," and I said, "Oh, yes, you told me you was going to bring some today."
That is the reason, the main reason he was going over there that Thursday afternoon when he was to bring back some curtain rods, so I didn't think any more about it when he told me that.
Curtain rods collapse.
Hahahaha! Oswald's room had a very, very long curtain rod, just how extendible do you believe curtain rods actually extend, from a mere two feet to close to ten feet??
(https://i.postimg.cc/52wNYyN2/Carl-Johnson-bent-curtain-rod-Oswald-rooming-house.jpg)
And before you get any bright ideas, the curtain rod was bent by the Police during the search. And also of interest is Oswald never asked for permission to hang curtain rods or never even mentioned anything to do with the curtains and why would Oswald even be the slightest bit concerned with curtains, much less replacing perfectly good curtain rods? Just face it, Oswald's package contained Oswald's rifle and that's that!
(https://i.postimg.cc/LXV1zv9h/Commission-document-705-curtain-rod-bent.jpg)
And here's the curtain rods from the Paine residence and they don't appear to be extendible and even if they did, these 27.5 inch curtain rods are woefully inadequate for the job.
(https://i.postimg.cc/gkjZZvfk/Paine-exhibit-275-276-curtain-rods.jpg)
So in closing, you haven't the foggiest reason why Oswald needed curtain rods and you have absolutely no idea why he left them at work, and BTW no curtain rods were ever found, but a rifle was and that rifle happened to exactly fit the brown paper sack which was found with Oswald's prints, how about that!
(https://i.postimg.cc/XJrnzFh6/38-inch-bag-for-36-inch-rifle.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/8PN8n7Sd/Osw-aldsprintsonthebag.jpg)
JohnM
-
There are obviously no curtain rods. Where are you going with this?
You only have to prove it was the rifle.
-
There are obviously no curtain rods. Where are you going with this?
You only have to prove it was the rifle.
There are obviously no curtain rods.
Interesting. So Frazier lied about curtain rods? What else did he lie about?
Or are you implying that Oswald lied about the curtain rods, why would Oswald need to make such an extravagant lie, perhaps because he had a rifle in the package, yes?
You've really done it now Capasse, and there is no going back, because either scenario is devastating for your client! ;D
JohnM
-
27 inches. Carried in his right hand ONLY.
thank you
CBS 1967 interview:
MRS. RANDLE: I was preparing lunches for my brother there at my sink, and I looked out the window and saw Mr. Oswald cross the street and come up cross my driveway and he had a brown paper bag in his right hand. It was about 27 inches long. It was made out of a heavy brown paper with heavy-looking tape on it. RATHER: Incidentally, the search of the Book Depository Building made after the assassination failed to turn up any curtain rods.
Ouch, Michael, you really missed this one. Not even close.
Is English a second language? What these people say is important. She said he HAD a brown paper in his right hand. She never said he CARRIED it in his right hand. Like you said, which would mean he supported it. You remember like her WC statement:
“and the bottom, he carried it this way, you know” This after she explained he gripped the top.
By stating carried she is indicating he was supporting the weight. Remember in her estimation it was a heavy package.
Are you not able to follow this or something? It seems like you are really struggling with it, and it is important that you understand it to understand the assassination.
-
CBS 1967 interview:
MRS. RANDLE: I was preparing lunches for my brother there at my sink, and I looked out the window and saw Mr. Oswald cross the street and come up cross my driveway and he had a brown paper bag in his right hand. It was about 27 inches long. It was made out of a heavy brown paper with heavy-looking tape on it. RATHER: Incidentally, the search of the Book Depository Building made after the assassination failed to turn up any curtain rods.
Ouch, Michael, you really missed this one. Not even close.
Is English a second language? What these people say is important. She said he HAD a brown paper in his right hand. She never said he CARRIED it in his right hand. Like you said, which would mean he supported it. You remember like her WC statement:
“and the bottom, he carried it this way, you know” This after she explained he gripped the top.
By stating carried she is indicating he was supporting the weight. Remember in her estimation it was a heavy package.
Are you not able to follow this or something? It seems like you are really struggling with it, and it is important that you understand it to understand the assassination.
Still, no mention of left hand.
Thumb1: That's the part you make up.
-
Still, no mention of left hand.
Thumb1: That's the part you make up.
Linnie May--”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”
held both top and bottom of a 3 feet 6 inch bag or even the alternative 27 inch bag with one hand. Only in conspiracy land is that possible.
-
She said he HAD a brown paper in his right hand. She never said he CARRIED it in his right hand.
:D too funny.
-
Sure, broken and inconsistent evidence against Oswald is proof he was framed.
Ah, so the doubts about things like the package are now "proof" that Oswald was framed. But you decline to provide any CT narrative because there is nothing that can be "proven." And it remains Lone Nutters' obligation to "prove" Oswald killed JFK.
It appears you use the term "proof" rather flexibly.
Who framed Oswald in regard to the package - Ruth? Marina? Frazier? Randle? Fritz? All of them in cahoots? Why? For what purpose? None of this matters, he just carried a shorter package and was framed and that's all there is to it?
If the most rational, coherent, plausible conclusion is that the package contained the rifle and that Frazier and Randle were either mistaken about the length or fibbing for understandable reasons, how does this fall short of the "proof" you require (for everything except the conclusion that Oswald was framed, for which you say there is indeed "proof")?
It seems you accept Frazier's and Randle's estimates of the length as "proof," whereas all the evidence to contrary is not only not "proof" but counts for nothing.
-
"... And it remains Lone Nutters' obligation to "prove" Oswald killed JFK..."
That's all there ever was.
Thumb1: If you are a lawyer, you should know that.
-
Still, no mention of left hand.
Thumb1: That's the part you make up.
I have to agree with Michael here, and it seems that John does as well. It would never even have occurred to me that Randle was describing the package in any way other than one end being in Oswald's right hand and the other extending toward the ground. "Carried this way" is a perfectly natural way for someone to describe this scenario, meaning "dangling down toward the ground." "Carried" in this context does not inevitably (or even reasonably) mean "in his left hand." That would have him lurching along like the Hunchback of Notre Dame.
-
That's all there ever was.
Thumb1: If you are a lawyer, you should know that.
I have no idea what you're talking about. WHAT is "all there ever was"?
As a retired lawyer with nearly 40 years of practice in my rearview mirror, I do know that the law does not require anything like "ontological proof" in any context, civil or criminal. A civil case may be won with huge doubts, even in the mind of the plaintiff's attorney, about the correctness of the decision. Little old me has won cases where I thought, "Thank God the rules of evidence kept THAT out because it would've killed us."
A criminal case likewise may be won by either the prosecution or defense with huge doubts in the mind of the successful attorney about the correctness of the verdict. Because the criminal justice system is heavily oriented toward protecting the rights of defendants, and the rules of evidence have the effect of excluding much evidence that all of us regard as reliable in our everyday lives, it's at least a possibility that Oswald would have been found not guilty.
Out here in the real world, the LN narrative has been examined, challenged, debated ad nauseam, and I believe it stands as "proven" by any reasonable standard of proof.
As I stated previously, your approach just goes nowhere. You need either (1) an ironclad, no-question-about-it defeater for the LN narrative or (2) a more rational, coherent, plausible, evidence-based narrative. So far, there has been neither. "Frazier and Randle were correct and everything else surrounding the curtain rod story must be ignored" just goes nowhere.
-
I have no idea what you're talking about. WHAT is "all there ever was"?
You're kidding right? It's called burden of proof.
Out here in the real world, the LN narrative has been examined, challenged, debated ad nauseam, and I believe it stands as "proven" by any reasonable standard of proof.
As I stated previously, your approach just goes nowhere. You need either (1) an ironclad, no-question-about-it defeater for the LN narrative or (2) a more rational, coherent, plausible, evidence-based narrative. So far, there has been neither. "Frazier and Randle were correct and everything else surrounding the curtain rod story must be ignored" just goes nowhere.
Thumb1:...and once again, there is the preset.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
You have already decided the LN narrative is correct. Though you say you are open to other interpretations,
you mock and ridicule critical response to what is broken at every turn.
As these are pointed out to you by Martin, John I, or myself, excuses are made to back into the preset narrative.
If all that was Frazier & his sister, it might be accepted within a reasonable margin of error
But it goes on:
The first 4 officers stepped on the 6th floor - 20 minutes after the shooting
Each testified specifically to a bag in the center of the SN - None saw this 36" container.
Sgt. Gerald Hill, the first DPD officer to arrive:
"The only specifics we discussed were this. You were asking Officer Hicks if either one recalled seeing a sack,
supposedly one that had been made by the suspect, in which he could have possibly carried the weapon into the Depository,
and I at that time told you about the small sack that appeared to be a lunch sack, and that that was the only sack that I saw,
and that I left the Book Depository prior to the finding of the gun."
Deputy Sheriff Luke Mooney
Mr. BALL. Did you see a paper bag at any other window?
Mr. MOONEY. No, sir; I didn't.
Mr. BALL. .....Now, was there anything you saw over in the corner?
Mr. MOONEY. No, sir; I didn't see anything over in the corner.
Deputy Sheriff Roger Craig:
Mr. BELIN. Was there any long sack laying in the floor there that you remember seeing, or not?
Mr. CRAIG. No; I don't remember seeing any.
Detective Boyd, who arrived with Captain Fritz before Day and Studebaker:
Mr. BALL. Did you see any brown wrapping paper near the window where the hulls were found,
near the windows alongside which the hulls were found?
Mr. BOYD. I don't believe I did.
(http://www.garvandwane.com/images/ce1302.jpg)
We are left with a picture of dotted lines. Something else. Another thing.
Another nutter excuse - most times not even from the WCR.
I'll point out the breaks as we go. You keep pitching the excuses.
-
You're kidding right? It's called burden of proof.
Thumb1:...and once again, there is the preset
I hate to play the "wasting my time" card, but your repetitive one-liners do become tedious.
My response to you was directly on point. Carrying the burden of proof in the legal context, civil or criminal, does not require ANYTHING LIKE ontological or doubt-free proof. Do you not grasp this?
Outside the legal context, "proof" likewise never requires ontological or doubt-free proof. Good Lord, philosophers have seriously debated for centuries whether we can really (ontologically) "know" anything at all, and this was why Descartes decided all he could really know was "I think, therefore I am."
You declare you have "proof" Oswald was framed, but Lone Nutters have no "proof" Oswald was carrying a rifle or that the LN narrative is correct.
You, it appears to me, are either very confused or simply playing word games. And that's all I have to say about that.
-
As these are pointed out to you by Martin, John I, or myself ...
Uh-oh, you're getting dangerously close to confirming some of my suspicions.
Well, at least you didn't mention Tom Sorenson.
Or maybe you did?
-
Uh-oh, you're getting dangerously close to confirming some of my suspicions.
Well, at least you didn't mention Tom Sorenson.
Or maybe you did?
Oh yea?
:D Well, you talk like David Von Pein !!!
-
You're kidding right? It's called burden of proof.
Thumb1:...and once again, there is the preset.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
You have already decided the LN narrative is correct. Though you say you are open to other interpretations,
you mock and ridicule critical response to what is broken at every turn.
As these are pointed out to you by Martin, John I, or myself, excuses are made to back into the preset narrative.
If all that was Frazier & his sister, it might be accepted within a reasonable margin of error
But it goes on:
The first 4 officers stepped on the 6th floor - 20 minutes after the shooting
Each testified specifically to a bag in the center of the SN - None saw this 36" bag.
Sgt. Gerald Hill, the first DPD officer to arrive:
"The only specifics we discussed were this. You were asking Officer Hicks if either one recalled seeing a sack,
supposedly one that had been made by the suspect, in which he could have possibly carried the weapon into the Depository,
and I at that time told you about the small sack that appeared to be a lunch sack, and that that was the only sack that I saw,
and that I left the Book Depository prior to the finding of the gun."
Deputy Sheriff Luke Mooney
Mr. BALL. Did you see a paper bag at any other window?
Mr. MOONEY. No, sir; I didn't.
Mr. BALL. .....Now, was there anything you saw over in the corner?
Mr. MOONEY. No, sir; I didn't see anything over in the corner.
Deputy Sheriff Roger Craig:
Mr. BELIN. Was there any long sack laying in the floor there that you remember seeing, or not?
Mr. CRAIG. No; I don't remember seeing any.
Detective Boyd, who arrived with Captain Fritz before Day and Studebaker:
Mr. BALL. Did you see any brown wrapping paper near the window where the hulls were found,
near the windows alongside which the hulls were found?
Mr. BOYD. I don't believe I did.
(http://www.garvandwane.com/images/ce1302.jpg)
We are left with a picture of dotted lines. Something else. Another thing.
Another nutter excuse - most times not even from the WCR.
I'll point out the breaks as we go. You keep pitching the excuses.
Let's consider the "bag mystery" for a moment, and then I really must resume my neglected UFO studies.
The bag mystery has been hashed and rehashed to the point that someone like me has nothing to add to the debate. This piece addresses it nicely: https://www.jfk-assassination.net/bag.htm. You may post a CT-oriented link if you like.
OK, there are discrepancies in the observations and recollections of the officers. This is entirely normal and to be expected in an event of this sort. Eyewitness testimony is often conflicting and is generally regarded as less reliable than other types of evidence.
For the bag mystery to have any weight CT-wise, the suggestion has to be "The bag wasn't there until someone planted it."
For this suggestion to have any weight CT-wise, it has to be at least as plausible as "This is simply another example of eyewitnesses seeing and recalling different things."
For plausibility, you need some epistemological foundation other than the bare fact that six officers said they didn't see the bag (but six did). You need to address questions such as:
- What were the circumstances of the officers' observations - would we have expected all of them to see and recall the bag if it had been there?
- Is there any actual evidence - documents, testimony - suggesting the bag was planted?
- Why would a bag have been planted - what would it have added to the case against Oswald?
- When and by whom would the bag have been constructed and planted?
- When the bag was found, did the DPD have any reason to think Oswald had brought the rifle into the TSBD in a brown paper bag? Had the DPD already interviewed Frazier or Randle?
- Were Oswald's fingerprints planted on the bag as well? How did that work?
- Why didn't those who constructed and planted the bag do a more convincing job, making sure the bag had clear impressions of the rifle and perhaps more oil?
- With the rifle as evidence, why would anyone have taken the extreme risk of planting the bag to gain whatever minimal force this would add to the case against Oswald? Couldn't this have blown the case wide-open?
- Why were the six officers who didn't recall the bag not coached/intimidated/murdered before they testified to the WC? How could those who planted the bag allow this red flag to be raised?
Well, you get the idea. You can't just say, "Six officers didn't recall the bag. It's your burden to prove it wasn't planted."
At least, you can't say that and expect anyone to take you seriously.
It would be nice if at least some of the foregoing questions could be answered with something other than raw, ad hoc speculation.
Oswald's rifle was in the Paine garage. Oswald mysteriously went to the Paine house on Thursday. The rifle mysteriously disappeared. The rifle was found on the sixth floor after the assassination on Friday. Oswald was not observed elsewhere in the TSBD or its environs at the time of the assassination. Oswald ran like a rabbit, shot an officer and resisted arrest. To counter THAT, you need a hell of a lot more than "Oh, yeah, what about this? What about this over here, huh? What about that, huh, huh?" You need coherence and plausibility the CT community has been unable to offer.
-
"...you need some..... You need to...."
:D I don't need to do anything for you.
-
Here are different box configurations in the snipers nest.
The crime scene. Seriously. Which one is correct?
Mr. BALL. Then, you don't have any pictures taken of the boxes before they were moved?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. No.
(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4253/34844556463_d74a51a869_b.jpg)
-
A stack of Police Officers testified that they saw Oswald's rifle sack/bag in the sniper's nest. And a brown paper bag in the midst of hundreds of brown cardboard boxes doesn't exactly stand out. While searching who would honestly consider that an assassin would transport the murder weapon in a paper bag?
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.
JohnM
-
A stack of Police Officers testified that they saw Oswald's rifle sack/bag in the sniper's nest. And a brown paper bag in the midst of hundreds of brown cardboard boxes doesn't exactly stand out. While searching who would honestly consider that an assassin would transport the murder weapon in a paper bag?
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.
JohnM
I didn't say no officer saw the bag.
Thumb1: That's another pile of excuses
-
:D never took a picture of it either....
(http://www.garvandwane.com/images/ce1302.jpg)
-
Oswald's rifle bag was indeed inadvertently photographed in the Sniper's Nest, here it is lying on the top of the boxes that made up Oswald's hiding place. The top end with the small fold over, the folds positioned along the length and the crumpled lower end where Oswald grasped the bag are all unmistakably the bag in evidence. To the right is a Dallas Police fingerprint dusting kit.
(https://i.postimg.cc/HsFTmsh3/Oswald-s-rifle-bag-in-nesta.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/rFDq7tQK/oswald-s-bag-in-the-snipers-nest.gif)
The crumpled end is where Oswald was seen holding the bag when Randle saw Oswald and the actual dimensions of the bag are perfectly aligned with Randle's observation, hence Randle's initial estimate of 3 feet.
(https://i.postimg.cc/zDtJdkws/Randle-bag-near-touch-ground-b.jpg)
JohnM
-
(https://i.postimg.cc/HsFTmsh3/Oswald-s-rifle-bag-in-nesta.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/rFDq7tQK/oswald-s-bag-in-the-snipers-nest.gif)
JohnM
BS: What day was that picture taken?
-
BS: What day was that picture taken?
Well duh, the day the Dallas Police dusted for prints! The Dallas Police were photographed a couple of hours later taking Oswald's rifle bag out of the building and then Oswald's rifle bag was taken away across the country to be examined by the FBI and wasn't in Dallas until days later.
(https://i.postimg.cc/wBCWxndC/Oswald-s-rifle-bag-carry-out-depository.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/fL7vzLCd/Oswald-evidence-DPD-bag-blanket-bullets-fragments-revolver-pistol.jpg)
JohnM
-
Well duh, the day the Dallas Police dusted for prints! The Dallas Police were photographed a couple of hours later taking Oswald's rifle bag out of the building and then Oswald's rifle bag was taken away across the country to be examined by the FBI and wasn't in Dallas until days later.
(https://i.postimg.cc/wBCWxndC/Oswald-s-rifle-bag-carry-out-depository.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/fL7vzLCd/Oswald-evidence-DPD-bag-blanket-bullets-fragments-revolver-pistol.jpg)
JohnM
What day was the picture of the cartons stacked?
...with ONLY some paper and box flaps in the background
-
Mr. BELIN. All right. I notice boxes throughout the picture, including the box in the window. To the best of your knowledge, had any of those boxes been moved prior to the time the picture, Exhibit 715, was taken?
Mr. DAY. No, sir; they had not.
(https://i.postimg.cc/sx4y4pc2/ce-715-snipers-nest.jpg)
JohnM
-
Mr. BELIN. All right. I notice boxes throughout the picture, including the box in the window. To the best of your knowledge, had any of those boxes been moved prior to the time the picture, Exhibit 715, was taken?
Mr. DAY. No, sir; they had not.
JohnM
Wow! great picture of the crime scene huh?
...and then the cherry picking begins.
Thumb1: that didn't take long
Mr. BALL. Then, you don't have any pictures taken of the boxes before they were moved?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. No
-
:D I don't need to do anything for you.
Nice job of dishonest snipping.
That's prohibited at most forums, but par for the course in conspiracy world.
I didn't suggest you needed to do anything for me, did I?
For plausibility, you need some epistemological foundation …
PLAUSIBILITY??? We CTers don't need no stinkin' plausibility.
-
The rifle rest box's position is confirmed by the Powell photo taken just after the assassination.
(https://i.postimg.cc/prhz9LYk/CE-715-and-powell.jpg)
JohnM
-
Instead of feeding the trolls, which is playing on their preferred turf and only eggs them on, I'd really like to see their feet held to the fire on the epistemological issues of "What the hell sense does any of that make???"
Since Michael and his merry band will not even attempt a coherent CT narrative, I've made a sincere attempt that I hope will at least provide food for thought:
What about this?
And what about that, huh?
What about this discrepancy?
And this one, too?
X said A and Y said B - what about that?
These two documents don't mesh - what about that?
Look at this!
And this, too!
You can't explain this!
Why wasn't everything done perfectly, the way we would have done it - huh, huh?
QED
And, therefore, Oswald was an innocent patsy who was framed.
And, therefore, rogue CIA agents with multiple three-man kill teams whacked JFK.
We don't have to prove anything.
It's your burden to prove it didn't happen that way.
Besides, you're just a loser and a pathetic WC shill anyway.
Not perfect, of course, but I think it captures the general idea.
-
...and then the cherry picking begins.
Thumb1: that didn't take long
Mr. BALL. Then, you don't have any pictures taken of the boxes before they were moved?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. No
Mr. STUDEBAKER. Now, I took two of the photographs and Lieutenant Day took two. We took double shots on each one. These are the ones I took myself - these pictures. There's the two pictures that I took. This one was right before anything was moved. There is a hull here, a hull here, and a hull over here.
Mr. BELIN. Your pictures which you have marked No. 22 and No. 23 were both made, one was made by you, is that Commission Exhibit 718----
Mr. DAY. Yes, sir.
Mr. BELIN. And the other was made by----
Mr. DAY. Detective Studebaker.
JohnM
-
The rifle rest box's position is confirmed by the Powell photo taken just after the assassination.
JohnM
Crossfire | Jim Marrs
"Mrs. [Lillian] Mooneyham estimated that it was about four and a half to five 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 the sixth floor window behind
some cardboard boxes. This man appeared to Mrs. Mooneyham to be looking out of the window, however, the man was not close up to
the window but was standing slightly back from it, so that Mrs. Mooneyham could not make out his features...Adding support to
Mrs. Mooneyham’s account of a man standing in the “ sniper’s nest” window minutes after the shooting are photographs taken about
that time by military intelligence agent James Powell and news photographer Tom Dillard.
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/53568612232_2d896316e0_o.jpg)
-
Mr. STUDEBAKER. Now, I took two of the photographs and Lieutenant Day took two. We took double shots on each one. These are the ones I took myself - these pictures. There's the two pictures that I took. This one was right before anything was moved. There is a hull here, a hull here, and a hull over here.
Mr. BELIN. Your pictures which you have marked No. 22 and No. 23 were both made, one was made by you, is that Commission Exhibit 718----
Mr. DAY. Yes, sir.
Mr. BELIN. And the other was made by----
Mr. DAY. Detective Studebaker.
JohnM
The officer said, no photographs were taken before the boxes were moved.
Then, he back peddled his testimony to 3 pictures were taken before any boxes moved. Yet, this configuration does not match a
photo that was taken by Tom Dillard at the time of the assassination. Dillard Exhibit C.
https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh19/pages/WH_Vol19_0292a.jpg
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Whitewash | Harold Weisberg
"Before they were moved he said these boxes were, "in the left-hand corner of the
window looking towards Elm Street... Right at the edge" of the sill. This was the correct location
according to a photograph taken at the time of the assassination (Dillard Exhibit C).
When shown another of his photographs, identified as Studebaker exhibit J, he twice said of the boxes,
"I put them in the same exact position"
However, Studebaker Exhibit J shows these boxes not in the eastern corner of the window as does
Studebaker A but at least as far west as the middle of the window. Because the entire window is
not shown, it is not possible to know how much further west the boxes were re-positioned.
Both photographs show the boxes at about a 45° angle to the window and piled all pointed in the
same direction. Unfortunately, this reconstruction has the alleged mark of the rifle on the box
pointing about 90° in the wrong direction. Then, there is another Studebaker photograph of the
same rifle-rest boxes, Exhibit D. This picture shows all three boxes pointing in different directions,
with the top box at right angles to the window and not touching the sill."
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Det. Robert Studebaker | WC Testimony
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. 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.
What a mess.
https://jfk.boards.net/post/7363
-
Odd that the evil, evil FBI left Mooneyham's statements in the affidavit and that the affidavit is included as an exhibit in the evil, evil Warren Report, isn't it?
One might have expected the evil, evil FBI to at least alter the affidavit, if not flush it, and the evil, evil WC to make sure it never saw the light of day - no?
See how that works - we CTers can make the evidence do anything we want! It's almost a form of magic!
Is it likely that an evildoer associated with the JFKA would be standing in the sniper's nest window FOUR OR FIVE MINUTES after the JFKA? Gee, ya think?
For the uninitiated, Jim Marrs was also the esteemed author of Alien Agenda: Investigating the Extraterrestrial Presence Among Us; Rule by Secrecy: The Hidden History That Connects the Trilateral Commission, the Freemasons, and the Great Pyramids; Inside Job: Unmasking the 9/11 Conspiracies; and The Rise of the Fourth Reich: The Secret Societies That Threaten to Take Over America.
I met him once at a MUFON conference. He said I reminded him of Oswald. No, he didn't, I made that up - but I could tell he was thinking it.
-
Odd that the evil, evil FBI left Mooneyham's statements in the affidavit and that the affidavit is included as an exhibit in the evil, evil Warren Report, isn't it?
One might have expected the evil, evil FBI to at least alter the affidavit, if not flush it, and the evil, evil WC to make sure it never saw the light of day - no?
what does this garbage mean?
-
Crossfire | Jim Marrs
"Mrs. [Lillian] Mooneyham estimated that it was about four and a half to five 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 the sixth floor window behind
some cardboard boxes. This man appeared to Mrs. Mooneyham to be looking out of the window, however, the man was not close up to
the window but was standing slightly back from it, so that Mrs. Mooneyham could not make out his features...Adding support to
Mrs. Mooneyham’s account of a man standing in the “ sniper’s nest” window minutes after the shooting are photographs taken about
that time by military intelligence agent James Powell and news photographer Tom Dillard.
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/53568612232_2d896316e0_o.jpg)
Mrs. Mooneyham’s account of a man standing in the “ sniper’s nest” window minutes after the shooting are photographs taken about that time by military intelligence agent James Powell and news photographer Tom Dillard.
Huh?
Mr. BALL - Which building?
Mr. DILLARD - The School Book Depository. And at the same time I brought my camera up and I was looking for the window. Now this was after the third shot and Jackson said, "there's the rifle barrel up there." And then he said it was the second from the top in the right hand side, and I swung t it and there was two figures below, and I just shot with one camera, 100-mm. Lens on a 35-mm. Camera which is approximately a two times daily photo twice normal lens and a wide angle on a 35-mm. Which took in a considerable portion of the building and I shot those pictures in rapid sequence with the two cameras.
BTW this is usually the time when a CT will say "what about this" the boxes were moved!
NO boxes were moved.
(https://i.postimg.cc/MpTfPYFN/Powell-Dillard-boxes2.gif)
JohnM
-
(https://i.postimg.cc/MpTfPYFN/Powell-Dillard-boxes2.gif)
JohnM
Thumb1: Adobe Suite can morph any two pictures without correlation to size, scale, or perspective.
That's not very honest, John
-
Lt. Day, had the same problem while on the stand with Attorney Belin, when he was shown a copy of the Dillard Photo (CE 482),
He questioned the position of the box on the opposite side of the window, and stated quite plainly, "...(it) don't jibe with that box there."
He went on to say, "I can't explain that box there depicted from the outside as related to the pictures that I took inside."
https://jfk.boards.net/post/7564
-
what does this garbage mean?
Oh, I'll bet you can figure out what it means if you think real hard.
Altered documents everywhere! Lies by the bushel! Altered films! Altered autopsy photos and x-rays! An altered body for that matter! Intimidated and coerced witnesses! Mysterious deaths! Planted bullets and rifle bags! Anything to further the predetermined Lone Nut conclusion! I tell ya, it's practically Strawberry Fields - "Nothing is real!"
Except when the documents contain something helpful to the CT narrative that somehow escaped alteration and even found its way into the Warren Report. Then we take them at face value and don't have to explain how they fit the narrative of "Altered documents everywhere! Lies by the bushel! Altered films! Altered autopsy photos and x-rays! An altered body for that matter! Intimidated and coerced witnesses! Mysterious deaths! Planted bullets and rifle bags! Anything to further the predetermined Lone Nut conclusion!"
I think it's called talking out of both sides of your mouth.
-
Oh, I'll bet you can figure out what it means if you think real hard.
Altered documents everywhere! Lies by the bushel! Altered films! Altered autopsy photos and x-rays! An altered body for that matter! Intimidated and coerced witnesses! Mysterious deaths! Planted bullets and rifle bags! Anything to further the predetermined Lone Nut conclusion! I tell ya, it's practically Strawberry Fields - "Nothing is real!"
Except when the documents contain something helpful to the CT narrative that somehow escaped alteration and even found its way into the Warren Report. Then we take them at face value and don't have to explain how they fit the narrative of "Altered documents everywhere! Lies by the bushel! Altered films! Altered autopsy photos and x-rays! An altered body for that matter! Intimidated and coerced witnesses! Mysterious deaths! Planted bullets and rifle bags! Anything to further the predetermined Lone Nut conclusion!"
I think it's called talking out of both sides of your mouth.
I haven't said any of those things.
That is your meltdown - not mine.
-
Thumb1: Adobe Suite can morph any two pictures without correlation, to size, scale, or perspective.
That's not very honest, John
As usual you don't even know what you are talking about, the size and scale by definition are exactly the same because they are both referencing the exact same structure. Duh!
And obviously the perspective is different because the photos were taken from two different positions and this cross referencing is how we can ascertain what has changed or what remains the same.
Here's another example of Capasse's belief that almost everything has been altered to fit his twisted misguided agenda. This post from JFK Boards highlights how Capasse has no idea of how perspective affects images.
"I extracted this frame from a video awhile back, not sure if it was this one,
regardless, they are not in the same position at the same time.
....- frames sequentially removed?"
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/48608046021_a8631fc22a_z.jpg)
https://jfk.boards.net/thread/369/compare-zapruder-nix
The answer of course to anyone that understands perspective is that both Hill and Jackie are in the EXACT same position, another piece of blatant misinformation from Capasse's Forum. "JFK Boards" is full of this crap like Altgens has been altered, Backyard photos are super imposed, Lovelady was NOT in the doorway and even lane markings on Elm street have been altered for goodness knows what reason? JFK Boards is unfortunately pushing all types of these unfettered lies.
(https://i.postimg.cc/sfwtQsvQ/Nix-Zapruder-Jerry-Organ-2024.gif)
BTW the Capasse quotes and images are taken completely unaltered from Capasse's Forum and I have provided a link back to the source, and is defined as "fair use" and as your "Forum" proclaims [research copy for educational purposes]. So don't go crying to Duncan like you always do, ya big baby! Thumb1:
JohnM
-
I haven't said any of those things.
That is your meltdown - not mine.
OK, gotcha - sorry.
I have moved you to the column "No altered documents, no lies, no predetermined Lone Nut conclusion, everything is real."
You might be uncomfortable with some of the other people in that column - Bugliosi's name is right before yours - but you've stated your position, and I shall respect it.
Oh, dear, I'm descending into silliness, and I had so hoped to maintain a kinder, gentler, more statesmanlike facade in my dealings here. Well, I'll close now before I resurrect the Caped Factoid Buster or Beloved Swami and run completely amuck. (My new avatar is the face from the Shroud of Turin, just in case anyone was wondering.)
-
Moving boxes in the crime scene
(https://live.staticflickr.com/4231/34844558313_c865bce1de_c.jpg)
-
As usual you don't even know what you are talking about, the size and scale by definition are exactly the same because they are both referencing the exact same structure. Duh!
JohnM
Twist it anyway you want.
Morphing two pictures on Adobe Suite doesn't prove a thing
-
Moving boxes in the crime scene
This is just getting sillier and sillier, of course they moved boxes, they had to check the boxes for fingerprints. They don't just leave the boxes there in perpetuity that's just absurd. BTW what do you think you are proving and where does this inanity lead you?
Alyea took film of the sniper's nest on the first day and this was broadcast on WFAATV in the afternoon of the same day, note the positions of the rifle rest box.
(https://i.postimg.cc/LsdRYzGG/alyea-sniper-s-nest.jpg)
Day confirms that CE 715 is the original sniper's nest and note again that the rifle rest box is in the same position.
Mr. BELIN. All right. I notice boxes throughout the picture, including the box in the window. To the best of your knowledge, had any of those boxes been moved prior to the time the picture, Exhibit 715, was taken?
Mr. DAY. No, sir; they had not.
(https://i.postimg.cc/sx4y4pc2/ce-715-snipers-nest.jpg)
Day also confirms that CE733 and CE734 is the official recreation from the 25th(because the original boxes were being forensically analysed) and again note the rifle rest box is in the same position.
Mr. BELIN. I am going to hand you what has been marked as Commission Exhibit 733 and ask you to state if you know what this is.
Mr. DAY. This is the southeast corner of the sixth floor at the window where the shooting apparently occurred. The boxes in front of the window, to the best of our knowledge, in the position they were in when we arrived there on November 22, 1963.
Mr. BELIN. So 733 represents a reconstruction in that sense, is that correct?
Mr. DAY. Yes, sir.
Mr. BELIN. What about Exhibit----
Mr. DAY. This, by the way, was taken on November 25, 1963.
Mr. BELIN. All right. What about 734?
Mr. DAY. That is another view of the same boxes shown in 733.
Mr. BELIN. In 734 you can also see this juncture of the south and east walls of the sixth floor where you say the bag was found; is that correct?
Mr. DAY. Yes, sir.
(https://i.postimg.cc/zGH8Gd2n/ce-733-sniper-s-nest-boxes.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/ncPnZ82F/ce-734-sniper-s-nest-boxes.jpg)
And here we see the orientation of Oswald's hand prints facing down Elm street.
(https://i.postimg.cc/rpPDBxZd/oswalds-prints-snipers-nest-1.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/G26syGk0/osw-alds-prints-snipers-nest-zpstmsa2vdj.jpg)
From Alyea to CE715 and on to CE733 and CE734 we have total consistency of the rifle rest box, which is also consistent with Powell and Dillard's outside photos. And again I ask what point are you trying to make??
BTW why do you never answer questions and just keep inserting already thoroughly disproven nonsense, it's the old "I have no answers but what about this and this and this...." Yawn!
JohnM
-
Twist it anyway you want.
Morphing two pictures on Adobe Suite doesn't prove a thing
Twist it anyway you want.
You're so far out of your depth, I don't have to twist anything, we aren't talking about combining two disparate locations but both photos taken by Dillard and Powell represent exactly the same building, the exact same windows and the exact same boxes, all morphing does in the following example is show the link between each brick, each window and each box.
(https://i.postimg.cc/MpTfPYFN/Powell-Dillard-boxes2.gif)
BTW your ideas about perspective are perfectly exemplified by your Nix/Zapruder observation above and your subsequent laughable analysis of Jackie and Hill on the trunk of the Limo, so before you erroneously critique my images, go back to school and do a little study in spatial relationships and perspective, and perhaps you won't embarrass yourself even further.
JohnM
-
Wow! great picture of the crime scene huh?
...and then the cherry picking begins.
Thumb1: that didn't take long
Mr. BALL. Then, you don't have any pictures taken of the boxes before they were moved?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. No
Cherry Picking? How dare you, what you have done here is the most evil cherry pick of them all, have you no shame?
Not trusting Capasse, I read Studebaker's testimony and what Capasse has done is intentionally taken what Studebaker said completely out of context, here's the full quote and everybody note that the quote Capasse cherry picked is that Studebaker didn't have the better pictures on him at that time! Studebaker repeatedly says that the same configuration that Day said were not moved, Studebaker also agrees that the boxes are positioned exactly as they originally came across them.
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. 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.
Mr. BALL. Do you have a picture that shows the boxes themselves, just shot of those boxes in the window?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. This one, Exhibit A, shows that - this is the exact - now this print here isn't too good, but you can see the indentation in this box right here. This is before it was ever moved, and right down below here, you can see a staple on another box or another negative, this isn't too good a negative here. If I had known what you wanted, I would have brought you a better print - picked out a better print.
(https://i.postimg.cc/SNszDhjk/Studebaker-exhibit-A-rifle-rest-box-and-shells.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/X7zBPzyF/Studebaker-exhibit-B-rifle-rest-box-and-shells.jpg)
Here's Lt. Day totally agreeing with what Studebaker said.
Mr. BELIN. All right. I notice boxes throughout the picture, including the box in the window. To the best of your knowledge, had any of those boxes been moved prior to the time the picture, Exhibit 715, was taken?
Mr. DAY. No, sir; they had not.
(https://i.postimg.cc/sx4y4pc2/ce-715-snipers-nest.jpg)
And as for Capasse's falsely described restaged sniper's nest,
(https://i.postimg.cc/wxt1mkrj/Capasse-big-fat-liar-restaged-snipers-nest.jpg)
Studebaker tells it like it is.
Mr. BALL. Now, I will show you another picture which we will mark as "Exhibit D," was that taken by you?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. Yes.
(instrument marked by the reporter as "Studebaker Exhibit D," for identification)
Mr. BALL. Does that show the position of the boxes before or after they were
Mr. STUDEBAKER. That's after they were dusted - there's fingerprint dust on every box.
Mr. BALL. And they were not in that position then when you first saw them?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. No.
(https://i.postimg.cc/85N7W8q8/Studebaker-exhibit-D-rifle-rest-box.jpg)
And as does Lt. Day.
Mr. BELIN. In 724 there are boxes in the window. Were those boxes in the window the way you saw them, or had they been replaced in the window to reconstruct it?
Mr. DAY. They had simply been moved in the processing for prints. They weren't put back in any particular order.
Mr. BELIN. So 724 does not represent, so far as the boxes are concerned, the crime scene when you first came to the sixth floor; is that correct?
Mr. DAY. That is correct.
Mr. BELIN. Let me ask you this: Had all of the boxes of the stack in 724 been replaced there or had any of the boxes been in a position they were at the time you first arrived at the building, if you know?
Mr. DAY. No, sir; they had not been placed in the proper position or approximate position at the time we arrived.
(https://i.postimg.cc/05GCLP8S/ce-724-sniper-s-nest-movedboxes.jpg)
"the bullcrap piles up so fast in this Forum, you need wings to stay above it".
JohnM
-
I have to agree with Michael here, and it seems that John does as well. It would never even have occurred to me that Randle was describing the package in any way other than one end being in Oswald's right hand and the other extending toward the ground. "Carried this way" is a perfectly natural way for someone to describe this scenario, meaning "dangling down toward the ground." "Carried" in this context does not inevitably (or even reasonably) mean "in his left hand." That would have him lurching along like the Hunchback of Notre Dame.
I have to agree with Michael here, and it seems that John does as well. It would never even have occurred to me that Randle was describing the package in any way other than one end being in Oswald's right hand and the other extending toward the ground
Why even mention it and why would I even care about that? I think your completely wrong. For an attorney to not see it, I think is odd. The WC investigators were attorneys.
This is the same old argument being repeated over and over with no resolve. I have no problem seeing the problem with Linnie May’s ever-changing story. She was protecting her brother who she knew had no involvement. Neither did Capasse and Iocaletti have a problem seeing it. What do you think is the reason for their bizarre interpretations? They get what it means. and you don't, instead believing in a 27 inch long package?
“That would have him lurching along like the Hunchback of Notre Dame.”
That is exactly the point. He would have been if the bag was 27 inches and him carrying it the way it was described. It is all about “and the bottom he carried it this way”, “and it almost touched the ground as he carried it”. Think of her statement as being from the ground up, not the top down. She always returned to describing the bag almost touching the ground.
If you believe the bag was 27 inches long, how does LHO get the rifle to the TSBD? You do not need to disassemble the rifle to get it to fit in the bag.
The answer is:
Yes, to being bent over, if the bag is 27 inches long
No, to being bent over, if the bag is 42 inches long.
This was Linnie's very first statement on the bag.
FBI 11/22
RANDLE stated that about 7:15 a.m., November 22, 1963, she looked out of a window of her residence and observed LEE HARVEY OSWALD walking up her driveway and saw him put a long brown package, approximately 3 feet by 6 inches, in the back seat area of WESLEY FRAZIER's 1954 black Chevrolet four door automobile. Thereafter, she observed OSWALD walk to the front, or entrance area, of her residence where he waited for FRAZIER to come out of the house and give him a ride to work.
She changed her estimation to support her brother but not her description of how it was being carried. She cannot describe him carrying a 27 inch bag the same way as a 42 inch bag and the rifle almost touched the ground.
The 12/2 FBI statement has him carrying it even different yet. Thumb down like a baseball player instead of thumb up like John’s depiction. Which is what everyone has assumed.
The WC witness statements are riddled with answers, like hers, that contradict other answers. JBC and Nellie, A Rowland, Hickey, Kellerman, etc. The inconsistency in their answers is how they showed they were changing their stories, and their statements were somewhat unreliable. They do not pass any judgement on JBC and Nellie but instead reveal their inconsistencies on key points.
Read her statement the way she stated it without a bias. Her description of how the bag was being carried confirms it was longer than 27 inches.
The basis of her testimony was he gripped the top and carried the bottom. Two very different actions.
-
At this point, after 60 years of investigations by several generations of Americans in the government and out, the conspiracists are reduced to pulling out their conspiracy "trading cards." The "What about this, huh?" and "What about that, huh?" cards. The only conspiracist answers now are so absurd and convoluted that the more reasoned conspiracists (there are some) know they can't promote them, they are unbelievable. So they are reduced to the "whatabout?" trading cards. Asking questions is fine; but how many more times do we need to answer them?
This is the JFK assassination forum not the "Oswald Didn't Do It Forum" or the "What About This? Forum." If at this point someone isn't offering a theory as to what happened it's only because they are embarrassed to do so.
-
Hello??? You quote me but your responses then sound as though you're talking to someone else.
I have to agree with Michael here, and it seems that John does as well. It would never even have occurred to me that Randle was describing the package in any way other than one end being in Oswald's right hand and the other extending toward the ground
Why even mention it and why would I even care about that? I think your completely wrong. For an attorney to not see it, I think is odd. The WC investigators were attorneys.
I have NO IDEA what you're talking about here. The WC attorneys, of course, saw Randle as she testified - saw what she was doing when she said "carried it this way." I assume what she was doing was holding down her right hand and arm at her side and swinging her arm as one does when one walks.
Unless I've completely misinterpreted something, you've been feuding with Michael on the basis of your belief that Oswald somehow had the rifle in both hands when Randle said "carried this way" with one end "almost touching the ground." If that isn't your belief, feel free to correct me but Michael certainly seems to have thought this was your belief in a discussion that spanned numerous posts on another thread.
This is the same old argument being repeated over and over with no resolve. I have no problem seeing the problem with Linnie May’s ever-changing story. She was protecting her brother who she knew had no involvement. Neither did Capasse and Iocaletti have a problem seeing it. What do you think is the reason for their bizarre interpretations? They get what it means. and you don't, instead believing in a 27 inch long package?
Have you read ANY of this thread?
I - i.e., Lance - supposedly believe in a 27" package. WHAT???
I believe it was me - i.e., Lance - who SUGGESTED Randle was covering for her brother. In any event, I fleshed out that notion EXTENSIVELY on this thread. I said I was willing to chalk up Frazier's and Randle's estimates to innocent mistakes but that deflecting suspicion from Frazier was a distinct possibility.
“That would have him lurching along like the Hunchback of Notre Dame.”
That is exactly the point. He would have been if the bag was 27 inches and him carrying it the way it was described. It is all about “and the bottom he carried it this way”, “and it almost touched the ground as he carried it”. Think of her statement as being from the ground up, not the top down. She always returned to describing the bag almost touching the ground.
Your mistake, I believe, is in insisting that "carried this way" means Oswald had his left hand on the package. Randle said nothing about his left hand, as Michael keeps pointing out. I believe, and as far as I know so does pretty much everyone else, that Randle is simply describing Oswald holding the top of the package in his right hand with the bottom end nearly reaching the ground, and that "carried this way" simply and reasonably means "with the package hanging down toward the ground as he walked along."
If you believe the bag was 27 inches long, how does LHO get the rifle to the TSBD? You do not need to disassemble the rifle to get it to fit in the bag.
The answer is:
Yes, to being bent over, if the bag is 27 inches long
No, to being bent over, if the bag is 42 inches long.
This was Linnie's very first statement on the bag.
FBI 11/22
RANDLE stated that about 7:15 a.m., November 22, 1963, she looked out of a window of her residence and observed LEE HARVEY OSWALD walking up her driveway and saw him put a long brown package, approximately 3 feet by 6 inches, in the back seat area of WESLEY FRAZIER's 1954 black Chevrolet four door automobile. Thereafter, she observed OSWALD walk to the front, or entrance area, of her residence where he waited for FRAZIER to come out of the house and give him a ride to work.
She changed her estimation to support her brother but not her description of how it was being carried. She cannot describe him carrying a 27 inch bag the same way as a 42 inch bag and the rifle almost touched the ground.
The 12/2 FBI statement has him carrying it even different yet. Thumb down like a baseball player instead of thumb up like John’s depiction. Which is what everyone has assumed.
The WC witness statements are riddled with answers, like hers, that contradict other answers. JBC and Nellie, A Rowland, Hickey, Kellerman, etc. The inconsistency in their answers is how they showed they were changing their stories, and their statements were somewhat unreliable. They do not pass any judgement on JBC and Nellie but instead reveal their inconsistencies on key points.
Read her statement the way she stated it without a bias. Her description of how the bag was being carried confirms it was longer than 27 inches.
The basis of her testimony was he gripped the top and carried the bottom. Two very different actions.
This may be the most bizarre single post I've ever responded to.
I - i.e., Lance - HAVE NEVER SUGGESTED IN ANY WAY, SHAPE OR FORM that I thought the bag was 27".
We have discussed Randle's original three-foot estimate EXTENSIVELY on this thread. I have MADE CLEAR that I believe this was a correct estimate and that her changed story was to conform to her brother's story, either simply not to make him look silly or to deflect suspicion away from him. WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT???
I believe the disassembled rifle was in the package and that the package was the length of the disassembled rifle. IS THAT CLEAR? I believe it's unlikely that Oswald assembled the rifle in the Paine garage and carried it full-length because (1) this would have been very risky and (2) the package would have less plausibly resembled curtain rods. IS THAT CLEAR?
Regardless of the length of the package, if he "carried the bottom" with his left hand and the bottom "almost touched the ground," he would have been bent over like Quasimodo. That is not only physically silly, but it is not the most plausible or reasonable interpretation of what Randle said.
To repeat: I HAVE NO IDEA WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT OR HOW YOU COULD POSSIBLY BE SO CONFUSED AS TO THINK I HOLD THE POSITIONS YOU APPATRENTLY THINK I DO.
It truly appears to me that you are quoting me but actually responding to someone else because NOTHING you have said meshes with ANYTHING I have said throughout umpteen posts on this thread.
Oh, lest I forget: Your "baseball bat" analogy. The 12/2/63 FBI report simply says that McNeely "grasped the TOP OF THIS SACK with his RIGHT HAND, much like a right handed batter would PICK UP A BASEBALL BAT when approaching the plate." Perhaps you are not a baseball fan, but right-handed batters do not carry a bat in both hands as they approach the plate. They carry it like I believe Randle was describing - knob end in hand, bat dangling toward ground. Randle specifically said at the WC that the bulky end was toward the ground and that Oswald "gripped" the other end in his right hand "like this," which would indeed have him holding the package precisely the way a batter holds the knob end of a bat as he approaches the plate. (Interestingly, the average length of an MLB bat is 34", and the rules allow bats up to 42".)
Are we done, or do you require further clarification of what I - i.e., Lance - have been saying throughout this entire thread?
(https://img.freepik.com/premium-photo/baseball-player-with-bat-walks-across-field_1108514-168359.jpg)
-
No palm and multiple fingerprints found at the top of the bag and none found at the bottom of the bag either.
Just that one 1/2 inch index finger print at the top and a palm print and multiple fingers at the middle of the bag.
If the bag was carried at the top with just the one hand then the pressure of that hand to keep the 8lb bag slipping should have left a palm and multi finger print at the top of the bag just like the middle of bag palm print.
If carried as Frazier thought he saw: the bag being pressed into the palm (cup) of the right hand, then there should have been some significant print left there also.
So what we have is a curious discrepancy where prints were found on the bag, vs where 2 witness say they saw a hand carrying the bag.
Is the explanation due to the time factor of when the 2 witness saw the bag carried at about 8:00 am? Evaporation of those prints over a 4.5 hour period of time, vs at 12:20pm , if Oswald carried the bag with rifle now assembled in it , to the SE window, then he gripped the middle of the bag leaving the middle palm print, which did NOT evaporate because the bag was found within about 1 hour after the shots?
-
Someone who is truly and honestly neutral on what happened, is agnostic on what occurred that day in Dallas and has no set opinion on whether it was Oswald alone or a cast of thousands, would, on the bag question (and others), challenge every explanation as to what it contained and not just one. Viz., that it contained a rifle, that it contained curtain rods, that it contained a lunch, or that it contained something else. Each theory would be challenged.
Maybe because it's only the rifle fans who present their imaginary stories as fact.
-
I thought that's what I was trying to do with this entire thread?
OK, the package contained curtain rods: Answer the questions I posed and explain how that makes sense.
OK, it contained a lunch: Answer the questions I posed and explain how that makes sense.
OK, it contained something other than a rifle, curtain rods or a lunch: Answer the questions I posed and explain how that makes sense.
Then we'll assess the plausibility of each explanation and see if any reaches the same level of plausibility as the disassembled rifle.
We will reach some level of conviction that the package contained whatever the most plausible explanation suggests it contained.
That's how reasoning works, except in conspiracy world.
The problem is that none of it has any plausibility. It's all guesswork.
-
It is a reasonable inference that Oswald brought the gun to work that morning:
A. Oswald's gun was found at the murder scene.
Except you forgot to prove that it was "Oswald's gun".
B. Oswald's gun was last seen in Ruth Paine's garage wrapped in a blanket made with brown and green fibres.
Except you forgot to prove that it was a rifle in the blanket (especially the Carcano).
C. Oswald was in Ruth Paine's garage the night before the murder
And the evidence for that? Ruth Paine noticed that a light was left on. :D
D. Oswald took a long package wrapped in brown paper to work on the day of the murder.
Not long enough
E. Oswald told Buell Frazier that it contained curtain rods for his room.
Not relevant to a rifle.
F. Oswald's room did not need curtains.
You don't know that. And curtain rods aren't curtains.
G. No curtain rods were found at the TSBD and Oswald did not leave the TSBD carrying a long package.
Who looked for curtain rods at the TSBD? And nobody knows what Oswald left with.
H. A long paper package similar to the package described by Buell Frazier and Linnie Mae Randle was found in the murder scene
Was it really? All we got was a photo with a dotted line drawn on it.
and it was found to have Oswald's palm print on it.
Irrelevant to a rifle.
It also contained fibres that were indistinguishable from fibres from the blanket in which the rifle had been wrapped.
a) fibers cannot be uniquely matched to a specific object, like a blanket
b) there is a photo showing the wrapper lying on top of the blanket on a table
Any juror could easily draw the inference that Oswald took his gun to work on the morning of 22Nov63.
Only if manipulated with a series of false, misleading, or unsubstantiated claims like the above.
-
5. Marina said the disassembled rifle was wrapped in a blanket in the Paine garage. There was no reason for her to lie, especially since she thought it was still there.
You were right when you said you're not an expert on the assassination. Marina never said anything about a disassembled rifle.
6. Michael Paine testified about the contents of the blanket, his testimony being a near-perfect match for the disassembled rifle and his estimate of the length being 37".
His testimony was a perfect match for camping equipment. He even made a drawing.
17. Oswald said he had brought a lunch, again making Frazier appear to be a liar; when Holmes asked if it had possibly been brought in a large grocery sack, Oswald quickly agreed with this highly improbable suggestion because he knew he had been carrying a large package.
Holmes never said he asked Oswald if it had possibly been brought in a large grocery sack.
18. The likelihood of someone carrying a sandwich and apple in a large grocery sack is close to nil; Oswald offered no explanation for where the sack might be.
When did anybody ask him where the sack might be? Once you start getting into "likelihood" arguments you are outside the realm of evidence.
And before you try to shift the burden yet again, I haven't (and I won't) concoct a similar chain of "reasoning" for a lunch or for curtain rods, because I don't claim to know what was in the package. You can either prove it was a disassembled rifle or you cannot.
-
Eyewitnesses make mistakes all the time, which is precisely why eyewitness testimony is widely regarded as unreliable.
And then you proceed to make an argument almost completely based on eyewitness testimony, or even worse, what you think "is plausible".
-
I absolutely do not start with any preset conclusion that the package contained the rifle. I would LOVE IT if curtain rods were the answer! Then we could have a fascinating discussion as to whether this would preclude Oswald from being the assassin (I think not) or was just a clever well-planned alibi.
Careful, you're revealing your bias here.
Or we could have a fascinating discussion about exactly how "I don't believe it was curtain rods" is the same as "shot the president".
-
You finally went there. The "I don't waste my time" ploy, which is typically understood to mean "I can't answer your arguments in a substantive way."
This is the same Lance Payette who puts people on his "ignore list" when he can't answer their arguments in a substantive way, but pretends it's because he's "bored".
-
With the .303 rifle, clip and ammunition at his sister's house, I'm not sure it's accurate to say he "has absolutely nothing to worry about and no reason to lie" a mere week after the assassination. I would agree that by the time of the WC, he could have played ball and said "Oh, I don't know, maybe it was longer than I thought and maybe it was protruding when I saw him carrying it." But he didn't, which is why I'm willing to chalk up his observations to an innocent eyewitness mistake.
Or maybe it was as short as he thought and it was not protruding and it was not a mistake.
See the bias at work here?
-
This is quite mind-blowing. I admit I'm not entirely sober at the moment, but I can find NOTHING except Frazier's description of this incident. Did Fritz, Stovall, Rose or anyone else discuss this incident at all??? Is there any reasonably contemporaneous documentation of it? Frazier seems entirely too unsophisticated and folksy to have invented it, but then any number of UFO hoaxers have seemed too unsophisticated and folksy to pull off the hoaxes they did. It isn't even touched upon in Frazier's WC testimony.
You think a cop is going to admit attempting to bully somebody into signing a false confession with the threat of physical violence?
-
LHO’s prints on the bag (CE142) seem to me to support the idea that LHO carried the package into the TSBD with the right hand palm print (CE636) on the bottom of the package (per BWF) and the left hand index finger (CE633) elsewhere on the package. At this point in time I am not sure exactly where on the bag the left index finger print was located CE633. If anyone has that information handy please let us know. I can see the photo that shows the portion of the package that the fingerprint was found on. But I do not know what section of the overall package that section is from.
Pat Speer has a good discussion of the details here.
https://www.patspeer.com/chapter-4d-the-myth-of-fingerprints-and-the-fingerprints-of-myth (https://www.patspeer.com/chapter-4d-the-myth-of-fingerprints-and-the-fingerprints-of-myth)
-
At the London trial I asked Frazier, “So the bag could have been protruding out in front of his body and you wouldn’t have been able to see it?” and he responded, “That’s true” (Transcript of On Trial, July 23, 1986, p.35).[/i]
Sleazy lawyer trick.
In order to not be visible above the shoulder, it would need to "protrude" forward at a 45 degree angle.
-
What are you talking about? Oswald provably owned the rifle, Oswald's relatively fresh prints were all over the sniper's nest, Oswald's prints were on the rifle and Oswald's arrest shirt matched fibers found on the rifle and while not conclusive the prohibitive probability was that the rifle fibers came from Oswald's shirt.
"provably". LOL.
"relatively fresh". LOL.
"on the rifle". LOL.
"matched". LOL.
"prohibitive probability". LOL.
-
Seriously?, the estimates of the length of the bag by both Frazier and his sister were well over 24 inches
Mr. FRAZIER - If, if you were going to measure it that way from the end of the seat over toward the center, right. But I say like I said I just roughly estimate and that would be around two feet, give and take a few inches.
-
If your point is simply "We don't know for sure what was in the package, and what it actually was can never be proven" - I'll stipulate to that without reservation, but the fact remains that (to me) by far the most plausible explanation is "the disassembled rifle." Your posts read as though "can't be known or proven with certainty" equates to "is completely meaningless to talk about," as though we aren't allowed to reason our way to what seems the most plausible explanation.
The only thing that makes a disassembled rifle "the most plausible explanation" is your wishful thinking.
-
:D too funny.
So he merely "had" the package in his right hand. That's not the same as "carrying" it, even though he was walking with it at the time.
This is Nessan pretzel logic.
-
As a retired lawyer with nearly 40 years of practice in my rearview mirror, I do know that the law does not require anything like "ontological proof" in any context, civil or criminal. A civil case may be won with huge doubts, even in the mind of the plaintiff's attorney, about the correctness of the decision. Little old me has won cases where I thought, "Thank God the rules of evidence kept THAT out because it would've killed us."
Exactly. Truth is not the goal in a lawyer or a trial context. The goal there is to successfully manipulate an ignorant jury through rhetoric and/or procedural tricks.
Out here in the real world, the LN narrative has been examined, challenged, debated ad nauseam, and I believe it stands as "proven" by any reasonable standard of proof.
Only in the "real world" context of sleazy lawyer tricks.
As I stated previously, your approach just goes nowhere. You need either (1) an ironclad, no-question-about-it defeater for the LN narrative or (2) a more rational, coherent, plausible, evidence-based narrative. So far, there has been neither. "Frazier and Randle were correct and everything else surrounding the curtain rod story must be ignored" just goes nowhere.
Inquiries aren't required to "go somewhere". If the evidence leads to "I don't know", then that's where it leads. You don't just get to declare your narrative to be "rational, coherent, plausible, and evidence-based" (especially when it's not), and then shift the burden.
-
Well, you get the idea. You can't just say, "Six officers didn't recall the bag. It's your burden to prove it wasn't planted."
Here we go again. It's not your burden to prove it wasn't planted. It's your burden to prove that it was there where it was allegedly found. And that it ever contained a rifle. That is where the raw, ad hoc speculation is.
Oswald's rifle was in the Paine garage. Oswald mysteriously went to the Paine house on Thursday. The rifle mysteriously disappeared. The rifle was found on the sixth floor after the assassination on Friday. Oswald was not observed elsewhere in the TSBD or its environs at the time of the assassination. Oswald ran like a rabbit, shot an officer and resisted arrest. To counter THAT, you need a hell of a lot more than "Oh, yeah, what about this?
All that's necessary to counter all that is to point out that unsubstantiated claims are not evidence.
-
I didn't say no officer saw the bag.
Thumb1: That's another pile of excuses
Thumb1:
And isn't it also relevant when they saw the "bag" and where they saw the "bag", and how they each described the "bag"?
-
Oswald's rifle bag was indeed inadvertently photographed in the Sniper's Nest, here it is lying on the top of the boxes that made up Oswald's hiding place.
Cool. Let's pretend that you actually know for a fact that this is CE142. Which one of the six policeman you quoted above said anything about seeing this "bag" lying on top of the boxes like this? And how many hours later was this photo taken?
PS. "Oswald's rifle bag". LOL. "Oswald's hiding place". LOL.
-
Odd that the evil, evil FBI left Mooneyham's statements in the affidavit and that the affidavit is included as an exhibit in the evil, evil Warren Report, isn't it?
Typical LN rhetorical trick. If the evidence is consistent then my "plausible narrative" is what happened. If the evidence is not consistent, then it "doesn't make sense" that the "vast conspiracy" I just made up in my head would allow there to be inconsistent evidence, therefore my "plausible narrative" is still what happened.
-
I have to agree with Michael here, and it seems that John does as well. It would never even have occurred to me that Randle was describing the package in any way other than one end being in Oswald's right hand and the other extending toward the ground
Why even mention it and why would I even care about that? I think your completely wrong. For an attorney to not see it, I think is odd. The WC investigators were attorneys.
:D
You know how far Nessan is in the weeds when even Lance falls onto the same side as Michael and me!
-
This is the JFK assassination forum not the "Oswald Didn't Do It Forum" or the "What About This? Forum." If at this point someone isn't offering a theory as to what happened it's only because they are embarrassed to do so.
It's also not the "let's make up fanciful stories we have no evidence for" forum.
-
Oh, lest I forget: Your "baseball bat" analogy. The 12/2/63 FBI report simply says that McNeely "grasped the TOP OF THIS SACK with his RIGHT HAND, much like a right handed batter would PICK UP A BASEBALL BAT when approaching the plate." Perhaps you are not a baseball fan, but right-handed batters do not carry a bat in both hands as they approach the plate.
Yeah, I pointed that out as well, and he just doubled down. And then tried to equate it instead to a batter using both hands to get ready to hit.
-
Hello??? You quote me but your responses then sound as though you're talking to someone else.
I have NO IDEA what you're talking about here. The WC attorneys, of course, saw Randle as she testified - saw what she was doing when she said "carried it this way." I assume what she was doing was holding down her right hand and arm at her side and swinging her arm as one does when one walks.
Unless I've completely misinterpreted something, you've been feuding with Michael on the basis of your belief that Oswald somehow had the rifle in both hands when Randle said "carried this way" with one end "almost touching the ground." If that isn't your belief, feel free to correct me but Michael certainly seems to have thought this was your belief in a discussion that spanned numerous posts on another thread.
Have you read ANY of this thread?
I - i.e., Lance - supposedly believe in a 27" package. WHAT???
I believe it was me - i.e., Lance - who SUGGESTED Randle was covering for her brother. In any event, I fleshed out that notion EXTENSIVELY on this thread. I said I was willing to chalk up Frazier's and Randle's estimates to innocent mistakes but that deflecting suspicion from Frazier was a distinct possibility.
Your mistake, I believe, is in insisting that "carried this way" means Oswald had his left hand on the package. Randle said nothing about his left hand, as Michael keeps pointing out. I believe, and as far as I know so does pretty much everyone else, that Randle is simply describing Oswald holding the top of the package in his right hand with the bottom end nearly reaching the ground, and that "carried this way" simply and reasonably means "with the package hanging down toward the ground as he walked along."
This may be the most bizarre single post I've ever responded to.
I - i.e., Lance - HAVE NEVER SUGGESTED IN ANY WAY, SHAPE OR FORM that I thought the bag was 27".
We have discussed Randle's original three-foot estimate EXTENSIVELY on this thread. I have MADE CLEAR that I believe this was a correct estimate and that her changed story was to conform to her brother's story, either simply not to make him look silly or to deflect suspicion away from him. WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT???
I believe the disassembled rifle was in the package and that the package was the length of the disassembled rifle. IS THAT CLEAR? I believe it's unlikely that Oswald assembled the rifle in the Paine garage and carried it full-length because (1) this would have been very risky and (2) the package would have less plausibly resembled curtain rods. IS THAT CLEAR?
Regardless of the length of the package, if he "carried the bottom" with his left hand and the bottom "almost touched the ground," he would have been bent over like Quasimodo. That is not only physically silly, but it is not the most plausible or reasonable interpretation of what Randle said.
To repeat: I HAVE NO IDEA WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT OR HOW YOU COULD POSSIBLY BE SO CONFUSED AS TO THINK I HOLD THE POSITIONS YOU APPATRENTLY THINK I DO.
It truly appears to me that you are quoting me but actually responding to someone else because NOTHING you have said meshes with ANYTHING I have said throughout umpteen posts on this thread.
Oh, lest I forget: Your "baseball bat" analogy. The 12/2/63 FBI report simply says that McNeely "grasped the TOP OF THIS SACK with his RIGHT HAND, much like a right handed batter would PICK UP A BASEBALL BAT when approaching the plate." Perhaps you are not a baseball fan, but right-handed batters do not carry a bat in both hands as they approach the plate. They carry it like I believe Randle was describing - knob end in hand, bat dangling toward ground. Randle specifically said at the WC that the bulky end was toward the ground and that Oswald "gripped" the other end in his right hand "like this," which would indeed have him holding the package precisely the way a batter holds the knob end of a bat as he approaches the plate. (Interestingly, the average length of an MLB bat is 34", and the rules allow bats up to 42".)
Are we done, or do you require further clarification of what I - i.e., Lance - have been saying throughout this entire thread?
(https://img.freepik.com/premium-photo/baseball-player-with-bat-walks-across-field_1108514-168359.jpg)
Are we done, or do you require further clarification of what I - i.e., Lance - have been saying throughout this entire thread?
No. I will clarify it.
It does not matter what you believe or what you assume. This is about what did Linnie see and what did she state.
You stated one thing but then post a picture that represents something completely different. The BB Player and John M’s picture, on page 16, correlate on the length of the bat/rifle--27 inches. Given the BB player is 5 feet 9 inches tall like LHO, then his hands would be approximately 27 inches from the ground. The bat is 27 inches long not 42 inches.
The BB player picture is a depiction of a player with a 27 inch bat. Imagine what it would look like if his left hand was below his right. He would be bent over.
In a comparison of BB player to LHO carrying the bag. The end of the bat should be up above the BB’s player’s elbow. It should be gripped in his right hand hanging straight down and then according to Linnie May was supported by his left hand below his belt. That is what Linnie May was describing. No where does she place LHO’s hand under the bottom of the package. Linnie said “and the bottom, he carried it this way, you know.” Not under it. Almost touching the ground rules out a 27 inch bag gripped in his right hand with left hand carrying it below the right and LHO walking erect.
You are right that same depiction of LHO with a 27 inch package would have him bent over. That is the point. He was not walking in that manner so the bag could not have been 27 inches.
----------------
I believe it's unlikely that Oswald assembled the rifle in the Paine garage.
The rifle was not disassembled laying in the blanket in Paine garage.
-
:D
You know how far Nessan is in the weeds when even Lance falls onto the same side as Michael and me!
Here was your explanation, surprising you even would enter the conversation. You obviously see the ramifications of her testimony. You still haven't explained her statement, just endless rambling.
J Iocalletti: “She could have started to say something like "and the bottom was a few inches off the ground", but interrupted herself to say "he carried it this way", demonstrating a right-handed grip near the top of the package.”
-
That 45 degree angle carry of the bag that was just suggested may be possible, but I’m not sure how easy or difficult it would be over the distance Oswald walked from the car to the TSBD loading dock door.
Perhaps Charles could do an experiment and video record himself carrying a 35” length bag at a 45 degree angle , since he is 5’9” tall supposedly as he stated when he built that SN window to show how a 5’9” man could sit on the box beside the SN window and then lean over and position the rifle on the stacked box platform.
-
Yeah, I pointed that out as well, and he just doubled down. And then tried to equate it instead to a batter using both hands to get ready to hit.
No. Here I thought all you did was post pictures of BB players holding bats. So informative.
-
It does not matter what you believe or what you assume. This is about what did Linnie see and what did she state.
Indeed.
It does not matter what you believe or what you assume. Linnie Mae said nothing about the left hand.
-
Here was your explanation, surprising you even would enter the conversation. You obviously see the ramifications of her testimony. You still haven't explained her statement, just endless rambling.
J Iocalletti: “She could have started to say something like "and the bottom was a few inches off the ground", but interrupted herself to say "he carried it this way", demonstrating a right-handed grip near the top of the package.”
The point being that your hypothetical assumption isn't any more accurate or any more correct than any other. No matter how definitive you keep trying to make it.
At least try to spell my name right. It's there for reference in every post.
-
That 45 degree angle carry of the bag that was just suggested may be possible, but I’m not sure how easy or difficult it would be over the distance Oswald walked from the car to the TSBD loading dock door.
Perhaps Charles could do an experiment and video record himself carrying a 35” length bag at a 45 degree angle , since he is 5’9” tall supposedly as he stated when he built that SN window to show how a 5’9” man could sit on the box beside the SN window and then lean over and position the rifle on the stacked box platform.
Doubtful that anybody could do it with one hand, or that it would appear to be straight up and down and tucked in the armpit.
-
No. Here I thought all you did was post pictures of BB players holding bats. So informative.
Yeah, because Linnie Mae described a batter carrying a baseball bat to home plate and you tried to twist even that into your two-handed fantasy. Where are the batters who do that?