JFK Assassination Forum
JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion & Debate => JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion And Debate => Topic started by: Duncan MacRae on April 09, 2026, 08:19:13 AM
-
The Brown Paper Bag
-
Great clip.
I wonder if LHO on 11.22 only carried the wooden stock of the M-C, having secreted the barrel into the TSBD earlier.
Gotta say, Dan Rather is not convincing in this vignette.
-
Gotta say, Dan Rather is not convincing in this vignette.
Not enough flash-bang?
-
TG--
The proper expression is, "smoke-and-bang."
-
TG--
The proper expression is, "smoke-and-bang."
AKA KGB SMOKE AND MIRRORS
-
Great clip.
I wonder if LHO on 11.22 only carried the wooden stock of the M-C, having secreted the barrel into the TSBD earlier.
Gotta say, Dan Rather is not convincing in this vignette.
That would have required him to make two trips to the Paine house. Since he only found out on Monday at the earliest that JFK was going to be passing by the TSBD, that gave him a small window of time to get his gun and Frazier never indicated he drove Oswald to the Paine's house other than on Thursday.
Oswald's reason for making a special trip to the Paine's house made no sense. His normal routine was to go with Frazier to Irving on Friday and spend the weekend with Marina and the kids, then return to Dallas with Frazier on Monday morning. He would not get to his rooming house until Monday afternoon anyway, so why the urgency to get the curtain rods on Thursday? Why not just follow his normal routine and bring the curtain rods to the TSBD on Monday morning and take them back to the rooming house on Monday afternoon. I have to believe the reason for his special trip to Irving on Thursday night was to retrieve something he needed on Friday. It doesn't take Sherlock Holmes to figure out what that something was.
-
JC-
Verily, on the two trips necessary to move the M-C rifle from the Paine residence to the TSBD, if done in stages.
I concede that.
OTOH, the Dallas Morning News reported on Sept. 25 that JFK would visit Dallas on 11.22. By all accounts LHO was an avid reader of news, and a political student.
LHO is reported to have scoped out rooftop vantage points along Elm St., pre-11.22
In other words, LHO may have been planning or pondering whether to assassinate JFK in the month before 11.22, maybe from the TSBD, or maybe somewhere else, which ever was most propitious. The cavernous TSBD, with plenty of hiding spots, was a good place to cache the M-C, in any event.
So LHO moved the rifle in, but in parts. Maybe the barrel inside a pant leg.
My guess is LHO was part of the JFKA...what part, I can't tell you.
Dan Rather with that bag...I dunno. Great clip though.
-
That would have required him to make two trips to the Paine house. Since he only found out on Monday at the earliest that JFK was going to be passing by the TSBD, that gave him a small window of time to get his gun and Frazier never indicated he drove Oswald to the Paine's house other than on Thursday.
Oswald's reason for making a special trip to the Paine's house made no sense. His normal routine was to go with Frazier to Irving on Friday and spend the weekend with Marina and the kids, then return to Dallas with Frazier on Monday morning. He would not get to his rooming house until Monday afternoon anyway, so why the urgency to get the curtain rods on Thursday? Why not just follow his normal routine and bring the curtain rods to the TSBD on Monday morning and take them back to the rooming house on Monday afternoon. I have to believe the reason for his special trip to Irving on Thursday night was to retrieve something he needed on Friday. It doesn't take Sherlock Holmes to figure out what that something was.
I have to believe the reason for his special trip to Irving on Thursday night was to retrieve something he needed on Friday.
The only reason that you "have to believe" that is because it fits with your preconceived opinion.
It doesn't take Sherlock Holmes to figure out what that something was.
True. All it really takes is a massive amount of assumption and speculation.
-
JC-
Verily, on the two trips necessary to move the M-C rifle from the Paine residence to the TSBD, if done in stages.
I concede that.
OTOH, the Dallas Morning News reported on Sept. 25 that JFK would visit Dallas on 11.22. By all accounts LHO was an avid reader of news, and a political student.
LHO is reported to have scoped out rooftop vantage points along Elm St., pre-11.22
In other words, LHO may have been planning or pondering whether to assassinate JFK in the month before 11.22, maybe from the TSBD, or maybe somewhere else, which ever was most propitious. The cavernous TSBD, with plenty of hiding spots, was a good place to cache the M-C, in any event.
So LHO moved the rifle in, but in parts. Maybe the barrel inside a pant leg.
My guess is LHO was part of the JFKA...what part, I can't tell you.
Dan Rather with that bag...I dunno. Great clip though.
I can tell you what part played in the JFKA. He did it all by himself. It was a one man operation and there is no evidence anybody else took part.
Oswald wasn't hired by the TSBD until October 15. No motorcade was planned until the White House agreed to make the Texas trip a two day affair. There wouldn't have been time for one if the Kennedys were only going to spend one day in the state. The motorcade route wasn't determined until the luncheon site was selected. The motorcade route was determined by the selection of the Trade Mart for the luncheon and that didn't happen until November 14. The route wasn't made public until November 18. Oswald could not have known before then of the opportunity fate had dealt him. On top of that, why would Oswald have bothered bringing the barrel in on a separate trip and risk having it discovered. The barrel was the shorter of the two pieces and would easily fit in the bag.
Nothing you have suggested makes the least bit of sense.
-
I have to believe the reason for his special trip to Irving on Thursday night was to retrieve something he needed on Friday.
The only reason that you "have to believe" that is because it fits with your preconceived opinion.
It doesn't take Sherlock Holmes to figure out what that something was.
True. All it really takes is a massive amount of assumption and speculation.
All it takes is a look at the forensic evidence and apply common sense. The bag had Oswald's palm and fingerprint on it. It contained fibers that matched the blanket Oswald used to store his rifle in the Paine's garage.
I'd love to hear a plausible alternative explanation for the known evidence from you but I know I won't because there isn't one.
-
All it takes is a look at the forensic evidence and apply common sense. The bag had Oswald's palm and fingerprint on it. It contained fibers that matched the blanket Oswald used to store his rifle in the Paine's garage.
I'd love to hear a plausible alternative explanation for the known evidence from you but I know I won't because there isn't one.
All it takes is a look at the forensic evidence and apply common sense.
What "forensic evidence" are you talking about?
Can you prove that there was a rifle in Ruth Paine's garage on 11/22/63 and that Oswald took it? No, you can't!
Common sense is just another way of saying "I don't have evidence, but my speculation is good enough".
The bag had Oswald's palm and fingerprint on it.
Did it? And if so, Oswald's prints are also all over Frazier's car. Does than mean he owns that car? I'm sure you can make a "common sense" argument to "prove" it does!
It contained fibers that matched the blanket Oswald used to store his rifle in the Paine's garage.
There is no such thing as matching fibers in forensic science. "Look similar" is the best you will get and that's simply not good enough.
I'd love to hear a plausible alternative explanation for the known evidence from you but I know I won't because there isn't one.
And there is the classic LN's "I'm right unless you can prove me wrong" BS.
Why in the world should anybody have to present a "plausible alternative explanation" when you can't place a rifle in Ruth Paine's garage on 11/22/63, when you can't show that it was the same rifle that was found at the TSBD and when you can only speculate about what was in the paper bag Frazier saw Oswald carry. A paper bag btw that Frazier too this day still says wasn't big enough to contain a broken down rifle.
Just like every other LN you are all over the place and confuse assumption and speculation with actual conclusive evidence!
-
All it takes is a look at the forensic evidence and apply common sense.
What "forensic evidence" are you talking about?
Can you prove that there was a rifle in Ruth Paine's garage on 11/22/63 and that Oswald took it? No, you can't!
Common sense is just another way of saying "I don't have evidence, but my speculation is good enough".
The bag had Oswald's palm and fingerprint on it.
Did it? And if so, Oswald's prints are also all over Frazier's car. Does than mean he owns that car? I'm sure you can make a "common sense" argument to "prove" it does!
It contained fibers that matched the blanket Oswald used to store his rifle in the Paine's garage.
There is no such thing as matching fibers in forensic science. "Look similar" is the best you will get and that's simply not good enough.
I'd love to hear a plausible alternative explanation for the known evidence from you but I know I won't because there isn't one.
And there is the classic LN's "I'm right unless you can prove me wrong" BS.
Why in the world should anybody have to present a "plausible alternative explanation" when you can't place a rifle in Ruth Paine's garage on 11/22/63, when you can't show that it was the same rifle that was found at the TSBD and when you can only speculate about what was in the paper bag Frazier saw Oswald carry. A paper bag btw that Frazier too this day still says wasn't big enough to contain a broken down rifle.
Just like every other LN you are all over the place and confuse assumption and speculation with actual conclusive evidence!
Dear Martin,
How can you be so right about Donald Trump, and so wrong about the JFKA?
-- Tom
-
All it takes is a look at the forensic evidence and apply common sense.
What "forensic evidence" are you talking about?
Can you prove that there was a rifle in Ruth Paine's garage on 11/22/63 and that Oswald took it? No, you can't!
Common sense is just another way of saying "I don't have evidence, but my speculation is good enough".
The bag had Oswald's palm and fingerprint on it.
Did it? And if so, Oswald's prints are also all over Frazier's car. Does than mean he owns that car? I'm sure you can make a "common sense" argument to "prove" it does!
It contained fibers that matched the blanket Oswald used to store his rifle in the Paine's garage.
There is no such thing as matching fibers in forensic science. "Look similar" is the best you will get and that's simply not good enough.
I'd love to hear a plausible alternative explanation for the known evidence from you but I know I won't because there isn't one.
And there is the classic LN's "I'm right unless you can prove me wrong" BS.
Why in the world should anybody have to present a "plausible alternative explanation" when you can't place a rifle in Ruth Paine's garage on 11/22/63, when you can't show that it was the same rifle that was found at the TSBD and when you can only speculate about what was in the paper bag Frazier saw Oswald carry. A paper bag btw that Frazier too this day still says wasn't big enough to contain a broken down rifle.
Just like every other LN you are all over the place and confuse assumption and speculation with actual conclusive evidence!
This is a classic example of conspiracy hobbyists making excuses to dismiss the damning evidence of Oswald's guilt. They can't explain the evidence to make the case for Oswald's innocence so they try to explain it away. One of their favorite ploys is to attack each piece of evidence individually rather than look at the body of evidence as a whole. When you do the latter, there can be no other plausible explanation than Oswald brought the rifle to work and used it to kill JFK.
You ask why anybody would have to present an "alternative plausible explanation". Well, if you want to make the case for conspiracy, that would be nice. I'm not even asking you to prove how it happened. Just tell us another way it could have happened. There simply is no plausible alternative. if there was, some conspiracy hobbyist would have found one after 62 years. But of course, there is no plausible alternative to the conclusion that Oswald was the assassin.
I've served on four juries, two criminal and two civil. In each case, the judge instructed the jury to make logical inferences from the evidence presented.
This is how that process would apply to the JFKA.
Given that:
3 shells were found at the location where a shooter was seen and
a fragmented bullet was found in the limo and an intact bullet was found at the hospital where the shooting victims were taken and
all the shells and bullets were positively matched to a rifle found on the 6th floor of the TSBD and
the rifle had Oswald's palm print on it and
there were fibers on the butt plate of the rifle that matched the shirt Oswald was wearing that day and
and a bag was found near the shooter's location with Oswald's prints on it and fibers matching the blanket in Ruth Paine's garage and
Marina said Oswald kept his rifle wrapped in the blanket in Ruth Paine's garage and
there is a paper trail establishing that Oswald bought the rifle by mail from Klein's Sporting Goods Co. and
there were pictures taken of Oswald with the rifle and
Oswald's fingerprints were found on the boxes stacked at the shooters window oriented as they would be if he was facing down Elm Street
the ONLY logical inference that can be made is that Oswald brought the rifle to work and assassinated JFK with it. And we haven't even talked about the evidence that he killed Tippit.
No one piece of evidence by itself proves Oswald's guilt but collectively, the body of evidence leaves no doubt. The case against Oswald is greater than the some of its parts. It is absurd to think you could have all that evidence pointing to Oswald's guilt if he were actually innocent. That is how logical inferences are arrived at. An alternative explanation might be plausible for any one piece of evidence, but when you have to stretch for alternatives for each and every piece of evidence, reasonable doubt vanishes.
Since you brought up Frazier's description of the bag, Frazier never measured the bag. Tbe bag was measured by investigators and found to be long enough to hold a disassembled Carcano. Frazier could only estimate the size of the bag by glancing at it over his shoulder. At the time he saw the bag, he would have no reason to think the size of the bag would become important. The estimate he gave was based on memory. He was not asked to estimate the size of bag when he was observing it. But just for grins, let's say that the bag found in the TSBD was not the same bag Frazier saw. We can make two logical inferences from that. One is that the bag Frazier saw Oswald bring into the TSBD disappeared without a trace, despite a thorough search of the TSBD. The other is that at some other time, Oswald brought a different bag into the TSBD and that bag was long enough to hold a disassemble Carcano rifle.
If juries routinely applied the same thought process to the evidence in other criminal cases that conspiracy hobbyists apply to the evidence against Oswald in the JFKA, few if any people would ever be convicted. If they dreamed up the kind of silly excuses that conspiracy hobbyists do to disregard the evidence of Oswald's guilt, every criminal defendant would walk. There is no reasonable doubt of Oswald's guilt in either the murder of JFK or the murder of JDT. To anyone who is famliar with the evidence against Oswald and is capable of thinking logically there is no doubt at all.
-
JC-
I dunno.
There are so many witnesses to the smoke-and-bang show at the GK, and the 100% telltale smell of gunsmoke in that area in the immediate aftermath of the JFKA, that I have to suspect there was at least a diversion from the GK.
So, at a minimum, that is a party of two in the JFKA.
The entry wound to the volar side of JBC's wrist is inexplicable. Try putting a watch on your right wrist the normal way, and then touching the watch dial to your navel. Dr. Robert Shaw, JBC's surgeon, a someone with a great deal of experience (he treated 700 wartime bullet wound victims) thought it inexplicable JBC's wrist wound resulted from the same bullet that entered JBC's back and existed his front.
As stated, I am of the view JBC was struck ~Z-295 and JFK at Z-313, and that suggests two shooters behind the limo.
I don't think the JFKA required much planning or expertise---that is usually the CT mania, meaning that CIA did it, or Mossad. Maybe LHO's confederates, like LHO, had military training.
LHO got lucky with the final motorcade route. Otherwise, he and a confederate might have taken up positions elsewhere along the motorcade route. Or maybe even dropped the idea.
IMHO, the problem with CT'ers is they insist LHO was totally uninvolved in the JFKA.
The LN'ers insist no one else was involved at all in the JFKA, except LHO.
I think LHO was involved in the JFKA C.
Just IMHO.
-
JC-
I dunno.
There are so many witnesses to the smoke-and-bang show at the GK, and the 100% telltale smell of gunsmoke in that area in the immediate aftermath of the JFKA, that I have to suspect there was at least a diversion from the GK.
So, at a minimum, that is a party of two in the JFKA.
The entry wound to the volar side of JBC's wrist is inexplicable. Try putting a watch on your right wrist the normal way, and then touching the watch dial to your navel. Dr. Robert Shaw, JBC's surgeon, a someone with a great deal of experience (he treated 700 wartime bullet wound victims) thought it inexplicable JBC's wrist wound resulted from the same bullet that entered JBC's back and existed his front.
As stated, I am of the view JBC was struck ~Z-295 and JFK at Z-313, and that suggests two shooters behind the limo.
I don't think the JFKA required much planning or expertise---that is usually the CT mania, meaning that CIA did it, or Mossad. Maybe LHO's confederates, like LHO, had military training.
LHO got lucky with the final motorcade route. Otherwise, he and a confederate might have taken up positions elsewhere along the motorcade route. Or maybe even dropped the idea.
IMHO, the problem with CT'ers is they insist LHO was totally uninvolved in the JFKA.
The LN'ers insist no one else was involved at all in the JFKA, except LHO.
I think LHO was involved in the JFKA C.
Just IMHO.
There is no forensic evidence of a shooter from any location other than the sniper's nest in the TSBD. The smell of gunpowder gives us no clue as to where that smell originated. Some people thought the shots sounded like they came from the GK and others thoughtit sounded like it came from the direction of the TSBD. The TSBD earwitnesses are supported by a wealth of forensic evidence found in the TSBD as well as an eyewitness to saw the shooter fire the final shot. There is no corroboration to support the GK earwitnesses. I know which group I'm putting my money on.
Of course LHO was "involved". He was the one who did it. He needed no help and there is no credible evidence he had any.
IMHO your IMHO is FUBAR.
-
JC-
I dunno.
There are so many witnesses to the smoke-and-bang show at the GK, and the 100% telltale smell of gunsmoke in that area in the immediate aftermath of the JFKA, that I have to suspect there was at least a diversion from the GK.
So, at a minimum, that is a party of two in the JFKA.
The entry wound to the volar side of JBC's wrist is inexplicable. Try putting a watch on your right wrist the normal way, and then touching the watch dial to your navel. Dr. Robert Shaw, JBC's surgeon, a someone with a great deal of experience (he treated 700 wartime bullet wound victims) thought it inexplicable JBC's wrist wound resulted from the same bullet that entered JBC's back and existed his front.
As stated, I am of the view JBC was struck ~Z-295 and JFK at Z-313, and that suggests two shooters behind the limo.
I don't think the JFKA required much planning or expertise---that is usually the CT mania, meaning that CIA did it, or Mossad. Maybe LHO's confederates, like LHO, had military training.
LHO got lucky with the final motorcade route. Otherwise, he and a confederate might have taken up positions elsewhere along the motorcade route. Or maybe even dropped the idea.
IMHO, the problem with CT'ers is they insist LHO was totally uninvolved in the JFKA.
The LN'ers insist no one else was involved at all in the JFKA, except LHO.
I think LHO was involved in the JFKA C.
Just IMHO.
The scenario that you are subscribing too, means that there was shooters behind and in front and since the "conspirators" wanted to have a lone gunman behind, why on Earth would they place any shooter in the front, I'd understand a dozen shooters in the buildings behind but a single shooter in front and the plan is ruined.
But let's look at the evidence of the earwitnesses, the majority of these witnesses heard only 3 shots and the vast majority heard shots from only one direction, now in the echo chamber of Dealey Plaza some witnesses were confused to the actual direction but if they were caught in an actual cross fire this would be immediately apparent. And since we all know that both Kennedy and Connally were struck in the back then we can confirm that ALL the shots came from behind.
The majority of Earwitnesses heard three shots.
(https://i.postimg.cc/CK4LfVBZ/Pie-Chart-(With-Caption)-Number-Of-Shots.jpg)
Only a tiny fraction heard shots from more than one direction, which effectively rules out the illogical frontal assassin.
(https://i.postimg.cc/1zK5NZnn/Pie-Chart-(With-Caption)-Location-Of-Shots.jpg)
JohnM
-
JC--
Re the gunsmoke smell in DP in the immediate aftermath of the JFKA:
We know, from coats and dresses, that the wind was blowing towards the TSBD at the time of the JFKA.
Ergo, the TSBD6 sniper's gunsmoke was not down by the GK.
IMHO, the nose-witnesses smelled gunsmoke down by the GK as there was in fact gunsmoke down by the GK area.
-
JM-
Thanks for your collegial comments.
But, in fact, I do not subscribe to the theory that someone wanted to make LHO the patsy, and thus ergo would not place a gunsel on the GK area.
If I had to guess, the JFKA C was a make-do or ad hoc operation, but with people with military experience, such as LHO. They knew enough to have more than one gunsel, and perhaps to arrange a diversion, down by the GK. They could handle firearms.
BTW, a S&W snub-nose .38, the default concealed handgun of the time, released a great deal of noise and smoke, due to the short barrel. (And yes, even today cheaper grades of ammo give off a lot of smoke, as anyone who goes to a gun-range knows).
Re the gunsmoke smell in DP in the immediate aftermath of the JFKA:
We know, from coats and dresses, that the wind was blowing towards the TSBD at the time of the JFKA.
Ergo, the TSBD6 sniper's gunsmoke was not down by the GK.
IMHO, the nose-witnesses smelled gunsmoke down by the GK, as there was in fact gunsmoke down by the GK area in the immediate aftermath of the JFKA.
LHO may have been left "holding the bag" as he was the only one caught. So LHO concocted the "patsy" explanation.
Sure, some CT'ers have devised elaborate (and more than elaborate) explanations of a sophisticated JFKA.
Not me. I think the JFK CT was three guys, including LHO. They got lucky in some regards. Possibly G2'ers, or Alpha 66'ers who told LHO they were G2'ers. Both G2'ers and Alpha 66'ers had loads of reasons for the JFKA. Some G2'ers were double agents, embedded inside of Alpha-66 which had a regional HQ on Harlandale in Dallas.
Side note: You notice that CT'ers almost invariably and rigidly insist LHO was in no way at all involved in the JFKA...but LN'ers insist LHO, absolutely and well beyond all reasonable doubt, must have acted alone?
Well, just my IMHO.
Add on: Dr. Robert Shaw's expert commentary regarding JBC's wrist wound are worth contemplating.
-
JM-
Thanks for your collegial comments.
But, in fact, I do not subscribe to the theory that someone wanted to make LHO the patsy, and thus ergo would not place a gunsel on the GK area.
If I had to guess, the JFKA C was a make-do or ad hoc operation, but with people with military experience, such as LHO. They knew enough to have more than one gunsel, and perhaps to arrange a diversion, down by the GK. They could handle firearms.
BTW, a S&W snub-nose .38, the default concealed handgun of the time, released a great deal of noise and smoke, due to the short barrel. (And yes, even today cheaper grades of ammo give off a lot of smoke, as anyone who goes to a gun-range knows).
Re the gunsmoke smell in DP in the immediate aftermath of the JFKA:
We know, from coats and dresses, that the wind was blowing towards the TSBD at the time of the JFKA.
Ergo, the TSBD6 sniper's gunsmoke was not down by the GK.
IMHO, the nose-witnesses smelled gunsmoke down by the GK, as there was in fact gunsmoke down by the GK area in the immediate aftermath of the JFKA.
LHO may have been left "holding the bag" as he was the only one caught. So LHO concocted the "patsy" explanation.
Sure, some CT'ers have devised elaborate (and more than elaborate) explanations of a sophisticated JFKA.
Not me. I think the JFK CT was three guys, including LHO. They got lucky in some regards. Possibly G2'ers, or Alpha 66'ers who told LHO they were G2'ers. Both G2'ers and Alpha 66'ers had loads of reasons for the JFKA. Some G2'ers were double agents, embedded inside of Alpha-66 which had a regional HQ on Harlandale in Dallas.
Side note: You notice that CT'ers almost invariably and rigidly insist LHO was in no way at all involved in the JFKA...but LN'ers insist LHO, absolutely and well beyond all reasonable doubt, must have acted alone?
Well, just my IMHO.
Add on: Dr. Robert Shaw's expert commentary regarding JBC's wrist wound are worth contemplating.
BTW, a S&W snub-nose .38, the default concealed handgun of the time, released a great deal of noise and smoke, due to the short barrel.
Less than 1 in 20 earwitnesses claimed sounds emanating from more than 1 direction, being in a situation where loud sounds were coming from multiple directions would be extremely obvious and especially from either end of Dealey Plaza.
(https://i.postimg.cc/1zK5NZnn/Pie-Chart-(With-Caption)-Location-Of-Shots.jpg)
And considering the amount of people in Dealey Plaza and the strong wind blowing up Elm, wouldn't there be a lot more people who would have smelt gunsmoke?
JohnM
-
JM-
I don't have the figures, but there were lots of people reporting gunsmoke smell down by GK.
Pat Speer has done some good work in this area.
Well, I have shot my wad on this topic for now.
Just IMHO....caveat emptor, and draw your own conclusions.
-
Dear Martin,
How can you be so right about Donald Trump, and so wrong about the JFKA?
-- Tom
What exactly am I being wrong about?
Not confusing speculation and assumptions for evidence?
You need actual conclusive evidence to find somebody guilty, right?
So why is it enough for the LN's to make stuff up for which there is no evidence?
Why isn't it a problem to first assume a person to be guilty and then work backwards to try and find the evidence (no matter how weak it is) to support the conclusion?
-
What exactly am I being wrong about?
Not confusing speculation and assumptions for evidence?
You need actual conclusive evidence to find somebody guilty, right?
So why is it enough for the LN's to make stuff up for which there is no evidence?
Why isn't it a problem to first assume a person to be guilty and then work backwards to try and find the evidence (no matter how weak it is) to support the conclusion?
Dear Martin,
How many bad guys do you figure were involved, altogether, in the planning, the "patsy-ing," the planting of evidence, the shooting, the getting-away, the alteration of all of the photos, films, and X-rays, and the all-important (and evidently continuing!!!) cover up?
Ooodles and gobs, or just a few?
-- Tom
-
This is a classic example of conspiracy hobbyists making excuses to dismiss the damning evidence of Oswald's guilt. They can't explain the evidence to make the case for Oswald's innocence so they try to explain it away. One of their favorite ploys is to attack each piece of evidence individually rather than look at the body of evidence as a whole. When you do the latter, there can be no other plausible explanation than Oswald brought the rifle to work and used it to kill JFK.
You ask why anybody would have to present an "alternative plausible explanation". Well, if you want to make the case for conspiracy, that would be nice. I'm not even asking you to prove how it happened. Just tell us another way it could have happened. There simply is no plausible alternative. if there was, some conspiracy hobbyist would have found one after 62 years. But of course, there is no plausible alternative to the conclusion that Oswald was the assassin.
I've served on four juries, two criminal and two civil. In each case, the judge instructed the jury to make logical inferences from the evidence presented.
This is how that process would apply to the JFKA.
Given that:
3 shells were found at the location where a shooter was seen and
a fragmented bullet was found in the limo and an intact bullet was found at the hospital where the shooting victims were taken and
all the shells and bullets were positively matched to a rifle found on the 6th floor of the TSBD and
the rifle had Oswald's palm print on it and
there were fibers on the butt plate of the rifle that matched the shirt Oswald was wearing that day and
and a bag was found near the shooter's location with Oswald's prints on it and fibers matching the blanket in Ruth Paine's garage and
Marina said Oswald kept his rifle wrapped in the blanket in Ruth Paine's garage and
there is a paper trail establishing that Oswald bought the rifle by mail from Klein's Sporting Goods Co. and
there were pictures taken of Oswald with the rifle and
Oswald's fingerprints were found on the boxes stacked at the shooters window oriented as they would be if he was facing down Elm Street
the ONLY logical inference that can be made is that Oswald brought the rifle to work and assassinated JFK with it. And we haven't even talked about the evidence that he killed Tippit.
No one piece of evidence by itself proves Oswald's guilt but collectively, the body of evidence leaves no doubt. The case against Oswald is greater than the some of its parts. It is absurd to think you could have all that evidence pointing to Oswald's guilt if he were actually innocent. That is how logical inferences are arrived at. An alternative explanation might be plausible for any one piece of evidence, but when you have to stretch for alternatives for each and every piece of evidence, reasonable doubt vanishes.
Since you brought up Frazier's description of the bag, Frazier never measured the bag. Tbe bag was measured by investigators and found to be long enough to hold a disassembled Carcano. Frazier could only estimate the size of the bag by glancing at it over his shoulder. At the time he saw the bag, he would have no reason to think the size of the bag would become important. The estimate he gave was based on memory. He was not asked to estimate the size of bag when he was observing it. But just for grins, let's say that the bag found in the TSBD was not the same bag Frazier saw. We can make two logical inferences from that. One is that the bag Frazier saw Oswald bring into the TSBD disappeared without a trace, despite a thorough search of the TSBD. The other is that at some other time, Oswald brought a different bag into the TSBD and that bag was long enough to hold a disassemble Carcano rifle.
If juries routinely applied the same thought process to the evidence in other criminal cases that conspiracy hobbyists apply to the evidence against Oswald in the JFKA, few if any people would ever be convicted. If they dreamed up the kind of silly excuses that conspiracy hobbyists do to disregard the evidence of Oswald's guilt, every criminal defendant would walk. There is no reasonable doubt of Oswald's guilt in either the murder of JFK or the murder of JDT. To anyone who is famliar with the evidence against Oswald and is capable of thinking logically there is no doubt at all.
This is a classic example of conspiracy hobbyists making excuses to dismiss the damning evidence of Oswald's guilt.
First of all; I'm not a "conspiracy hobbyist" (whatever that means) as I couldn't care less if Oswald did it or not. My position is a simple one; show me the evidence that proves that Oswald did it. Don't tell me fanciful stories based on conjecture and questionable evidence, but show that so-called "damning evidence". I don't dismiss the evidence that's there. Never have and never will. It is what it is, but don't try to convince me that Oswald's print being on a bag is conclusive evidence of his guilt. Even less so, when the bag itself can't be authenticated!
The bag was made out of TSBD material. There is nobody who saw Oswald make that bag or even be close to the packaging area on Thursday afternoon. Frazier did not see Oswald carry a paper bag with him to Irving, or he would have said so. What Frazier did say and still says to this day is that the bag he saw wasn't big enough to conceal a broken down rifle. Now, if you want to complain about dismissing evidence, why don't you start by not dismissing what Frazier said by simply saying that he was mistaken! He showed two FBI agents to where on the backseat of his car the bag reached and they measured it. Off hand I can't remember the size (I'm getting too old for this crap!) but I do recall it matched the size the bag would have had to have been for Oswald to carry it in the way he saw him carry it.
They can't explain the evidence to make the case for Oswald's innocence so they try to explain it away
Nobody needs to make the case for Oswald's innocence. Guys like you need to prove his guilt and you can't. That's why you complain about nonsense like this. If the case against Oswald was strong and conclusive enough than it wouldn't matter if some people think Oswald is innocent! So, tell me, what evidence exactly can't be explained?
One of their favorite ploys is to attack each piece of evidence individually rather than look at the body of evidence as a whole.
What body of evidence would that be? All you have by way of physical evidence regarding the entire trip to Irving is a paper bag and even that's questionable. Everything else is assumption and idiotic BS like a police officer still seeing the shape of a rifle in a blanket after the weapon was removed. Don't make me laugh!
When you do the latter, there can be no other plausible explanation than Oswald brought the rifle to work and used it to kill JFK.
And there it is! Translation; I first believe Oswald is guilty, never mind how weak and questionable the evidence is, and than I conclude that he must have brought a rifle to work (for which you also haven't got a shred of evidence) and used it to kill JFK. Never mind that nobody has ever been able to place Oswald at the sniper's nest when the shots were fired. It is all hot air and you have fallen for it!
You ask why anybody would have to present an "alternative plausible explanation". Well, if you want to make the case for conspiracy, that would be nice.
And what if I only want to see the conclusive evidence of his guilt, without making a case for conspiracy. What then?
There simply is no plausible alternative.
Isn't there? Pray tell, how did you ever reach that conclusion? Did you see and examine all the evidence that was gathered and looked at all the stuff the investigators ignored, misrepresented, dismissed and/or suppressed? I seriously doubt it. Just like you now believe everything the nut currently in the White House tells you, you've just taken the WC's word for it. It's the appeal to authority fallacy, pure and simple!
I've served on four juries, two criminal and two civil. In each case, the judge instructed the jury to make logical inferences from the evidence presented.
This is how that process would apply to the JFKA.
Given that:
3 shells were found at the location where a shooter was seen and
a fragmented bullet was found in the limo and an intact bullet was found at the hospital where the shooting victims were taken and
all the shells and bullets were positively matched to a rifle found on the 6th floor of the TSBD and
the rifle had Oswald's palm print on it and
there were fibers on the butt plate of the rifle that matched the shirt Oswald was wearing that day and
and a bag was found near the shooter's location with Oswald's prints on it and fibers matching the blanket in Ruth Paine's garage and
Marina said Oswald kept his rifle wrapped in the blanket in Ruth Paine's garage and
there is a paper trail establishing that Oswald bought the rifle by mail from Klein's Sporting Goods Co. and
there were pictures taken of Oswald with the rifle and
Oswald's fingerprints were found on the boxes stacked at the shooters window oriented as they would be if he was facing down Elm Street
the ONLY logical inference that can be made is that Oswald brought the rifle to work and assassinated JFK with it. And we haven't even talked about the evidence that he killed Tippit.
I'm not going to bother to go into every detail of this, because there would be no point. What you have given me is the prosecution's side of the argument and it contains many false, unproven and questionable claims. For instance; there is no evidence whatsoever which shirt Oswald was wearing at the TSBD on Friday morning. Yet here you are claiming it as fact!
So, if you had to make logical inferences from the evidence presented, wouldn't you not also have to take into account the arguments of the defence? But let's say, for argument's sake, that the rifle found at the TSBD is indeed the same one shown in the BY photos and the LN claim that Oswald owned that rifle since the purchase from Klein's is true. Doesn't that mean that any fibers found on the rifle allegedly matching Oswald's shirt could have gotten on that rifle at any time? Of course it does! So, what makes you so sure that the transfer of fibers took place at the TSBD on Friday morning?
Since you brought up Frazier's description of the bag, Frazier never measured the bag. Tbe bag was measured by investigators and found to be long enough to hold a disassembled Carcano. Frazier could only estimate the size of the bag by glancing at it over his shoulder. At the time he saw the bag, he would have no reason to think the size of the bag would become important. The estimate he gave was based on memory. He was not asked to estimate the size of bag when he was observing it. But just for grins, let's say that the bag found in the TSBD was not the same bag Frazier saw. We can make two logical inferences from that. One is that the bag Frazier saw Oswald bring into the TSBD disappeared without a trace, despite a thorough search of the TSBD. The other is that at some other time, Oswald brought a different bag into the TSBD and that bag was long enough to hold a disassemble Carcano rifle.
And there is the classic LN "he never measured the bag" BS. Frazier, said that Oswald was wearing the package in the cup of his hand and below the shoulder. That gives you the dimensions of the package, regardless if the actual bag was bigger or not. You do know and understand that a paper bag can be folded, right? But far more important, on the evening after the assassination, Frazier was being question by DPD officers and given a polygraph (which he passed). He was shown the actual paper bag allegedly found in the sniper's nest (no in situ photo, remember!) and he instantly denied it was the bag he had seen Oswald carry. No matter what they threatened with, he stuck to his story even when he was still considered to be a suspect himself. It drove Captain Fritz to the point where he wanted to hit Frazier and Lt Day started to speculate (and there is documentation for this) that Oswald might have hidden this bag (the one allegedly from the 6th floor) in an old supermarkt bag. Just how desperate could they get. Ultimately, they just buried this story but the paperwork that still remains confirms it actually happened. And that should tell you all you need to know about how desperate they were to keep that paper bag in play!
But just for grins, let's say that the bag found in the TSBD was not the same bag Frazier saw. We can make two logical inferences from that. One is that the bag Frazier saw Oswald bring into the TSBD disappeared without a trace, despite a thorough search of the TSBD. The other is that at some other time, Oswald brought a different bag into the TSBD and that bag was long enough to hold a disassemble Carcano rifle.
Whatever works for you, I guess. You do understand that by coming up with this speculation you have just shown that even you don't know any detail involving the paper bag for sure. All you are desperately coming up with is two arguments to support your preconceived assumption that Oswald was guilty. And they are in fact crappy arguments. First of all, there is no evidence at all that there ever was a thorough search of the entire TSBD. In fact, if such a search did happen, why didn't they instantly find the clipboard and Oswald's jacket in the Domino room? Secondly, Oswald arrived at the TSBD at 8 AM carrying a paper bag. Kennedy was shot around 12.30 PM, which leaves an entire morning to dispose of a paper bag, which would have been easy, as the bag you claim Oswald used was in fact made from TSBD materials. So, all Oswald would have needed to do to make the bag disappear is to tear it up and dump it in a rubbish bin at the packaging department. Nobody would have been the wiser, but guys like you believe it was perfectly normal for him to fold up the bag (without leaving fresh prints) and leaving it behind at the scene of the crime.
Are you capable of rational thought? And if so, just how much thought have you actually put into looking at this kind of stuff?
If they dreamed up the kind of silly excuses that conspiracy hobbyists do to disregard the evidence of Oswald's guilt, every criminal defendant would walk. There is no reasonable doubt of Oswald's guilt in either the murder of JFK or the murder of JDT. To anyone who is familiar [sic] with the evidence against Oswald and is capable of thinking logically there is no doubt at all.
Of course there is reasonable doubt. Not only about some of the evidence that we know of but also because of what should have been there but isn't. All this pathetic whining about far more reasonable people than you not instantly accepting your silly claim about there being no doubt is alike to a toddler whining about people not liking his favorite toy.
The bottom line is a simple one. If there really was no reasonable doubt a forum like this would not exist and people would not be discussing this case more than 60 years after the fact!
-
Dear Martin,
How many bad guys do you figure were involved, altogether, in the planning, the "patsy-ing," the planting of evidence, the shooting, the getting-away, the alteration of all of the photos, films, and X-rays, and the all-important (and evidently continuing!!!) cover up?
Ooodles and gobs, or just a few?
-- Tom
Don't mistake me for a conspiracy theorist.
All I ever asked for and all I ever wanted to see is the conclusive evidence showing Oswald's guilt.
It is obvious that if Oswald was set up or innocent, that there must have been a conspiracy. That's a logical conclusion, but not one I am interested in.
If there ever was a conspiracy, there is no way in hell anybody can prove that conclusively after so many years.
So, let's just stick to providing the conclusive evidence of Oswald's guilt, shall we? You provide it and if it is indeed conclusive, that's all I ever wanted to know. Do we have a deal?
-
Duplicate
-
Don't mistake me for a conspiracy theorist.
All I ever asked for and all I ever wanted to see is the conclusive evidence showing Oswald's guilt.
It is obvious that if Oswald was set up or innocent, that there must have been a conspiracy. That's a logical conclusion, but not one I am interested in.
If there ever was a conspiracy, there is no way in hell anybody can prove that conclusively after so many years.
So, let's just stick to providing the conclusive evidence of Oswald's guilt, shall we? You provide it and if it is indeed conclusive, that's all I ever wanted to know. Do we have a deal?
In other words, you've fabricated a very comfy position for your "it must have been a conspiracy" self.
Well done!
-
In other words, you've fabricated a very comfy position for your "it must have been a conspiracy" self.
Well done!
Where did I say that it must have been a conspiracy? Do you have a problem understanding what is written?
Why don't you just stop making stuff up and provide the conclusive evidence to show that Oswald was guilty?
-
Where did I say that it must have been a conspiracy? Do you have a problem understanding what is written?
Why don't you just stop making stuff up and provide the conclusive evidence to show that Oswald was guilty?
It seems to me you're saying, "In spite of all of the evidence against Oswald in the Warren Commission Report (which would have taken oodles and gobs of bad guys to fabricate), I'm pretty sure Oswald didn't do it, and I will continue to believe that until you come up with a photo or film showing him in the window and a notarized confession."
-
It seems to me you're saying, "In spite of all of the evidence against Oswald in the Warren Commission Report (which would have taken oodles and gobs of bad guys to fabricate), I'm pretty sure Oswald didn't do it, and I will continue to believe that until you come up with a photo or film showing him in the window and a notarized confession."
And you got all this BS from the simple fact that all I am asking for is to be presented with conclusive evidence of his guilt?
Oh boy.... no wonder you are a LN
Just a quick question. When you say;
all of the evidence against Oswald in the Warren Commission Report
Are you talking about the evidence that doesn't support the conclusions and claims in the report?
Or am I missing something?
I'm pretty sure Oswald didn't do it, and I will continue to believe that
Again, where did I say that I'm pretty sure Oswald didn't do it? That would imply a preconceived conclusion based on feeling instead of applying the concept of being "innocent until proven guilty"
until you come up with a photo or film showing him in the window and a notarized confession."
Stop being dramatical! Can you place Oswald in the sniper's nest when the shots were fired or not?
-
Duplicate
-
And you got all this BS from the simple fact that all I am asking for is to be presented with conclusive evidence of his guilt?
Oh boy.... no wonder you are a LN
Just a quick question. When you say;
all of the evidence against Oswald in the Warren Commission Report
Are you talking about the evidence that doesn't support the conclusions and claims in the report?
Or am I missing something?
I'm pretty sure Oswald didn't do it, and I will continue to believe that
Again, where did I say that I'm pretty sure Oswald didn't do it? That would imply a preconceived conclusion based on feeling instead of applying the concept of being "innocent until proven guilty"
until you come up with a photo or film showing him in the window and a notarized confession."
Stop being dramatical! Can you place Oswald in the sniper's nest when the shots were fired or not?
There you go again!
-
There you go again!
With what?
Asking for conclusive evidence? Does that upset you? Oh poor boy....
-
Don't mistake me for a conspiracy theorist.
Hahahahaha!
Of course you're a conspiracy theorist, your theory is that Oswald didn't do it because multiple people from a variety of law agencies and private businesses lied to incriminate Oswald, the very definition of a conspiracy!
Just off the top of my head.
You believe that the revolver that killed Tippit was swapped because Police lied.
You believe that the shells at the Tippit crime scene were planted.
You believe that the Tippit eyewitnesses who ID'd Oswald all lied.
You believe that Oswald's jacket was planted under a car.
You believe that Lt. Day lied about the Palm print.
You believe that Kleins lied about the rifle paperwork.
You believe that the FBI lied about seeing Waldman7 on the Kleins microfilm
You believe that the people at the Oswald interrogations lied.
You believe that the rifle wasn't taken to the TSBD by Oswald therefore it was planted.
You believe that the bullet fragments in the Limo were planted.
You believe that CE399 was planted.
You believe that multiple police lied about seeing the bag in the sniper's nest.
You believe that the bag wasn't made by Oswald therefore someone else made it.
You believe that the revolver at the Texas Theatre wasn't Oswald's revolver because the Police lied.
You believe that Marina just saw a piece of wood wrapped in the blanket.
You believe that someone made Oswald pose with the Kennedy murder weapon some eight months before the assassination.
You believe that Bledsoe lied about seeing Oswald on the bus.
You believe that the bus transfer was planted on Oswald.
You believe that revolver bullets were planted on Oswald.
You believe that Oswald didn't travel to his rooming house by way of Whaley's cab.
You believe that the Hidell ID was faked.
You believe that the negatives for the Hidell ID was planted at the Paine's.
In virtually every on of these examples it had to be Oswald that initiated, caused or created each piece of evidence or there was some bad mean smoking man that pulled the strings and we all know where that leads, yeah you got it, CONSPIRACY, and by you arguing for all these pieces of evidence, makes you a CONSPIRACY THEORIST! Get used to it, bud!
JohnM
-
With what?
Asking for conclusive evidence? Does that upset you? Oh poor boy....
Dear Martin,
Your problem is that you consciously or unconsciously define "conclusive evidence" as "perfect evidence."
ME: Given the fact that the entry wound in Connally's back was oblong in shape and therefore indicated that the bullet was tumbling when it struck him, and given the fact that it has been shown that that kind of bullet has a tendency to start tumbling only when it exits something soft (like a block of ballistics gel or a human neck), and given the fact that Connally's coat lapel and tie can be seen to flap outwards in Z-223 and Z-224, respectively, etc., many people now accept the "Single Bullet Theory." Roselle and Scearce showed in 2020 that the three shots were fired over 10.2 seconds, and that the first shot, which missed everything, was fired half-a-second before Zapruder resumed filming at Z-133. If the Warren Commission had known and accepted the aforementioned things as true, would there still be a lot of evidence in The Report that doesn't support its conclusions?
GROK: No, there would not still be “a lot” of evidence in the Warren Commission Report that fails to support its core conclusions. In this hypothetical—where the Commission in 1964 had access to, and fully accepted, the tumbling physics of the Connally back wound, the lapel/tie reaction frames (Z-223/224), and Roselle & Scearce’s 2020 conscious reaction-timing analysis—the two largest and most frequently cited internal weaknesses in the actual Report would essentially disappear. The remaining points of tension would be far fewer, narrower, and already addressed by the Commission as non-dispositive.
Here’s the step-by-step reasoning, grounded in what the Report actually contains versus what changes under your given facts:
1. Single-Bullet Theory (SBT) Becomes Unambiguously Supported
Actual Report weakness: The Commission explicitly noted “some difference of opinion” on whether one bullet caused all the non-fatal wounds, softened its language from “compelling” to “persuasive,” and published Connally’s contrary testimony plus the near-pristine condition of CE 399. This was the single biggest flashpoint for critics.
Hypothetical change: Accepting (a) the oblong entry wound in Connally’s back as proof of a tumbling bullet, (b) the well-established ballistics fact that full-metal-jacket bullets like CE 399 typically begin tumbling only after exiting soft tissue (JFK’s neck), and (c) the visible lapel/tie outward flap at Z-223/224 as the precise moment of impact, the Commission would have had direct, observable film + wound evidence confirming the bullet path. There would be no dissent language; SBT would be stated as proven. The “magic bullet” critique evaporates.
2. Shot Timing and Rifle Capability Become Fully Consistent
Actual Report weakness: The Zapruder film placed the non-fatal wounds in a ~1.6–2-second window (roughly Z-210 to Z-240). The Carcano’s minimum bolt-action cycling time was ~2.3 seconds. Without SBT, two separate shots in that window were physically impossible for one shooter. The Report left the missed-shot timing “inconclusive” and published the tight constraints that fueled endless debate.
Hypothetical change: Roselle & Scearce’s 2020 analysis (estimating the first “miss-everything” shot via voluntary human reactions in the film) places it at ~Z-124—half a second before Zapruder resumed filming at Z-133—followed by evenly spaced shots across ~10.2 seconds total. That yields comfortable ~3.4-second intervals between shots, well above the rifle’s minimum. The early miss explains the pavement-strike witnesses, the lack of a recovered bullet for shot #1, and why the limo was already partway down Elm Street when filming resumed. The Report’s own Zapruder-frame data and rifle tests would now align perfectly with a lone shooter. No more “impossible timing” argument.
With those two pillars resolved, the Report’s physical, ballistic, trajectory, and film evidence would form a coherent, mutually reinforcing whole supporting three shots from the sixth-floor window by Oswald alone.
3. What Would Still Be in the Report (But Much Less Problematic)
A smaller set of items would remain as potential points of contention, but they were already treated by the Commission as secondary and reconcilable:
Witness testimony discrepancies on number and direction of shots: The Report and 26 volumes still contain accounts of 4–6 shots, shots from the grassy knoll/front, smoke/puffs, etc. These conflicts are real and unchanged. However, the Commission already explained them via Dealey Plaza’s acoustics (echoes off buildings), startle reactions, and the inherent unreliability of eyewitness sequencing under stress. With the physical timeline now ironclad and the early miss accounting for some “extra” sounds, these become interpretive disagreements rather than direct contradictions of hard evidence.
Medical observation variances: Parkland doctors’ initial throat-wound descriptions and some head-wound details differ slightly from the Bethesda autopsy. The Report includes them and prioritizes the autopsy; that doesn’t change. But with SBT and wound physics now confirmed by the tumbling/lapel data, these are reduced to minor reconciliation issues, not fatal flaws.
CE 399’s condition: Still nearly pristine, but now perfectly explained by the post-neck tumbling path you described. No longer a “problem.”
Nothing in the Report’s own data suddenly becomes contradictory under these acceptances. The Commission’s conclusion (“no credible evidence of a conspiracy”; Oswald alone) would rest on even stronger footing because the biggest gaps critics exploit would be filled.
Bottom Line
In the actual 1964 Report, there was a meaningful (though limited) amount of internally acknowledged uncertainty and conflicting data—concentrated heavily around SBT and timing. Accepting the facts you describe would eliminate those as weaknesses, leaving mainly the witness-direction discrepancies (which the Commission already discounted) and minor medical nuances. That is not “a lot” of undermining evidence; it is the normal residue of any complex criminal investigation involving dozens of eyewitnesses in a chaotic environment. The Report’s massive body of physical and forensic evidence would align even more tightly with the lone-gunman conclusions than it already did.
The debate would have been narrower and more focused on human perception than on physics or ballistics—precisely the situation modern lone-gunman analyses reach when they incorporate similar reaction-timing and wound-dynamics work.
ME: No, it yields roughly 5.1 seconds between shot #1 and shot #2, and roughly 5.1 seconds between shot #2 and shot #3.
GROK: Correct—thank you for the clarification. With Roselle & Scearce’s 2020 “Estimating Occult Timing” analysis placing the first (missed) shot at approximately Z-124 (half a second before Zapruder resumed filming at Z-133), and the third (fatal head) shot at Z-313, the total elapsed time from shot #1 to shot #3 is ~10.2 seconds (at 18.3 frames per second).
This produces two roughly equal intervals of ~5.1 seconds each:
Shot 1 (Z-124) → Shot 2 (Z-223/224, the single-bullet hit on Connally, aligned with the lapel/tie flap)
Shot 2 → Shot 3 (Z-313)
Why This Matters for the Hypothetical Warren Commission Scenario
These intervals are very comfortable for a skilled rifleman using the Mannlicher-Carcano:
The Commission’s own rifle tests showed a minimum bolt-cycling time of ~2.3 seconds (with no aiming), but experienced shooters (including Marines) routinely achieved 3–4+ seconds per aimed shot under stress.
5.1 seconds gives ample time to reacquire the target, aim, and fire—especially with the limo moving slowly down Elm Street and the early first shot occurring before the oak tree obstruction became an issue.
In the hypothetical where the 1964 Commission fully accepted:
The post-neck tumbling physics + oblong Connally back wound,
The Z-223/224 lapel/tie reaction as confirming SBT timing,
And this ~5.1s / 5.1s even spacing from Roselle & Scearce-style reaction analysis,
The Report’s two biggest internal tension points (SBT plausibility and “impossibly tight” shot timing) would be resolved cleanly. The physical, ballistic, and film evidence would align into a coherent lone-gunman narrative with no major contradictions.
The remaining items in the actual Report (witness count/direction variances, minor medical description differences, etc.) would still exist but would be the normal “noise” in any eyewitness-heavy investigation—already explained by the Commission via acoustics, startle effects, and prioritization of hard evidence over conflicting perceptions. They would not constitute “a lot” of undermining material.
This even-spacing model (supported by many earwitness recollections of a longer gap after the first shot) further strengthens the case rather than weakening it.
-- Tom
-
With what?
Asking for conclusive evidence? Does that upset you? Oh poor boy....
Asking for conclusive evidence?
You don't even know how the legal system works, there's a reason the standard is "beyond a reasonable doubt", your example of conclusive evidence like providing conclusive evidence that C2766 was in the Paine garage on the morning of the 22nd is the product of a CT's wet dream and would NEVER be required by any court ever!
JohnM
-
Hahahahaha!
Of course you're a conspiracy theorist, your theory is that Oswald didn't do it because multiple people from a variety of law agencies and private businesses lied to incriminate Oswald, the very definition of a conspiracy!
Just off the top of my head.
You believe that the revolver that killed Tippit was swapped because Police lied.
You believe that the shells at the Tippit crime scene were planted.
You believe that the Tippit eyewitnesses who ID'd Oswald all lied.
You believe that Oswald's jacket was planted under a car.
You believe that Lt. Day lied about the Palm print.
You believe that Kleins lied about the rifle paperwork.
You believe that the FBI lied about seeing Waldman7 on the Kleins microfilm
You believe that the people at the Oswald interrogations lied.
You believe that the rifle wasn't taken to the TSBD by Oswald therefore it was planted.
You believe that the bullet fragments in the Limo were planted.
You believe that CE399 was planted.
You believe that multiple police lied about seeing the bag in the sniper's nest.
You believe that the bag wasn't made by Oswald therefore someone else made it.
You believe that the revolver at the Texas Theatre wasn't Oswald's revolver because the Police lied.
You believe that Marina just saw a piece of wood wrapped in the blanket.
You believe that someone made Oswald pose with the Kennedy murder weapon some eight months before the assassination.
You believe that Bledsoe lied about seeing Oswald on the bus.
You believe that the bus transfer was planted on Oswald.
You believe that revolver bullets were planted on Oswald.
You believe that Oswald didn't travel to his rooming house by way of Whaley's cab.
You believe that the Hidell ID was faked.
You believe that the negatives for the Hidell ID was planted at the Paine's.
In virtually every on of these examples it had to be Oswald that initiated, caused or created each piece of evidence or there was some bad mean smoking man that pulled the strings and we all know where that leads, yeah you got it, CONSPIRACY, and by you arguing for all these pieces of evidence, makes you a CONSPIRACY THEORIST! Get used to it, bud!
JohnM
And you think you know what I believe? Amazing!
You believe that the revolver that killed Tippit was swapped because Police lied.
No I don't believe that.
You believe that the shells at the Tippit crime scene were planted.
Never said anything like that
You believe that the Tippit eyewitnesses who ID'd Oswald all lied.
Never claimed that. I actually believe that eyewitness testimony is the worst kind of evidence and that the DPD line ups were clearly rigged
You believe that Oswald's jacket was planted under a car.
No I don't. There is no proof or guarantee that the jacked found under a car was in fact Oswald's jacket
You believe that Lt. Day lied about the Palm print.
That's true.. I do indeed believe that
You believe that Kleins lied about the rifle paperwork.
Nope. I actually believe the Klein's paperwork is authentic.
You believe that the FBI lied about seeing Waldman7 on the Kleins microfilm
No. I believe that it is highly questionable that the FBI took the Klein's microfilm, which subsequently disappeared and they never produced a chain of custody for it.
Nobody knows for sure what happened to that microfilm.
You believe that the people at the Oswald interrogations lied.
No, I believe they contradicted themselves in their reports and displayed massive incompetence for not recording the interviews and not producing reports for several days after the fact and after Oswald was already dead
You believe that the rifle wasn't taken to the TSBD by Oswald therefore it was planted.
Why should I believe that a rifle was taken to the TSBD by Oswald when there is not a shred of evidence that puts a rifle in Ruth Paine's garage on 11/22/63
You believe that the bullet fragments in the Limo were planted.
No, I believe the crime scene was contaminated when it was "searched" before Frazier and his men could examine the car.
You believe that CE399 was planted.
No I don't. I actually don't believe that CE399 ever was at Parkland Hospital
You believe that multiple police lied about seeing the bag in the sniper's nest.
Well, other officers said that it wasn't there, so were they lying? Or do you only believe those who say what you want to hear?
You believe that the bag wasn't made by Oswald therefore someone else made it.
I have no idea who made the bag. Can you prove he made it or can you even show that Oswald was near the packaging area on Thursday afternoon?
You believe that the revolver at the Texas Theatre wasn't Oswald's revolver because the Police lied.
Why would I have to believe that the revolver placed into evidence was in fact Oswald's revolver, when the DPD failed to produce a solid chain of custody for it?
You believe that Marina just saw a piece of wood wrapped in the blanket.
Read her testimony. That's what she said.... she saw the wooden stock of a rifle, some six weeks prior to the assassination.
You believe that someone made Oswald pose with the Kennedy murder weapon some eight months before the assassination.
No, I don't believe that, at least not with any kind of certainty. It's merely a possibility that you don't like.
You believe that Bledsoe lied about seeing Oswald on the bus.
No, I believe that Bledsoe was an unreliable witness
You believe that the bus transfer was planted on Oswald.
Where did I say that?
You believe that revolver bullets were planted on Oswald.
Do I? How the hell would I be able to make such a determination when (just like you) I wasn't there.
You believe that Oswald didn't travel to his rooming house by way of Whaley's cab.
Where did I ever say that?
You believe that the Hidell ID was faked.
Really? If i remember correctly, Oswald already used the Hidell name in New Orleans, so he could indeed have made that ID. I just don't know if he did or not and neither do you.
You believe that the negatives for the Hidell ID was planted at the Paine's.
I don't think I've ever said anything about that.
The problem with idiots like you is that you have to make up stuff like what's above so you have something to counter, rather than having to present actual evidence to support your own pathetic theories.
You're old news, Mytton, a broken down record playing the same BS stuff over and over again because you completely lack persuasive arguments and conclusive evidence to back it up.
-
You don't even know how the legal system works, there's a reason the standard is "beyond a reasonable doubt", your example of conclusive evidence like proving that C2766 was in the Paine garage on the morning of the 22nd is the product of a CT's wet dream and would NEVER be required by any court ever!
JohnM
In the legal system the evidence isn't only what the prosecution presents.
your example of conclusive evidence like proving that C2766 was in the Paine garage on the morning of the 22nd is the product of a CT's wet dream and would NEVER be required by any court ever!
Prosecution: Oswald went to Irving to collect the rifle C2766 which was stored in the Paine garage on 11/22/63
Defence: Can you prove that there even was a rifle stored in the Paine garage on that day?
Prosecution: No we can't prove that be he must have done because he used it to shoot Kennedy.
Defence: Can you prove that rifle in Oswald's hands at the 6th floor window when Kennedy was shot?
Prosecution: No, but he must have done that because he collected the rifle from the Paine garage.
Please, please, please.... take this BS to a jury :D
Bottom line; you can't show there was a rifle at Ruth Paine's garage on 11/22/63 and that it was C2766 or that Oswald took it and carried it in a paper bag that was too small to conceal such a rifle.
You don't even know how the legal system works, there's a reason the standard is "beyond a reasonable doubt",
Idiot! The "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard requires conclusive evidence! Maybe they do things differently down under, though...
-
Dear Martin,
Your problem is that you consciously or unconsciously define "conclusive evidence" as "perfect evidence."
ME: Given the fact that the entry wound in Connally's back was oblong in shape and therefore indicated that the bullet was tumbling when it struck him, and given the fact that it has been shown that that kind of bullet has a tendency to start tumbling only when it exits something soft (like a block of ballistics gel or a human neck), and given the fact that Connally's coat lapel and tie can be seen to flap outwards in Z-223 and Z-224, respectively, etc., many people now accept the "Single Bullet Theory." Roselle and Scearce showed in 2020 that the three shots were fired over 10.2 seconds, and that the first shot, which missed everything, was fired half-a-second before Zapruder resumed filming at Z-133. If the Warren Commission had known and accepted the aforementioned things as true, would there still be a lot of evidence in The Report that doesn't support its conclusions?
GROK: No, there would not still be “a lot” of evidence in the Warren Commission Report that fails to support its core conclusions. In this hypothetical—where the Commission in 1964 had access to, and fully accepted, the tumbling physics of the Connally back wound, the lapel/tie reaction frames (Z-223/224), and Roselle & Scearce’s 2020 conscious reaction-timing analysis—the two largest and most frequently cited internal weaknesses in the actual Report would essentially disappear. The remaining points of tension would be far fewer, narrower, and already addressed by the Commission as non-dispositive.
Here’s the step-by-step reasoning, grounded in what the Report actually contains versus what changes under your given facts:
1. Single-Bullet Theory (SBT) Becomes Unambiguously Supported
Actual Report weakness: The Commission explicitly noted “some difference of opinion” on whether one bullet caused all the non-fatal wounds, softened its language from “compelling” to “persuasive,” and published Connally’s contrary testimony plus the near-pristine condition of CE 399. This was the single biggest flashpoint for critics.
Hypothetical change: Accepting (a) the oblong entry wound in Connally’s back as proof of a tumbling bullet, (b) the well-established ballistics fact that full-metal-jacket bullets like CE 399 typically begin tumbling only after exiting soft tissue (JFK’s neck), and (c) the visible lapel/tie outward flap at Z-223/224 as the precise moment of impact, the Commission would have had direct, observable film + wound evidence confirming the bullet path. There would be no dissent language; SBT would be stated as proven. The “magic bullet” critique evaporates.
2. Shot Timing and Rifle Capability Become Fully Consistent
Actual Report weakness: The Zapruder film placed the non-fatal wounds in a ~1.6–2-second window (roughly Z-210 to Z-240). The Carcano’s minimum bolt-action cycling time was ~2.3 seconds. Without SBT, two separate shots in that window were physically impossible for one shooter. The Report left the missed-shot timing “inconclusive” and published the tight constraints that fueled endless debate.
Hypothetical change: Roselle & Scearce’s 2020 analysis (estimating the first “miss-everything” shot via voluntary human reactions in the film) places it at ~Z-124—half a second before Zapruder resumed filming at Z-133—followed by evenly spaced shots across ~10.2 seconds total. That yields comfortable ~3.4-second intervals between shots, well above the rifle’s minimum. The early miss explains the pavement-strike witnesses, the lack of a recovered bullet for shot #1, and why the limo was already partway down Elm Street when filming resumed. The Report’s own Zapruder-frame data and rifle tests would now align perfectly with a lone shooter. No more “impossible timing” argument.
With those two pillars resolved, the Report’s physical, ballistic, trajectory, and film evidence would form a coherent, mutually reinforcing whole supporting three shots from the sixth-floor window by Oswald alone.
3. What Would Still Be in the Report (But Much Less Problematic)
A smaller set of items would remain as potential points of contention, but they were already treated by the Commission as secondary and reconcilable:
Witness testimony discrepancies on number and direction of shots: The Report and 26 volumes still contain accounts of 4–6 shots, shots from the grassy knoll/front, smoke/puffs, etc. These conflicts are real and unchanged. However, the Commission already explained them via Dealey Plaza’s acoustics (echoes off buildings), startle reactions, and the inherent unreliability of eyewitness sequencing under stress. With the physical timeline now ironclad and the early miss accounting for some “extra” sounds, these become interpretive disagreements rather than direct contradictions of hard evidence.
Medical observation variances: Parkland doctors’ initial throat-wound descriptions and some head-wound details differ slightly from the Bethesda autopsy. The Report includes them and prioritizes the autopsy; that doesn’t change. But with SBT and wound physics now confirmed by the tumbling/lapel data, these are reduced to minor reconciliation issues, not fatal flaws.
CE 399’s condition: Still nearly pristine, but now perfectly explained by the post-neck tumbling path you described. No longer a “problem.”
Nothing in the Report’s own data suddenly becomes contradictory under these acceptances. The Commission’s conclusion (“no credible evidence of a conspiracy”; Oswald alone) would rest on even stronger footing because the biggest gaps critics exploit would be filled.
Bottom Line
In the actual 1964 Report, there was a meaningful (though limited) amount of internally acknowledged uncertainty and conflicting data—concentrated heavily around SBT and timing. Accepting the facts you describe would eliminate those as weaknesses, leaving mainly the witness-direction discrepancies (which the Commission already discounted) and minor medical nuances. That is not “a lot” of undermining evidence; it is the normal residue of any complex criminal investigation involving dozens of eyewitnesses in a chaotic environment. The Report’s massive body of physical and forensic evidence would align even more tightly with the lone-gunman conclusions than it already did.
The debate would have been narrower and more focused on human perception than on physics or ballistics—precisely the situation modern lone-gunman analyses reach when they incorporate similar reaction-timing and wound-dynamics work.
ME: No, it yields roughly 5.1 seconds between shot #1 and shot #2, and roughly 5.1 seconds between shot #2 and shot #3.
GROK: Correct—thank you for the clarification. With Roselle & Scearce’s 2020 “Estimating Occult Timing” analysis placing the first (missed) shot at approximately Z-124 (half a second before Zapruder resumed filming at Z-133), and the third (fatal head) shot at Z-313, the total elapsed time from shot #1 to shot #3 is ~10.2 seconds (at 18.3 frames per second).
This produces two roughly equal intervals of ~5.1 seconds each:
Shot 1 (Z-124) → Shot 2 (Z-223/224, the single-bullet hit on Connally, aligned with the lapel/tie flap)
Shot 2 → Shot 3 (Z-313)
Why This Matters for the Hypothetical Warren Commission Scenario
These intervals are very comfortable for a skilled rifleman using the Mannlicher-Carcano:
The Commission’s own rifle tests showed a minimum bolt-cycling time of ~2.3 seconds (with no aiming), but experienced shooters (including Marines) routinely achieved 3–4+ seconds per aimed shot under stress.
5.1 seconds gives ample time to reacquire the target, aim, and fire—especially with the limo moving slowly down Elm Street and the early first shot occurring before the oak tree obstruction became an issue.
In the hypothetical where the 1964 Commission fully accepted:
The post-neck tumbling physics + oblong Connally back wound,
The Z-223/224 lapel/tie reaction as confirming SBT timing,
And this ~5.1s / 5.1s even spacing from Roselle & Scearce-style reaction analysis,
The Report’s two biggest internal tension points (SBT plausibility and “impossibly tight” shot timing) would be resolved cleanly. The physical, ballistic, and film evidence would align into a coherent lone-gunman narrative with no major contradictions.
The remaining items in the actual Report (witness count/direction variances, minor medical description differences, etc.) would still exist but would be the normal “noise” in any eyewitness-heavy investigation—already explained by the Commission via acoustics, startle effects, and prioritization of hard evidence over conflicting perceptions. They would not constitute “a lot” of undermining material.
This even-spacing model (supported by many earwitness recollections of a longer gap after the first shot) further strengthens the case rather than weakening it.
-- Tom
Your problem is that you consciously or unconsciously define "conclusive evidence" as "perfect evidence."
Nope... if I did that I would have asked for perfect evidence.
You haven't figured out by now that the WC report contains the prosecution's circumstantial case that was never challenged by the defence in an official setting.
It's an opinion written by a team of prosecutors as if it was a verdict by a jury.
-
Your problem is that you consciously or unconsciously define "conclusive evidence" as "perfect evidence."
Nope... if I did that I would have asked for perfect evidence.
You haven't figured out by now that the WC report contains the prosecution's circumstantial case that was never challenged by the defence in an official setting.
It's an opinion written by a team of prosecutors as if it was a verdict by a jury.
You haven't figured out yet that if someone other than Oswald killed JFK, an awful lot of bad guys were required for the fabricating and planting of all of the evidence that "only seems" to implicate him.
-
In the legal system the evidence isn't only what the prosecution presents.
your example of conclusive evidence like proving that C2766 was in the Paine garage on the morning of the 22nd is the product of a CT's wet dream and would NEVER be required by any court ever!
Prosecution: Oswald went to Irving to collect the rifle C2766 which was stored in the Paine garage on 11/22/63
Defence: Can you prove that there even was a rifle stored in the Paine garage on that day?
Prosecution: No we can't prove that be he must have done because he used it to shoot Kennedy.
Defence: Can you prove that rifle in Oswald's hands at the 6th floor window when Kennedy was shot?
Prosecution: No, but he must have done that because he collected the rifle from the Paine garage.
Please, please, please.... take this BS to a jury :D
Bottom line; you can't show there was a rifle at Ruth Paine's garage on 11/22/63 and that it was C2766 or that Oswald took it and carried it in a paper bag that was too small to conceal such a rifle.
You don't even know how the legal system works, there's a reason the standard is "beyond a reasonable doubt",
Idiot! The "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard requires conclusive evidence! Maybe they do things differently down under, though...
WOW, you make up a brief self serving scenario and leave out a ton of detail, detail that in reality a prosecution would present, evidence that would convict Oswald. Pathetic!
1. Oswald took what looked to be a heavy looking long brown paper package to work.
2. Oswald lied about taking a long brown paper package to work.
3. Oswald put the unwieldly long brown paper package on the back seat of Frazier's car.
4. Oswald lied about putting his brown paper package on the back seat of Frazier's car.
5. Oswald's prints were on the brown paper package.
6. Oswald's rifle was on the 6th floor.
7. Oswald prints were on the rifle on the 6th floor.
8. Oswald's "fresh" prints were on the recently moved sniper's nest rifle rest box.
9. Oswald's prints were on the top box orientated down Elm street, the location Kennedy was when struck.
10. Oswald fled the building immediately and therefore was in flight from the scene of his crime.
11. Oswald got on and off a bus within a couple of minutes, another example of flight.
12. Oswald got a cab and got out way past his rooming house.
13. Oswald killed a cop, why on Earth would an innocent Oswald need to kill a cop?
14. Oswald when arrested tried to kill more cops, a innocent man has no need to kill a cop.
15. Oswald lied about owning a rifle. Consciousness of guilt
16. Oswald lied about living on Neely Street. Place of incriminating photographic evidence
17. Oswald lied about authenticated backyard photos which show him holding the murder weapon.
So Mr Defence how do you refute this tiny slice of the MOUNTAIN of Evidence?? Or will you go back to your conspiracy theorist roots and say everyone lied! LOL!
Idiot! The "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard requires conclusive evidence! Maybe they do things differently down under, though...
Like I said you haven't got a clue!
(https://i.postimg.cc/1RvCQp12/Conclusive-proof-vs-beyond-reasonable-doubty.jpg)
JohnM
-
You haven't figured out yet that if someone other than Oswald killed JFK, an awful lot of bad guys would have been required for the fabricating and planting of all of the evidence that "only seems" to implicate Oswald.
Actually, you need to improve your reading skills. I've already said that if Oswald did not kill Kennedy the most likely alternative is that there was indeed a conspiracy.
Now, I don't care about how many people you think must have been involved in such a conspiracy, because AND GET THIS PLEASE: If there was in fact a conspiracy, I couldn't care less. It simply doesn't interest me.
All I am interested in is finding out if there is sufficient conclusive evidence to demonstrate that Oswald did it and acted alone. I've been asking for such evidence for years and not one LN clown has been able to present such evidence or even to defend their conclusions in a normal discussion. Instead, all guys like you is whine about the alternative being a conspiracy.
Let's try this; show me the most important (in your opinion) piece of evidence and try to convince me how it ties in with other evidence and how it shows Oswald must be guilty. Can you do that?
-
And you think you know what I believe? Amazing!
You believe that the revolver that killed Tippit was swapped because Police lied.
No I don't believe that.
You believe that the shells at the Tippit crime scene were planted.
Never said anything like that
You believe that the Tippit eyewitnesses who ID'd Oswald all lied.
Never claimed that. I actually believe that eyewitness testimony is the worst kind of evidence and that the DPD line ups were clearly rigged
You believe that Oswald's jacket was planted under a car.
No I don't. There is no proof or guarantee that the jacked found under a car was in fact Oswald's jacket
You believe that Lt. Day lied about the Palm print.
That's true.. I do indeed believe that
You believe that Kleins lied about the rifle paperwork.
Nope. I actually believe the Klein's paperwork is authentic.
You believe that the FBI lied about seeing Waldman7 on the Kleins microfilm
No. I believe that it is highly questionable that the FBI took the Klein's microfilm, which subsequently disappeared and they never produced a chain of custody for it.
Nobody knows for sure what happened to that microfilm.
You believe that the people at the Oswald interrogations lied.
No, I believe they contradicted themselves in their reports and displayed massive incompetence for not recording the interviews and not producing reports for several days after the fact and after Oswald was already dead
You believe that the rifle wasn't taken to the TSBD by Oswald therefore it was planted.
Why should I believe that a rifle was taken to the TSBD by Oswald when there is not a shred of evidence that puts a rifle in Ruth Paine's garage on 11/22/63
You believe that the bullet fragments in the Limo were planted.
No, I believe the crime scene was contaminated when it was "searched" before Frazier and his men could examine the car.
You believe that CE399 was planted.
No I don't. I actually don't believe that CE399 ever was at Parkland Hospital
You believe that multiple police lied about seeing the bag in the sniper's nest.
Well, other officers said that it wasn't there, so were they lying? Or do you only believe those who say what you want to hear?
You believe that the bag wasn't made by Oswald therefore someone else made it.
I have no idea who made the bag. Can you prove he made it or can you even show that Oswald was near the packaging area on Thursday afternoon?
You believe that the revolver at the Texas Theatre wasn't Oswald's revolver because the Police lied.
Why would I have to believe that the revolver placed into evidence was in fact Oswald's revolver, when the DPD failed to produce a solid chain of custody for it?
You believe that Marina just saw a piece of wood wrapped in the blanket.
Read her testimony. That's what she said.... she saw the wooden stock of a rifle, some six weeks prior to the assassination.
You believe that someone made Oswald pose with the Kennedy murder weapon some eight months before the assassination.
No, I don't believe that, at least not with any kind of certainty. It's merely a possibility that you don't like.
You believe that Bledsoe lied about seeing Oswald on the bus.
No, I believe that Bledsoe was an unreliable witness
You believe that the bus transfer was planted on Oswald.
Where did I say that?
You believe that revolver bullets were planted on Oswald.
Do I? How the hell would I be able to make such a determination when (just like you) I wasn't there.
You believe that Oswald didn't travel to his rooming house by way of Whaley's cab.
Where did I ever say that?
You believe that the Hidell ID was faked.
Really? If i remember correctly, Oswald already used the Hidell name in New Orleans, so he could indeed have made that ID. I just don't know if he did or not and neither do you.
You believe that the negatives for the Hidell ID was planted at the Paine's.
I don't think I've ever said anything about that.
The problem with idiots like you is that you have to make up stuff like what's above so you have something to counter, rather than having to present actual evidence to support your own pathetic theories.
You're old news, Mytton, a broken down record playing the same BS stuff over and over again because you completely lack persuasive arguments and conclusive evidence to back it up.
Thumb1: Thumb1: Thumb1: Thumb1:
Thanks Martin, you have provided enough evidence to call you a bona fide Conspiracy Theorist! Congrats!
JohnM
-
Actually, you need to improve your reading skills. I've already said that if Oswald did not kill Kennedy the most likely alternative is that there was indeed a conspiracy.
Now, I don't care about how many people you think must have been involved in such a conspiracy, because AND GET THIS PLEASE: If there was in fact a conspiracy, I couldn't care less. It simply doesn't interest me.
All I am interested in is finding out if there is sufficient conclusive evidence to demonstrate that Oswald did it and acted alone. I've been asking for such evidence for years and not one LN clown has been able to present such evidence or even to defend their conclusions in a normal discussion. Instead, all guys like you is whine about the alternative being a conspiracy.
Let's try this; show me the most important (in your opinion) piece of evidence and try to convince me how it ties in with other evidence and how it shows Oswald must be guilty. Can you do that?
It doesn't "interest you" because you can't deal with the ramifications, i.e., an implausibly large number of bad guys must have "patsied" Oswald and framed him with false evidence.
You poor thing, you.
-
WOW, you make up a brief self serving scenario and leave out a ton of detail, detail that in reality a prosecution would present, evidence that would convict Oswald. Pathetic!
1. Oswald took what looked to be a heavy looking long brown paper package to work.
2. Oswald lied about taking a long brown paper package to work.
3. Oswald put the unwieldly long brown paper package on the back seat of Frazier's car.
4. Oswald lied about putting his brown paper package on the back seat of Frazier's car.
5. Oswald's prints were on the brown paper package.
6. Oswald's rifle was on the 6th floor.
7. Oswald prints were on the rifle on the 6th floor.
8. Oswald's "fresh" prints were on the recently moved sniper's nest rifle rest box.
9. Oswald's prints were on the top box orientated down Elm street, the location Kennedy was when struck.
10. Oswald fled the building immediately and therefore was in flight from the scene of his crime.
11. Oswald got on and off a bus within a couple of minutes, another example of flight.
12. Oswald got a cab and got out way past his rooming house.
13. Oswald killed a cop, why on Earth would an innocent Oswald need to kill a cop?
14. Oswald when arrested tried to kill more cops, a innocent man has no need to kill a cop.
15. Oswald lied about owning a rifle. Consciousness of guilt
16. Oswald lied about living on Neely Street. Place of incriminating photographic evidence
17. Oswald lied about authenticated backyard photos which show him holding the murder weapon.
So Mr Defence how do you refute this tiny slice of the MOUNTAIN of Evidence?? Or will you go back to your conspiracy theorist roots and say everyone lied! LOL!
Like I said you haven't got a clue!
(https://i.postimg.cc/1RvCQp12/Conclusive-proof-vs-beyond-reasonable-doubty.jpg)
JohnM
1. Oswald took what looked to be a heavy looking long brown paper package to work.
Oswald took a paper bag to work. Just how "heavy looking long" was never determined or proven
2. Oswald lied about taking a long brown paper package to work.
Depends on what Oswald considered to be a "long paper package". Why didn't they show the actual 6th floor bag to him?
3. Oswald put the unwieldly long brown paper package on the back seat of Frazier's car.
Do you think that you keep using the term "long brown paper package" makes your argument less pathetic?
4. Oswald lied about putting his brown paper package on the back seat of Frazier's car.
Really? Where exactly did he say that?
5. Oswald's prints were on the brown paper package.
Even if there was a print from Oswald on that bag, what does that prove? The bag was made from TSBD materials and was found at the TSBD at a place where Oswald worked.
6. Oswald's rifle was on the 6th floor.
"Oswald's rifle" LOL
7. Oswald prints were on the rifle on the 6th floor.
The FBI examined the rifle in the night following the assassination and found no prints
8. Oswald's "fresh" prints were on the recently moved sniper's nest rifle rest box.
9. Oswald's prints were on the top box orientated down Elm street, the location Kennedy was when struck.
Oh well, you've got me there. He must be guilty, right? But wait... where was Oswald working that morning? And his job was moving boxes, right..... :D
10. Oswald fled the building immediately and therefore was in flight from the scene of his crime.
11. Oswald got on and off a bus within a couple of minutes, another example of flight.
12. Oswald got a cab and got out way past his rooming house.
If true (nobody saw him leave, right?), how does this prove that he went to Irving to collect a rifle from Ruth Paine's garage?
13. Oswald killed a cop, why on Earth would an innocent Oswald need to kill a cop?
Why would Oswald even be at 10th and Patton if he was on the run. And claiming he killed a cop is just that: a claim.
14. Oswald when arrested tried to kill more cops, a innocent man has no need to kill a cop.
So, now you know his mindset when he was arrested at the Texas Theater
15. Oswald lied about owning a rifle. Consciousness of guilt
Unless he did not own a rifle to begin with
16. Oswald lied about living on Neely Street. Place of incriminating photographic evidence
Did he? But if he did, perhaps he understood by then that he was being set up.
Did you ever find out how the FBI was able to show a BY photo to Michael Paine on Friday evening to find out where the photo was taken, when the BY photos were not found until Saturday afternoon? And how did Fritz manage to show Oswald a blow up of a BY photo on Saturday morning?
17. Oswald lied about authenticated backyard photos which show him holding the murder weapon.
There is nothing authenticated about the BY photos. All you have is opinions...
Obviously, nothing of any of this provides support for the claim that Oswald went to Irving to collect a rifle from the Paine garage, took that rifle to the TSBD in a bag that was too small for the rifle to find in (a bag that is disputed by the main witness who actually saw it) and used that rifle to shoot Kennedy.
So Mr Defence how do you refute this tiny slice of the MOUNTAIN of Evidence?? Or will you go back to your conspiracy theorist roots and say everyone lied! LOL!
Where exactly is that so-called "Mountain of Evidence"?
Like I said you haven't got a clue!
(https://i.postimg.cc/1RvCQp12/Conclusive-proof-vs-beyond-reasonable-doubty.jpg)
Any idiot who thinks that a jury will only get the prosecution side to consider and come up with a "beyond reasonable doubt" conclusion, is just that: An idiot!
-
I've already said that if Oswald did not kill Kennedy, the most likely alternative is that there was indeed a conspiracy.
The most likely alternative?
LOL!
If Oswald didn't kill JFK, what alternative is there other than a conspiracy -- a conspiracy that intentionally implicated Oswald in the assassination of JFK?
-
Thumb1: Thumb1: Thumb1: Thumb1:
Thanks Martin, you have provided enough evidence to call you a bona fide Conspiracy Theorist! Congrats!
JohnM
An idiot makes bogus and pathetic claims that are instantly proven wrong and he concludes from the fact that he has been shown to be a fool, what he wants to conclude. Typicall LN idiotic madness.
Unable to make a coherent argument and when proven wrong, just call the other a "conspiracy theorist". Basically what little Johnny and his LN play buddies are saying is that anybody who doesn't instantly agree with their opinion is a conspiracy theorist. That's how pathetic they truly are!
-
It doesn't "interest you" because you can't deal with the ramifications, i.e., an implausibly large number of bad guys must have "patsied" Oswald and framed him with false evidence.
You poor thing, you.
Why would I have to deal with the ramifications? It's pointless exercise to dive into the possible conspiracy scenarios and I am just not interested in that.
When Kennedy was killed I was in my early teens. I've never known any of the major players and for the first 40 or even 50 years of my life I couldn't care less.
What I don't understand is why you and some other LNs are so desperate to paint me a conspiracy theorist when all I am asking for is the evidence that actually shows Oswald is guilty.
Maybe you can't provide such evidence and do this song and dance to cover it up? If so, that's really sad!
-
The most likely alternative?
LOL!
If Oswald didn't kill JFK, what alternative is there other than a conspiracy -- a conspiracy that intentionally implicated Oswald in the assassination of JFK?
Don't know and don't care.
Now, can you present evidence that shows Oswald's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt? If not, we're done talking.
You can take your conspiracy obsessions elsewhere!
-
Don't know and don't care.
Now, can you present evidence that shows Oswald's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt? If not, we're done talking.
You can take your conspiracy obsessions elsewhere!
Okay, oodles and gobs of bad guys it is!
-
What I don't understand is why you and some other LNs are so desperate to paint me a conspiracy theorist when all I am asking for is the evidence that actually shows Oswald is guilty.
Because there's a plethora of circumstantial evidence that would prove Oswald guilty in a court of law, and because if you don't believe Oswald killed JFK, you are, by definition, a conspiracy theorist / conspiracy believer.
D'oh!
-
Okay, oodles and gobs of bad guys it is!
At least you are confirming that you are unable to present a "beyond reasonable doubt" case against Oswald, because if you could you would have done it by now.
It's always good to know where people actually stand! Thumb1:
-
Because there's a plethora of circumstantial evidence that would prove Oswald guilty in a court of law, and because if you don't believe Oswald killed JFK, you are, by definition, a conspiracy theorist / conspiracy believer.
D'oh!
Because there's a plethora of circumstantial evidence that would prove Oswald guilty in a court of law
The beauty of circumstantial evidence is that a prosecutor can basically claim anything he wants until the defence destroys it.
if you don't believe Oswald killed JFK, you are, by definition, a conspiracy theorist / conspiracy believer.
Said the zealot!
Now what if I simply don't know if Oswald killed JFK or not and am merely asking for the evidence that proves he did?
Let me guess; I'm a conspiracy theorist / conspiracy believer too, right?
You've just shown how unreasonable and far removed from reality you truly are.
-
1. Oswald took what looked to be a heavy looking long brown paper package to work.
Oswald took a paper bag to work. Just how "heavy looking long" was never determined or proven
2. Oswald lied about taking a long brown paper package to work.
Depends on what Oswald considered to be a "long paper package". Why didn't they show the actual 6th floor bag to him?
3. Oswald put the unwieldly long brown paper package on the back seat of Frazier's car.
Do you think that you keep using the term "long brown paper package" makes your argument less pathetic?
4. Oswald lied about putting his brown paper package on the back seat of Frazier's car.
Really? Where exactly did he say that?
5. Oswald's prints were on the brown paper package.
Even if there was a print from Oswald on that bag, what does that prove? The bag was made from TSBD materials and was found at the TSBD at a place where Oswald worked.
6. Oswald's rifle was on the 6th floor.
"Oswald's rifle" LOL
7. Oswald prints were on the rifle on the 6th floor.
The FBI examined the rifle in the night following the assassination and found no prints
8. Oswald's "fresh" prints were on the recently moved sniper's nest rifle rest box.
9. Oswald's prints were on the top box orientated down Elm street, the location Kennedy was when struck.
Oh well, you've got me there. He must be guilty, right? But wait... where was Oswald working that morning? And his job was moving boxes, right..... :D
10. Oswald fled the building immediately and therefore was in flight from the scene of his crime.
11. Oswald got on and off a bus within a couple of minutes, another example of flight.
12. Oswald got a cab and got out way past his rooming house.
If true (nobody saw him leave, right?), how does this prove that he went to Irving to collect a rifle from Ruth Paine's garage?
13. Oswald killed a cop, why on Earth would an innocent Oswald need to kill a cop?
Why would Oswald even be at 10th and Patton if he was on the run. And claiming he killed a cop is just that: a claim.
14. Oswald when arrested tried to kill more cops, a innocent man has no need to kill a cop.
So, now you know his mindset when he was arrested at the Texas Theater
15. Oswald lied about owning a rifle. Consciousness of guilt
Unless he did not own a rifle to begin with
16. Oswald lied about living on Neely Street. Place of incriminating photographic evidence
Did he? But if he did, perhaps he understood by then that he was being set up.
Did you ever find out how the FBI was able to show a BY photo to Michael Paine on Friday evening to find out where the photo was taken, when the BY photos were not found until Saturday afternoon? And how did Fritz manage to show Oswald a blow up of a BY photo on Saturday morning?
17. Oswald lied about authenticated backyard photos which show him holding the murder weapon.
There is nothing authenticated about the BY photos. All you have is opinions...
Obviously, nothing of any of this provides support for the claim that Oswald went to Irving to collect a rifle from the Paine garage, took that rifle to the TSBD in a bag that was too small for the rifle to find in (a bag that is disputed by the main witness who actually saw it) and used that rifle to shoot Kennedy.
So Mr Defence how do you refute this tiny slice of the MOUNTAIN of Evidence?? Or will you go back to your conspiracy theorist roots and say everyone lied! LOL!
Where exactly is that so-called "Mountain of Evidence"?
Like I said you haven't got a clue!
(https://i.postimg.cc/1RvCQp12/Conclusive-proof-vs-beyond-reasonable-doubty.jpg)
Any idiot who thinks that a jury will only get the prosecution side to consider and come up with a "beyond reasonable doubt" conclusion, is just that: An idiot!
Sorry Martin but Frazier repeatedly says he didn't pay much attention to Oswald's bag. Try again.
Mr. BALL - All right. When you got in the car did you say anything to him or did he say anything to you?
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.
Mr. BALL - Did it look to you as if there was something heavy in the package?
Mr. FRAZIER - Well, I will be frank with you, I didn't pay much attention to the package because like I say before and after he told me that it was curtain rods and I didn't pay any attention to it, and he never had lied to me before so I never did have any reason to doubt his word.
Mr. BALL - Well, from the way he carried it, the way he walked, did it appear he was carrying something that had more than the weight of a paper?
Mr. FRAZIER - Well, I say, you know like I say, I didn't pay much attention to the package other than I knew he had it under his arm and I didn't pay too much attention the way he was walking because I was walking along there looking at the railroad cars and watching the men on the diesel switch them cars and I didn't pay too much attention on how he carried the package at all.
Mr. BALL - You will notice that this bag which is the colored bag, FBI Exhibit No. 10, is folded over. Was it folded over when you saw it the first time, folded over to the end?
Mr. FRAZIER - I will say I am not sure about that, whether it was folded over or not, because, like I say, I didn't pay that much attention to it.
Mr. BALL - But are you sure that his hand was at the end of the package or at the side of the package?
Mr. FRAZIER - Like I said, I remember I didn't look at the package very much, paying much attention, but when I did look at it he did have his hands on the package like that.
Mr. BALL - Mr. Frazier, we have here this Exhibit No. 364 which is a sack and in that we have put a dismantled gun. Don't pay any attention to that. Will you stand up here and put this under your arm and then take a hold of it at the side?
Now, is that anywhere near similar to the way that Oswald carried the package?
Mr. FRAZIER - Well, you know, like I said now, I said I didn't pay much attention--
•Just because Oswald worked in the building doesn't mean he has to touch every single surface, I don't believe that was a job requirement. But anyway out of the thousands of things Oswald could have touched he touched a brown paper rifle sized bag and in addition he placed fresh prints, which the FBI concluded were within a couple of days, on the recently moved rifle rest boxes. Try convincing a jury that it was just a random coincidence. Good luck with that.
• And it's not Oswald's rifle, really? The rifle he ordered, purchased, was sent and possessed?
(https://i.postimg.cc/mDQ1m7fY/Oswald-rifle-purchase-documents.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/g2C01rKt/fartlyhartley-zpsrkxyecu9.jpg)
• The FBI determined that the print that Lt. Day took on the 22nd came from the rifle, and thus proves that Oswald's print was on the rifle.
(https://i.postimg.cc/05GTLBVC/fbi-rifle-1.gif)
Any idiot who thinks that a jury will only get the prosecution side to consider and come up with a "beyond reasonable doubt" conclusion, is just that: An idiot!
OMG, what a coward, you were wrong and I proved you are wrong! Just be a Man and own up to your lack of legal knowledge.
JohnM
-
At least you are confirming that you are unable to present a "beyond reasonable doubt" case against Oswald, because if you could you would have done it by now.
I already have, in dribs and drabs, over the years at this fine forum.
Start with Roselle's and Scearce's 2020 determination -- based on their analysis of the conscious reactions, as viewable in the Zapruder film, of seven prime witnesses to the sounds of the first, missing everything, shot -- i.e., that it was fired half-a-second before Zapruder resumed filming at Z-133.
https://d7922adf-f499-4a26-96d4-8ab2d521fa35.usrfiles.com/ugd/d7922a_e280e26982b44f2c97c6e6e27026e385.pdf
Then watch the Zapruder film as it's being played cropped, enlarged, and in slow motion and notice the nearly simultaneous (but different, of course) reactions of JFK and JBC to their being hit by the same bullet at approximately Z-222, and how JBC's tie and coat lapel flip outward at Z-223 and Z-224, respectively.
That should be enough to finally get you on the right track.
-
Because there's a plethora of circumstantial evidence that would prove Oswald guilty in a court of law
The beauty of circumstantial evidence is that a prosecutor can basically claim anything he wants until the defence destroys it.
So says the Legal layman, a couple of posts ago you completely embarrassed yourself with your clear lack of knowledge regarding the law, so why stop there, eh?
BTW exactly what "circumstantial evidence" in this case do you think you can destroy?
JohnM
-
Sorry Martin but Frazier repeatedly says he didn't pay much attention to Oswald's bag. Try again.
Mr. BALL - All right. When you got in the car did you say anything to him or did he say anything to you?
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.
Mr. BALL - Did it look to you as if there was something heavy in the package?
Mr. FRAZIER - Well, I will be frank with you, I didn't pay much attention to the package because like I say before and after he told me that it was curtain rods and I didn't pay any attention to it, and he never had lied to me before so I never did have any reason to doubt his word.
Mr. BALL - Well, from the way he carried it, the way he walked, did it appear he was carrying something that had more than the weight of a paper?
Mr. FRAZIER - Well, I say, you know like I say, I didn't pay much attention to the package other than I knew he had it under his arm and I didn't pay too much attention the way he was walking because I was walking along there looking at the railroad cars and watching the men on the diesel switch them cars and I didn't pay too much attention on how he carried the package at all.
Mr. BALL - You will notice that this bag which is the colored bag, FBI Exhibit No. 10, is folded over. Was it folded over when you saw it the first time, folded over to the end?
Mr. FRAZIER - I will say I am not sure about that, whether it was folded over or not, because, like I say, I didn't pay that much attention to it.
Mr. BALL - But are you sure that his hand was at the end of the package or at the side of the package?
Mr. FRAZIER - Like I said, I remember I didn't look at the package very much, paying much attention, but when I did look at it he did have his hands on the package like that.
Mr. BALL - Mr. Frazier, we have here this Exhibit No. 364 which is a sack and in that we have put a dismantled gun. Don't pay any attention to that. Will you stand up here and put this under your arm and then take a hold of it at the side?
Now, is that anywhere near similar to the way that Oswald carried the package?
Mr. FRAZIER - Well, you know, like I said now, I said I didn't pay much attention--
•Just because Oswald worked in the building doesn't mean he has to touch every single surface, I don't believe that was a job requirement. But anyway out of the thousands of things Oswald could have touched he touched a brown paper rifle sized bag and in addition he placed fresh prints, which the FBI concluded were within a couple of days, on the recently moved rifle rest boxes. Try convincing a jury that it was just a random coincidence. Good luck with that.
• And it's not Oswald's rifle, really? The rifle he ordered, purchased, was sent and possessed?
(https://i.postimg.cc/mDQ1m7fY/Oswald-rifle-purchase-documents.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/g2C01rKt/fartlyhartley-zpsrkxyecu9.jpg)
• The FBI determined that the print that Lt. Day took on the 22nd came from the rifle, and thus proves that Oswald's print was on the rifle.
(https://i.postimg.cc/05GTLBVC/fbi-rifle-1.gif)
OMG, what a coward, you were wrong and I proved you are wrong! Just be a Man and own up to your lack of legal knowledge.
JohnM
Sorry Martin but Frazier repeatedly says he didn't pay much attention to Oswald's bag.
And still he maintains after all these years that Oswald carried the bag in the cup of his hand and under his shoulder. Deal with it!
•Just because Oswald worked in the building doesn't mean he has to touch every single surface, I don't believe that was a job requirement. But anyway out of the thousands of things Oswald could have touched he touched a brown paper rifle sized bag and in addition he placed fresh prints, which the FBI concluded were within a couple of days, on the recently moved rifle rest boxes. Try convincing a jury that it was just a random coincidence. Good luck with that.
Who said Oswald had to touch every surfice?
Oswald was working on the 6th floor. The bag was made from TSBD materials and found on the sixth floor. There are all sorts of ways his print could have gotten on that bag. The evidentiary value is strongly reduced because of this fact. What I find more interesting is that Oswald is supposed the have folded the bag before leaving it at the sniper's nest. So why are there not more of his prints on that bag? Ever thought about that?
• And it's not Oswald's rifle, really? The rifle he ordered, purchased, was sent and possessed?
I'm sure you believe it was Oswald's rifle. Until you come up with something more that the known propaganda, I'm not wasting my time on this BS
• The FBI determined that the print that Lt. Day took on the 22nd came from the rifle, and thus proves that Oswald's print was on the rifle.
Is that the print the FBI couldn't find on the rifle in the night after the assassination or the one Day claimed days later that he took from the rifle?
-
So says the Legal layman, a couple of posts ago you completely embarrassed yourself with your clear lack of knowledge regarding the law, so why stop there, eh?
BTW exactly what "circumstantial evidence" in this case do you think you can destroy?
JohnM
Coming from a pathetic loser who always reverts to personal attacks when he can't win an argument, this is funny!
Then he makes it worse by basically claiming that circumstantial evidence presented by a prosecutor would be enough to sway a jury, regardless of what the defence has presented.
And then the idiot calls me a "legal layman"..... Hilarious!
-
It is truly amazing how LN nuts like Graves and Mytton are completely unable to provide a solid argument in support of a particular piece of evidence, yet write post after post about anything except the evidence and the actual case.
Hmmmm... could that be because they know they have nothing more to offer except what they believe without being unable to explain or defend it?
-
It is truly amazing how LN nuts like Graves and Mytton are completely unable to provide a solid argument in support of a particular piece of evidence, yet write post after post about anything except the evidence and the actual case.
Hmmmm... could that be because they know they have nothing more to offer except what they believe without being unable to explain or defend it?
Dear Martin,
Why are you such a jerk?
-- Tom
-
Dear Martin,
Why are you such a jerk?
-- Tom
I guess it rubs off when I'm dealing with jerks.
I'm actually quite nice, when people treat me in a similar way.
Now why are you such a jerk?
-
The bag was made from TSBD materials and found on the sixth floor.
And this random bag with Oswald's prints was made to perfectly fit the rifle. OOPS!
(https://i.postimg.cc/zG67LmCF/38-inch-bag-for-36-inch-rifle.jpg)
JohnM
-
And this random bag with Oswald's prints was made to perfectly fit the rifle. OOPS!
(https://i.postimg.cc/zG67LmCF/38-inch-bag-for-36-inch-rifle.jpg)
JohnM
It just didn't fit between the cup of Oswald's hand and his shoulder.... OOPS!
-
It just didn't fit between the cup of Oswald's hand and his shoulder.... OOPS!
Too bad that Frazier testified that he never payed much attention to Oswald's rifle bag. Try again! Hehehe!
Mr. BALL - All right. When you got in the car did you say anything to him or did he say anything to you?
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.
Mr. BALL - Did it look to you as if there was something heavy in the package?
Mr. FRAZIER - Well, I will be frank with you, I didn't pay much attention to the package because like I say before and after he told me that it was curtain rods and I didn't pay any attention to it, and he never had lied to me before so I never did have any reason to doubt his word.
Mr. BALL - Well, from the way he carried it, the way he walked, did it appear he was carrying something that had more than the weight of a paper?
Mr. FRAZIER - Well, I say, you know like I say, I didn't pay much attention to the package other than I knew he had it under his arm and I didn't pay too much attention the way he was walking because I was walking along there looking at the railroad cars and watching the men on the diesel switch them cars and I didn't pay too much attention on how he carried the package at all.
Mr. BALL - You will notice that this bag which is the colored bag, FBI Exhibit No. 10, is folded over. Was it folded over when you saw it the first time, folded over to the end?
Mr. FRAZIER - I will say I am not sure about that, whether it was folded over or not, because, like I say, I didn't pay that much attention to it.
Mr. BALL - But are you sure that his hand was at the end of the package or at the side of the package?
Mr. FRAZIER - Like I said, I remember I didn't look at the package very much, paying much attention, but when I did look at it he did have his hands on the package like that.
Mr. BALL - Mr. Frazier, we have here this Exhibit No. 364 which is a sack and in that we have put a dismantled gun. Don't pay any attention to that. Will you stand up here and put this under your arm and then take a hold of it at the side?
Now, is that anywhere near similar to the way that Oswald carried the package?
Mr. FRAZIER - Well, you know, like I said now, I said I didn't pay much attention--
JohnM
-
Too bad that Frazier testified that he never payed much attention to the Oswald's rifle bag. Try again! Hehehe!
Mr. BALL - All right. When you got in the car did you say anything to him or did he say anything to you?
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.
Mr. BALL - Did it look to you as if there was something heavy in the package?
Mr. FRAZIER - Well, I will be frank with you, I didn't pay much attention to the package because like I say before and after he told me that it was curtain rods and I didn't pay any attention to it, and he never had lied to me before so I never did have any reason to doubt his word.
Mr. BALL - Well, from the way he carried it, the way he walked, did it appear he was carrying something that had more than the weight of a paper?
Mr. FRAZIER - Well, I say, you know like I say, I didn't pay much attention to the package other than I knew he had it under his arm and I didn't pay too much attention the way he was walking because I was walking along there looking at the railroad cars and watching the men on the diesel switch them cars and I didn't pay too much attention on how he carried the package at all.
Mr. BALL - You will notice that this bag which is the colored bag, FBI Exhibit No. 10, is folded over. Was it folded over when you saw it the first time, folded over to the end?
Mr. FRAZIER - I will say I am not sure about that, whether it was folded over or not, because, like I say, I didn't pay that much attention to it.
Mr. BALL - But are you sure that his hand was at the end of the package or at the side of the package?
Mr. FRAZIER - Like I said, I remember I didn't look at the package very much, paying much attention, but when I did look at it he did have his hands on the package like that.
Mr. BALL - Mr. Frazier, we have here this Exhibit No. 364 which is a sack and in that we have put a dismantled gun. Don't pay any attention to that. Will you stand up here and put this under your arm and then take a hold of it at the side?
Now, is that anywhere near similar to the way that Oswald carried the package?
Mr. FRAZIER - Well, you know, like I said now, I said I didn't pay much attention--
JohnM
Too bad that Frazier testified that he never payed much attention to the Oswald's rifle bag. Try again! Hehehe!
You don't have to pay much attention to a package to see how somebody carried it.
Mr. FRAZIER - Well, I say, you know like I say, I didn't pay much attention to the package other than I knew he had it under his arm
But you are repeating yourself. You've already used this argument and it didn't work back then, so why do you think repeating it would work?
Be original and try something new!
-
Too bad that Frazier testified that he never payed much attention to the Oswald's rifle bag. Try again! Hehehe!
You don't have to pay much attention to a package to see how somebody carried it.
Mr. FRAZIER - Well, I say, you know like I say, I didn't pay much attention to the package other than I knew he had it under his arm
But you are repeating yourself. You've already used this argument and it didn't work back then, so why do you think repeating it would work?
Be original and try something new!
I see you deviously cut off what Frazier said, let's see the WHOLE quote, Hmmm?
Mr. BALL - Well, from the way he carried it, the way he walked, did it appear he was carrying something that had more than the weight of a paper?
Mr. FRAZIER - Well, I say, you know like I say, I didn't pay much attention to the package other than I knew he had it under his arm and I didn't pay too much attention the way he was walking because I was walking along there looking at the railroad cars and watching the men on the diesel switch them cars and I didn't pay too much attention on how he carried the package at all.
Naughty, naughty, Martin!
JohnM
-
And let's examine what Oswald told Fritz. Oswald completely denied carrying a long paper sack and says he kept his lunch with him on the front seat.
Mr. BALL. When you did ask him about the sack, you did ask him about it, a sack at one time bringing a sack to work that morning?
Mr. FRITZ. Yes; I did.
Mr. BALL. And you asked him the size and shape of the sack, didn't you?
Mr. FRITZ. He never admitted bringing the sack. I showed him the size probably in asking him if he brought a sack that size and he denied it. He said he brought his lunch was all he brought.
Mr. BALL. Didn't he say when you asked him the size and shape of the sack that he had with him, he said, "I don't recall, it may have been a small sack or a large sack. You don't always find one that fits your sandwiches," something like that.
Mr. FRITZ. That might be true but he said it was a small sack. He said it was a lunch sack.
Mr. BALL. Didn't you ask him where he usually kept his sacks, how he carried it when he came to work in the car?
Mr. FRITZ. I asked him where he had the sack---his lunch, and he said he had it in the front seat with him.
[/quote]
And what does Frazier say? Oswald lied about his rifle bag!
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.
JohnM
-
I see you deviously cut off what Frazier said, let's see the WHOLE quote, Hmmm?
Mr. BALL - Well, from the way he carried it, the way he walked, did it appear he was carrying something that had more than the weight of a paper?
Mr. FRAZIER - Well, I say, you know like I say, I didn't pay much attention to the package other than I knew he had it under his arm and I didn't pay too much attention the way he was walking because I was walking along there looking at the railroad cars and watching the men on the diesel switch them cars and I didn't pay too much attention on how he carried the package at all.
Naughty, naughty, Martin!
JohnM
Silly... Ball asked him if the way Oswald was carrying the package indicated that it "had more than the weight of a paper"
That's what Frazier responded to when he said he wasn't paying much attention.
But he nevertheless "knew he had it under his arm". There was no ambiguity about that!
-
And let's examine what Oswald told Fritz. Oswald completely denied carrying a long paper sack and says he kept his lunch with him on the front seat.
Mr. BALL. When you did ask him about the sack, you did ask him about it, a sack at one time bringing a sack to work that morning?
Mr. FRITZ. Yes; I did.
Mr. BALL. And you asked him the size and shape of the sack, didn't you?
Mr. FRITZ. He never admitted bringing the sack. I showed him the size probably in asking him if he brought a sack that size and he denied it. He said he brought his lunch was all he brought.
Mr. BALL. Didn't he say when you asked him the size and shape of the sack that he had with him, he said, "I don't recall, it may have been a small sack or a large sack. You don't always find one that fits your sandwiches," something like that.
Mr. FRITZ. That might be true but he said it was a small sack. He said it was a lunch sack.
Mr. BALL. Didn't you ask him where he usually kept his sacks, how he carried it when he came to work in the car?
Mr. FRITZ. I asked him where he had the sack---his lunch, and he said he had it in the front seat with him.
And what does Frazier say? Oswald lied about his rifle bag!
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.
JohnM
Where exactly did Frazier say that Oswald lied about that so-called "rifle bag".
Even if Oswald told Frazier the package contained curtain rods when it actually didn't, it could well have been a white lie to explain the trip to Irving.
Why would Oswald tell a 19 year old co-worker that he was actually going to Irving to try and save his marriage?
It's a far cry from proving there was a rifle in that bag!
-
Oswald also denied carrying curtain rods in his long paper bag!
Mr. BALL. What did you tell him?
Mr. FRITZ. I told him he had a package and put it in the back seat and it was a package about that long and it was curtain rods. He said he didn't have any kind of a package but his lunch. He said he had his lunch and that is all he had, and Mr. Frazier told me that he got out of the car with that package, he saw him go toward the building with this long package.
JohnM
-
It just didn't fit between the cup of Oswald's hand and his shoulder.... OOPS!
You seem to operate under the delusion that eyewitnesses perfectly remember every detail, especially mundane details that wouldn't have seemed the least bit important at the time they were observed.
-
Oswald also denied carrying curtain rods in his long paper bag!
Mr. BALL. What did you tell him?
Mr. FRITZ. I told him he had a package and put it in the back seat and it was a package about that long and it was curtain rods. He said he didn't have any kind of a package but his lunch. He said he had his lunch and that is all he had, and Mr. Frazier told me that he got out of the car with that package, he saw him go toward the building with this long package.
JohnM
If he told Frazier a white lie, the bag probably didn't contain curtain rods so it's no surprise that he said that to Fritz.
Fritz keeps going on about a "long package" but fails to tell us what he actually said or showed to Oswald. So, Oswald could simply have been denying that he carried a "long" bag.
Are you so desperate that you have to read far more into this than there actually is?
-
Where exactly did Frazier say that Oswald lied about that so-called "rifle bag".
Even if Oswald told Frazier the package contained curtain rods when it actually didn't, it could well have been a white lie to explain the trip to Irving.
Why would Oswald tell a 19 year old co-worker that he was actually going to Irving to try and save his marriage?
It's a far cry from proving there was a rifle in that bag!
Even if Oswald told Frazier the package contained curtain rods when it actually didn't, it could well have been a white lie to explain the trip to Irving.
There was something in the long paper bag and if wasn't curtain rods then it was something else. Funnily enough a bag with Oswald's prints was found on the 6th floor and this bag just happened to fit Oswald's rifle.
Why would Oswald tell a 19 year old co-worker that he was actually going to Irving to try and save his marriage?
I agree that Oswald was trying to save his marriage but there was no need to go on a Thursday, when if he just waited 1 day he would have a whole weekend to convince her and also give him much more time with his children. Also a big problem was that this unusual visit was in direct violation of his agreement with Ruth Paine, Ruth was already going above and beyond in housing Marina and her children.
The reason was obviously two fold if he could convince Marina he might have not killed Kennedy but after his rejection and filled with rage he assassinated Kennedy and then while in flight he killed Tippit. Oswald was a double murderer!
JohnM
-
You seem to operate under the delusion that eyewitnesses perfectly remember every detail, especially mundane details that wouldn't have seemed the least bit important at the time they were observed.
You seem to operate under the delusion that eyewitnesses perfectly remember every detail
Actually, eye witness testimony is the worst kind of evidence. So, why are LNs constantly quoting from eye witness testimony?
Could it be that eye witness testimony is correct when they say something the LNs like and unreliable when they say something the LNs don't like.
In this case, I didn't bring up Frazier's testimony.... that was Mytton. I understand why he did it, though, because without it he has even less than a case against Oswald when it comes to the paper bag.
especially mundane details that wouldn't have seemed the least bit important at the time they were observed.
I agree... and even worse, eye witness testimony gets worse as time goes by as people forget and remember things wrong. So whatever Frazier said months later shouldn't be given the same consideration as what he told DPD officers on the evening after the assassination when he was shown the bag allegedly found at the 6th floor and instantly denied it was the bag he had seen only hours earlier.
-
If he told Frazier a white lie, the bag probably didn't contain curtain rods so it's no surprise that he said that to Fritz.
You seem to be finally getting it, but the lie was a bit more significant than a simple white lie. If it was anything else besides a rifle then Oswald would just tell it like it was, but as you agreed Oswald lied.
JohnM
-
There was something in the long paper bag and if wasn't curtain rods then it was something else. Funnily enough a bag with Oswald's prints was found on the 6th floor and this bag just happened to fit Oswald's rifle.
I agree that Oswald was trying to save his marriage but there was no need to go on a Thursday, when if he just waited 1 day he would have a whole weekend to convince her and also give him much more time with his children. Also a big problem was that this unusual visit was in direct violation of his agreement with Ruth Paine, Ruth was already going above and beyond in housing Marina and her children.
The reason was obviously two fold if he could convince Marina he might have not killed Kennedy but after his rejection and filled with rage he assassinated Kennedy and then while in flight he killed Tippit. Oswald was a double murderer!
JohnM
There was something in the long paper bag and if wasn't curtain rods then it was something else.
Indeed.... so, without speculation or assumption, how can you be certain what was actually in that bag, and for that matter how long the bag really was?
Funnily enough a bag with Oswald's prints was found on the 6th floor and this bag just happened to fit Oswald's rifle.
Too bad that you can't place it in Frazier's car and even worse, when shown to Frazier only hours after the assassination, he denied it was the bag he had seen Oswald carry.
I agree that Oswald was trying to save his marriage but there was no need to go on a Thursday, when if he just waited 1 day he would have a whole weekend to convince her and also give him much more time with his children. Also a big problem was that this unusual visit was in direct violation of his agreement with Ruth Paine, Ruth was already going above and beyond in housing Marina and her children.
And what makes it even remotely important what you believe about Oswald need to go to Irving on Thursday? Perhaps Oswald didn't want to wait any longer to see his children?
The reason was obviously two fold if he could convince Marina he might have not killed Kennedy but after his rejection and filled with rage he assassinated Kennedy and then while in flight he killed Tippit. Oswald was a double murderer!
The only thing that is obvious about this is that it is a self-serving argument based on a flawed opinion.
-
You seem to be finally getting it, but the lie was a bit more significant than a simple white lie. If it was anything else besides a rifle then Oswald would just tell it like it was, but as you agreed Oswald lied.
JohnM
You seem to be finally getting it, but the lie was a bit more significant than a simple white lie.
The only reason why you feel the white lie (if Oswald told it) was more significant is that you want it to be.
If it was anything else besides a rifle then Oswald would just tell it like it was, but as you agreed Oswald lied.
BS... Nobody knows what Fritz actually said to Oswald and how Oswald replied.
All we have is what Fritz said about it. Trying to build a case on that is like building a house on quicksand.
-
You seem to operate under the delusion that eyewitnesses perfectly remember every detail
Actually, eye witness testimony is the worst kind of evidence.
Fair enough, then we are left with the physical evidence which is a bag with Oswald's prints which was manufactured to precisely fit Oswald's rifle. Thumb1:
(https://i.postimg.cc/zG67LmCF/38-inch-bag-for-36-inch-rifle.jpg)
Case closed!
-
BS... Nobody knows what Fritz actually said to Oswald and how Oswald replied.
All we have is what Fritz said about it. Trying to build a case on that is like building a house on quicksand.
Sorry Martin, not just Fritz!
Mr. BELIN. What was that about curtain rods?
Mr. HOLMES. Asked him if he brought a sack out when he got in the car with this young fellow that hauled him and he said, "Yes."
"What was in the sack?"
"Well, my lunch."
"What size sack did you have?"
He said, "Oh, I don't know what size sack. You don't always get a sack that fits your sandwiches. It might be a big sack."
"Was it a long sack?''
"Well, it could have been"
"What did you do with it?"
"Carried it in my lap."
"You didn't put it over in the back seat?"
"No." He said he wouldn't have done that.
"Well, someone said the fellow that hauled you said you had a long package which you said was curtain rods you were taking to somebody at work and you laid it over on the back seat."
He said, "Well, they was just mistaken. That must have been some other time he picked me up."
That is all he said about it.
JohnM
-
Fair enough, then we are left with the physical evidence which is a bag with Oswald's prints which was manufactured to precisely fit Oswald's rifle. Thumb1:
(https://i.postimg.cc/zG67LmCF/38-inch-bag-for-36-inch-rifle.jpg)
Case closed!
So, what exactly does a bag made from TSBD materials and found at the TSBD, which can not be placed in Frazier's car, is too large to fit between Oswald's shoulder and the cup of his hand (as seen by Frazier) and which Frazier, only hours after the assassination, denied it was the bag he had seen actually prove?
Sorry, but I'm just not superficial enough to buy the BS you are trying to sell.
-
Sorry Martin, not just Fritz!
Mr. BELIN. What was that about curtain rods?
Mr. HOLMES. Asked him if he brought a sack out when he got in the car with this young fellow that hauled him and he said, "Yes."
"What was in the sack?"
"Well, my lunch."
"What size sack did you have?"
He said, "Oh, I don't know what size sack. You don't always get a sack that fits your sandwiches. It might be a big sack."
"Was it a long sack?''
"Well, it could have been"
"What did you do with it?"
"Carried it in my lap."
"You didn't put it over in the back seat?"
"No." He said he wouldn't have done that.
"Well, someone said the fellow that hauled you said you had a long package which you said was curtain rods you were taking to somebody at work and you laid it over on the back seat."
He said, "Well, they was just mistaken. That must have been some other time he picked me up."
That is all he said about it.
JohnM
So it's what Fritz and Holmes claimed he said.... not much difference there.
Let's not forget that Fritz and Holmes were testifying months after the fact when they already knew there would never be a trial. They could have said anything they liked.
-
So, what exactly does a bag made from TSBD materials and found at the TSBD, which can not be placed in Frazier's car, is too large to fit between Oswald's shoulder and the cup of his hand (as seen by Frazier) and which Frazier, only hours after the assassination, denied it was the bag he had seen actually prove?
Sorry, but I'm just not superficial enough to buy the BS you are trying to sell.
Hilarious, so now in a matter of minutes you suddenly go 180 and now believe that eyewitness testimony is the best kind of evidence?? Whatever to further your CT agenda.
You seriously can't make this up! LOLOLOL!
JohnM
-
Hilarious, so now in a matter of minutes you suddenly go 180 and now believe that eyewitness testimony is the best kind of evidence?? Whatever to further your CT agenda.
You seriously can't make this up! LOLOLOL!
JohnM
Hilarious, so now in a matter of minutes you suddenly go 180 and now believe that eyewitness testimony is the best kind of evidence??
Do you live in some sort of alternative reality?
Eye witness testimony is indeed the worst kind of evidence, but statements made shortly after the events are likely the best information you can get from a witness.
But instead of trying to focus on Frazier denial about the bag shown to him, why don't you try to place that bag of yours in Frazier's car?
I ask again; what exactly does a bag made from TSBD materials and found at the TSBD, which can not be placed in Frazier's car actually prove?
-
This is a classic example of conspiracy hobbyists making excuses to dismiss the damning evidence of Oswald's guilt.
First of all; I'm not a "conspiracy hobbyist" (whatever that means) as I couldn't care less if Oswald did it or not. My position is a simple one; show me the evidence that proves that Oswald did it. Don't tell me fanciful stories based on conjecture and questionable evidence, but show that so-called "damning evidence". I don't dismiss the evidence that's there. Never have and never will. It is what it is, but don't try to convince me that Oswald's print being on a bag is conclusive evidence of his guilt. Even less so, when the bag itself can't be authenticated!
The bag was made out of TSBD material. There is nobody who saw Oswald make that bag or even be close to the packaging area on Thursday afternoon. Frazier did not see Oswald carry a paper bag with him to Irving, or he would have said so. What Frazier did say and still says to this day is that the bag he saw wasn't big enough to conceal a broken down rifle. Now, if you want to complain about dismissing evidence, why don't you start by not dismissing what Frazier said by simply saying that he was mistaken! He showed two FBI agents to where on the backseat of his car the bag reached and they measured it. Off hand I can't remember the size (I'm getting too old for this crap!) but I do recall it matched the size the bag would have had to have been for Oswald to carry it in the way he saw him carry it.
They can't explain the evidence to make the case for Oswald's innocence so they try to explain it away
Nobody needs to make the case for Oswald's innocence. Guys like you need to prove his guilt and you can't. That's why you complain about nonsense like this. If the case against Oswald was strong and conclusive enough than it wouldn't matter if some people think Oswald is innocent! So, tell me, what evidence exactly can't be explained?
One of their favorite ploys is to attack each piece of evidence individually rather than look at the body of evidence as a whole.
What body of evidence would that be? All you have by way of physical evidence regarding the entire trip to Irving is a paper bag and even that's questionable. Everything else is assumption and idiotic BS like a police officer still seeing the shape of a rifle in a blanket after the weapon was removed. Don't make me laugh!
When you do the latter, there can be no other plausible explanation than Oswald brought the rifle to work and used it to kill JFK.
And there it is! Translation; I first believe Oswald is guilty, never mind how weak and questionable the evidence is, and than I conclude that he must have brought a rifle to work (for which you also haven't got a shred of evidence) and used it to kill JFK. Never mind that nobody has ever been able to place Oswald at the sniper's nest when the shots were fired. It is all hot air and you have fallen for it!
You ask why anybody would have to present an "alternative plausible explanation". Well, if you want to make the case for conspiracy, that would be nice.
And what if I only want to see the conclusive evidence of his guilt, without making a case for conspiracy. What then?
There simply is no plausible alternative.
Isn't there? Pray tell, how did you ever reach that conclusion? Did you see and examine all the evidence that was gathered and looked at all the stuff the investigators ignored, misrepresented, dismissed and/or suppressed? I seriously doubt it. Just like you now believe everything the nut currently in the White House tells you, you've just taken the WC's word for it. It's the appeal to authority fallacy, pure and simple!
I'm not going to bother to go into every detail of this, because there would be no point. What you have given me is the prosecution's side of the argument and it contains many false, unproven and questionable claims. For instance; there is no evidence whatsoever which shirt Oswald was wearing at the TSBD on Friday morning. Yet here you are claiming it as fact!
So, if you had to make logical inferences from the evidence presented, wouldn't you not also have to take into account the arguments of the defence? But let's say, for argument's sake, that the rifle found at the TSBD is indeed the same one shown in the BY photos and the LN claim that Oswald owned that rifle since the purchase from Klein's is true. Doesn't that mean that any fibers found on the rifle allegedly matching Oswald's shirt could have gotten on that rifle at any time? Of course it does! So, what makes you so sure that the transfer of fibers took place at the TSBD on Friday morning?
And there is the classic LN "he never measured the bag" BS. Frazier, said that Oswald was wearing the package in the cup of his hand and below the shoulder. That gives you the dimensions of the package, regardless if the actual bag was bigger or not. You do know and understand that a paper bag can be folded, right? But far more important, on the evening after the assassination, Frazier was being question by DPD officers and given a polygraph (which he passed). He was shown the actual paper bag allegedly found in the sniper's nest (no in situ photo, remember!) and he instantly denied it was the bag he had seen Oswald carry. No matter what they threatened with, he stuck to his story even when he was still considered to be a suspect himself. It drove Captain Fritz to the point where he wanted to hit Frazier and Lt Day started to speculate (and there is documentation for this) that Oswald might have hidden this bag (the one allegedly from the 6th floor) in an old supermarkt bag. Just how desperate could they get. Ultimately, they just buried this story but the paperwork that still remains confirms it actually happened. And that should tell you all you need to know about how desperate they were to keep that paper bag in play!
But just for grins, let's say that the bag found in the TSBD was not the same bag Frazier saw. We can make two logical inferences from that. One is that the bag Frazier saw Oswald bring into the TSBD disappeared without a trace, despite a thorough search of the TSBD. The other is that at some other time, Oswald brought a different bag into the TSBD and that bag was long enough to hold a disassemble Carcano rifle.
Whatever works for you, I guess. You do understand that by coming up with this speculation you have just shown that even you don't know any detail involving the paper bag for sure. All you are desperately coming up with is two arguments to support your preconceived assumption that Oswald was guilty. And they are in fact crappy arguments. First of all, there is no evidence at all that there ever was a thorough search of the entire TSBD. In fact, if such a search did happen, why didn't they instantly find the clipboard and Oswald's jacket in the Domino room? Secondly, Oswald arrived at the TSBD at 8 AM carrying a paper bag. Kennedy was shot around 12.30 PM, which leaves an entire morning to dispose of a paper bag, which would have been easy, as the bag you claim Oswald used was in fact made from TSBD materials. So, all Oswald would have needed to do to make the bag disappear is to tear it up and dump it in a rubbish bin at the packaging department. Nobody would have been the wiser, but guys like you believe it was perfectly normal for him to fold up the bag (without leaving fresh prints) and leaving it behind at the scene of the crime.
Are you capable of rational thought? And if so, just how much thought have you actually put into looking at this kind of stuff?
If they dreamed up the kind of silly excuses that conspiracy hobbyists do to disregard the evidence of Oswald's guilt, every criminal defendant would walk. There is no reasonable doubt of Oswald's guilt in either the murder of JFK or the murder of JDT. To anyone who is familiar [sic] with the evidence against Oswald and is capable of thinking logically there is no doubt at all.
Of course there is reasonable doubt. Not only about some of the evidence that we know of but also because of what should have been there but isn't. All this pathetic whining about far more reasonable people than you not instantly accepting your silly claim about there being no doubt is alike to a toddler whining about people not liking his favorite toy.
The bottom line is a simple one. If there really was no reasonable doubt a forum like this would not exist and people would not be discussing this case more than 60 years after the fact!
I don't know what the forum record is for most misstatements in one post is, but you have to be close to it if you haven't broken it.
Oswald's print on the bag is not by itself proof of his guilt but it is probative. Rarely is a proof beyond a reasonable doubt made on a single piece of evidence. This is what conspiracy hobbyists (yes, you are one) fail to understand. It is the accumulative effect of all the evidence that erases reasonable doubt, not just in this case but in all cases. When all the arrows are pointing in the same direction, they aren't pointing in the wrong direction. It simply isn't reasonable, plausible, or even possible that all this evidence could be pointing to Oswald's guilt if he were actually innocent.
You seem to think it is significant that nobody saw Oswald make the paper bag. How does that preclude Oswald from having made the paper bag? Did any witness see somebody else making the bag out of TSBD paper? Somebody made that paper bag and did so without being seen by a witness. The forensic evidence makes it highly probative that it was Oswald who made the bag.
The Warren Commission made the case for Oswald's guilt and they provided us with conclusive evidence of that guilt far beyond a reasonable doubt. The fact that unreasonable people choose to dismiss that evidence does not establish reasonable doubt.
I did not speculate that Oswald brought a different bag into the TSBD at some unknown time. I was simply pointing out the logical conundrum you and other conspiracy hobbyists have created for themselves by disputing the bag found in the TSBD after the shooting was the same bag Frazier saw Oswald with. I find it far more likely that the two bags are one and the same but if you insist on claiming there were two different bag, then you have to accept that the bag Frazier saw disappeared without a trace and that another bag bearing Oswald's prints, long enough to hold the disassembled rifle, and containing fibers matching his rifle blanket was brought into the TSBD at some unknown time. Those are the logical choices you have. Which one do you want to go with. If you think there is a third option, please explain to us what that is.
You question why Frazier didn't see the bag when he took Oswald to Irving on Thursday evening. The bag had numerous creases in it indicating it had been folded up. It would be easy to conceal the folded up bag inside a jacket. Did you really need me to explain that to you?
The you ask "What body of evidence would that be?". I just got done listing it for you. I am not responsible for your poor reading comprehension. You can lead a horse to water...
You ask how much thought I have put into this case. I have been dealing with conspiracy hobbyists online for 35 years. I began shortly after Oliver Stone's movie came out in 1991. I know a hell of a lot more now then I did then and I have seen just about every argument imaginable over that time and have rebutted every one of them. Nothing you have raised is new to me nor are any of my answers to your questions. I've been down this road more times than I can count. What it comes down to is that conspiracy hobbyists cannot seem to solve the equation 2 + 2 = x.
You claim the evidence of Oswald's guilt is weak and questionable. It only seems that way to people who simply refuse to accept the conclusion that Oswald assassinated JFK just as surely as John Wilkes Booth assassinated Lincoln. There is none so blind as he who will not see.
You inferred there is some piece(s) of evidence that should be there but isn't. Tell us just what that evidence is. The body of evidence is exactly what we would expect to have with Oswald as the assassin. There is no evidence he was for or in conjunction with any other person. It is theoretically possible he could have had one or more accessories to his crime for which no evidence has ever been found, but after 62 years I find that possibility to be extremely remote. If you ever come across such compelling evidence, I'll be as happy as anyone to see it. I'm not holding my breath however.
You went on to claim evidence "ignored, misrepresented, dismissed and/or suppressed". Please tell us what that would be. Investigators looked at all the evidence and reached very logical conclusions. In some cases, the evidence was contradictory and mutually exclusive. For example we have one group of earwitnesses who told us all the shots came from the GK and another group who said all the shots came from the direction of the TSBD, Should the investigators have concluded both groups were correct or should they have looked for corroborating evidence to determine which group was right and which group was wrong?
You went on a long diatribe to dispute my claim that conspiracy hobbyists look at the evidence piecemeal instead of looking at it as a whole. In so doing, you demonstrated my claim to be true. You did exactly what I said. You refuse to look at the evidence as a body, because you know there is only one possible explanation that takes in ALL the evidence and that is a conclusion you simply refuse to accept. There are two types of people who dispute the fact that Oswald was the assassin. Those who don't know the body of evidence of his guilt and those who know the evidence and refuse to accept what that evidence tells us. The latter group (which you seem to be a member of) have as much credibility as flat earthers and moon landing deniers. Do you have reasonable doubts that the earth is a sphere or that our astronauts landed on the moon over 50 years ago and another group is now returning from having circled the moon? Either of the positions make about as much sense as denying Oswald was JFK's assassin.
-
I ask again; what exactly does a bag made from TSBD materials and found at the TSBD, which can not be placed in Frazier's car actually prove?
Are you being deliberately obtuse?
The bag with Oswald's prints that was found in the sniper's nest.....
(https://i.postimg.cc/2S5snB16/Oswaldsprintsonthebag.jpg)
....was an exact match for Oswald's rifle.
(https://i.postimg.cc/zG67LmCF/38-inch-bag-for-36-inch-rifle.jpg)
JohnM
-
So it's what Fritz and Holmes claimed he said.... not much difference there.
Let's not forget that Fritz and Holmes were testifying months after the fact when they already knew there would never be a trial. They could have said anything they liked.
Yep as usual, when you get desperate and can't address the evidence, this is your standard procedure, you claim someone lied and in this case two completely separate individuals, one from the Dallas Police and the other a Postal Inspector somehow got together and conspired another piece of evidence against Oswald.
And what's ironic is that you still claim that you aren't a conspiracy theorist.
JohnM
-
Are you being deliberately obtuse?
The bag with Oswald's prints that was found in the sniper's nest.....
(https://i.postimg.cc/2S5snB16/Oswaldsprintsonthebag.jpg)
....was an exact match for Oswald's rifle.
(https://i.postimg.cc/zG67LmCF/38-inch-bag-for-36-inch-rifle.jpg)
JohnM
The bag with Oswald's prints that was found in the sniper's nest.....
Was it? All I have ever seen is a photo with a box drawn in and statements from some officers who said they had seen the bag and others who said they didn't see it.
So, you are assuming that the bag was indeed found in the sniper's nest, but you have nothing solid that puts it there
....was an exact match for Oswald's rifle.
Really? And, if true, what exactly does that prove? Can you place the rifle ("Oswald's rifle LOL) in the bag? If not, you've got nothing
Now, how about placing that particular bag in Frazier's car? Can you do that or are we supposed to just assume it was there?
-
The bag with Oswald's prints that was found in the sniper's nest.....
Was it? All I have ever seen is a photo with a box drawn in and statements from some officers who said they had seen the bag and others who said they didn't see it.
So, you are assuming that the bag was indeed found in the sniper's nest, but you have nothing solid that puts it there
Half a dozen Officers reported seeing the bag in the Sniper's nest, just because some Officers didn't notice a brown paper bag among a sea of brown boxes proves nothing. "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence"
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.
In this photo taken on the afternoon of the 22nd shows Oswald's rifle bag with the same top end fold, same crumpled opposite end and same middle fold lines on top of some boxes in the sniper's nest.
(https://i.postimg.cc/wxsC9srP/Oswald-s-rifle-bag-in-nesta.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/fL11xwVC/oswald-s-bag-in-the-snipers-nest.gif)
JohnM
-
(https://i.postimg.cc/fL11xwVC/oswald-s-bag-in-the-snipers-nest.gif)
JohnM
Looks like nothing but box tops and packing paper
Thumb1: ...and You never could prove what day that picture was taken
-
Looks like nothing but box tops and packing paper
;D :D ;D :D
Hilarious, packing paper 6 floors away from where the packing is done, brilliant, absolutely brilliant, Einstein!
JohnM
-
I don't know what the forum record is for most misstatements in one post is, but you have to be close to it if you haven't broken it.
Oswald's print on the bag is not by itself proof of his guilt but it is probative. Rarely is a proof beyond a reasonable doubt made on a single piece of evidence. This is what conspiracy hobbyists (yes, you are one) fail to understand. It is the accumulative effect of all the evidence that erases reasonable doubt, not just in this case but in all cases. When all the arrows are pointing in the same direction, they aren't pointing in the wrong direction. It simply isn't reasonable, plausible, or even possible that all this evidence could be pointing to Oswald's guilt if he were actually innocent.
You seem to think it is significant that nobody saw Oswald make the paper bag. How does that preclude Oswald from having made the paper bag? Did any witness see somebody else making the bag out of TSBD paper? Somebody made that paper bag and did so without being seen by a witness. The forensic evidence makes it highly probative that it was Oswald who made the bag.
The Warren Commission made the case for Oswald's guilt and they provided us with conclusive evidence of that guilt far beyond a reasonable doubt. The fact that unreasonable people choose to dismiss that evidence does not establish reasonable doubt.
I did not speculate that Oswald brought a different bag into the TSBD at some unknown time. I was simply pointing out the logical conundrum you and other conspiracy hobbyists have created for themselves by disputing the bag found in the TSBD after the shooting was the same bag Frazier saw Oswald with. I find it far more likely that the two bags are one and the same but if you insist on claiming there were two different bag, then you have to accept that the bag Frazier saw disappeared without a trace and that another bag bearing Oswald's prints, long enough to hold the disassembled rifle, and containing fibers matching his rifle blanket was brought into the TSBD at some unknown time. Those are the logical choices you have. Which one do you want to go with. If you think there is a third option, please explain to us what that is.
You question why Frazier didn't see the bag when he took Oswald to Irving on Thursday evening. The bag had numerous creases in it indicating it had been folded up. It would be easy to conceal the folded up bag inside a jacket. Did you really need me to explain that to you?
The you ask "What body of evidence would that be?". I just got done listing it for you. I am not responsible for your poor reading comprehension. You can lead a horse to water...
You ask how much thought I have put into this case. I have been dealing with conspiracy hobbyists online for 35 years. I began shortly after Oliver Stone's movie came out in 1991. I know a hell of a lot more now then I did then and I have seen just about every argument imaginable over that time and have rebutted every one of them. Nothing you have raised is new to me nor are any of my answers to your questions. I've been down this road more times than I can count. What it comes down to is that conspiracy hobbyists cannot seem to solve the equation 2 + 2 = x.
You claim the evidence of Oswald's guilt is weak and questionable. It only seems that way to people who simply refuse to accept the conclusion that Oswald assassinated JFK just as surely as John Wilkes Booth assassinated Lincoln. There is none so blind as he who will not see.
You inferred there is some piece(s) of evidence that should be there but isn't. Tell us just what that evidence is. The body of evidence is exactly what we would expect to have with Oswald as the assassin. There is no evidence he was for or in conjunction with any other person. It is theoretically possible he could have had one or more accessories to his crime for which no evidence has ever been found, but after 62 years I find that possibility to be extremely remote. If you ever come across such compelling evidence, I'll be as happy as anyone to see it. I'm not holding my breath however.
You went on to claim evidence "ignored, misrepresented, dismissed and/or suppressed". Please tell us what that would be. Investigators looked at all the evidence and reached very logical conclusions. In some cases, the evidence was contradictory and mutually exclusive. For example we have one group of earwitnesses who told us all the shots came from the GK and another group who said all the shots came from the direction of the TSBD, Should the investigators have concluded both groups were correct or should they have looked for corroborating evidence to determine which group was right and which group was wrong?
You went on a long diatribe to dispute my claim that conspiracy hobbyists look at the evidence piecemeal instead of looking at it as a whole. In so doing, you demonstrated my claim to be true. You did exactly what I said. You refuse to look at the evidence as a body, because you know there is only one possible explanation that takes in ALL the evidence and that is a conclusion you simply refuse to accept. There are two types of people who dispute the fact that Oswald was the assassin. Those who don't know the body of evidence of his guilt and those who know the evidence and refuse to accept what that evidence tells us. The latter group (which you seem to be a member of) have as much credibility as flat earthers and moon landing deniers. Do you have reasonable doubts that the earth is a sphere or that our astronauts landed on the moon over 50 years ago and another group is now returning from having circled the moon? Either of the positions make about as much sense as denying Oswald was JFK's assassin.
I don't know what the forum record is for most misstatements in one post is, but you have to be close to it if you haven't broken it.
What misstatements would that be? Be precise..... go on then.
Oswald's print on the bag is not by itself proof of his guilt but it is probative. Rarely is a proof beyond a reasonable doubt made on a single piece of evidence. This is what conspiracy hobbyists (yes, you are one) fail to understand.
Oh, I do understand that better than you think. The problem is that this particular bag is actually a stand alone item, which you can not tie to Oswald's trip to Irving. You can not show this was the bag Oswald carried, nor can you show the bag ever contained a rifle and you most certainly can not show that this particular bag was ever in Frazier's car, where it would have had to have been if it had any connection to the rifle. You can't even autheticate it. And with that the probative value of that item of evidence is reduced to an absolute minimum! You can present anything you like as evidence. It happens on a daily basis in courts all over the country. But evidence isn't automatically proof of anything. And that's where you go off the rails time after time!
You seem to think it is significant that nobody saw Oswald make the paper bag. How does that preclude Oswald from having made the paper bag?
It doesn't. But Oswald's opportunity to make that bag was limited. In addition we know that the materials used to create the bag came from the packaging department of the TSBD and the tape used was such that it needed to be applied there and then. In other words, the claim that Oswald made the bag for the sole purpose of collecting and transporting a rifle from Irving relies on Oswald having been able to make that bag on Thursday afternoon! If Oswald had no opportunity to make the bag within the limited time frame the entire theory around the bag goes out of the window.
Did any witness see somebody else making the bag out of TSBD paper?
I don't know if anybody ever tried to find out, but, as you said, if nobody saw the bag being made why must it have been made by Oswald and not somebody else?
Somebody made that paper bag and did so without being seen by a witness. The forensic evidence makes it highly probative that it was Oswald who made the bag.
Really? Explain why? Just because a print of Oswald was found on that bag? Are you that superficial?
The Warren Commission made the case for Oswald's guilt and they provided us with conclusive evidence of that guilt far beyond a reasonable doubt. The fact that unreasonable people choose to dismiss that evidence does not establish reasonable doubt.
Hilarious... a guy, considering himself to be reasonable, is stating that people who do not find the evidence conclusive (it's far from it actually) are unreasonable. Just think about that for a moment and perhaps you will find out all by yourself just how truly pathetic that statement really is!
I did not speculate that Oswald brought a different bag into the TSBD at some unknown time.
I never said you did.
I was simply pointing out the logical conundrum you and other conspiracy hobbyists have created for themselves by disputing the bag found in the TSBD after the shooting was the same bag Frazier saw Oswald with.
There is no logical conundrum. It is a fact that Frazier, on Friday evening, was shown the bag allegedly found on the 6th floor and denied it was the one Oswald had carried.
I find it far more likely that the two bags are one and the same
What you consider to be likely is hardly of any significance.
but if you insist on claiming there were two different bag, then you have to accept that the bag Frazier saw disappeared without a trace
This is getting beyond comical. Oswald carried a bag into the TSBD at 8 AM. That's the bag Frazier saw. Kennedy wasn't shot until 12.30 PM which allows for 4,5 hours to dispose of a bag. So, let's get real for a moment. There is no evidence that the TSBD was ever searched for that bag, so for all we know it was simply somewhere in a dustbin all the time. No big mystery needed.
and that another bag bearing Oswald's prints, long enough to hold the disassembled rifle, and containing fibers matching his rifle blanket was brought into the TSBD at some unknown time.
And what exactly makes you think the bag allegedly found on the 6th floor ever left the TSBD or ever contained a rifle? As for the fibers, first of all, how could there still be fibers in the bag, as it was brought out of the TSBD upside down? And secondly, have you seen the evidence photos showing the bag and the blanket next to eachother?
You question why Frazier didn't see the bag when he took Oswald to Irving on Thursday evening. The bag had numerous creases in it indicating it had been folded up. It would be easy to conceal the folded up bag inside a jacket. Did you really need me to explain that to you?
Well, we know that Frazier never claimed to have seen the bag on Thursday. As it was folded, I assume you think Oswald hit it under his jacket, right? So, let's follow that train of thought; Oswald makes the bag at the TSBD, folds it and then in Irving unfolds it. He then carries the bag in the cup of his hand and once on the 6th floor folds the bag again and puts it (of all possible places) in the sniper's nest and the only print he leaves on the bag is a print from his hand when he carried the bag in the cup of his hand. Nothing strange there, right? Massive handling of a bag and leaving only one print. Wow!
The you ask "What body of evidence would that be?". I just got done listing it for you. I am not responsible for your poor reading comprehension. You can lead a horse to water...
There is the so-called "reasonable" guy again, claiming somebody has poor reading comprehension for not blindly accepting the BS Mr Reasonable considers conclusive or persuasive.
You ask how much thought I have put into this case. I have been dealing with conspiracy hobbyists online for 35 years.
And after 35 years you still haven't learned anything? Pfffff I know you find me unreasonable, but unlike you, I have learned a number of things in my discussions with LNs and in some cases I have actually changed my point of view on a particular subject. But perhaps one has to be unreasonable to being able to learn something new.
What it comes down to is that conspiracy hobbyists cannot seem to solve the equation 2 + 2 = x.
Do you really think your childish insults make your case any more credible?
You claim the evidence of Oswald's guilt is weak and questionable. It only seems that way to people who simply refuse to accept the conclusion that Oswald assassinated JFK
Ah.. a different version of the same crappy "I'm the reasonable one" argument.
You went on a long diatribe to dispute my claim that conspiracy hobbyists look at the evidence piecemeal instead of looking at it as a whole. In so doing, you demonstrated my claim to be true. You did exactly what I said. You refuse to look at the evidence as a body, because you know there is only one possible explanation that takes in ALL the evidence and that is a conclusion you simply refuse to accept.
You haven't got a clue what I looked at. In fact, the way I got involved in this case is by reading the WC report and finding it's conclusions were not supported by the evidence. If the evidence had supported their claims I wouldn't have been here. You have indeed fallen for the fantasy story told by the WC.
There are two types of people who dispute the fact that Oswald was the assassin. Those who don't know the body of evidence of his guilt and those who know the evidence and refuse to accept what that evidence tells us.
Somewhere in this nonsense you really should have used the words "in my opinion". Do I know the evidence? Yes I do, and unlike you I think it's possible that I'm wrong, and I do indeed do not consider the evidence persuasive or conclusive. What I find strange and remarkable is that a guy like you, who clearly considers himself to be reasonable (but isn't) can not produce a single solid argument to convince somebody like me that I am wrong about something. Now, why is that?
The latter group (which you seem to be a member of) have as much credibility as flat earthers and moon landing deniers. Do you have reasonable doubts that the earth is a sphere or that our astronauts landed on the moon over 50 years ago and another group is now returning from having circled the moon? Either of the positions make about as much sense as denying Oswald was JFK's assassin.
Why do LNs feel the need to make crappy claims like this? Is it perhaps a sign of weakness?
-
;D :D ;D :D
Hilarious, packing paper 6 floors away from where the packing is done, brilliant, absolutely brilliant, Einstein!
JohnM
Yea, packing paper comes in a box of books
Prove when the picture was taken and it will mean something
-
In this photo taken on the afternoon of the 22nd shows Oswald's rifle bag with the same top end fold, same crumpled opposite end and same middle fold lines on top of some boxes in the sniper's nest.
(https://i.postimg.cc/wxsC9srP/Oswald-s-rifle-bag-in-nesta.jpg)
JohnM
You see what you want to see.
But's let's say for argument's sake it is indeed the paper bag on top of some boxes. How did it get there, who unfolded it, why wasn't it photographed in situ and when exactly was this photo taken?
-
Who was at and in the "SN" and didn't see CE 142 [the bag] in situ?
from Tony Fratini
Deputy Sheriff for the Dallas County Sheriff's Department Luke Mooney
Sergeant in the Dallas Police Department Gerald Lynn Hill
Captain of homicide and robbery bureau for the Dallas Police Department J. W. Fritz
Detective in the homicide and robbery bureau for the Dallas Police Department Elmer L. Boyd
Detective in the homicide and robbery bureau for the Dallas Police Department (since August 2, 1948) Richard M. Sims
Deputy Sheriff for the Dallas County Sheriff's Department Roger Dean Craig
Deputy Sheriff for the Dallas County Sheriff's Department A. D. McCurley
Deputy Sheriff for the Dallas County Sheriff's Department Jack W. Faulkner
Deputy Sheriff for the Dallas County Sheriff's Department Ralph Walters
Detective in the criminal intelligence section, Police Department Dallas V. J. Brian
Sergeant Patrol Division, Dallas Police Department Donald Flusche
Cameraman for WFAA-TV in Dallas, Texas Tom Alyea
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Fritz For the First Four
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.
Captain Fritz:
Mr. DULLES. When was the paper bag covering that apparently he brought the rifle in,
was that discovered in the sixth floor about the same time?
Mr. FRITZ. No, sir; that was recovered a little later. I wasn't down there when that was found.
Mr. DULLES. It was recovered on the sixth floor, was it not?
Mr. FRITZ. Yes, sir; I believe so. We can check here and see. I believe it was.
But I wasn't there when that was recovered.
-
In this photo taken on the afternoon of the 22nd....
(https://i.postimg.cc/wxsC9srP/Oswald-s-rifle-bag-in-nesta.jpg)
JohnM
Prove it.
-
And this random bag with Oswald's prints was made to perfectly fit the rifle. OOPS!
(https://i.postimg.cc/zG67LmCF/38-inch-bag-for-36-inch-rifle.jpg)
JohnM
It seems really stupid to disassemble a rifle to lessen the length by only 2 inches.
-
Prove it.
No worries, happy to educate you.
Mr. BELIN. Now, I am going to hand you what I will mark as "723" and ask you to state if you know what this is.
Mr. DAY. 726----
Mr. BELIN. No; 723.
Mr. DAY. 723 is the southeast corner of the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository Building.
Mr. BELIN. Who took that picture, if you know?
Mr. DAY. Detective Studebaker.
Mr. BELIN. Was it taken under your direction and supervision, Mr. Day?
Mr. DAY. Yes, sir; I was present. The two metal boxes you will note to the left, are our fingerprint equipment that inadvertently got into the picture with a wide-angle lens camera.
Mr. BELIN. When you say to the left----
Mr. DAY. To the right.
Mr. BELIN. You mean as you face the picture to the right.
Mr. DAY. Yes.
Mr. BELIN. Do you want to circle on Exhibit 723 your fingerprint equipment?
Mr. DAY. Yes.
Mr. BELIN. Now, I will ask you to state if you know if this picture was taken before any of the boxes shown on 723 were moved.
Mr. DAY. To the best of my knowledge they had not been moved.
(https://i.postimg.cc/FsMZ4Dqf/CE-723-sniper-s-nest-wall-boxes.jpg)
And besides Day's testimony, Oswald's rifle bag that we see on top of the sniper's nest boxes was photographed being taken out of the building and later that evening was taken across the country.
JohnM
-
No worries, happy to educate you.
Mr. BELIN. Now, I am going to hand you what I will mark as "723" and ask you to state if you know what this is.
Mr. DAY. 726----
Mr. BELIN. No; 723.
Mr. DAY. 723 is the southeast corner of the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository Building.
Mr. BELIN. Who took that picture, if you know?
Mr. DAY. Detective Studebaker.
Mr. BELIN. Was it taken under your direction and supervision, Mr. Day?
Mr. DAY. Yes, sir; I was present. The two metal boxes you will note to the left, are our fingerprint equipment that inadvertently got into the picture with a wide-angle lens camera.
Mr. BELIN. When you say to the left----
Mr. DAY. To the right.
Mr. BELIN. You mean as you face the picture to the right.
Mr. DAY. Yes.
Mr. BELIN. Do you want to circle on Exhibit 723 your fingerprint equipment?
Mr. DAY. Yes.
Mr. BELIN. Now, I will ask you to state if you know if this picture was taken before any of the boxes shown on 723 were moved.
Mr. DAY. To the best of my knowledge they had not been moved.
And besides Day's testimony, Oswald's rifle bag that we see on top of the sniper's nest boxes was photographed being taken out of the building and later that evening was taken across the country.
JohnM
too bad there is NO date.
DPD was in and out of SN all weekend -and the bag didn't go to Washington
:D Educate me? - You'll need to learn some basic facts first
-
I don't know what the forum record is for most misstatements in one post is, but you have to be close to it if you haven't broken it.
What misstatements would that be? Be precise..... go on then.
Oswald's print on the bag is not by itself proof of his guilt but it is probative. Rarely is a proof beyond a reasonable doubt made on a single piece of evidence. This is what conspiracy hobbyists (yes, you are one) fail to understand.
Oh, I do understand that better than you think. The problem is that this particular bag is actually a stand alone item, which you can not tie to Oswald's trip to Irving. You can not show this was the bag Oswald carried, nor can you show the bag ever contained a rifle and you most certainly can not show that this particular bag was ever in Frazier's car, where it would have had to have been if it had any connection to the rifle. You can't even autheticate it. And with that the probative value of that item of evidence is reduced to an absolute minimum! You can present anything you like as evidence. It happens on a daily basis in courts all over the country. But evidence isn't automatically proof of anything. And that's where you go off the rails time after time!
You seem to think it is significant that nobody saw Oswald make the paper bag. How does that preclude Oswald from having made the paper bag?
It doesn't. But Oswald's opportunity to make that bag was limited. In addition we know that the materials used to create the bag came from the packaging department of the TSBD and the tape used was such that it needed to be applied there and then. In other words, the claim that Oswald made the bag for the sole purpose of collecting and transporting a rifle from Irving relies on Oswald having been able to make that bag on Thursday afternoon! If Oswald had no opportunity to make the bag within the limited time frame the entire theory around the bag goes out of the window.
Did any witness see somebody else making the bag out of TSBD paper?
I don't know if anybody ever tried to find out, but, as you said, if nobody saw the bag being made why must it have been made by Oswald and not somebody else?
Somebody made that paper bag and did so without being seen by a witness. The forensic evidence makes it highly probative that it was Oswald who made the bag.
Really? Explain why? Just because a print of Oswald was found on that bag? Are you that superficial?
The Warren Commission made the case for Oswald's guilt and they provided us with conclusive evidence of that guilt far beyond a reasonable doubt. The fact that unreasonable people choose to dismiss that evidence does not establish reasonable doubt.
Hilarious... a guy, considering himself to be reasonable, is stating that people who do not find the evidence conclusive (it's far from it actually) are unreasonable. Just think about that for a moment and perhaps you will find out all by yourself just how truly pathetic that statement really is!
I did not speculate that Oswald brought a different bag into the TSBD at some unknown time.
I never said you did.
I was simply pointing out the logical conundrum you and other conspiracy hobbyists have created for themselves by disputing the bag found in the TSBD after the shooting was the same bag Frazier saw Oswald with.
There is no logical conundrum. It is a fact that Frazier, on Friday evening, was shown the bag allegedly found on the 6th floor and denied it was the one Oswald had carried.
I find it far more likely that the two bags are one and the same
What you consider to be likely is hardly of any significance.
but if you insist on claiming there were two different bag, then you have to accept that the bag Frazier saw disappeared without a trace
This is getting beyond comical. Oswald carried a bag into the TSBD at 8 AM. That's the bag Frazier saw. Kennedy wasn't shot until 12.30 PM which allows for 4,5 hours to dispose of a bag. So, let's get real for a moment. There is no evidence that the TSBD was ever searched for that bag, so for all we know it was simply somewhere in a dustbin all the time. No big mystery needed.
and that another bag bearing Oswald's prints, long enough to hold the disassembled rifle, and containing fibers matching his rifle blanket was brought into the TSBD at some unknown time.
And what exactly makes you think the bag allegedly found on the 6th floor ever left the TSBD or ever contained a rifle? As for the fibers, first of all, how could there still be fibers in the bag, as it was brought out of the TSBD upside down? And secondly, have you seen the evidence photos showing the bag and the blanket next to eachother?
You question why Frazier didn't see the bag when he took Oswald to Irving on Thursday evening. The bag had numerous creases in it indicating it had been folded up. It would be easy to conceal the folded up bag inside a jacket. Did you really need me to explain that to you?
Well, we know that Frazier never claimed to have seen the bag on Thursday. As it was folded, I assume you think Oswald hit it under his jacket, right? So, let's follow that train of thought; Oswald makes the bag at the TSBD, folds it and then in Irving unfolds it. He then carries the bag in the cup of his hand and once on the 6th floor folds the bag again and puts it (of all possible places) in the sniper's nest and the only print he leaves on the bag is a print from his hand when he carried the bag in the cup of his hand. Nothing strange there, right? Massive handling of a bag and leaving only one print. Wow!
The you ask "What body of evidence would that be?". I just got done listing it for you. I am not responsible for your poor reading comprehension. You can lead a horse to water...
There is the so-called "reasonable" guy again, claiming somebody has poor reading comprehension for not blindly accepting the BS Mr Reasonable considers conclusive or persuasive.
You ask how much thought I have put into this case. I have been dealing with conspiracy hobbyists online for 35 years.
And after 35 years you still haven't learned anything? Pfffff I know you find me unreasonable, but unlike you, I have learned a number of things in my discussions with LNs and in some cases I have actually changed my point of view on a particular subject. But perhaps one has to be unreasonable to being able to learn something new.
What it comes down to is that conspiracy hobbyists cannot seem to solve the equation 2 + 2 = x.
Do you really think your childish insults make your case any more credible?
You claim the evidence of Oswald's guilt is weak and questionable. It only seems that way to people who simply refuse to accept the conclusion that Oswald assassinated JFK
Ah.. a different version of the same crappy "I'm the reasonable one" argument.
You went on a long diatribe to dispute my claim that conspiracy hobbyists look at the evidence piecemeal instead of looking at it as a whole. In so doing, you demonstrated my claim to be true. You did exactly what I said. You refuse to look at the evidence as a body, because you know there is only one possible explanation that takes in ALL the evidence and that is a conclusion you simply refuse to accept.
You haven't got a clue what I looked at. In fact, the way I got involved in this case is by reading the WC report and finding it's conclusions were not supported by the evidence. If the evidence had supported their claims I wouldn't have been here. You have indeed fallen for the fantasy story told by the WC.
There are two types of people who dispute the fact that Oswald was the assassin. Those who don't know the body of evidence of his guilt and those who know the evidence and refuse to accept what that evidence tells us.
Somewhere in this nonsense you really should have used the words "in my opinion". Do I know the evidence? Yes I do, and unlike you I think it's possible that I'm wrong, and I do indeed do not consider the evidence persuasive or conclusive. What I find strange and remarkable is that a guy like you, who clearly considers himself to be reasonable (but isn't) can not produce a single solid argument to convince somebody like me that I am wrong about something. Now, why is that?
The latter group (which you seem to be a member of) have as much credibility as flat earthers and moon landing deniers. Do you have reasonable doubts that the earth is a sphere or that our astronauts landed on the moon over 50 years ago and another group is now returning from having circled the moon? Either of the positions make about as much sense as denying Oswald was JFK's assassin.
Why do LNs feel the need to make crappy claims like this? Is it perhaps a sign of weakness?
It would be pointless to continue to do a point-by-point rebuttal of your posts. The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result. Suffice it to say you are really, really bad at weighing evidence. You can't see that the accumulative effect of all the probative evidence of his guilt eliminates any reasonable doubt of his guilt. There really isn't much room even for unreasonable doubt. Oswald did it and anyone who can't see that is willfully blind to a very obvious fact. There is no universe in which there could be so much evidence of a man's guilt if he were in fact innocent.
It is duly noted that you failed to support your claim that evidence that should be there is missing or that evidence was "ignored, misrepresented, dismissed and/or suppressed". Why doesn't that surprise me?
PS. I wouldn't feel too bad about your inability to weigh evidence. It seems to be a requirement for anyone who insists on believing Oswald didn't kill JFK.
-
Didn’t Linnie May Randle say she saw Oswald gripping the package at the TOP as he was carrying it? So if it’s an 8 lbs rifle, that is a forceful grip which should have left a whole palm print at the TOP of the bag.
Instead there only a palm print in the middle of the bag. Maybe it could be argued that if there was a print at the top of bag that it evaporated because of longer time of 3 hours from when Oswald had carried the bag into the adjacent loading dock building at 8:30 am and left it somewhere hidden until about 11:45 when the workers on 6th floor took the lunchbreak.
So then the middle of the bag print would be explained by:
A. Oswald, incredibly stupid ( or doesn’t care?) transported the rifle still in the bag with his bare hands to the 6th floor SE window at 12:23 ( just after Bonnie Ray Williams had left the 6th floor) and Oswald had only about 2minutes to arrange the box on the window ledge just before 12:25 when Bronson film starts. So hastily conceived plan= lots of stupid mistakes.
Note here: it is not likely that Oswald could have placed the box in the window ledge earlier than 12:23 because Bonnie Ray Williams was on the 6th floor from about 12:05-12:23 and workers were on the 6th floor from 9:00-11:45am. ( also Arnold Rowland saw a black man in the SE window at 12:15 which most probably was BR Williams.)
B. Oswald was stupid/ doesn’t care, so he touches the bag, the rifle and the boxes with bare hands rather than wearing gloves.
C: Oswald stupid/ careless, left the bag which he had just touched with his bare hands at the SN and even took time to fold it back up?
IDK what Oswald’s state of mind was after he was rejected by Marina on Tuesday night but if he was manic depressive or a bipolar personality it’s possible that a combination of anger and hopelessness could explain really stupid mistakes in handling rifle, bag and boxes with bare hands.
And if Oswald was a schizophrenic, there’s the possibility that A. Hidell was the alternate more agitated Oswald. It may be time to dig up the body and see if modern science can determine anything.
-
It seems really stupid to disassemble a rifle to lessen the length by only 2 inches.
The assembled rifle was 40.1 inches long. Disassembled, the longest piece was the wood stock which was 34.8 inches. The bag was 38 inches, so if he hadn't disassembled the rifle, 2 inches of the barrel would have been sticking out the top of the bag. By disassembling the rifle, Oswald saved 6.3 inches.
It should be noted that the ad Oswald responded to was for a 36 inch Carcano carbine. By the time Klein's received the ad, they had sold out of the carbines so they substituted a Model 91 short rifle which was 40.1 inches long. We can't know for sure, but Oswald might have assembled the bag believing the rifle 36 inches long which would explain why he only made the bag 38 inches long. If that is the case, it must have been a rude surprise for him when he saw 2 inches of the rifle sticking out of the top. I'll bet he was pissed. At that point he had to make do with the bag he had made and he had no choice but to disassemble it so it could fit in the bag.
-
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.
(https://preview.ibb.co/cqGmgw/Slide18.gif)
There is no reason to believe the rifle was ever broken down and put into that bag.
-
Didn’t Linnie May Randle say she saw Oswald gripping the package at the TOP as he was carrying it? So if it’s an 8 lbs rifle, that is a forceful grip which should have left a whole palm print at the TOP of the bag.
Instead there only a palm print in the middle of the bag. Maybe it could be argued that if there was a print at the top of bag that it evaporated because of longer time of 3 hours from when Oswald had carried the bag into the adjacent loading dock building at 8:30 am and left it somewhere hidden until about 11:45 when the workers on 6th floor took the lunchbreak.
So then the middle of the bag print would be explained by:
A. Oswald, incredibly stupid ( or doesn’t care?) transported the rifle still in the bag with his bare hands to the 6th floor SE window at 12:23 ( just after Bonnie Ray Williams had left the 6th floor) and Oswald had only about 2minutes to arrange the box on the window ledge just before 12:25 when Bronson film starts. So hastily conceived plan= lots of stupid mistakes.
Note here: it is not likely that Oswald could have placed the box in the window ledge earlier than 12:23 because Bonnie Ray Williams was on the 6th floor from about 12:05-12:23 and workers were on the 6th floor from 9:00-11:45am. ( also Arnold Rowland saw a black man in the SE window at 12:15 which most probably was BR Williams.)
B. Oswald was stupid/ doesn’t care, so he touches the bag, the rifle and the boxes with bare hands rather than wearing gloves.
C: Oswald stupid/ careless, left the bag which he had just touched with his bare hands at the SN and even took time to fold it back up?
IDK what Oswald’s state of mind was after he was rejected by Marina on Tuesday night but if he was manic depressive or a bipolar personality it’s possible that a combination of anger and hopelessness could explain really stupid mistakes in handling rifle, bag and boxes with bare hands.
And if Oswald was a schizophrenic, there’s the possibility that A. Hidell was the alternate more agitated Oswald. It may be time to dig up the body and see if modern science can determine anything.
Any theories about Oswald's state of mind or his thought process is pure speculation. We can never know what Oswald was thinking at any given time. It is my belief that he didn't expect to get away with the crime. He didn't think he was going to get away with it had he succeeded in killing General Walker so I doubt he had any expectation of getting away with the JFKA. As already stated, that's pure speculation.
-
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.
(https://preview.ibb.co/cqGmgw/Slide18.gif)
There is no reason to believe the rifle was ever broken down and put into that bag.
How about Oswald's palm print on the underside of the barrel. That could only have been placed there with the rifle disassembled. The we have the fibers in the bag that matched the blanket Oswald stored his rifle in when it was in Paine's garage. That ties the rifle to the bag and the bag could only hold a disassembled rifle without sticking out the top of the bag.
As previously noted, you are really, really bad at weighing evidence. That being the case, this hobby doesn't seem to suit you. Maybe you should consider stamp collecting as an alternative.
-
and the bag didn't go to Washington
:D Educate me? - You'll need to learn some basic facts first
::)
Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Cadigan, can you state your full name and position?
Mr. CADIGAN. James C. Cadigan, special agent of the FBI, assigned as an examiner of questioned documents in the laboratory here in Washington.
----------------------------
Mr. EISENBERG. Can you tell us how you conducted that examination?
Mr. CADIGAN. Yes.
I first saw this paper bag on November 23, 1963, in the FBI laboratory, along with the sample of paper and tape from the Texas School Book Depository obtained November 22, 1963, which is FBI Exhibit D-1.
(https://i.postimg.cc/JzMYBR3S/CE142-Oswald-s-rifle-bag.jpg)
JohnM
-
How about Oswald's palm print on the underside of the barrel. That could only have been placed there with the rifle disassembled.
Showed up after Lee was dead. FBI found no prints or sign of DPD having looked there for prints
The we have the fibers in the bag that matched the blanket Oswald stored his rifle in when it was in Paine's garage.
Fibers are only similar.
That ties the rifle to the bag and the bag could only hold a disassembled rifle without sticking out the top of the bag.
The rifle is TOO long to fit under his arm
How can BWF not see the bag rise above his shoulder while walking ahead of him?
-
(https://preview.ibb.co/cqGmgw/Slide18.gif)
Thanks for posting this photo, but I'm afraid it's backfiring badly. And in fact whoever did this demonstration was setting out to deceive.
For a start Frazier who is taller than 6 foot can barely hold a 24 inch package under his arm and his hand isn't cupped because the package is being held by the tips of his fingers. Look at the second photo and Frazier is showing a cupped hand!! Ouch!
Secondly Oswald was at least 3 inches shorter and he definitely wasn't built like a gorilla with extrrraa long arms.
Thirdly, Linnie Mae estimated the package at the testimony to be 28.5 inches but quickly interjected that her previous estimate was smaller. Why was she so keen to shrink the package?
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.
But funnily enough and before Linnie Mae realized her brother was in potentially serious trouble, her initial estimate was;
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
JohnM
-
Thanks for posting this photo, but I'm afraid it's backfiring badly. And in fact whoever did this demonstration was setting out to deceive.
For a start Frazier who is taller than 6 foot can barely hold a 24 inch package under his arm and his hand isn't cupped because the package is being held by the tips of his fingers. Look at the second photo and Frazier is showing a cupped hand!! Ouch!
Secondly Oswald was at least 3 inches shorter and he definitely wasn't built like a gorilla with extrrraa long arms.
JohnM
same old tired garbage.
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.
-
OK let's have a little fun and imagine that Oswald did NOT bring his rifle to work that day (which he most assuredly did). How did it get into the building then? Did someone steal it from Ruth and Michael Paine's garage and hide it in the TSBD for the "real" shooters to find and use?
-
It would be pointless to continue to do a point-by-point rebuttal of your posts. The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result. Suffice it to say you are really, really bad at weighing evidence. You can't see that the accumulative effect of all the probative evidence of his guilt eliminates any reasonable doubt of his guilt. There really isn't much room even for unreasonable doubt. Oswald did it and anyone who can't see that is willfully blind to a very obvious fact. There is no universe in which there could be so much evidence of a man's guilt if he were in fact innocent.
It is duly noted that you failed to support your claim that evidence that should be there is missing or that evidence was "ignored, misrepresented, dismissed and/or suppressed". Why doesn't that surprise me?
PS. I wouldn't feel too bad about your inability to weigh evidence. It seems to be a requirement for anyone who insists on believing Oswald didn't kill JFK.
It would be pointless to continue to do a point-by-point rebuttal of your posts. The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result.
And yet, here you are after 35 years making the same arguments over and over again and we are to believe you are doing so without expecting a different result? Wow!
Suffice it to say you are really, really bad at weighing evidence.
Of course, mr. "reasonable"! Clearly it couldn't be the case that you are actually the clueless one instead, right?
You can't see that the accumulative effect of all the probative evidence of his guilt eliminates any reasonable doubt of his guilt. There really isn't much room even for unreasonable doubt. Oswald did it and anyone who can't see that is willfully blind to a very obvious fact. There is no universe in which there could be so much evidence of a man's guilt if he were in fact innocent.
Damn, there it is again... a complete failure to add the magic words "in my opinion". Why is that oh "superior" one? Could it be you are one of those poor delusional souls who thinks he's always right and could not possibly be wrong? I'm only asking as it would explain a lot!
It is duly noted that you failed to support your claim that evidence that should be there is missing or that evidence was "ignored, misrepresented, dismissed and/or suppressed". Why doesn't that surprise me?
Nope. I did not fail to leave that out. I decided not to put it in as it would have made my post even longer than it already was and as I was talking to you, it was obvious it would be a waste of time, as you wouldn't and couldn't respond to it with a coherent counter argument anyway. This isn't my first rodeo with a LN clown!
But just for fun, I'll gladly give you a couple of examples;
In the suppressed category, the Stroud letter (about Dorothy Garner) features prominent.
In the misrepresentation category, the grey jacket comes to mind. The jacket now in evidence shows the markings of seven officers, when we know from Westbrook that an unknown patrol officer found the (then described as being white) jacket, showed it to him and then he gave it to another unknown and never identified officer. After that, the jacket disappeared until it surfaced again at the police station as being grey and containing the markings of officers who could not have been in the chain of custody and never came forward to claim they were.
Another example in the same category is the BY photo shown to Micheal Paine on Friday evening and shown to Oswald as an enlargement on Saturday morning was claimed to having been found at Ruth Paine's house during the second search (with a warrant) on Saturday afternoon.
In the dismissed category, there is a long list of witnesses who were dismissed as being wrong just because what they said didn't fit the preferred narrative.
And in the ignored category, there is Oswald's statement that he bought a revolver at Fort Worth. Where the FBI visited some 400 dry cleaners in the Dallas and New Orleans area in a vain attempt to try to match a dry cleaning label found in the grey jacket, nobody bothered to check out Oswald's claim by checking the gun shops in Fort Worth.
The list goes on and on, but what I have written so far will probably give you a headache, so I'll leave it here.
PS. I wouldn't feel too bad about your inability to weigh evidence. It seems to be a requirement for anyone who insists on believing Oswald didn't kill JFK.
And where exactly did I say that I insist that Oswald didn't kill JFK? Please come back when you are grown up, have acquired some critical thinking skills and are able to have a normal conversation. In the meantime, please keep on trying not to learn anything new. Shouldn't be too hard as you have been doing that for 35 years.
Btw, I understand why you are running, but don't worry, I won't tell anybody.
-
Any theories about Oswald's state of mind or his thought process is pure speculation. We can never know what Oswald was thinking at any given time. It is my belief that he didn't expect to get away with the crime. He didn't think he was going to get away with it had he succeeded in killing General Walker so I doubt he had any expectation of getting away with the JFKA. As already stated, that's pure speculation.
Amazing. Do you ever think before you write something as pathetic as this?
Calling any theory about Oswald's state of mind speculation, only to follow it up with your belief about what he was thinking. Is this comedy hour?
-
How about Oswald's palm print on the underside of the barrel. That could only have been placed there with the rifle disassembled. The we have the fibers in the bag that matched the blanket Oswald stored his rifle in when it was in Paine's garage. That ties the rifle to the bag and the bag could only hold a disassembled rifle without sticking out the top of the bag.
As previously noted, you are really, really bad at weighing evidence. That being the case, this hobby doesn't seem to suit you. Maybe you should consider stamp collecting as an alternative.
How about Oswald's palm print on the underside of the barrel. That could only have been placed there with the rifle disassembled.
And now you are going to tell us you know exactly when the rifle was disassembled, right?
we have the fibers in the bag that matched the blanket Oswald stored his rifle in when it was in Paine's garage.
Talking about being bad at weighing evidence! You have no evidence whatsoever that a rifle was stored in Ruth Paine's garage at any time after late September 1963.
And as far as the fibers go.... there is no such thing as fibers matching a particular object. Besides, you have already been told that evidence photos show the bag and the blanket lying next to each other on a table, so there was a real possibility of cross contamination. Ignoring reality seems to be a requirement for your kind of "weighing evidence".
That being the case, this hobby doesn't seem to suit you. Maybe you should consider stamp collecting as an alternative.
Is it in the LN handbook to conduct yourself in an arrogant manner while throwing childish insults around that only make you seem weak?
By the way, it was very impressive to see how you completely avoided to respond to the substance of the post you were replying to. Why was that? Could it be you had no credible reply?
-
Thanks for posting this photo, but I'm afraid it's backfiring badly. And in fact whoever did this demonstration was setting out to deceive.
For a start Frazier who is taller than 6 foot can barely hold a 24 inch package under his arm and his hand isn't cupped because the package is being held by the tips of his fingers. Look at the second photo and Frazier is showing a cupped hand!! Ouch!
Secondly Oswald was at least 3 inches shorter and he definitely wasn't built like a gorilla with extrrraa long arms.
Thirdly, Linnie Mae estimated the package at the testimony to be 28.5 inches but quickly interjected that her previous estimate was smaller. Why was she so keen to shrink the package?
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.
But funnily enough and before Linnie Mae realized her brother was in potentially serious trouble, her initial estimate was;
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
JohnM
Oh poor Johnny is still misrepresenting the evidence, as per usual.
You do know that the three photos of Frazier holding a bag are stills from a video interview in which the bags were constructed. It clearly shows that the bag Frazier saw came close to the one he is holding in the first picture. I'm sure you don't like that, but there it is.....
For a start Frazier who is taller than 6 foot can barely hold a 24 inch package under his arm and his hand isn't cupped because the package is being held by the tips of his fingers. Look at the second photo and Frazier is showing a cupped hand!! Ouch!
Secondly Oswald was at least 3 inches shorter and he definitely wasn't built like a gorilla with extrrraa long arms.
And yet, Frazier still says that's the way Oswald carried the package. So, perhaps the actual package was even shorter than the 24 inch estimate!
Btw, Frazier told FBI agent Odum on 12/02/63 that he "observed that Oswald had his package under his right arm, one end of the package being under his armpit and the other end apparently held with his right fingers". You are of course aware of this, right?
But funnily enough and before Linnie Mae realized her brother was in potentially serious trouble, her initial estimate was;
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
There is no proof whatsoever that Linnie Mae ever really said that. This information - and you know this - comes from an FBI FD 302 report, so it was the FBI agent who claimed she said it. To this day, FD 302 reports are for internal use and frequently contain incorrect information.
Not that this would stop you misrepresenting the facts, right?
-
JC: How about Oswald's palm print on the underside of the barrel. That could only have been placed there with the rifle disassembled.
MW: And now you are going to tell us you know exactly when the rifle was disassembled, right?
-------------
Nice John, Weideman finally admits it was LHOs print on his rifle and it is a fact that the FBI matched the bullets and fragments to the rifle. Who cares when he disassembled it. The print proves LHO did disassemble the rifle. His rifle.
By admission, LHO shot JFK. What is left to know?
-
::)
Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Cadigan, can you state your full name and position?
Mr. CADIGAN. James C. Cadigan, special agent of the FBI, assigned as an examiner of questioned documents in the laboratory here in Washington.
----------------------------
Mr. EISENBERG. Can you tell us how you conducted that examination?
Mr. CADIGAN. Yes.
I first saw this paper bag on November 23, 1963, in the FBI laboratory, along with the sample of paper and tape from the Texas School Book Depository obtained November 22, 1963, which is FBI Exhibit D-1.
JohnM
Yes, James Cadigan:
"....There were no marks on this bag that I could say were caused by that rifle or any other rifle or any other given instrument."
-
JC: How about Oswald's palm print on the underside of the barrel. That could only have been placed there with the rifle disassembled.
MW: And now you are going to tell us you know exactly when the rifle was disassembled, right?
-------------
Nice John, Weideman finally admits it was LHOs print on his rifle and it is a fact that the FBI matched the bullets and fragments to the rifle. Who cares when he disassembled it. The print proves LHO did disassemble the rifle. His rifle.
By admission, LHO shot JFK. What is left to know?
Oh boy, another LN who doesn't understand what has been written and makes up his own "reality".
-
Oh poor Johnny is still misrepresenting the evidence, as per usual.
You do know that the three photos of Frazier holding a bag are stills from a video interview in which the bags were constructed. It clearly shows that the bag Frazier saw came close to the one he is holding in the first picture. I'm sure you don't like that, but there it is.....
And yet, Frazier still says that's the way Oswald carried the package. So, perhaps the actual package was even shorter than the 24 inch estimate!
There is no proof whatsoever that Linnie Mae ever really said that. This information - and you know this - comes from an FBI FD 302 report, so it was the FBI agent who claimed she said it. To this day, FD 302 reports are for internal use and frequently contain incorrect information.
Not that this would stop you misrepresenting the facts, right?
I'm not foolish enough to think that an eyewitness recollection trumps forensic evidence. The bag in question had Oswald's palm print on it which would be expected if Oswald carried it cupped in his had as demonstrated by Frazier. What is typical with eyewitnesses is they get some things right and some things wrong. To determine which they got right and which they got wrong we need to look at how the eyewitness account squares with other evidence. In some cases, the other evidence will corroborate. In other cases, it will refute it. In still other cases, there might be no evidence which either refutes nor corroborates the eyewitness account. In those instances, the logical conclusion is that the witness might be right or might be wrong. We have corroboration for Frazier's account that Oswald carried the rifle cupped in his palm. There is no evidence that either corroborates or refutes whether or not the bag Frazier saw Oswald carry into the TSBD stuck up above his shoulder. Given that the bag not only had Oswald's palm print on it where it should be and fibers matching the rifle blanket found in the bag, I find it far more compelling to believe the bag Frazier saw and the one found by the sniper's nest are one and the same. You on the other hand prefer to believe that Frazier's account was spot on and that there were two different bags. Obviously, you can't see how unlikely that would be.
The above paragraph is an example of how one goes about weighing evidence. I will gladly put my analysis of the situation against yours any day.
-
I'm not foolish enough to think that an eyewitness recollection trumps forensic evidence. The bag in question had Oswald's palm print on it which would be expected if Oswald carried it cupped in his had as demonstrated by Frazier. What is typical with eyewitnesses is they get some things right and some things wrong. To determine which they got right and which they got wrong we need to look at how the eyewitness account squares with other evidence. In some cases, the other evidence will corroborate. In other cases, it will refute it. In still other cases, there might be no evidence which either refutes nor corroborates the eyewitness account. In those instances, the logical conclusion is that the witness might be right or might be wrong. We have corroboration for Frazier's account that Oswald carried the rifle cupped in his palm. There is no evidence that either corroborates or refutes whether or not the bag Frazier saw Oswald carry into the TSBD stuck up above his shoulder. Given that the bag not only had Oswald's palm print on it where it should be and fibers matching the rifle blanket found in the bag, I find it far more compelling to believe the bag Frazier saw and the one found by the sniper's nest are one and the same. You on the other hand prefer to believe that Frazier's account was spot on and that there were two different bags. Obviously, you can't see how unlikely that would be.
The above paragraph is an example of how one goes about weighing evidence. I will gladly put my analysis of the situation against yours any day.
I'm not foolish enough to think that an eyewitness recollection trumps forensic evidence.
Neither am I, but in this case there is no forensic evidence to trump. At least not in the real world.
The bag in question had Oswald's palm print on it which would be expected if Oswald carried it cupped in his had as demonstrated by Frazier.
There is no "bag in question". All there is, is a bag that you can not place in Oswald's hand when he walked to the TSBD, except of course for your wishful thinking!
What is typical with eyewitnesses is they get some things right and some things wrong. To determine which they got right and which they got wrong we need to look at how the eyewitness account squares with other evidence.
What "other evidence" would that be? You really need to stop thinking that the bag allegedly found at the 6th floor is somehow the same one Oswald carried on Friday morning, but that won't stop you making up your own reality, right?
and fibers matching the rifle blanket found in the bag,
There you go again with the same old fibers BS. You really have a problem understanding reality, don't you. At best fibers can be similar, but they can not be matched to any particular item. Also, when a bag and a blanket are placed next to each other, there is a serious possibility of cross contamination. In this case the bag and blanket were photographed next to each other at the DPD office and at the FBI lab. In what kind of analysis do you dismiss or ignore possible cross contamination of evidence?
(https://i.postimg.cc/DwJPc5FZ/Evidence-released-to-the-FBI.jpg)
Btw, I just borrowed this from Mytton. I'm sure he won't mind!
I find it far more compelling to believe the bag Frazier saw and the one found by the sniper's nest are one and the same.
Of course you do. Why look at the actual facts when you can make up your own little story. After all, what you believe must be true, right?
You on the other hand prefer to believe that Frazier's account was spot on and that there were two different bags. Obviously, you can't see how unlikely that would be.
The likelihood of Frazier's observation about the way Oswald carried the bag being correct is far greater than you would like it to be. You are trying to put a bag, which you can't even prove ever left the TSBD, in Oswald's hand regardless of what the only witness who actually saw it says. I bet you can't even explain how unlikely my opinion is.....
The above paragraph is an example of how one goes about weighing evidence.
Nope, it's a prime example of how you try to fit the evidence to a preconceived conclusion.
I will gladly put my analysis of the situation against yours any day.
Isn't it funny how some people say one thing and their actually actions demonstrate the opposite?
You are not analyzing anything. You are making up stories that fit your own flawed opinions. That's why you are completely unable to defend any of the BS claims you post.
-
I'm not foolish enough to think that an eyewitness recollection trumps forensic evidence.
Neither am I, but in this case there is no forensic evidence to trump. At least not in the real world.
The bag in question had Oswald's palm print on it which would be expected if Oswald carried it cupped in his had as demonstrated by Frazier.
There is no "bag in question". All there is, is a bag that you can not place in Oswald's hand when he walked to the TSBD, except of course for your wishful thinking!
What is typical with eyewitnesses is they get some things right and some things wrong. To determine which they got right and which they got wrong we need to look at how the eyewitness account squares with other evidence.
What "other evidence" would that be? You really need to stop thinking that the bag allegedly found at the 6th floor is somehow the same one Oswald carried on Friday morning, but that won't stop you making up your own reality, right?
and fibers matching the rifle blanket found in the bag,
There you go again with the same old fibers BS. You really have a problem understanding reality, don't you. At best fibers can be similar, but they can not be matched to any particular item. Also, when a bag and a blanket are placed next to each other, there is a serious possibility of cross contamination. In this case the bag and blanket were photographed next to each other at the DPD office and at the FBI lab. In what kind of analysis do you dismiss or ignore possible cross contamination of evidence?
I find it far more compelling to believe the bag Frazier saw and the one found by the sniper's nest are one and the same.
Of course you do. Why look at the actual facts when you can make up your own little story. After all, what you believe must be true, right?
You on the other hand prefer to believe that Frazier's account was spot on and that there were two different bags. Obviously, you can't see how unlikely that would be.
The likelihood of Frazier's observation about the way Oswald carried the bag being correct is far greater than you would like it to be. You are trying to put a bag, which you can't even prove ever left the TSBD, in Oswald's hand regardless of what the only witness who actually saw it says. I bet you can't even explain how unlikely my opinion is.....
The above paragraph is an example of how one goes about weighing evidence.
Nope, it's a prime example of how you try to fit the evidence to a preconceived conclusion.
I will gladly put my analysis of the situation against yours any day.
Isn't it funny how some people say one thing and their actually actions demonstrate the opposite?
You are not analyzing anything. You are making up stories that fit your own flawed opinions. That's why you are completely unable to defend any of the BS claims you post.
More silly nonsense. No worse and no better than anything else I've seen from the conspiracy crowd. You simply can't get around the fact that the explanation given by the WC fits the entire body of evidence. It is the only such explanation ever given that does fit the evidence. If there was another plausible explanation, someone from the conspiracy side would have figured it out by now. But of course, that has never happened and it never will. The body of evidence is what it is. After 62 years, you aren't going to add to it. If you and your dwindling cohort can't figure out an alternative explanation for the evidence by now, why should anyone take any of you seriously. All you can do is take potshots at the WC without ever offering anything better or even anything at all. The WC explanation wins by default.
-
More silly nonsense. No worse and no better than anything else I've seen from the conspiracy crowd. You simply can't get around the fact that the explanation given by the WC fits the entire body of evidence. It is the only such explanation ever given that does fit the evidence. If there was another plausible explanation, someone from the conspiracy side would have figured it out by now. But of course, that has never happened and it never will. The body of evidence is what it is. After 62 years, you aren't going to add to it. If you and your dwindling cohort can't figure out an alternative explanation for the evidence by now, why should anyone take any of you seriously. All you can do is take potshots at the WC without ever offering anything better or even anything at all. The WC explanation wins by default.
Oh goody, the amateur hour continues in the most shallow way possible. That's just sad.
The WC explanation wins by default.
This most pathetic comment sums it up nicely what a fool showing his true colors can be like....
The WC report is nothing more than a prosecutorial presentation of an extremely weak circumstantial case. Even worse, it's a political motivated report to bring about a quick explanation to convince the American public. In other words, it's not worth the paper it was written on!
When, as it did for me, the WC explanation falls short of providing a solid case and turns out to be a mere propaganda tool, it can never be a default, except of course for fools who do not understand the first thing they are actually talking about.
Do you really want to expose yourself as an idiot who can not counter any point I have raised? Have at it.... I can only feel sorry for you
-
Oh goody, the amateur hour continues in the most shallow way possible. That's just sad.
The WC explanation wins by default.
This most pathetic comment sums it up nicely what a fool showing his true colors can be like....
The WC report is nothing more than a prosecutorial presentation of an extremely weak circumstantial case. Even worse, it's a political motivated report to bring about a quick explanation to convince the American public. In other words, it's not worth the paper it was written on!
When, as it did for me, the WC explanation falls short of providing a solid case and turns out to be a mere propaganda tool, it can never be a default, except of course for fools who do not understand the first thing they are actually talking about.
Do you really want to expose yourself as an idiot who can not counter any point I have raised? Have at it.... I can only feel sorry for you
This most pathetic comment sums it up nicely what a fool showing his true colors can be like....
except of course for fools who do not understand the first thing they are actually talking about.
expose yourself as an idiot
JohnC has been nothing but respectful with you this entire time but as usual when your back is against the wall, you deliver a barrage of insults, this always happens and then when someone matches your energy to give you a taste of your own medicine, like a spoiled child you cry foul, without realizing that since day 1 you have ALWAYS been the instigator. If you want to be treated like an adult, act like an adult!!
(https://em-content.zobj.net/source/apple/419/backhand-index-pointing-down_1f447.png)
Coming from a pathetic loser who always reverts to personal attacks when he can't win an argument, this is funny!
JohnM
-
Oh goody, the amateur hour continues in the most shallow way possible. That's just sad.
The WC explanation wins by default.
This most pathetic comment sums it up nicely what a fool showing his true colors can be like....
The WC report is nothing more than a prosecutorial presentation of an extremely weak circumstantial case. Even worse, it's a political motivated report to bring about a quick explanation to convince the American public. In other words, it's not worth the paper it was written on!
When, as it did for me, the WC explanation falls short of providing a solid case and turns out to be a mere propaganda tool, it can never be a default, except of course for fools who do not understand the first thing they are actually talking about.
Do you really want to expose yourself as an idiot who can not counter any point I have raised? Have at it.... I can only feel sorry for you
You just made my point for me. All you did was take potshots at the WC without offering a better explanation of the evidence, or even one as good, or even one at all. You dismiss the WC as politically motivated without ever refuting the substance of their report or even try to explain how their conclusions don't fit the body of evidence. The WC's conclusions were spot on. Decades of study and advances in technology that wasn't available to the WC have allowed us to fine tune what we know, but it still falls within the parameters the WC provided. The WC did not reach a conclusion about the missed shot, allowing for the miss to be either the first, second, or third shot that missed and even allowed for there to have only been two shots with no misses. Most LNs now believe it was the first shot that missed. The WC found that the single bullet struck between Z210 and Z225. There is a clear consensus that the single bullet struck at or about Z222 and that JFK and JBC both show reactions a few frames later. 3-D computer simulations now have shown us the geometry of the single bullet theory works perfectly. Failure Analysis established a cone from which the single bullet could have been fired and the sniper's nest was in the center of that cone. Dale Myers created a virtual 3-D simulation of Dealey Plaza and showed that JFK and JBC were perfectly lined up for the single bullet to work. All the conspiracy advocates have offered us are 2-D diagrams and that ridiculous courtroom demonstration in Oliver Stone's movie, both of which show JBC directly in front of JFK and facing straight ahead. What they proved is that if you start with a faulty premise, you will likely reach a faulty conclusion. Boy, did they ever.
-
JohnC has been nothing but respectful with you this entire time but as usual when your back is against the wall, you deliver a barrage of insults, this always happens and then when someone matches your energy to give you a taste of your own medicine, like a spoiled child you cry foul without realizing that since day 1, you have ALWAYS been the instigator. If you want to be treated like an adult, act like an adult!!
(https://em-content.zobj.net/source/apple/419/backhand-index-pointing-down_1f447.png)
JohnM
I've been dealing with the conspiracy hobbyists on and off for 35 years and not much has changed. This particular forum is just more of the same. They never want to talk about specifics or deal with the body of evidence as a whole. They never try to explain what they think happened because they have no evidence that shows the JFKA happened a different way than what the WC gave us. The expect us to reject the WCR without ever offering something more compelling. They don't have a leg to stand on and they know it, but rather than admit they have been wrong all these years, they double down on their nonsense.
-
Yes, James Cadigan:
You mean James Cadigan, the same James Cadigan that examined Oswald's rifle bag at the FBI Laboratory in WASHINGTON, you know on the other side of the Country!
(https://i.postimg.cc/DwJPc5FZ/Evidence-released-to-the-FBI.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/bwD9RL8G/Evidence-released-to-the-FBI-a.jpg)
JohnM
-
JohnC has been nothing but respectful with you this entire time but as usual when your back is against the wall, you deliver a barrage of insults, this always happens and then when someone matches your energy to give you a taste of your own medicine, like a spoiled child you cry foul, without realizing that since day 1 you have ALWAYS been the instigator. If you want to be treated like an adult, act like an adult!!
(https://em-content.zobj.net/source/apple/419/backhand-index-pointing-down_1f447.png)
JohnM
This isn't the first time I've asked this, as it has happened before several times on this forum, but could it be that you and John Corbett are related?
I'm only asking because the way the two of you behave is identical. The same silly arguments, the same unability to produce a coherent argument, the same lack of capacity to counter when one of your false claims or misrepresentations have been debunked and the same way of blaming others for what you constantly do yourself.
Oh well, at least it's cute how you come to his aid when he needs it most. I'm sure he'll do the same for you. Thumb1:
-
This isn't the first time I've asked this, as it has happened before several times on this forum, but could it be that you and John Corbett are related?
I'm only asking because the way the two of you behave is identical. The same silly arguments, the same unability [sic] you to produce a coherent argument, the same lack of capacity to counter when one of your false claims or misrepresentations have been debunked and the same way of blaming others for what you constantly do yourself.
Oh well, at least it's cute how you come to his aid when he needs it most. I'm sure he'll do the same for you.
You poor thing, you.
-
You just made my point for me. All you did was take potshots at the WC without offering a better explanation of the evidence, or even one as good, or even one at all. You dismiss the WC as politically motivated without ever refuting the substance of their report or even try to explain how their conclusions don't fit the body of evidence. The WC's conclusions were spot on. Decades of study and advances in technology that wasn't available to the WC have allowed us to fine tune what we know, but it still falls within the parameters the WC provided. The WC did not reach a conclusion about the missed shot, allowing for the miss to be either the first, second, or third shot that missed and even allowed for there to have only been two shots with no misses. Most LNs now believe it was the first shot that missed. The WC found that the single bullet struck between Z210 and Z225. There is a clear consensus that the single bullet struck at or about Z222 and that JFK and JBC both show reactions a few frames later. 3-D computer simulations now have shown us the geometry of the single bullet theory works perfectly. Failure Analysis established a cone from which the single bullet could have been fired and the sniper's nest was in the center of that cone. Dale Myers created a virtual 3-D simulation of Dealey Plaza and showed that JFK and JBC were perfectly lined up for the single bullet to work. All the conspiracy advocates have offered us are 2-D diagrams and that ridiculous courtroom demonstration in Oliver Stone's movie, both of which show JBC directly in front of JFK and facing straight ahead. What they proved is that if you start with a faulty premise, you will likely reach a faulty conclusion. Boy, did they ever.
I bet that if there was a church where you could worship the WC, you'd be there just about every day of the week. It's not rational nor reasonable to blindly accept what one source says; it's the appeal to authority fallacy!
You just made my point for me. All you did was take potshots at the WC without offering a better explanation of the evidence, or even one as good, or even one at all.
Now why would I offer a better explanation to a fairy tale story? Would you perhaps like me to write an alternative version of the report? Are you sane?
You hide behind the WC report as if it is a bible, but are unable to defend their findings and conclusions beyond what they have written in the report. And than, like an insecure little boy, you constantly pump yourself up with crap like claiming your evidence weighing skills are superior. You don't discuss the evidence, as is clearly demonstrated by the fact that you have completely ignored my detailed reply, yesterday, to you crappy "two bags are really one" nonsense! Instead you hide behind the WC, constantly attack the person you talk to and talk down to them. It is pathethic. Your "I've been dealing with with the conspiracy hobbyists on and off for 35 years" makes no impression. All it shows is that during all that time you haven't learned a single damned thing. Critical thinking at it's worst!
What they proved is that if you start with a faulty premise, you will likely reach a faulty conclusion. Boy, did they ever.
Hilarious. Did you forget the Katzenbach memo of 11/25/63?
"The public must be satisfied that Oswald was the assassin, that he did not have confederates who are still at large and that the evidence was such that he would have been convicted at trial."
This was written three days after the murder, when they had just begun to collect evidence. If there ever was a faulty premise to start an "investigation" it's this one!
All you keep on showing in just about every post is that you are incapable of independent logical thought. All you do is blindly follow whatever the leader says, because you are in a cult and don't even know it!
Now please explain to me why it should be worth some of my time to continue talking to you, because I can't figure out a reason why! Hell, I can't even figure out why you are here. You've said yourself that it would be a fool's errand to talk to people over and over again and expect a different result. Yet here you are spewing the same BS over and over again. What's that all about?
If you are here to discuss the evidence, then discuss the evidence and don't hide behind the WC every time you get stuck.
-
You poor thing, you.
First you call me a jerk and now you are sorry for me?
Make up your mind will ya!
-
First you call me a jerk and now you are sorry for me?
Make up your mind will ya!
I'm very sorry that you're so gullible (and such a jerk) that you disbelieve all of the evidence against Oswald.
-
I'm only asking because the way the two of you behave is identical.
Do you really want to go there, and make me unleash a can of Whoop-ass on you like the Lance Payette "Sock Puppet" thread??
For everyone who wants to see how a Sock Puppet is created and destroyed, have fun with the Following Thread with a stack of incriminating evidence which exposes Weidmann's many acts of deception, sorry Martin but you made me post it! Muhahaha!
A sock puppet among us?
https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,4306.0.html
Ever since Bill Brown, Lance Payette, Vincent Baxter, Myself and countless others have busted you using "Sock Puppets" which made you disappear with great shame for almost a year to save face, you've been waiting to make your desperate attempt of revenge, Pathetic!
But dealing with this bizarre comparison, in comparison to me, JohnC has the patience of a Saint to put up with your constant mean spirited insults whereas I have no time for your Buffoonery and will make you regret the day you were born!
JohnM
-
I'm very sorry that you're so gullible (and such a jerk) that that you disbelieve all of the evidence against Oswald.
Oh boy... I don't disbelieve "all the evidence" against Oswald. Evidence is evidence. It either exists or it doesn't. But not every single piece of evidence is also proof.
Evidence can be manipulated and misrepresented. Completely wrong and unjust conclusions can be attached to a piece of evidence and that's what frequently happens in a circumstantial case like this one.
I can't believe I need to explain this to you.
Let me give you an example;
Captain Westbrook testified that a unknown police officer showed him a jacket under a car. In radio traffic the jacket was described as being white. According to Westbrook, the jacket was removed from under the car and given to another unidentified patrol officer, who I presume was to take it to DPD HQ. In any case, the jacket disappeared for several hours. As no attempt was ever made to identify both patrol officers, there clearly was no solid chain of custody for that jacket.
Then, several hours later a grey jacket shows up and is presented to the evidence room. It has the markings of no less than seven officers on it, but none of those officers were ever called to testify about their part in the chain of custody.
Now, you explain to me how you can claim that the white jacket found under the car is the same as the grey jacket presented to the evidence room. Can you do that?
I sure as hell have a possible explanation, which you probably are not going to like, but let's see how you can get this mess sorted out. Tell me what reason does gullible old me have to accept the jacket story at face value?
-
Do you really want to go there, and make me unleash a can of Whoop-ass on you like the Lance Payette "Sock Puppet" thread??
For everyone who wants to see how a Sock Puppet is created and destroyed, have fun with the Following Thread with a stack of incriminating evidence which exposes Weidmann's many acts of deception, sorry Martin but you made me post it! Muhahaha!
A sock puppet among us?
https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,4306.0.html
Ever since Bill Brown, Lance Payette, Vincent Baxter, Myself and countless others have busted you using "Sock Puppets" which made you disappear with great shame for almost a year to save face, you've been waiting to make your desperate attempt of revenge, Pathetic!
But dealing with this bizarre comparison, in comparison to me, JohnC has the patience of a Saint to put up with your constant mean spirited insults whereas I have no time for your Buffoonery and will make you regret the day you were born!
JohnM
The gentleman doth protest too much, methinks.
Did I hit a nerve, Johnny? Hilarious!
Ah yes, Vincent Baxter... that was the name I couldn't remember. He stepped in whenever you left for some time and disappeared as soon as you returned. Probably a coincidence, though.
I'll have to ask it again; what's it like to have someone like me living rent free in your head for years?
Just how obsessed do you have to be with someone to actually keep files of postings of or about him on a public forum?
When I log out, John Mytton is gone, a nobody and a nothing, until I return, because I know (just like this time, after I returned from not posting for months because I have a life) he will be waiting for me. And he was!
-
Oh boy... I don't disbelieve "all the evidence" against Oswald. Evidence is evidence. It either exists or it doesn't. But not every single piece of evidence is also proof.
Evidence can be manipulated and misrepresented. Completely wrong and unjust conclusions can be attached to a piece of evidence and that's what frequently happens in a circumstantial case like this one.
I can't believe I need to explain this to you.
Let me give you an example;
Captain Westbrook testified that an unknown police officer showed him a jacket under a car. In radio traffic the jacket was described as being white. According to Westbrook, the jacket was removed from under the car and given to another unidentified patrol officer, who I presume was to take it to DPD HQ. In any case, the jacket disappeared for several hours. As no attempt was ever made to identify both patrol officers, there clearly was no solid chain of custody for that jacket.
Then, several hours later a grey jacket shows up and is presented to the evidence room. It has the markings of no less than seven officers on it, but none of those officers were ever called to testify about their part in the chain of custody.
Now, you explain to me how you can claim that the white jacket found under the car is the same as the grey jacket presented to the evidence room. Can you do that?
I sure as hell have a possible explanation, which you probably are not going to like, but let's see how you can get this mess sorted out. Tell me what reason does gullible old me have to accept the jacket story at face value?
Thanks for confirming my statement.
You disbelieve all of the evidence against Oswald because you think (sic) some of it was just weird coincidence and the rest of it was fabricated and planted.
Or do you think (sic) it was all just weird coincidence?
-
Thanks for confirming my statement.
You disbelieve all of the evidence against Oswald because you think (sic) some of it was just weird coincidence, and the rest of it was fabricated and planted.
Or do you think (sic) it was all just weird coincidence?
So, you can't answer my simple question about just a single piece of evidence?
Instead of telling me (incorrectly) what I think, perhaps you should try to be a little less superficial and do some critical thinking of your own. You clearly haven't understood a word that I have told you. And I'm the "poor soul"? :D
Anybody who deals with a white jacket without a chain of custody morphing into a grey jacket with seven markings of officers that were never in the chain of custody and concludes that the two jackets are one and the same needs his head examined!
-
Anybody who deals with a white jacket without a chain of custody morphing into a grey jacket with seven markings of officer that were never in the chain of custody and concludes that the two jackets are actual one and the same needs his head examined!
In your mind (sic), is that jacket just an example of a "weird JFK assassination coincidence," or is it yet another example of the evil, evil bad guys' fabricating/planting false evidence against Lee "I Guess I Was in the Wrong Place at the Wrong Time" Oswald?
-
...and You never could prove what day that picture was taken.
It was taken on 11-22-63, as it says clearly on the back of the picture....see the link HERE (https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth339412/m1/).
More here:
https://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/07/frazier-randle-and-paper-bag.html
-
In your mind (sic), it that jacket just another example of a "weird JFK assassination coincidence," or is it yet another example of the evil, evil bad guys' fabricating/planting false evidence against Lee "I Guess I Was in the Wrong Place at the Wrong Time" Oswald?
It's amazing to me how you demonstrate your limited capacity to process information and then still think that your opinion is correct.
There is no coincidence nor was evidence being fabricated or planted.
At least not if you understand how the case was wrapped around Oswald from the beginning, regardless of his actual guilt or innocence.
-
The gentleman doth protest too much, methinks.
Did I hit a nerve, Johnny? Hilarious!
Ah yes, Vincent Baxter... that was the name I couldn't remember. He stepped in whenever you left for some time and disappeared as soon as you returned. Probably a coincidence, though.
I'll have to ask it again; what's it like to have someone like me living rent free in your head for years?
Just how obsessed do you have to be with someone to actually keep files of postings of or about him on a public forum?
When I log out, John Mytton is gone, until I return, because I know (just like this time, after returned from not posting for months because I have a life) he will be waiting for me.
Poor, Poor Martin, you've made almost Three Thousand more posts than me, that's some life you must have!? Hahahahahaha!
And what drew me back was not you, you silly deluded narcissistic fool,(just check my history) but Neidernut, who encouraged me to return to my 9/11 research, and then I destroyed his feeble beliefs which made him leave in disgrace, see ya later Alligator, and then I started to read Royell's posts and decided to dismantle his good natured ramblings, so yeah there are certain personalities that I enjoy debating.
And as for you, you made some self serving statement how you didn't brag about "supposedly" leaving America but in doing so you were bragging, you are such a Dumbass! No one needed to know where and when you "supposedly" left because no one gives a Stuff! And ever since I offended you with a little reality you have been following me around like a demented retarded sick puppy. You are so easy to manipulate! Hilarious.
JohnM
-
Poor, Poor Martin, you've made almost Three Thousand more posts than me, that's some life you must have!? Hahahahahaha!
And what drew me back was not you, you silly deluded narcissistic fool,(just check my history) but Neidernut, who encouraged me to return to my 9/11 research, and then I destroyed his feeble beliefs which made him leave in disgrace, see ya later Alligator, and then I started to read Royell's posts and decided to dismantle his good natured ramblings, so yeah there are certain personalities that I enjoy debating.
And as for you, you made some self serving statement how you didn't brag about "supposedly" leaving America but in doing so you were bragging, you are such a Dumbass! No one needed to know where and when you "supposedly" left because no one gives a Stuff! And ever since I offended you with a little reality you have been following me around like a demented retarded sick puppy. You are so easy to manipulate! Hilarious.
JohnM
Yes, I hit a nerve (again) :D
-
The case was wrapped around Oswald from the beginning.
Okay, so Oswald's landlady's saying under penalty of perjury that she saw him wearing a jacket when he left the rooming house, and a jacket's being found under a car close to where Tippit's murderer (identified as Oswald) was seen fleeing, and the fact that Oswald wasn't wearing a jacket when he was arrested a few minutes later in the Texas Theater was all "evidence" that was fabricated and planted against him, right?
-
It was taken on 11-22-63, as it says clearly on the back of the picture....see the link HERE (https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth339412/m1/).
More here:
https://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/07/frazier-randle-and-paper-bag.html
Thanks David, in researching that photo, I was just on your site earlier today and saw that you discovered that little gem and was going to post it here to further educate Capasse.
Anyway, to anyone who's reading this, CT's and LNers alike and want to investigate, research and learn some interesting JFKA facts go and enjoy DVP's excellent site!!
https://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/
JohnM
-
Okay, so Oswald's landlady's saying she saw him wearing a light-colored jacket when he left the rooming house, and a jacket's being found under a car close to where Tippit's murderer was seen fleeing, and the fact that Oswald wasn't wearing a jacket when he was arrested a few minutes later in the Texas Theater is all fabricated and planted evidence against him, right?
Oswald's landlady didn't say she saw him wearing a light-colored jacket. In her affidavit of December 5, 1963 she described the jacket as having a dark color. And in her WC testimony she was shown the grey jacket and she couldn't recognize it because the jacket "he put on was darker".
It would be nice if you at least try to get your facts correct before asking me this question.
The remainder of your question assumes up front that Oswald killed Tippit, ran from the scene and dumped his jacket (which somehow had turned white) and then was arrested without a jacket.
All this rests on the testimony of Earlene Roberts who claimed Oswald left zipping up a jacket, whilst at the same time saying she wasn't paying much attention as you was trying to get the TV working. Ever considered the possibility that Oswald did not leave the rooming house wearing a jacket and went straight to the Texas Theater?
As for the grey jacket, there is an interesting tale about that as well, as there is evidence that actually suggests that jacket was in Irving on Friday morning and not in Oak Cliff.
Have I confused you enough? Perhaps you should try to look beyond the BS that the WC has told you.
Btw, when Frazier says he wasn't paying much attention to the package Oswald was carrying, that means for the LNs he must be wrong about what he saw, but when Roberts says she wasn't paying much attention to the jacket, whatever she said is written in stone by the LNs. You see the double standard? Probably not, I suppose.
-
Yes, I hit a nerve (again) :D
(https://media.tenor.com/FpxOFbEUBJEAAAAM/narcissist-nastassja-kinski.gif)
JohnM
-
(https://media.tenor.com/FpxOFbEUBJEAAAAM/narcissist-nastassja-kinski.gif)
JohnM
The poor boy can't help himself.....
Is the nerve still hurting?
-
The poor boy can't help himself.....
Is the nerve still hurting?
:D ;D :D ;D :D ;D :D ;D :D ;D :D ;D :D ;D
A sock puppet among us?
https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,4306.0.html
JohnM
-
Your question assumes up front that Oswald killed Tippit, ran from the scene and dumped his jacket (which somehow had turned white) and then was arrested without a jacket. All this rests on the testimony of Earlene Roberts who claimed Oswald left zipping up a jacket, whilst at the same time saying she wasn't paying much attention as she was trying to get the TV working. Ever considered the possibility that Oswald did not leave the rooming house wearing a jacket and went straight to the Texas Theater?
Do you think all of the evidence against Oswald in the Tippit Case was fabricated and planted, too?
Or was some of it just more "weird coincidence"?
-
You mean James Cadigan, the same James Cadigan that examined Oswald's rifle bag at the FBI Laboratory in WASHINGTON, you know on the other side of the Country!
JohnM
Did the bag go to Washington Friday night?
Thumb1: I don't think it did
Jim Marrs:
"When the Dallas evidence was shipped to the FBI laboratory early on November 23, there was no mention of the paper bag.
Instead, Dallas FBI agent-in-charge J. Gordon Shanklin mentioned the blanket, which he suggested was used to carry the
rifle into the Depository."
https://web.archive.org/web/20120502231526im_/http://www.giljesus.com/stovall_A.JPG
-
Thanks David, in researching that photo, I was just on your site earlier today and saw that you discovered that little gem and was going to post it here to further educate Capasse.
Anyway, to anyone who's reading this, CT's and LNers alike and want to investigate, research and learn some interesting JFKA facts go and enjoy DVP's excellent site!!
https://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/
JohnM
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/54149618114_b746b778dd_o.png)
:D too bad you just cannot prove where the bag is
-
:D ;D :D ;D :D ;D :D ;D :D ;D :D ;D :D ;D
A sock puppet among us?
https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,4306.0.html
JohnM
A sane person would have let it go, but not Johnny....
He thinks he's being nasty, but all he really is, is an easily triggered fool with a delusion of grandeur complex.
Keep responding, Johnny. I can do with a good laugh
-
Do you think all of the evidence against Oswald in the Tippit Case was fabricated and planted, too?
Or was some of it just more "weird coincidence"?
I see you are running away as fast as you can from the white/grey jacket questions. One can only wonder why, but it's really no surprise.
What evidence in de Tippit case are you talking about?
-
Too bad the bag didn't go to Washington Friday night.
Jim Marrs:
"When the Dallas evidence was shipped to the FBI laboratory early on November 23, there was no mention of the paper bag.
Instead, Dallas FBI agent-in-charge J. Gordon Shanklin mentioned the blanket, which he suggested was used to carry the
rifle into the Depository."
https://web.archive.org/web/20120502231526im_/http://www.giljesus.com/stovall_A.JPG
Jim Marrs??
You've got to be joking? ???
Mr. EISENBERG. If there are no further questions on the shirt, I will move on to another item.
Mr. Stombaugh, I now hand you a homemade paper bag, Commission Exhibit 142, which parenthetically has also received another Exhibit No. 626, and ask you whether you are familiar with this item?
Mr. STOMBAUGH. Yes; I am.
Mr. EISENBERG. Does that have your mark on it?
Mr. STOMBAUGH. At the time I examined this, it was to be treated for latent fingerprints subsequent to my examination, and in a case like this I will not put a mark on the item itself because my mark might cover a latent fingerprint which is later brought up, and therefore obscure it.
In this particular instance, I made a drawing of this bag on my notes with the various sizes and description of it to refresh my memory at a later date.
Mr. EISENBERG. And it is--looking at those notes and as you remember now-- this is the bag?
Mr. STOMBAUGH. This is the bag.
Mr. EISENBERG. Now, this bag has an area of very light-brown color, and the greater portion of the area is a quite dark-brownish color. What was the color when you originally received it?
Mr. STOMBAUGH. When I originally received this it was a light-brown color.
Mr. EISENBERG. Which is at one end of the bag?
Mr. STOMBAUGH. One end of the bag.
Mr. EISENBERG. The tape is also two colors, one a lightish brown and the other a darkish brown. What color was the tape when you received it?
Mr. STOMBAUGH. The tape also was light brown.
Mr. EISENBERG. Could you turn the bag over? Was it the color that shows as a lighter yellowish-type of brown?
Mr. STOMBAUGH. Yes; a yellow-brown shade.
Mr. EISENBERG. When did you receive it, by the way, Mr. Stombaugh?
Mr. STOMBAUGH. This was received on November 23, 7:30 a.m, 1963.
(https://i.postimg.cc/yNzdHBxz/ce-142-oswald-s-rifle-sack-bag.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/FHkMxL9J/FBI-Evidence-in-Washington.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/hvyGVdKJ/FBI-Evidence-in-Washington-2-b.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/T35zcDRK/FBI-Evidence-in-Washington-5.jpg)
JohnM
-
A sane person would have let it go, but not Johnny....
He thinks he's being nasty, but all he really is, is an easily triggered fool with a delusion of grandeur complex.
Keep responding, Johnny. I can do with a good laugh
Every time I ring my bell, you salivate like Pavlov's dog!
(https://i.postimg.cc/CxmV5gLB/Pavlov-s-dog.webp)
JohnM
-
Every time I ring my bell, you salivate like Pavlov's dog!
(https://i.postimg.cc/CxmV5gLB/Pavlov-s-dog.webp)
JohnM
Did somebody mention delusion of grandeur?
Still desperately trying to turn this fiasco around, I see! Thanks for the laugh and keep 'm coming!
-
Thumb1: Still, no reason to think the rifle was ever broken down and put into that bag.
-
Thumb1: Still, no reason to think the rifle was ever broken down and put into that bag.
No reason? Seriously? If you were Oswald and you had made a 38 inch bag to conceal your rifle and then discovered your rifle was 40 inches long, not the 36 inch rifle you had ordered, what would you do at that point?
We know for fact that the rifle had been disassembled and handled by Oswald because that is the only way his palm print could have been placed on the underside of the barrel. Oswald's palmprints were on both the rifle and the bag, proof positive that he had handled both. The presence of the fibers on the bag that matched his rifle blanket are prima facie evidence that the bag was used to hold the rifle.
Conspiracy hobbyists taken the ridiculous position that every piece of evidence must be 100% conclusive to be probative and accepted. That is absurd not just in this case but in all cases. Prosecutors base their cases on an accumulation of evidence that is probative but rarely 100% conclusive by itself. There will always be possible alternative explanations for any given piece of evidence but that does not take away from the probative value of the evidence.
I haven't bothered to count them but Vincent Bugliosi identified over 50 pieces of evidence that indicated Oswald was the assassin. Not one of these pieces of evidence is conclusive by itself of Oswald's guilt, but taken collectively, they leave no doubt. When the most likely explanation for any one piece of evidence is that Oswald is guilty, there is no reasonable argument for his innocence when you have that many pieces pointing to his guilt.
In the past, I've drawn an analogy to a jigsaw puzzle. No one piece of the puzzle can tell us what the picture looks like, but the pieces of the puzzle can only fit together one way. When we put the pieces of evidence together, the picture unmistakenly presented is that Oswald was the assassin. It is the only way the individual pieces will fit together. We might have a few missing pieces, such as where to the missed shot go and what did it hit. The biggest missing piece is Oswald's motive. That we will never know for sure, but we can still get a very clear picture of what happened without that piece. Conspiracy hobbyists never want to put the pieces of the puzzle together. They look at one piece and say it doesn't look like anything. Of course it doesn't until you put it together with the other pieces and then the picture becomes crystal clear.
-
No reason? Seriously? If you were Oswald and you had made a 38 inch bag to conceal your rifle and then discovered your rifle was 40 inches long, not the 36 inch rifle you had ordered, what would you do at that point?
We know for fact that the rifle had been disassembled and handled by Oswald because that is the only way his palm print could have been placed on the underside of the barrel. Oswald's palmprints were on both the rifle and the bag, proof positive that he had handled both. The presence of the fibers on the bag that matched his rifle blanket are prima facie evidence that the bag was used to hold the rifle.
Conspiracy hobbyists taken the ridiculous position that every piece of evidence must be 100% conclusive to be probative and accepted. That is absurd not just in this case but in all cases. Prosecutors base their cases on an accumulation of evidence that is probative but rarely 100% conclusive by itself. There will always be possible alternative explanations for any given piece of evidence but that does not take away from the probative value of the evidence.
I haven't bothered to count them but Vincent Bugliosi identified over 50 pieces of evidence that indicated Oswald was the assassin. Not one of these pieces of evidence is conclusive by itself of Oswald's guilt, but taken collectively, they leave no doubt. When the most likely explanation for any one piece of evidence is that Oswald is guilty, there is no reasonable argument for his innocence when you have that many pieces pointing to his guilt.
In the past, I've drawn an analogy to a jigsaw puzzle. No one piece of the puzzle can tell us what the picture looks like, but the pieces of the puzzle can only fit together one way. When we put the pieces of evidence together, the picture unmistakenly presented is that Oswald was the assassin. It is the only way the individual pieces will fit together. We might have a few missing pieces, such as where to the missed shot go and what did it hit. The biggest missing piece is Oswald's motive. That we will never know for sure, but we can still get a very clear picture of what happened without that piece. Conspiracy hobbyists never want to put the pieces of the puzzle together. They look at one piece and say it doesn't look like anything. Of course it doesn't until you put it together with the other pieces and then the picture becomes crystal clear.
Blah Blah Blah.
There is no mistaking this rifle for curtain rods and there is no way to carry it without looking like a fishing pole, baseball bat or a RIFLE.
Frazier did not see a rifle.
-
Blah Blah Blah.
There is no mistaking this rifle for curtain rods and there is no way to carry it without looking like a fishing pole, baseball bat or a RIFLE.
Frazier did not see a rifle.
Of course Frazier did not see a rifle. That's why Oswald made the bag so neither Frazier nor anybody else could see the rifle. Did you really need me to explain this to you.
-
Of course Frazier did not see a rifle. That's why Oswald made the bag so neither Frazier nor anybody else could see the rifle. Did you really need me to explain this to you.
The rifle will not fit under his arm.
Thumb1: Did you really need me to explain this to you?
-
No reason? Seriously? If you were Oswald and you had made a 38 inch bag to conceal your rifle and then discovered your rifle was 40 inches long, not the 36 inch rifle you had ordered, what would you do at that point?
We know for fact that the rifle had been disassembled and handled by Oswald because that is the only way his palm print could have been placed on the underside of the barrel. Oswald's palmprints were on both the rifle and the bag, proof positive that he had handled both. The presence of the fibers on the bag that matched his rifle blanket are prima facie evidence that the bag was used to hold the rifle.
Conspiracy hobbyists taken the ridiculous position that every piece of evidence must be 100% conclusive to be probative and accepted. That is absurd not just in this case but in all cases. Prosecutors base their cases on an accumulation of evidence that is probative but rarely 100% conclusive by itself. There will always be possible alternative explanations for any given piece of evidence but that does not take away from the probative value of the evidence.
I haven't bothered to count them but Vincent Bugliosi identified over 50 pieces of evidence that indicated Oswald was the assassin. Not one of these pieces of evidence is conclusive by itself of Oswald's guilt, but taken collectively, they leave no doubt. When the most likely explanation for any one piece of evidence is that Oswald is guilty, there is no reasonable argument for his innocence when you have that many pieces pointing to his guilt.
In the past, I've drawn an analogy to a jigsaw puzzle. No one piece of the puzzle can tell us what the picture looks like, but the pieces of the puzzle can only fit together one way. When we put the pieces of evidence together, the picture unmistakenly presented is that Oswald was the assassin. It is the only way the individual pieces will fit together. We might have a few missing pieces, such as where to the missed shot go and what did it hit. The biggest missing piece is Oswald's motive. That we will never know for sure, but we can still get a very clear picture of what happened without that piece. Conspiracy hobbyists never want to put the pieces of the puzzle together. They look at one piece and say it doesn't look like anything. Of course it doesn't until you put it together with the other pieces and then the picture becomes crystal clear.
The presence of the fibers on the bag that matched his rifle blanket are prima facie evidence that the bag was used to hold the rifle.
This is probably the best reason to not engage any further with this guy. Recently he has been schooled several times about the fact that it is not possible to match fibers with a particular item. Even worse, he has been shown an evidence photo showing the bag and the blanket next to each other with a high risk of cross contamination. And yet, still here he is again spewing the same old crap again.
I get it! I really do! His bible, the WC report tells him that fibers found on or in the bag matched the blanket from Ruth Paine's garage, so he has no choice. He has to blindly accept and follow what the cult book tells him. No sign of an independent or original thought, no critical thinking, just regurgitating the same BS over and over again.
Trying to have a normal conversation with this guy is a complete waste of time.
-
I see you are running away as fast as you can from the white/grey jacket questions.
Roberts was obviously wrong about the shade of the jacket, but she was undoubtedly correct when she said Oswald was zipping it up when he left the rooming house.
Two men who saw a man walking towards the Tippit murder scene shortly before it happened said the man was wearing a light-colored jacket.
ME: Did anyone say that the man who was seen walking in the direction of the Tippit murder before it happened was wearing a jacket?
GROK: Yes, at least two witnesses—Jimmy Earl Burt (also referred to as Jimmy Burke in some accounts) and William Arthur Smith—described seeing a man walking west on East 10th Street toward Patton Avenue shortly before the Tippit shooting, and both noted he was wearing a jacket.
Jimmy Earl Burt (interviewed by FBI on December 16, 1963): He saw a white male, approximately 5'8", walking west on 10th Street. The man was wearing a light-colored short jacket. Burt observed him continue toward Patton, approach Tippit’s car, and later flee after the shooting. He was 50–60 yards away at the closest point.
William Arthur Smith (interviewed by FBI on December 13, 1963; with Burt at the time on a porch at ~505 E. 10th): He described the same man as a white male, about 5'7"–5'8", 20–25 years old, 150–160 lbs., wearing a white shirt, light brown jacket, and dark pants. Smith also saw the interaction with Tippit and the shooting.
These accounts place the man walking west (opposite the Warren Commission’s preferred eastbound narrative, which relied heavily on Helen Markham). Both men withheld initial statements from police due to personal legal issues (Burt was AWOL from the Army; Smith on probation), but their FBI interviews provide consistent pre-shooting clothing details matching the general description of the light/grayish zipper-style Eisenhower jacket later found and linked to the case.
Context with Other Witnesses
Helen Markham (the main Warren Commission witness for the shooting itself) saw the man walking and described a light short jacket, open in front, grayish tan during the incident.
Domingo Benavides (closest witness) saw the shooter post-incident wearing a light-beige, lightweight zipper-type jacket similar to the one recovered (CE 162).
These pre- and immediate post-shooting jacket descriptions align with the gray zipper jacket found in a parking lot along the escape route (linked via fibers to Oswald’s shirt), though debates persist over exact color, fit, origin, and whether it definitively belonged to the shooter or Oswald. Witnesses like Burt and Smith provide direct evidence of a jacket on the walking man before the confrontation.
This comes from FBI interviews, Warren Commission materials, and analyses of Tippit case evidence. Discrepancies in direction, timing, and descriptions have fueled ongoing discussion.
ME: How does researcher Bill Brown, who believes Oswald was the man that Earl Burt and Jimmy Burke saw, explain the fact that they saw him walking in a direction that contradicted the Warren Commission's determination?
GROK: Bill Brown (a prominent lone-assassin researcher and frequent poster on JFK assassination forums like The Education Forum) reconciles the westbound sighting by Jimmy Earl Burt (aka Jimmy Burke) and William Arthur Smith with Oswald as the shooter through a detailed timeline reconstruction involving a brief reversal of direction by Oswald.
Brown accepts Burt and Smith’s FBI interviews and later statements (e.g., Burt’s 1968 interview with Al Chapman) as credible: from their porch at the northeast corner of 10th and Denver (~two blocks east of Patton), they saw a man (whom Brown identifies as Oswald) walking west on East 10th Street, crossing Denver, and continuing west toward Patton shortly before Tippit’s car pulled alongside him. Gunshots followed moments later.
To explain why this westbound observation contradicts the Warren Commission’s eastbound narrative (primarily based on Helen Markham’s account of the man approaching from the west/east on 10th before the stop), Brown proposes—and supports with on-site time trials (conducted May 4, 2024, with researchers Frank Badalson and Dave Ledbetter)—that Oswald did not walk a straight east-to-west path the entire way:
Oswald reached the 10th Street area and continued east past Denver toward the curve in 10th Street near Jefferson.
Near 10th and Jefferson, he spotted Sheriff’s Deputy Unit 109 (or another law-enforcement vehicle) and reversed direction, turning around and walking west back toward Patton.
Burt and Smith observed this westbound leg (after the U-turn).
Tippit, driving west on 10th, then pulled over and confronted him near 10th and Patton while Oswald was still heading west.
Brown’s time trials demonstrate this fits the overall timeline: e.g., walking east from the shooting site (10th/Patton) to the curve beyond Denver and back takes ~4 minutes 16 seconds total, placing Oswald at the confrontation around 1:15:16 p.m. (consistent with other evidence). It also aligns with Burt/Smith’s post-shooting movements (running to the scene then pursuing south on Patton and west into the alley, seeing the fleeing man near the Texaco station where the jacket was found).
In Brown’s view, this minor adjustment (a short east-then-west jog prompted by spotting police) explains the pre-shooting westbound descriptions from Burt, Smith, and others (e.g., bricklayers at 500 E. 10th) without requiring Oswald to have originated from farther east (like Marsalis, which would break the timing). It preserves Oswald as the man they saw and the shooter, while treating the Warren Commission’s eastbound emphasis as an oversimplification based on incomplete witness weighting rather than a fatal contradiction.
Brown has elaborated on these points across multiple Education Forum threads (often in response to conspiracy-oriented critiques), emphasizing witness consistency on the westbound sighting when paired with his reconstructed timeline. He contrasts this with what he sees as flawed conspiracy arguments that treat the direction discrepancy as proof of a second gunman or frame-up.
Question: When Oswald was arrested in the Texas Theater, why wasn't he wearing the jacket that Roberts saw him zipping up about half-an-hour earlier?
Answer: He tossed it under 1954 Oldsmobile about two blocks from where he'd murdered Tippit.
What evidence in de Tippit case are you talking about?
All of the evidence that you think (sic) were either really weird coincidences or fabricated and planted by the evil, evil bad guys.
-
The rifle will not fit under his arm.
Thumb1: Did you really need me to explain this to you?
Only Frazier said the package did fit under his arm. Eyewitness accounts are notoriously unreliable and do not establish anything as a fact. At the time he observed it, he had no reason to make a mental note whether the package fit under Oswald's arm or if it was up above his shoulder. It wouldn't have seemed the least bit important to him at the time. Why do you put so much faith in Frazier's accoun?
-
The presence of the fibers on the bag that matched his rifle blanket are prima facie evidence that the bag was used to hold the rifle.
This is probably the best reason to not engage any further with this guy. Recently he has been schooled several times about the fact that it is not possible to match fibers with a particular item. Even worse, he has been shown an evidence photo showing the bag and the blanket next to each other with a high risk of cross contamination. And yet, still here he is again spewing the same old crap again.
I get it! I really do! His bible, the WC report tells him that fibers found on or in the bag matched the blanket from Ruth Paine's garage, so he has no choice. He has to blindly accept and follow what the cult book tells him. No sign of an independent or original thought, no critical thinking, just regurgitating the same BS over and over again.
Trying to have a normal conversation with this guy is a complete waste of time.
You complete misstate the issue with fibers. Fibers can be matched to an item. They cannot prove with absolute certainty that a fiber can from a particular item because it is theoretically possible it came from an item with the same type of fibers. it would be a truly amazing coincidence if the fibers in the bag came from a different item with the same kind of fibers. The match is highly probative that the fibers came from Oswald's blanket.
Ditto for the fibers on the butt plate of the rifle that matched Oswald's shirt. What are the odds that there would be a match to both Oswald's shirt and blanket if the fibers hadn't come from those items.
This is where the concept of probative comes into play for conspiracy hobbyists. As long as there is a theoretical chance of an alternative explanation that does not incriminate Oswald, no matter how remote the likelihood, that's gives them the excuse they need to completely dismiss a piece of evidence. If it isn't 100% conclusive, it doesn't mean a thing to them.
-
Only Frazier said the package did fit under his arm. Eyewitness accounts are notoriously unreliable and do not establish anything as a fact. At the time he observed it, he had no reason to make a mental note whether the package fit under Oswald's arm or if it was up above his shoulder. It wouldn't have seemed the least bit important to him at the time. Why do you put so much faith in Frazier's accoun?
BS:
He doesn't need to pay attention to the bag to having had missed about 1 ft above the shoulder.
He knows what he saw:
Mr. FRAZIER - Well, I say, like I say now, now I couldn't see much of the bag from him walking in front of me. Now he could have had some of it sticking out in front of his hands because I didn't see it from the front, The only time I did see it was from the back, just a little strip running down from your arm and so therefore, like that, I say, I know that the bag wouldn't be that long.
(https://preview.ibb.co/cqGmgw/Slide18.gif)
-
BS:
He doesn't need to pay attention to the bag to having had missed about 1 ft above the shoulder.
He knows what he saw:
Mr. FRAZIER - Well, I say, like I say now, now I couldn't see much of the bag from him walking in front of me. Now he could have had some of it sticking out in front of his hands because I didn't see it from the front, The only time I did see it was from the back, just a little strip running down from your arm and so therefore, like that, I say, I know that the bag wouldn't be that long.
(https://preview.ibb.co/cqGmgw/Slide18.gif)
It is truly remarkable that you put 100% faith in Frazier perfectly remembering such a mundane detail and then turn around and treat the fiber evidence as if it is not probative at all. This is a perfect example of what I said earlier about you being really, really bad at weighing evidence. This is exactly the kind of detail an eyewitness would get wrong. People just aren't that observant about mundane details such as this. Our minds are not equipped with a DVR. We just don't take in every detail, especially something that at the time wouldn't have seemed the least bit important. Then you turnaround and act as if the matching fiber evidence isn't probative at all. It would be a truly remarkable coincidence if the fibers that were in the bag matched the fibers in Oswald's blanket if they had come from another source. Ditto for the fibers on the butt plate of the rifle that matched his shirt. To argue for Oswald's innocence, it is necessary to believe the least likely explanation for dozens of pieces of evidence and disregard the most likely one.
If you don't believe me regarding how unreliable eyewitness testimony is, maybe you will believe people have actually studied this subject:
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9451081/
https://legalclarity.org/what-percent-of-eyewitness-testimony-is-accurate/
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364661325000270
Here are some quotes from the above articles which pretty much says all that needs to be said about the reliability of witnesses:
"These numbers mean that eyewitness identification is useful but nowhere near the gold standard that jurors tend to treat it as."
"Work by Elizabeth Loftus and her colleagues in the 1970s showed that eyewitness memory, like any type of forensic evidence, can be contaminated [1]. For example, a true memory of a stop sign can be replaced by a false memory of a yield sign based on nothing more than a passing suggestion [2]. Later, in the 1990s, it became clear that it is even possible for someone to acquire detailed and emotional false memories of traumatic events that never happened"
One of the factors in witness reliability is how much time passes between the event and the testimony. Frazier was interviewed by the WC on July 23, 1964, a full 8 months after the assassination. The pictures you posted are not dated but based on Frazier's gray hair and the fact he was only 19 at the time of the assassination, I would gladly wager they were taken at least 50 years after the assassination. That gives a lot of time for memories to fade and false memories to take hold.
I have served on two juries in criminal trials. We convicted one person without relying on any eyewitness testimony at all, using only the forensic evidence to find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The other was a murder trial in which the accused admit to the killing but claimed self defense. There was some eyewitness testimony but it wasn't crucial to our finding of guilt. We simply didn't believe the killer's claim of self defense.
If I again were to find myself on a jury in a criminal trial and the prosecution's case hinged on eyewitness testimony, I would vote to acquit unless there was compelling evidence to corroborate the eyewitness account. I simply do not have enough faith in eyewitness accounts to remove reasonable doubt without corroboration.
But you go on treating Frazier's memory as if it is gospel. It will continue to prevent you from knowing the truth of the JFKA.
You are certainly among the people who treat an eyewitness account as a gold standard of evidence.
-
It is truly remarkable that you put 100% faith in Frazier perfectly remembering such a mundane detail and then turn around and treat the fiber evidence as if it is not probative at all. This is a perfect example of what I said earlier about you being really, really bad at weighing evidence. This is exactly the kind of detail an eyewitness would get wrong. People just aren't that observant about mundane details such as this. Our minds are not equipped with a DVR. We just don't take in every detail, especially something that at the time wouldn't have seemed the least bit important. Then you turnaround and act as if the matching fiber evidence isn't probative at all. It would be a truly remarkable coincidence if the fibers that were in the bag matched the fibers in Oswald's blanket if they had come from another source. Ditto for the fibers on the butt plate of the rifle that matched his shirt. To argue for Oswald's innocence, it is necessary to believe the least likely explanation for dozens of pieces of evidence and disregard the most likely one.
If you don't believe me regarding how unreliable eyewitness testimony is, maybe you will believe people have actually studied this subject:
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9451081/
https://legalclarity.org/what-percent-of-eyewitness-testimony-is-accurate/
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364661325000270
Here are some quotes from the above articles which pretty much says all that needs to be said about the reliability of witnesses:
"These numbers mean that eyewitness identification is useful but nowhere near the gold standard that jurors tend to treat it as."
"Work by Elizabeth Loftus and her colleagues in the 1970s showed that eyewitness memory, like any type of forensic evidence, can be contaminated [1]. For example, a true memory of a stop sign can be replaced by a false memory of a yield sign based on nothing more than a passing suggestion [2]. Later, in the 1990s, it became clear that it is even possible for someone to acquire detailed and emotional false memories of traumatic events that never happened"
One of the factors in witness reliability is how much time passes between the event and the testimony. Frazier was interviewed by the WC on July 23, 1964, a full 8 months after the assassination. The pictures you posted are not dated but based on Frazier's gray hair and the fact he was only 19 at the time of the assassination, I would gladly wager they were taken at least 50 years after the assassination. That gives a lot of time for memories to fade and false memories to take hold.
I have served on two juries in criminal trials. We convicted one person without relying on any eyewitness testimony at all, using only the forensic evidence to find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The other was a murder trial in which the accused admit to the killing but claimed self defense. There was some eyewitness testimony but it wasn't crucial to our finding of guilt. We simply didn't believe the killer's claim of self defense.
If I again were to find myself on a jury in a criminal trial and the prosecution's case hinged on eyewitness testimony, I would vote to acquit unless there was compelling evidence to corroborate the eyewitness account. I simply do not have enough faith in eyewitness accounts to remove reasonable doubt without corroboration.
But you go on treating Frazier's memory as if it is gospel. It will continue to prevent you from knowing the truth of the JFKA.
You are certainly among the people who treat an eyewitness account as a gold standard of evidence.
There is no need to respond to any of this.
Buell Wesley Frazier knew exactly what he saw and refused to identify the bag allegedly found upstairs.
-
Roberts was obviously wrong about the shade of the jacket, but she was undoubtedly correct when she said Oswald was zipping it up when he left the rooming house.
Two men who saw a man walking towards the Tippit murder scene shortly before it happened said the man was wearing a light-colored jacket.
ME: Did anyone say that the man who was seen walking in the direction of the Tippit murder before it happened was wearing a jacket?
GROK: Yes, at least two witnesses—Jimmy Earl Burt (also referred to as Jimmy Burke in some accounts) and William Arthur Smith—described seeing a man walking west on East 10th Street toward Patton Avenue shortly before the Tippit shooting, and both noted he was wearing a jacket.
Jimmy Earl Burt (interviewed by FBI on December 16, 1963): He saw a white male, approximately 5'8", walking west on 10th Street. The man was wearing a light-colored short jacket. Burt observed him continue toward Patton, approach Tippit’s car, and later flee after the shooting. He was 50–60 yards away at the closest point.
William Arthur Smith (interviewed by FBI on December 13, 1963; with Burt at the time on a porch at ~505 E. 10th): He described the same man as a white male, about 5'7"–5'8", 20–25 years old, 150–160 lbs., wearing a white shirt, light brown jacket, and dark pants. Smith also saw the interaction with Tippit and the shooting.
These accounts place the man walking west (opposite the Warren Commission’s preferred eastbound narrative, which relied heavily on Helen Markham). Both men withheld initial statements from police due to personal legal issues (Burt was AWOL from the Army; Smith on probation), but their FBI interviews provide consistent pre-shooting clothing details matching the general description of the light/grayish zipper-style Eisenhower jacket later found and linked to the case.
Context with Other Witnesses
Helen Markham (the main Warren Commission witness for the shooting itself) saw the man walking and described a light short jacket, open in front, grayish tan during the incident.
Domingo Benavides (closest witness) saw the shooter post-incident wearing a light-beige, lightweight zipper-type jacket similar to the one recovered (CE 162).
These pre- and immediate post-shooting jacket descriptions align with the gray zipper jacket found in a parking lot along the escape route (linked via fibers to Oswald’s shirt), though debates persist over exact color, fit, origin, and whether it definitively belonged to the shooter or Oswald. Witnesses like Burt and Smith provide direct evidence of a jacket on the walking man before the confrontation.
This comes from FBI interviews, Warren Commission materials, and analyses of Tippit case evidence. Discrepancies in direction, timing, and descriptions have fueled ongoing discussion.
ME: How does researcher Bill Brown, who believes Oswald was the man that Earl Burt and Jimmy Burke saw, explain the fact that they saw him walking in a direction that contradicted the Warren Commission's determination?
GROK: Bill Brown (a prominent lone-assassin researcher and frequent poster on JFK assassination forums like The Education Forum) reconciles the westbound sighting by Jimmy Earl Burt (aka Jimmy Burke) and William Arthur Smith with Oswald as the shooter through a detailed timeline reconstruction involving a brief reversal of direction by Oswald.
Brown accepts Burt and Smith’s FBI interviews and later statements (e.g., Burt’s 1968 interview with Al Chapman) as credible: from their porch at the northeast corner of 10th and Denver (~two blocks east of Patton), they saw a man (whom Brown identifies as Oswald) walking west on East 10th Street, crossing Denver, and continuing west toward Patton shortly before Tippit’s car pulled alongside him. Gunshots followed moments later.
To explain why this westbound observation contradicts the Warren Commission’s eastbound narrative (primarily based on Helen Markham’s account of the man approaching from the west/east on 10th before the stop), Brown proposes—and supports with on-site time trials (conducted May 4, 2024, with researchers Frank Badalson and Dave Ledbetter)—that Oswald did not walk a straight east-to-west path the entire way:
Oswald reached the 10th Street area and continued east past Denver toward the curve in 10th Street near Jefferson.
Near 10th and Jefferson, he spotted Sheriff’s Deputy Unit 109 (or another law-enforcement vehicle) and reversed direction, turning around and walking west back toward Patton.
Burt and Smith observed this westbound leg (after the U-turn).
Tippit, driving west on 10th, then pulled over and confronted him near 10th and Patton while Oswald was still heading west.
Brown’s time trials demonstrate this fits the overall timeline: e.g., walking east from the shooting site (10th/Patton) to the curve beyond Denver and back takes ~4 minutes 16 seconds total, placing Oswald at the confrontation around 1:15:16 p.m. (consistent with other evidence). It also aligns with Burt/Smith’s post-shooting movements (running to the scene then pursuing south on Patton and west into the alley, seeing the fleeing man near the Texaco station where the jacket was found).
In Brown’s view, this minor adjustment (a short east-then-west jog prompted by spotting police) explains the pre-shooting westbound descriptions from Burt, Smith, and others (e.g., bricklayers at 500 E. 10th) without requiring Oswald to have originated from farther east (like Marsalis, which would break the timing). It preserves Oswald as the man they saw and the shooter, while treating the Warren Commission’s eastbound emphasis as an oversimplification based on incomplete witness weighting rather than a fatal contradiction.
Brown has elaborated on these points across multiple Education Forum threads (often in response to conspiracy-oriented critiques), emphasizing witness consistency on the westbound sighting when paired with his reconstructed timeline. He contrasts this with what he sees as flawed conspiracy arguments that treat the direction discrepancy as proof of a second gunman or frame-up.
Question: When Oswald was arrested in the Texas Theater, why wasn't he wearing the jacket that Roberts saw him zipping up about half-an-hour earlier?
Answer: He tossed it under 1954 Oldsmobile about two blocks from where he'd murdered Tippit.
All of the evidence that you think (sic) were either really weird coincidences or fabricated and planted by the evil, evil bad guys.
Roberts was obviously wrong about the shade of the jacket, but she was undoubtedly correct when she said Oswald was zipping it up when he left the rooming house.
This is just about the most pathetic way to try and solve the problems with Roberts' statements about the jacket.
Without any kind of sound explanation you simple say she was wrong about the color of the jacket but right about Oswald leaving the rooming house wearing a jacket.
You are making those determinations based on absolutely nothing and for self-serving purposes. This is classic LN BS. Rather than dealing with the evidence honestly, you just twist and turn to make it fit the preferred narrative. It's exactly what the WC did time after time!
Two men who saw a man walking towards the Tippit murder scene shortly before it happened said the man was wearing a light-colored jacket.
Oh no, you don't! You don't get to work backwards and assume that the man who was seen wearing a light-colored jacket must have been Oswald. If Oswald didn't leave the rooming house wearing a jacket then the two men must have seen somebody else and not Oswald.
There is no reason for me to reply to anything else in your post and it simply is more of the same silly "working backward" reasoning.
All of the evidence that you think (sic) were either really weird coincidences or fabricated and planted by the evil, evil bad guys.
So, because the defenders of the faith have created their own narrative, in which evidence is misrepresented, not authenticated and problems are resolved by simply picking the explanation that works the best for the narrative, any unpleasant questions asked about evidence must be about fabricated and planted evidence.
All you have shown with your post is that you are completely unable to honestly deal with the actual evidence and clearly live in an alternative reality!
-
Roberts was obviously wrong about the shade of the jacket, but she was undoubtedly correct when she said Oswald was zipping it up when he left the rooming house.
This is just about the most pathetic way to try and solve the problems with Roberts' statements about the jacket.
Without any kind of sound explanation you simple say she was wrong about the color of the jacket but right about Oswald leaving the rooming house wearing a jacket.
You are making those determinations based on absolutely nothing and for self-serving purposes. This is classic LN BS. Rather than dealing with the evidence honestly, you just twist and turn to make it fit the preferred narrative. It's exactly what the WC did time after time!
Two men who saw a man walking towards the Tippit murder scene shortly before it happened said the man was wearing a light-colored jacket.
Oh no, you don't! You don't get to work backwards and assume that the man who was seen wearing a light-colored jacket must have been Oswald. If Oswald didn't leave the rooming house wearing a jacket then the two men must have seen somebody else and not Oswald.
There is no reason for me to reply to anything else in your post and it simply is more of the same silly "working backward" reasoning.
All of the evidence that you think (sic) were either really weird coincidences or fabricated and planted by the evil, evil bad guys.
So, because the defenders of the faith have created their own narrative, in which evidence is misrepresented, not authenticated and problems are resolved by simply picking the explanation that works the best for the narrative, any unpleasant questions asked about evidence must be about fabricated and planted evidence.
All you have shown with your post is that you are completely unable to honestly deal with the actual evidence and clearly live in an alternative reality!
She correctly remembered that he was not wearing a jacket when he arrived at the rooming house, and that he was wearing a jacket and was in the act of zipping it up when he left the rooming house.
Get over it.
-
There is no need to respond to any of this.
Buell Wesley Frazier knew exactly what he saw and refused to identify the bag allegedly found upstairs.
You can't refute what I've written about the unreliability of eyewitnesses, so you just decide to take your ball and go home.
Probably your best move given the circumstances.
-
You complete misstate the issue with fibers. Fibers can be matched to an item. They cannot prove with absolute certainty that a fiber can from a particular item because it is theoretically possible it came from an item with the same type of fibers. it would be a truly amazing coincidence if the fibers in the bag came from a different item with the same kind of fibers. The match is highly probative that the fibers came from Oswald's blanket.
Ditto for the fibers on the butt plate of the rifle that matched Oswald's shirt. What are the odds that there would be a match to both Oswald's shirt and blanket if the fibers hadn't come from those items.
This is where the concept of probative comes into play for conspiracy hobbyists. As long as there is a theoretical chance of an alternative explanation that does not incriminate Oswald, no matter how remote the likelihood, that's gives them the excuse they need to completely dismiss a piece of evidence. If it isn't 100% conclusive, it doesn't mean a thing to them.
You complete misstate the issue with fibers. Fibers can be matched to an item.
Utter BS. At best fibers can be deemed to be similar.
They cannot prove with absolute certainty that a fiber can from a particular item because it is theoretically possible it came from an item with the same type of fibers.
Hilarious! So, now you confirm that fibers can indeed not be matched to a specific item with any kind of certainty.
it would be a truly amazing coincidence if the fibers in the bag came from a different item with the same kind of fibers.
So, now we are reduced to a conclusion based on your opinion that it would be a truly amazing concidence if the fibers came from elsewhere.
This is what FBI fiber expert Stombaugh had to say on the subject of fibers;
Mr. DULLES. Or the paper bag?
Mr. STOMBAUGH. Or the paper bag; no, sir.
Mr. EISENBERG. Just one further question. You said something like, "It was possible the fibers could have come from the shirt." Could you estimate the degree of probability that the fibers came from the shirt, the fibers in the butt plate?
Mr. STOMBAUGH. Well, this is difficult because we don't know how many different shirts were made out of this same type of fabric, or for that matter how many identical shirts are in existence.
Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Stombaugh, I gather that, and correct me if I am wrong, that in your area as opposed to the fingerprint area, you prefer to present the facts rather than draw conclusions as to probabilities, is that correct?
Mr. STOMBAUGH. That is correct. I have been asked this question many times. There are some experts who will say well, the chances are 1 in 1,000, this, that, and the other, and everyone who had said that and been brought to our attention we have been able to prove them wrong, insofar as application to our fiber problems is concerned.
Mr. EISENBERG. You mean prove them wrong in terms of their mathematics?
Mr. STOMBAUGH. There is just no way at this time to be able to positively state that a particular small group of fibers came from a particular source, because there just aren't enough microscopic characteristics present in these fibers.
We cannot say, "Yes, these fibers came from this shirt to the exclusion of all other shirts."
And yet, here you are disagreeing with Stombaugh and making up your own reality!
The match is highly probative that the fibers came from Oswald's blanket.
And now we are back to the beginning again. There is nothing probative about fibers. Any claim about a positive match in a court of law would be destroyed by a fibers expert like Stombaugh.
But even if you are right and the fibers did come from the blanket, there's still the matter of evidence photos showing the bag and the blanket next to eachother at the DPD evidence room and at the FBI lab. Even worse, in the night after the assassination, FBI agent Vincent Drain carried the evidence from Dallas to Washington in a paper bag! Now, if you want to speculate about fibers, just how big is the possibility of cross contamination?
A honest person would instantly agree that the possibility of cross contamination alone maked the fiber evidence worthless. A dishonest biased LN with an agenda would of course disagree.
-
She correctly remembered that he was not wearing a jacket when he arrived at the rooming house, and that he was wearing a jacket and was in the act of zipping it up when he left the rooming house.
Get over it.
A classic response from a LN who is stuck and has no plausible answer to provide. Instead he just states his opinion which he, narrow minded as he is, considers to be the only correct one.
Roberts was standing with her back turned to the living room trying to get the television to work. That was what she was paying attention to. This means that she did not see Oswald as he walked from his room, through the living room, until he got to the front door to the left of where Roberts was. At best she only saw him for a couple of seconds as he opened the door and walked out. Add to this that she was nearly blind on one eye and consider also that her employer told the WC that Roberts was known for making up stuff, and that's the witness you want to rely on for 100%.
There is no evidence whatsoever that Oswald left the rooming house zipping up a light colored jacket, but there is evidence that suggests Oswald's light colored jacket was in fact in Irving on Friday and not in Oak Cliff!
You've got nothing but a poorly made up opinion. Get over it!
-
A classic response from a LN who is stuck and has no plausible answer to provide. Instead he just states his opinion which he, narrow minded as he is, considers to be the only correct one.
Roberts was standing with her back turned to the living room trying to get the television to work. That was what she was paying attention to. This means that she did not see Oswald as he walked from his room, through the living room, until he got to the front door to the left of where Roberts was. At best she only saw him for a couple of seconds as he opened the door and walked out. Add to this that she was nearly blind on one eye and consider also that her employer told the WC that Roberts was known for making up stuff, and that's the witness you want to rely on for 100%.
There is no evidence whatsoever that Oswald left the rooming house zipping up a light colored jacket, but there is evidence that suggests Oswald's light colored jacket was in fact in Irving on Friday and not in Oak Cliff!
You've got nothing but a poorly made up opinion. Get over it!
Weidmann wrote:
Without any kind of sound explanation, you say Earlene Roberts was wrong about the color of the jacket but right about Oswald’s leaving the rooming house wearing a jacket. You are making those determinations based on absolutely nothing and for self-serving purposes. Rather than dealing with the evidence honestly, you just twist and turn to make it fit the preferred narrative. It's exactly what the WC did time after time! You don't get to work backwards and assume that the man who was seen wearing a light-colored jacket must have been Oswald. If Oswald didn't leave the rooming house wearing a jacket then the two men must have seen somebody else and not Oswald. Since the defenders of the Warren Commission faith have created their own narrative, in which evidence is misrepresented, not authenticated, and problems are resolved by simply picking the explanation that works the best for the narrative, any unpleasant questions asked about evidence must be about fabricated and planted evidence? All you have shown with your post is that you are completely unable to honestly deal with the actual evidence and clearly live in an alternative reality.
My reply:
The evidence is that Earlene Roberts stated under penalty of perjury that she saw Oswald leave the rooming house wearing (and zipping up!) a jacket. It’s not a big deal that she misremembered the color of the jacket.
The evidence is that a jacket was found under a car about two blocks from the Tippit murder location on the route that the Tippit murderer (Oswald) took while fleeing the scene.
The evidence is that Oswald was no longer wearing a jacket when he was arrested in the Texas Theater.
Question for “useful idiot” (or worse?) Weidmann:
How many bad guys do you figure were involved in the planning, the “patsy-ing,” the fabricating and planting of Oswald-incriminating evidence, the shooting, the getting-away, the alteration of photos, films, and x-rays, and the all-important (and continuing!!!) cover up?
Just a few, or oodles and gobs?
GROK says somewhere between thirty and three hundred.
Does that "work" for you?
-
Weidmann wrote:
Without any kind of sound explanation, you say Earlene Roberts was wrong about the color of the jacket but right about Oswald’s leaving the rooming house wearing a jacket. You are making those determinations based on absolutely nothing and for self-serving purposes. Rather than dealing with the evidence honestly, you just twist and turn to make it fit the preferred narrative. It's exactly what the WC did time after time! You don't get to work backwards and assume that the man who was seen wearing a light-colored jacket must have been Oswald. If Oswald didn't leave the rooming house wearing a jacket then the two men must have seen somebody else and not Oswald. Since the defenders of the Warren Commission faith have created their own narrative, in which evidence is misrepresented, not authenticated, and problems are resolved by simply picking the explanation that works the best for the narrative, any unpleasant questions asked about evidence must be about fabricated and planted evidence? All you have shown with your post is that you are completely unable to honestly deal with the actual evidence and clearly live in an alternative reality.
My reply:
The evidence is that Earlene Roberts stated under penalty of perjury that she saw Oswald leave the rooming house wearing (and zipping up!) a jacket. It’s not a big deal that she misremembered the color of the jacket.
The evidence is that a jacket was found under a car about two blocks from the Tippit murder location on the route that the Tippit murderer (Oswald) took while fleeing the scene.
The evidence is that Oswald was no longer wearing a jacket when he was arrested in the Texas Theater.
Question for “useful idiot” (or worse?) Weidmann:
How many bad guys do you figure were involved in the planning, the “patsy-ing,” the fabricating and planting of Oswald-incriminating evidence, the shooting, the getting-away, the alteration of photos, films, and x-rays, and the all-important (and continuing!!!) cover up?
Just a few, or oodles and gobs?
GROK says somewhere between thirty and three hundred.
Does that "work" for you?
The evidence is that Earlene Roberts stated under penalty of perjury that she saw Oswald leave the rooming house wearing (and zipping up!) a jacket. It’s not a big deal that she misremembered the color of the jacket.
Oh boy... so no witness ever states anything that was untrue "under penalty of perjury" and when she can not identify the jacket because the one she claimed was dark colored she just misremembered? Never mind she also "misremembered" in other statements prior to her testimony. Don't you understand just how pathetic this entire statement is?
Frazier stated under penalty of perjury that the bag he saw Oswald carry fitted between Oswald's armpit and the cup of his hand. Going by your own idiotic claim, this must be the truth, right?
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, sir.
Let's see if the LN double standard pops up again.... :D
I am not going to respond to the remainder of your post as it is, once again, back ward reasoning for which there is no evidence. You just assume that it was Oswald who dumped the jacket, regardless of what the evidence and facts actually tell you. It is all BS!
Let me ask you this; what happened to your independent logical and critical thinking brain? Were you born without it or did you just become more stupid as you were growing up?
-
What happened to your independent logical and critical thinking brain? Were you born without it or did you just become more stupid as you were growing up?
Dear Useful Idiot (or Worse?) Weidmann,
Oh boy, Oh boy, Oh boy, Oh boy.
I used to be a zombified-by-KGB-disinformation, tinfoil-hat JFK assassination conspiracy theorist just like you.
What do you think (sic) the number of bad guys was closer to -- thirty, or three hundred?
-- Tom
-
Dear Useful Idiot (or Worse?) Weidmann,
Oh boy, Oh boy, Oh boy, Oh boy.
I used to be a zombified-by-KGB-disinformation, tinfoil-hat JFK assassination conspiracy theorist just like you.
What do you think (sic) the number of bad guys was closer to -- thirty, or three hundred?
-- Tom
Oh boy, our poor LN is stuck again, unable to provide a coherent reply.
Oh well, that's what happens when actual evidence slaps you in the face and destroys your own made up "reality".
I used to be a zombified-by-KGB-disinformation, tinfoil-hat JFK assassination conspiracy theorist just like you.
A claim made by just about every LN I've ever met and just as uncredible as all of them.
But let's say you tell the truth, what made you change over to the dark side?
-
You complete misstate the issue with fibers. Fibers can be matched to an item.
Utter BS. At best fibers can be deemed to be similar.
What a bunch of horse pucky. Fiber evidence is highly probative and is accepted by the courts as bonafide evidence. Fiber evidence was used to convict suspected child serial Wayne Williams in Atlanta. Although he was only convicted for two murders, those convictions were made largely on the basis of the fiber evidence against him.
"Williams was arrested on June 21, 1981, for the murders of Cater and Payne.[10] His trial began on January 6, 1982, in Fulton County. During the two-month trial, prosecutors matched to a number of victims nineteen sources of fibers from Williams' home and car: his bedspread, bathroom, gloves, clothes, carpets, dog, and an unusual trilobal carpet fiber."
He wasn't convicted because the fibers were "similar"
They cannot prove with absolute certainty that a fiber can from a particular item because it is theoretically possible it came from an item with the same type of fibers.
Hilarious! So, now you confirm that fibers can indeed not be matched to a specific item with any kind of certainty.
Certainty is not necessary for fiber evidence to be highly probative. Wayne Williams was not convicted because of the certainty of the fiber matching. It was probative enough for a jury to convict him of two murders and send him to jail for the rest of his life. Once again you stake out the silly position that the evidence against Oswald must reach a level of certainty to have value. It's a good thing our courts don't adopt your position on this matter.
it would be a truly amazing coincidence if the fibers in the bag came from a different item with the same kind of fibers.
So, now we are reduced to a conclusion based on your opinion that it would be a truly amazing concidence if the fibers came from elsewhere.
This is what FBI fiber expert Stombaugh had to say on the subject of fibers;
Mr. DULLES. Or the paper bag?
Mr. STOMBAUGH. Or the paper bag; no, sir.
Mr. EISENBERG. Just one further question. You said something like, "It was possible the fibers could have come from the shirt." Could you estimate the degree of probability that the fibers came from the shirt, the fibers in the butt plate?
Mr. STOMBAUGH. Well, this is difficult because we don't know how many different shirts were made out of this same type of fabric, or for that matter how many identical shirts are in existence.
Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Stombaugh, I gather that, and correct me if I am wrong, that in your area as opposed to the fingerprint area, you prefer to present the facts rather than draw conclusions as to probabilities, is that correct?
Mr. STOMBAUGH. That is correct. I have been asked this question many times. There are some experts who will say well, the chances are 1 in 1,000, this, that, and the other, and everyone who had said that and been brought to our attention we have been able to prove them wrong, insofar as application to our fiber problems is concerned.
Mr. EISENBERG. You mean prove them wrong in terms of their mathematics?
Mr. STOMBAUGH. There is just no way at this time to be able to positively state that a particular small group of fibers came from a particular source, because there just aren't enough microscopic characteristics present in these fibers.
We cannot say, "Yes, these fibers came from this shirt to the exclusion of all other shirts."
Stombaugh was simply echoing long standing FBI policy not to speculate on probability. When testing any type of evidence, the policy is to find a match is positive, negative, or inconclusive. Fiber evidence is never going to be 100% conclusive nor does it need to be for it to have probative value. If the FBI did not think fiber evidence was probative, why would they even bother hiring experts in that field?
And yet, here you are disagreeing with Stombaugh and making up your own reality!
What did I say that contradicted Stombaugh?
The match is highly probative that the fibers came from Oswald's blanket.
And now we are back to the beginning again. There is nothing probative about fibers.
Tell that to Wayne Williams.
Any claim about a positive match in a court of law would be destroyed by a fibers expert like Stombaugh.
Tell that to Wayne Williams.
But even if you are right and the fibers did come from the blanket, there's still the matter of evidence photos showing the bag and the blanket next to eachother at the DPD evidence room and at the FBI lab. Even worse, in the night after the assassination, FBI agent Vincent Drain carried the evidence from Dallas to Washington in a paper bag! Now, if you want to speculate about fibers, just how big is the possibility of cross contamination?
I suppose cross contamination also caused Oswald's palm and fingerprint to end up on the bag.
-
Oh boy, our poor LN is stuck again, unable to provide a coherent reply.
Dear Mr. Useful Idiot (or Worse?),
Come on, spit it out.
Was the number of bad guys involved in the conspiracy closer to thirty or three hundred?
-- Tom
-
What a bunch of horse pucky. Fiber evidence is highly probative and is accepted by the courts as bonafide evidence. Fiber evidence was used to convict suspected child serial Wayne Williams in Atlanta. Although he was only convicted for two murders, those convictions were made largely on the basis of the fiber evidence against him.
"Williams was arrested on June 21, 1981, for the murders of Cater and Payne.[10] His trial began on January 6, 1982, in Fulton County. During the two-month trial, prosecutors matched to a number of victims nineteen sources of fibers from Williams' home and car: his bedspread, bathroom, gloves, clothes, carpets, dog, and an unusual trilobal carpet fiber."
He wasn't convicted because the fibers were "similar"
Certainty is not necessary for fiber evidence to be highly probative. Wayne Williams was not convicted because of the certainty of the fiber matching. It was probative enough for a jury to convict him of two murders and send him to jail for the rest of his life. Once again you stake out the silly position that the evidence against Oswald must reach a level of certainty to have value. It's a good thing our courts don't adopt your position on this matter.
Stombaugh was simply echoing long standing FBI policy not to speculate on probability. When testing any type of evidence, the policy is to find a match is positive, negative, or inconclusive. Fiber evidence is never going to be 100% conclusive nor does it need to be for it to have probative value. If the FBI did not think fiber evidence was probative, why would they even bother hiring experts in that field?
What did I say that contradicted Stombaugh?
Tell that to Wayne Williams.
Tell that to Wayne Williams.
I suppose cross contamination also caused Oswald's palm and fingerprint to end up on the bag.
What a bunch of horse pucky. Fiber evidence is highly probative and is accepted by the courts as bonafide evidence.
You can say that again and again for a thousand more times. It still doesn't make it true.
Fiber evidence was used to convict suspected child serial Wayne Williams in Atlanta. Although he was only convicted for two murders, those convictions were made largely on the basis of the fiber evidence against him.
People get convicted for all sorts of reasons. It's meaningless to compare a case from 1981 to one from 1963. It doesn't help your argument one bit!
Once again you stake out the silly position that the evidence against Oswald must reach a level of certainty to have value.
Nope. Evidence needs to be authenticated. All evidence somebody relies on has some value, it's just that not all evidence is actually proof of something.
Stombaugh was simply echoing long standing FBI policy not to speculate on probability.
Exactly, so why are you speculating on probability?
If the FBI did not think fiber evidence was probative, why would they even bother hiring experts in that field?
The FBI has all sorts of evidence experts. Do you really believe that the result of all their work is probative?
I suppose cross contamination also caused Oswald's palm and fingerprint to end up on the bag.
Two completely different issues. The presence of Oswald's print on the bag says nothing about fiber evidence. You are grasping at straws.
But why are you not willing to address the actual cross contamination possibility? Do you really feel you can put a paper bag and a blanket in one paper bag, carry it to Washington and there would not be one fiber of the blanket found on the bag?
-
What a bunch of horse pucky. Fiber evidence is highly probative and is accepted by the courts as bonafide evidence.
You can say that again and again for a thousand more times. It still doesn't make it true.
Fiber evidence was used to convict suspected child serial Wayne Williams in Atlanta. Although he was only convicted for two murders, those convictions were made largely on the basis of the fiber evidence against him.
People get convicted for all sorts of reasons. It's meaningless to compare a case from 1981 to one from 1963. It doesn't help your argument one bit!
Once again you stake out the silly position that the evidence against Oswald must reach a level of certainty to have value.
Nope. Evidence needs to be authenticated. That's all. All evidence a party relies on has some value, it's just that not all evidence is actually proof of something.
Stombaugh was simply echoing long standing FBI policy not to speculate on probability.
Exactly, so why are you speculating on probability?
If the FBI did not think fiber evidence was probative, why would they even bother hiring experts in that field?
The FBI has all sorts of evidence experts. Do you really believe that the result of all their work is probative?
I suppose cross contamination also caused Oswald's palm and fingerprint to end up on the bag.
Two completely different issues. The presence of Oswald's print on the bag says nothing about fiber evidence. You are grasping at straws.
But why are you not willing to address the actual cross contamination possibility? Do you really feel you can put a paper bag and a blanket in one paper bag, carry it to Washington and there would not be one fiber of the blanket found on the bag?
-
Yawn!
Here we go again with Weidmann the Legal Layman now becoming a Forensic Specialist Layman, what a Goofball!
Famous Cases Solved by Fiber Evidence
Wayne Williams (Atlanta Child Murders, 1981): This is considered the first major case solved primarily by fiber evidence. Yellow-green nylon carpet fibers and violet acetate fibers found on several victims matched the carpet and bedspread in Williams' home and car.
The Yorkshire Ripper (Peter Sutcliffe, 1981): Specialized fibers, specifically unique bank-note-like fibers found on several victims, helped link crimes together and matched clothes, ropes, and the car of Peter Sutcliffe, supporting his murder convictions.
Timothy Evonitz (2001): The serial killer was linked to the murders of Virginia girls Kati and Kristin Lisk and Sophia Silva through unique blue fibers found on the bodies, which matched a blanket and other items found in his car and home.
Jeffrey Macdonald (1970): The Army doctor was convicted of murdering his family after fiber evidence from his pajamas was found in the mouth of a victim and throughout the crime scene, contradicting his claims of fighting off attackers.
The Oswald shirt fiber evidence had 3 types of fibers on Oswald's rifle matching the three types of fibers on his shirt and is just another piece of evidence linking Oswald to the rifle.
Oswald ordered the rifle.
Oswald purchased the rifle.
Oswald was sent the rifle.
Oswald was photographed with the rifle.
And a team of amateur Johnnie Cochran wannabes could never refute this reality! LOL!
(https://i.postimg.cc/Z5hpG4Fg/brownshirtfibers-zpsrgyy13mq.jpg)
And as for the blanket fiber in, not(as claimed by the dishonest Weidmann) on Oswald's rifle bag would take a number of experiments to calculate the probability of a magic fiber penetrating the bag.
In the following photo we see the opening of the bag sitting on top of the blanket and since there is no timestamp we don't know at what stage this photo was taken, was the bag already analysed? Was the photo taken in Dallas on the 22nd and if so how far into the bag was a fiber found? Was the bag folded when sent to Washington? Our resident Forensic Layman says that all the evidence was sent in a single bag, which wouldn't surprise me considering the level of scientific forensics at the time, and if so how far into the bag was the fiber and as I said was the bag folded?
I'm guessing without these issues being fully addressed, a real Johnnie Cochran and the best fiber forensic scientists could bring up some doubt but the fact remains that the Oswald prints on the rifle sized bag will forever link the bag to Oswald.
(https://i.postimg.cc/X7mqmbdd/Evidence-released-to-the-FBI.jpg)
JohnM
-
Duplicate
-
Yawn!
Here we go again with Weidmann the Legal Layman now becoming a Forensic Specialist Layman, what a Goofball!
Famous Cases Solved by Fiber Evidence
Wayne Williams (Atlanta Child Murders, 1981): This is considered the first major case solved primarily by fiber evidence. Yellow-green nylon carpet fibers and violet acetate fibers found on several victims matched the carpet and bedspread in Williams' home and car.
The Yorkshire Ripper (Peter Sutcliffe, 1981): Specialized fibers, specifically unique bank-note-like fibers found on several victims, helped link crimes together and matched clothes, ropes, and the car of Peter Sutcliffe, supporting his murder convictions.
Timothy Evonitz (2001): The serial killer was linked to the murders of Virginia girls Kati and Kristin Lisk and Sophia Silva through unique blue fibers found on the bodies, which matched a blanket and other items found in his car and home.
Jeffrey Macdonald (1970): The Army doctor was convicted of murdering his family after fiber evidence from his pajamas was found in the mouth of a victim and throughout the crime scene, contradicting his claims of fighting off attackers.
The Oswald shirt fiber evidence had 3 types of fibers on Oswald's rifle matching the three types of fibers on his shirt and is just another piece of evidence linking Oswald to the rifle.
Oswald ordered the rifle.
Oswald purchased the rifle.
Oswald was sent the rifle.
Oswald was photographed with the rifle.
And a team of amateur Johnnie Cochran wannabes could never refute this reality! LOL!
(https://i.postimg.cc/Z5hpG4Fg/brownshirtfibers-zpsrgyy13mq.jpg)
And as for the blanket fiber in, not on Oswald's rifle bag would take a number of experiments to calculate the probability of a magic fiber penetrating the bag.
In the following photo we see the opening of the bag sitting on top of the blanket and since there is no timestamp we don't know at what stage this photo was taken, was the bag already analysed? Was the photo taken in Dallas on the 22nd and if so how far into the bag was a fiber found? Was the bag folded when sent to Washington? Our resident Forensic Layman says that all the evidence was sent in a single bag, which wouldn't surprise me considering the level of scientific forensics at the time, and if so how far into the bag was the fiber and as I said was the bag folded?
I'm guessing without these issues being fully addressed, a real Johnnie Cochran and the best fiber forensic scientists could bring up some doubt but the fact remains that the Oswald prints on the rifle sized bag will forever link the bag to Oswald.
(https://i.postimg.cc/X7mqmbdd/Evidence-released-to-the-FBI.jpg)
JohnM
Bla bla bla bla bla bla
Mr. Fiber expert (wannabe) talks... and says nothing of any significance whatsoever.
Oh well, at least he agrees that the cross contamination issue was never really addressed and could bring up doubt. That's something.
But then he goes off the rails, by making some weird argument that Oswald's print on the bag links the bag to Oswald. Duh!
Desperation seems to be setting in.....
Let's just tell it as it really is. To a LN it doesn't matter how weak or pathetic a piece of evidence is, as long as there is a minimal possibility of linking a piece of evidence (authenticated or not) to Oswald it is absolute proof that Oswald killed JFK and Tippit. There's no reason, no middle ground, no honesty... all that matters is that Oswald must be the lone killer at all costs. Every idiot has an opinion, I guess....
-
Duplicate
-
Oh well, at least he agrees that the cross contamination issue was never really addressed and could bring up doubt. That's something.
See Martin, this is the difference between you and me, I really don't care who Killed Kennedy, I wasn't even born when it happened and thus have always approached this completely neutral with absolutely no bias.
I examine every piece of evidence scientifically, logically, use advanced mathematical probability and rely on some of the finest forensic analysists in the World.
Whereas you being a feral dog without a bone, have some sort of psychotic belief that virtually every piece of evidence must have some sort of flaw, you demand evidence that would require a time machine so you could see any action with your own eyes and if this was the case, superheroes like yourself would make the legal system obsolete but here in the real world we depend on the judicial process.
As I proved, your insane idea that "evidence beyond a reasonable doubt" must include "conclusive evidence" was beyond absurd, and shows why from the very start you were debating from a position of idiocy, and this total miscomprehension of even the most basic legal theory totally explains why you don't accept logical criminal arguments.
JohnM
-
(https://i.postimg.cc/qMgMjkBG/Frazier-car-sale-notarized-stmt-2.jpg) (https://postimg.cc/7f8kLr2C)
-
(https://i.postimg.cc/yx8YqKmB/Frazier-statement-on-54-Chevy-and-11-22-63-JPG.jpg) (https://postimg.cc/mzKGM0p6)
-
See Martin, this is the difference between you and me, I really don't care who Killed Kennedy, I wasn't even born when it happened and thus have always approached this completely neutral with absolutely no bias.
I examine every piece of evidence scientifically, logically, use advanced mathematical probability and rely on some of the finest forensic analysists in the World.
Whereas you being a feral dog without a bone, have some sort of psychotic belief that virtually every piece of evidence must have some sort of flaw, you demand evidence that would require a time machine so you could see any action with your own eyes and if this was the case, superheroes like yourself would make the legal system obsolete but here in the real world we depend on the judicial process.
As I proved, your insane idea that "evidence beyond a reasonable doubt" must include "conclusive evidence" was beyond absurd, and shows why from the very start you were debating from a position of idiocy, and this total miscomprehension of even the most basic legal theory totally explains why you don't accept logical criminal arguments.
JohnM
As I said: delusions of grandeur. HAHAHAHAHA
Thanks for the laugh! A fool beating his own drum is always funny, especially when the people he tries to fool know better!
In addition to your self-declared "supreme" legal, mathematical, scientific and forensic "skills", do you perhaps have another job, like washing dishes or does being a keyboard junkie take up all your time?
-
Seems like a rather low price. I wonder if this official low price was for tax purposes, and other cash exchanged hands.
Like any number of witnesses, Frazier changed his tune over the years.
-
Seems like a rather low price. I wonder if this official low price was for tax purposes, and other cash exchanged hands.
Like any number of witnesses, Frazier changed his tune over the years.
Don't let Bill Brown fool you with those fakes.
-
MW-
Why do you say the Frazier bill of sales are fake?
-
MW-
Why do you say the Frazier bill of sales are fake?
Because they are. They come from Ripley's believe it or not
-
You can't refute what I've written about the unreliability of eyewitnesses, so you just decide to take your ball and go home.
Probably your best move given the circumstances.
:D You're right, I can't refute what you've written about the unreliability of eyewitnesses
But in Frazier's case he knew exactly what he saw and was very clear and specific about it
Probably your best move given the circumstances.
You have failed to make your point. I don't know what that means.
-
Thumb1: Still, no reason to think the rifle was ever broken down and put into that bag.
Geez, are you never grateful?
I once again educated you and corrected your inability to do proper research and you immediately shift the goalposts, a simple "thank you" would work wonders! Thumb1:
BTW, for anyone reading this, Capasse claimed that the bag never went to the FBI Laboratory in Washington in the late hours/early morning after the Assassination, he was WRONG, as proven by yours truly!
The evidence supplied by Capasse was the name Jim Marrs and some gobbledy gook about the blanket?, and to support this asinine assertion Capasse linked to a list of items taken from the Paine residence?? What a Maroon!
JohnM
-
Geez, are you never grateful?
I once again educated you and corrected your inability to do proper research and you immediately shift the goalposts, a simple "thank you" would work wonders! Thumb1:
JohnM
What medication are you on?
-
What medication are you on?
Thumb1: Thumb1: Thumb1:
(https://i.postimg.cc/PryTDyL9/healthy-lifestyle.png)
(https://i.postimg.cc/3JY3WVwy/alcohol-bad.jpg)
JohnM
-
Thumb1: Thumb1: Thumb1:
(https://i.postimg.cc/PryTDyL9/healthy-lifestyle.png)
(https://i.postimg.cc/3JY3WVwy/alcohol-bad.jpg)
JohnM
So it includes hallucinogens.... Good to know Thumb1:
-
:D You're right, I can't refute what you've written about the unreliability of eyewitnesses
But in Frazier's case he knew exactly what he saw and was very clear and specific about it
You have failed to make your point. I don't know what that means.
Being specific is not the same as being accurate. Our minds remember some things and not others so we try to fill in the blanks as best we can which leads to inaccurate memories. There is no reason to believe Frazier had greater powers of perception than the rest of us. I'm sure in his mind he was being truthful about what he testified to but like the rest of us, he didn't remember every detail exactly. He got the part about Oswald cupping the bottom of the bag in his palm. We know that because that's where his palm print was. He didn't notice the bag extended several inches above Oswald's shoulder. We know that because the bag was found with Oswald's palm and fingerprint on it and its measured length of 38 inches would not have allowed him to tuck the top end under his armpit.
As the articles I posted pointed out, over time we develop false memories about an event. We get parts of it right and parts of it wrong. You have given us no reason to believe Frazier was any more reliable than any other witnesses. You choose to believe him because you want to believe Oswald was innocent and accepting Frazier's testimony as 100% accurate provides you with the excuse to dismiss a very damning piece of evidence of his guilt. Using unreliable eyewitness testimony to trump very reliable forensic evidence is a very dubious practice.
-
Being specific is not the same as being accurate. Our minds remember some things and not others so we try to fill in the blanks as best we can which leads to inaccurate memories. There is no reason to believe Frazier had greater powers of perception than the rest of us. I'm sure in his mind he was being truthful about what he testified to but like the rest of us, he didn't remember every detail exactly. He got the part about Oswald cupping the bottom of the bag in his palm. We know that because that's where his palm print was. He didn't notice the bag extended several inches above Oswald's shoulder. We know that because the bag was found with Oswald's palm and fingerprint on it and its measured length of 38 inches would not have allowed him to tuck the top end under his armpit.
As the articles I posted pointed out, over time we develop false memories about an event. We get parts of it right and parts of it wrong. You have given us no reason to believe Frazier was any more reliable than any other witnesses. You choose to believe him because you want to believe Oswald was innocent and accepting Frazier's testimony as 100% accurate provides you with the excuse to dismiss a very damning piece of evidence of his guilt. Using unreliable eyewitness testimony to trump very reliable forensic evidence is a very dubious practice.
You will never understand or accept that you can not put the bag allegedly found on the 6th floor in Oswald's hand on Friday morning. You just assume it is and call it "very reliable forensic evidence".
If you want to talk about a very dubious practice, this is it!
There is no reason to believe Frazier had greater powers of perception than the rest of us. I'm sure in his mind he was being truthful about what he testified to but like the rest of us, he didn't remember every detail exactly.
How do you know for a fact that he didn't remember every detail exactly? Or is it just wishful thinking?
As the articles I posted pointed out, over time we develop false memories about an event.
Frazier told FBI agent Odum on 12/02/63 that he "observed that Oswald had his package under his right arm, one end of the package being under his armpit and the other end apparently held with his right fingers". You are of course aware of this, right?
-
Duplicate
-
Being specific is not the same as being accurate. Our minds remember some things and not others so we try to fill in the blanks as best we can which leads to inaccurate memories. There is no reason to believe Frazier had greater powers of perception than the rest of us. I'm sure in his mind he was being truthful about what he testified to but like the rest of us, he didn't remember every detail exactly. He got the part about Oswald cupping the bottom of the bag in his palm. We know that because that's where his palm print was. He didn't notice the bag extended several inches above Oswald's shoulder. We know that because the bag was found with Oswald's palm and fingerprint on it and its measured length of 38 inches would not have allowed him to tuck the top end under his armpit.
As the articles I posted pointed out, over time we develop false memories about an event. We get parts of it right and parts of it wrong. You have given us no reason to believe Frazier was any more reliable than any other witnesses. You choose to believe him because you want to believe Oswald was innocent and accepting Frazier's testimony as 100% accurate provides you with the excuse to dismiss a very damning piece of evidence of his guilt. Using unreliable eyewitness testimony to trump very reliable forensic evidence is a very dubious practice.
Too bad it just doesn't apply to Frazier in this case.
Thumb1: He knew exactly what he saw. You misrepresent that to match your preset conclusions.
-
You will never understand or accept that you can not put the bag allegedly found on the 6th floor in Oswald's hand on Friday morning.
To put the bag in Oswald's hands you need two things. Common sense and the ability to compute the answer to 2 +2. I have that cability.
You just assume it is and call it "very reliable forensic evidence".
If you want to talk about a very dubious practice, this is it!
Oh, so now you find forensic evidence to be dubious. You put absolute faith in the uncorroborated memories of a single witness and you find forensic evidence to be unreliable. Now wonder you can't figure out a double murder case that was so open and shut that the DPD had solved in the first 12 hours.
There is no reason to believe Frazier had greater powers of perception than the rest of us. I'm sure in his mind he was being truthful about what he testified to but like the rest of us, he didn't remember every detail exactly.
How do you know for a fact that he didn't remember every detail exactly? Or is it just wishful thinking?
Because his memory conflicts with the forensic evidence. Your inability to weigh evidence causes you to put complete faith in eyewitness recollections and reject forensic evidence which has long been accepted by the courts as admissable.
As the articles I posted pointed out, over time we develop false memories about an event.
Frazier told FBI agent Odum on 12/02/63 that he "observed that Oswald had his package under his right arm, one end of the package being under his armpit and the other end apparently held with his right fingers". You are of course aware of this, right?
Here is Frazier's initial affidavit:
https://jfk-online.com/frazier.html
If you have another source, by all means post it.
If Frazier did make his statement about how Oswald carried the bag earlier, that would give it a bit more weight than his WC testimony but that still doesn't raise it to the level of established fact. Even eyewitness accounts taken in the immediate aftermath of an event can be less than accurate and they just get even more inaccurate over the course of time.
-
Too bad it just doesn't apply to Frazier in this case.
Thumb1: He knew exactly what he saw. You misrepresent that to match your preset conclusions.
Why would these findings about eyewitnesses in general not apply to Frazier. What reason do you have to believe Frazier is some kind of super witness who remembers every detail with absolute accuracy?
-
Why wouldn't these findings about eyewitnesses in general apply to Frazier. What reason do you have to believe Frazier is some kind of super witness who remembers every detail with absolute accuracy?
Here's Frazier on 11/22 and for the next 60+ years:
"I noticed that Lee had the package in his right hand under his arm, and the package was straight up and down, and he had his arm down, and you could not see much of the package." https://jfk-online.com/frazier.html
He doesn't need to be a "super witness" to know exactly what he saw and it is not every detail.
It is very specific and consistent. You're the one that continues to deny that.
-
To put the bag in Oswald's hands you need two things. Common sense and the ability to compute the answer to 2 +2. I have that cability.
Oh, so now you find forensic evidence to be dubious. You put absolute faith in the uncorroborated memories of a single witness and you find forensic evidence to be unreliable. Now wonder you can't figure out a double murder case that was so open and shut that the DPD had solved in the first 12 hours.
Because his memory conflicts with the forensic evidence. Your inability to weigh evidence causes you to put complete faith in eyewitness recollections and reject forensic evidence which has long been accepted by the courts as admissable.
Here is Frazier's initial affidavit:
https://jfk-online.com/frazier.html
If you have another source, by all means post it.
If Frazier did make his statement about how Oswald carried the bag earlier, that would give it a bit more weight than his WC testimony but that still doesn't raise it to the level of established fact. Even eyewitness accounts taken in the immediate aftermath of an event can be less than accurate and they just get even more inaccurate over the course of time.
To put the bag in Oswald's hands you need two things. Common sense and the ability to compute the answer to 2 +2. I have that cability.
Hilarious! Common sense is just another word for assumption and wishful thinking, and that's exactly all you will ever have. Your opinions are not fact, evidence or proof!
Oh, so now you find forensic evidence to be dubious.
What you assume isn't forensic evidence! You claiming that it is, is what is dubious.
You put absolute faith in the uncorroborated memories of a single witness and you find forensic evidence to be unreliable.
When you begin to misrepresent what I actually said, you've already lost the argument. The fact that you clearly have an inability to understand what is written doesn't alter that fact.
Because his memory conflicts with the forensic evidence.
Wrong! His memory about how Oswald carried the bag is clearly correct but conflicts with your opinion which you incorrectly call "forensic evidence"
Here is Frazier's initial affidavit:
https://jfk-online.com/frazier.html
If you have another source, by all means post it.
Why would I need to post another source? In his affidavit, on 11/22/63 Frazier says;
"I noticed that Lee had the package in his right hand under his arm, and the package was straight up and down, and he had his arm down, and you could not see much of the package."
He repeated it when he talked to FBI agent Odum on 12/02/63 and he is still saying it to this day.
If Frazier did make his statement about how Oswald carried the bag earlier, that would give it a bit more weight than his WC testimony but that still doesn't raise it to the level of established fact.
Just how much earlier than on the same day of the events should Frazier have made his statement?
In your opinion nothing will ever raise to the level of an established fact, because you simply don't want it to be.
Even eyewitness accounts taken in the immediate aftermath of an event can be less than accurate and they just get even more inaccurate over the course of time.
Does this also apply to Earlene Roberts' statements about Oswald leaving the rooming house wearing a jacket? Or is it only limited to witnesses who say things you don't like?
-
Here's Frazier on 11/22 and for the next 60+ years:
"I noticed that Lee had the package in his right hand under his arm, and the package was straight up and down, and he had his arm down, and you could not see much of the package." https://jfk-online.com/frazier.html
He doesn't need to be a "super witness" to know exactly what he saw and it is not every detail.
It is very specific and consistent. You're the one that continues to deny that.
You are reading more into his statement that is there. Carrying the package under his arm does not preclude the top end sticking up above his shoulder. Frazier was non-specific about what parts of the package you could or couldn't see.
-
You are reading more into his statement that is there. Carrying the package under his arm does not preclude the top end sticking up above his shoulder. Frazier was non-specific about what parts of the package you could or couldn't see.
You do understand that if the bag contained a broken down rifle and the package was held by Oswald in the cup of his hand, the top of the package would have reached higher than Oswald's head?
Frazier said he couldn't see "much of the package". Go figure...
The desperate way that you try to exclude Frazier's statements is a clear indication that you already know that you've lost the argument. Now all you need to do is accept it!
-
You are reading more into his statement that is there. Carrying the package under his arm does not preclude the top end sticking up above his shoulder.
:D WHAT ??
-
Here's Frazier on 11/22 and for the next 60+ years:
"I noticed that Lee had the package in his right hand under his arm, and the package was straight up and down, and he had his arm down, and you could not see much of the package." https://jfk-online.com/frazier.html
He doesn't need to be a "super witness" to know exactly what he saw and it is not every detail.
It is very specific and consistent. You're the one that continues to deny that.
What about Linnie Mae Randle or doesn't her statement and testimony count?
-
What about Linnie Mae Randle or doesn't her statement and testimony count?
What about it?
Her statements conflict with her testimony.
-
What about Linnie Mae Randle or doesn't her statement and testimony count?
If one witness can be wrong, two can be wrong. There is also the very reel possibility that Frazier and his sister discussed the bag between themselves which could have influenced their recollections.
The simple reality is neither of the two had any reason to estimate the length of the package at the time they observed it. They were only asked to estimate the length of the package from memory some time later.
-
What about it?
Her statements conflict with her testimony.
In what way? She was fairly consistent on one thing.
-
If one witness can be wrong, two can be wrong. There is also the very reel possibility that Frazier and his sister discussed the bag between themselves which could have influenced their recollections.
The simple reality is neither of the two had any reason to estimate the length of the package at the time they observed it. They were only asked to estimate the length of the package from memory some time later.
Yet, Here is a picture of Frazier demonstrating to you exactly what he saw and even should have seen...
You are just not being honest.
(https://preview.ibb.co/cqGmgw/Slide18.gif)
-
In what way? She was fairly consistent on one thing.
She gave two different lengths. You don't see that in itself as a problem?
Are you gonna cherry pick the one you want?
-
If one witness can be wrong, two can be wrong. There is also the very reel possibility that Frazier and his sister discussed the bag between themselves which could have influenced their recollections.
The simple reality is neither of the two had any reason to estimate the length of the package at the time they observed it. They were only asked to estimate the length of the package from memory some time later.
Estimates are likely never precise, but do you agree that estimating the size is not the same as observing how the package was carried by Oswald?
-
She gave two different lengths. You don't see that in itself as a problem?
Are you gonna cherry pick the one you want?
The discussion is about consistent. Start from the ground up. What did she say? Interesting you would gravitate to her estimation of the length as if that was all defining.
-
The discussion is about consistent. Start from the ground up. What did she say? Interesting you would gravitate to her estimation of the length as if that was all defining.
I don't play games. You know exactly what she said.
Make your point you wanna add that left hand BS: again?
You're on your own.
-
I don't play games. You know exactly what she said.
Make you point
Yes you do. nothing but.
And so do you, so why the pretense?
-
Yes you do. nothing but.
And so do you, so why the pretense?
I won't play a nutters baiting game
you have a point? make it
-
I won't play a nutters baiting game
you have a point? make it
Being baited? Into what? That you know what you have been posting is just wrong?
The point was made. I understand why you are avoiding it.
-
Estimates are likely never precise, but do you agree that estimating the size is not the same as observing how the package was carried by Oswald?
Yes I do. Randle said Oswald held the package near the top and it almost touched the ground. His grip would take up 4-6 inches of the length of the bag so it would seem very odd to me that he could hold a two foot long package and have it almost touch the ground. That seems much more plausible if the package was 38 inches long.
As for Frazier there seems to be agreement that Oswald carried the package into the TSBD cupping it in his right hand. The bone of contention is whether or not the top of the package was above his right shoulder. That is something Frazier could very well have not even noticed at the time he observed Oswald carrying the package.
-
Yes I do. Randle said Oswald held the package near the top and it almost touched the ground. His grip would take up 4-6 inches of the length of the bag so it would seem very odd to me that he could hold a two foot long package and have it almost touch the ground. That seems much more plausible if the package was 38 inches long.
I just measured my hand to the floor while standing upright. 2' 3"
try it yourself
As for Frazier there seems to be agreement that Oswald carried the package into the TSBD cupping it in his right hand. The bone of contention is whether or not the top of the package was above his right shoulder. That is something Frazier could very well have not even noticed at the time he observed Oswald carrying the package.
The largest piece of the rifle is the stock @ 34.8 inches....
it cannot be made any shorter
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.
-
Yes I do. Randle said Oswald held the package near the top and it almost touched the ground. His grip would take up 4-6 inches of the length of the bag so it would seem very odd to me that he could hold a two foot long package and have it almost touch the ground. That seems much more plausible if the package was 38 inches long.
As for Frazier there seems to be agreement that Oswald carried the package into the TSBD cupping it in his right hand. The bone of contention is whether or not the top of the package was above his right shoulder. That is something Frazier could very well have not even noticed at the time he observed Oswald carrying the package.
Yes I do. Randle said Oswald held the package near the top and it almost touched the ground. His grip would take up 4-6 inches of the length of the bag so it would seem very odd to me that he could hold a two foot long package and have it almost touch the ground. That seems much more plausible if the package was 38 inches long.
Define "almost touched the ground"
His grip would take up 4-6 inches of the length of the bag
Speculation
That seems much more plausible if the package was 38 inches long.
Self serving conclusion. Do you actually believe that Oswald's legs were longer than 38 inches, when was only 5 foot 9 and his arms were only about 20 inches long?
As for Frazier there seems to be agreement that Oswald carried the package into the TSBD cupping it in his right hand. The bone of contention is whether or not the top of the package was above his right shoulder. That is something Frazier could very well have not even noticed at the time he observed Oswald carrying the package.
On the photos of Frazier posted here, the 36" package reached to his ear. Frazier was taller than Oswald. The same package would he stuck out higher than Oswald's head. Pretty difficult to miss!
Besides, Frazier clearly stated that the top of the package was under Oswald's armpit.
Was Frazier lying about that or are we just dealing with a pathetic attempt to try to fit the evidence to the preconceived conclusion?
Just hours after the shooting DPD officers were already talking about the paper bag as the "rifle bag", when there was actually no way they could have made that determination.
Why was Lt Day desperately looking for an explanation after Frazier, on Friday evening, had denied that the 6th floor bag was the one he had seen Oswald carry. And why was Fritz so angry about it that he nearly hit Frazier?
-
Duplicate
-
Don't let Bill Brown fool you with those fakes.
Translation: When you don't like what the EVIDENCE tells you, call it fake and move on.
-
Translation: When you don't like what the EVIDENCE tells you, call it fake and move on.
I found that "evidence" at the Ripley "believe or not" website years ago, but feel free to prove that the documents are authentic.
-
Point being, in October of '64, Buell Frazier acknowledged that the assassination weapon was in the package and his car transported the rifle to the Depository building. He even says that Oswald finalized his plans to carry out the assassination in that car.
Like it or not, Frazier states, in the affidavit, that the rifle was in the bag and therefore by default he is telling you that the bag was large enough.
-
I found that "evidence" at the Ripley "believe or not" website years ago, but feel free to prove that the documents are authentic.
No one cares what or when you found anything.
Along with Frank Badalson, I had pizza with Buell Frazier and Dave Perry last November. There's nothing fake about the affidavits.
-
No one cares what or when you found anything.
Along with Frank Badalson, I had pizza with Buell Frazier and Dave Perry last November. There's nothing fake about the affidavits.
Should be easy to prove it then. Just ask Buell to confirm it. Beyond that, nobody cares who you claim to have eaten pizza with.
Btw; Frazier and/or the notary didn't know that Erwin was actually Irving?
And what was the notary's name exactly? The signature isn't very clear.
-
Like it or not, Frazier states, in the affidavit, that the rifle was in the bag and therefore by default he is telling you that the bag was large enough.
:D "Frazier states..." lol
Or was it simply put in front of him to sign for additional color to the provenance of the car?
-
Should be easy to prove it then. Just ask Buell to confirm it. Beyond that, nobody cares who you claim to have eaten pizza with.
Btw; Frazier and/or the notary didn't know that Erwin was actually Irving?
And what was the notary's name exactly? The signature isn't very clear.
Surely you've heard Buell Frazier talk before, with that VERY strong accent. The fact that the affidavit says "Erwin" instead of Irving should make it obvious to you that Frazier was talking as the transcriber was typing it out. Use your common sense.
As for the pizza, my point was that we talked about the affidavit. Out of respect for Dave Perry (Buell's friend and who set up the pizza night), I won't tell you what was said. However, I had a video call with Perry last Monday and I'm trying to get Perry to agree to release the details of the conversation with Frazier.
This is what you'd call FREAL research, i.e. going straight to the horse's mouth (as opposed to doing what YOU do, which is simply call it fake and ignore it).
-
Surely you've heard Buell Frazier talk before, with that VERY strong accent. The fact that the affidavit says "Erwin" instead of Irving should make it obvious to you that Frazier was talking as the transcriber was typing it out. Use your common sense.
As for the pizza, my point was that we talked about the affidavit. Out of respect for Dave Perry (Buell's friend and who set up the pizza night), I won't tell you what was said. However, I had a video call with Perry last Monday and I'm trying to get Perry to agree to release the details of the conversation with Frazier.
This is what you'd call FREAL research, i.e. going straight to the horse's mouth (as opposed to doing what YOU do, which is simply call it fake and ignore it).
Hilarious,
This so-called affidavit lacks the normal form for these documents, doesn't identify the notary, and was allegedly drawn up in Dallas and you argue they wouldn't have know that Erwin was in fact Irving? And as far as common sense goes, there isn't a notary in the country that will blindly sign an affidavit without checking the content of the document.
As for the pizza, my point was that we talked about the affidavit. Out of respect for Dave Perry (Buell's friend and who set up the pizza night), I won't tell you what was said. However, I had a video call with Perry last Monday and I'm trying to get Perry to agree to release the details of the conversation with Frazier.
This is what you'd call FREAL research, i.e. going straight to the horse's mouth (as opposed to doing what YOU do, which is simply call it fake and ignore it).
Oh please, give it up already, you hypocrite. You won't tell us what was said, yet here you are posting those crappy documents and basically claiming that Frazier said they were authentic.
And talking about "real research", do you really think you are the only one who has ever spoken to Frazier? The difference between you and me is you make claims about it.
It's obvious that you clearly can not authenticate those papers. That's the only reason for this song and dance.
-
Point being, in October of '64, Buell Frazier acknowledged that the assassination weapon was in the package and his car transported the rifle to the Depository building. He even says that Oswald finalized his plans to carry out the assassination in that car.
Like it or not, Frazier states, in the affidavit, that the rifle was in the bag and therefore by default he is telling you that the bag was large enough.
If he knew those things at the time, then Frazier, IMHO, was an accomplice.
-
And does BW Frazier agree NOW, in the year 2026, that the rifle was in the package he saw Oswald carry into the TSBD annexed warehouse bldg?
Or was Frazier still a very scared young man in 1964 who had just a year earlier been thru an interrogation with Fritz where Frazier thought Fritz was about to strike him in the face.?
-
Or was Frazier still a very scared young man in 1964 who had just a year earlier been thru an interrogation with Fritz where Frazier thought Fritz was about to strike him in the face.?
You hit the nail on the head.
As soon as Frazier heard the shots, he instantly knew it was Oswald, when Frazier went back inside the Depository he went to eat his lunch all alone in the basement? WTF?
Then after he left in the early afternoon, Frazier went to visit his Stepfather in Hospital?
Then we have Linnie Mae Randle's initial confession to the FBI that the package was three feet long, almost the same size as the one in evidence, how would she know the size of some random paper bag with Oswald's prints which was found in Oswald's sniper's nest?
(https://i.postimg.cc/L8LRdbZs/Randle-bag-near-touch-ground-b.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/hjgt3qyP/Frazier-London-trial-bag-out-in-front.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/QCCsRNcq/buell-linnie-bag-est.jpg)
JohnM
-
One other thing, the palm print in the bag was NOT found at the bottom of the bag. WRONG.
The palm print was in the MIDDLE of the bag. And that’s the main PROBLEM because Linnie Mae Randel said Oswald was holding the package at the TOP with just one hand , while Frazier saw the BOTTOM of the package in the cupped hand of Oswalds right hand.
So …if the package contained an 8lb rifle , 2 palm prints at top and bottom of package should have been found given how much force the paper was pressed against the hand.
It’s possible SOME % of evaporation could have happened over a 3 hour period but it’s hard to believe 100% did, without even a trace of prints at the bottom and only 1 small tip of a finger print at the top?
But the probability of prints 100% evaporating diminishes even more when considering the many times that Oswald probably touched that bag while he carried the rifle in it.
1.From Paines garage to Fraziers car
2.From Frazier car to some hiding place in the attached annex warehouse ( because Jack Dougherty did not see anything in Oswald’s hand when Oswald came thru the TSBD rear door)
3. From warehouse ground floor up to 7th floor to be assembled
4. From 7th to 6th floor at about 12:15 if Oswald was the man that Arnold Rowland saw at the SW window.
5. From where ever on 6th floor Oswald temporarily hid the rifle after he left the 6th floor to go back down to 2nd floor lunchroom to be seen by Carolyn Arnold at 2:16 or 2:17.
6. From the hiding place to the SE window when Oswald returned to 6th floor after Bonnie Ray Williams left the 6th floor by 12:23.
So there are possibly 6 times at least that Oswald carried the 8lbs rifle in the package and yet there was just this one palm print in the middle of the package and one little itty bitty tip of a finger print at the top of the package.
And the number of times Oswald touched the paper while making the bag, folding and unfolding the bag, taping the bag ( didn’t even trap some print between tape and bag?) makes this an incredible amazingly mystery bag that all prints except just one palm print and the little finger top print evaporated 100%.
-
You hit the nail on the head.
As soon as Frazier heard the shots, he instantly knew it was Oswald, when Frazier went back inside the Depository he went to eat his lunch all alone in the basement? WTF?
Then after he left in the early afternoon, Frazier went to visit his Stepfather in Hospital?
Then we have Linnie Mae Randle's initial confession to the FBI that the package was three feet long, almost the same size as the one in evidence, how would she know the size of some random paper bag with Oswald's prints which was found in Oswald's sniper's nest?
(https://i.postimg.cc/L8LRdbZs/Randle-bag-near-touch-ground-b.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/hjgt3qyP/Frazier-London-trial-bag-out-in-front.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/QCCsRNcq/buell-linnie-bag-est.jpg)
JohnM
You did a judo move on me LOL. That’s NOT exactly what I meant about Frazier being scared
I think he was scared in 63/64 initially and went along with the idea the bag must have contained the rifle.
But NOW , in 2026 Frazier said he does NOT think the bag contained a rifle. He has not changed his mind AGAIN has he?
It’s a leap imo to conclude Frazier instantly knew Oswald was the shooter. Unless you are agreeing with Tom the Gravedigger that Frazier is an accomplice?
-
It doesn't surprise me at all that Frazier has convinced himself that the bag did not contain a rifle and Oswald was not the shooter. That must have been a terrible thing for a 19 year old to have to live with, knowing he had unwittingly driven a presidential assassin to the scene of his crime. As more and more people began to dispute Oswald was the assassin, it gave Frazier a reason to relieve himself of that burden. I can understand why he would eagerly want to believe he was not an unknowing accessory to the crime.
-
It doesn't surprise me at all that Frazier has convinced himself that the bag did not contain a rifle and Oswald was not the shooter. That must have been a terrible thing for a 19 year old to have to live with, knowing he had unwittingly driven a presidential assassin to the scene of his crime. As more and more people began to dispute Oswald was the assassin, it gave Frazier a reason to relieve himself of that burden. I can understand why he would eagerly want to believe he was not an unknowing accessory to the crime.
You have a double-negative in your final sentence.
-
You have a double-negative in your final sentence.
I have had to correct several double negatives in recent days but I don't see one in the post you commented on.
-
I have had to correct several double negatives in recent days but I don't see one in the post you commented on.
Not unknowing
-
It doesn't surprise me at all that Frazier has convinced himself that the bag did not contain a rifle and Oswald was not the shooter. That must have been a terrible thing for a 19 year old to have to live with, knowing he had unwittingly driven a presidential assassin to the scene of his crime. As more and more people began to dispute Oswald was the assassin, it gave Frazier a reason to relieve himself of that burden. I can understand why he would eagerly want to believe he was not an unknowing accessory to the crime.
It doesn't surprise me at all that Frazier has convinced himself that the bag did not contain a rifle
Frazier didn't need to convince himself of anything. He knew from day one that the bag he saw Oswald carry in the cup of his hand and below his armpit wasn't big enough to conceal a rifle.
He also knew that the bag Oswald carried was the kind you get from a supermarket and not one made from heavy duty wrapping paper. That's why he instantly denied that the bag they showed him on Friday evening wasn't the bag he had seen Oswald carry.
Ever since that first day the LNs and the WC before them have been trying to discredit Frazier with all sorts of pathetic claims, but despite all that he is today still just as sure as he was on the first day that the bag Oswald carried wasn't big enough to conceal a rifle. And if you don't believe me, than ask Frazier himself, as I have!
-
It doesn't surprise me at all that Frazier has convinced himself that the bag did not contain a rifle
Frazier didn't need to convince himself of anything. He knew from day one that the bag he saw Oswald carry in the cup of his hand and below his armpit wasn't big enough to conceal a rifle.
He also knew that the bag Oswald carried was the kind you get from a supermarket and not one made from heavy duty wrapping paper. That's why he instantly denied that the bag they showed him on Friday evening wasn't the bag he had seen Oswald carry.
Ever since that first day the LNs and the WC before them have been trying to discredit Frazier with all sorts of pathetic claims, but despite all that he is today still just as sure as he was on the first day that the bag Oswald carried wasn't big enough to conceal a rifle. And if you don't believe me, than ask Frazier himself, as I have!
In October of '64, Frazier was clearly saying that the rifle was in the bag. You don't have to like it.
-
In October of '64, Frazier was clearly saying that the rifle was in the bag. You don't have to like it.
Sure, Bill... Whatever you say, Bill. Pffffff
It makes of course complete sense (not) for Frazier to deny that the bag was large enough to conceal a rifle from day one, then suddenly sign an "affidavit" saying the opposite and then go back to maintain his old position for the next 60 years.
But as you believe the WC BS, we already know that you are easily fooled, so why wouldn't you believe this nonsense as well, right?
-
Sure, Bill... Whatever you say, Bill. Pffffff
It makes of course complete sense (not) for Frazier to deny that the bag was large enough to conceal a rifle from day one, then suddenly sign an "affidavit" saying the opposite and then go back to maintain his old position for the next 60 years.
But as you believe the WC BS, we already know that you are easily fooled, so why wouldn't you believe this nonsense as well, right?
...and then go back to maintain his old position for the next 60 years.
I can't blame him, you conspiracy Kooks theorists are psychotic and have badgered Frazier continually, as you say "for the next 60 years", he had no choice, otherwise you people would have made his life HELL!
JohnM
-
In October of '64, Frazier was clearly saying that the rifle was in the bag. You don't have to like it.
Never said it before and hasn't said it since.
Lame.
-
Never said it before and hasn't said it since.
Lame.
It merely shows the level of desperation at the LN side. They know they can't win the argument by debate and honest treatment of the evidence, so they come up with crap like this.
LNs never back up the bogus claims they make. Bill Brown is not going to produce a confirmation of Buell Frazier because he will never get one.
-
The issue is not the length of the paper bag - it's the length of the object in the bag.
Both Randle and Frazier report Oswald carrying the package in incredibly specific ways that, if taken at face value, make it impossible for the object in the paper bag to be a rifle, disassembled or not.
Frazier has the object cupped in Oswald's hand and held under his armpit.
Randle seems to describe Oswald carrying the object down by his side, almost touching the ground.
It doesn't matter what guesses Frazier and Randall made about the length of the package.
What matters is the way they describe the object being held as this sets a limit on how long the object can be.
For a man of Oswald's physical stature, it is physically impossible for him to be carrying a 34.8 inch disassembled rifle in the ways described by Frazier and Randle.
At a guess, the object must be somewhere between 24 - 28 inches in order to be carried in the ways Frazier and Randle describe.
If not a rifle, what can this object possibly be, as it is clearly not Oswald's lunch bag?
-
I can't blame him, you conspiracy Kooks theorists are psychotic and have badgered Frazier continually, as you say "for the next 60 years", he had no choice, otherwise you people would have made his life HELL!
JohnM
That's not the impression I got from him. Frazier is more than helpful to talk to and deal with people who do not blindly believe the WC's allegations.
Not so much with LN nuts.
-
The issue is not the length of the paper bag - it's the length of the object in the bag.
Both Randall and Frazier report Oswald carrying the package in incredibly specific ways that, if taken at face value, make it impossible for the object in the paper bag to be a rifle, disassembled or not.
Frazier has the object cupped in Oswald's hand and held under his armpit.
Randall seems to describe Oswald carrying the object down by his side, almost touching the ground.
It doesn't matter what guesses Frazier and Randall made about the length of the package.
What matters is the way they describe the object being held as this sets a limit on how long the object can be.
For a man of Oswald's physical stature, it is physically impossible for him to be carrying a 34.8 inch disassembled rifle in the ways described by Frazier and Randall.
At a guess, the object must be somewhere between 24 - 28 inches in order to be carried in the ways Frazier and Randall describe.
If not a rifle, what can this object possibly be, as it is clearly not Oswald's lunch bag?
It has never been established that Oswald had the package tucked under his armpit. That was the recollection of ONE witness who by his own admission wasn't paying that much attention to it. Why the hell would he. Eyewitness recollections do not establish facts because eyewitnesses can be and often are wrong. As of Linnie May Randle's observation, whether right or wrong, you never bother to tell us why it would have been impossible for Oswald to carry the longer package in the manner described.
-
It has never been established that Oswald had the package tucked under his armpit. That was the recollection of ONE witness who by his own admission wasn't paying that much attention to it. Why the hell would he. Eyewitness recollections do not establish facts because eyewitnesses can be and often are wrong. As of Linnie May Randle's observation, whether right or wrong, you never bother to tell us why it would have been impossible for Oswald to carry the longer package in the manner described.
BS: He knew exactly what he saw.
Then failed to identify the bag allegedly found upstairs
-
BS: He knew exactly what he saw.
Then failed to identify the bag allegedly found upstairs
How do you know he he knew exactly what he saw and that he didn't get some details wrong which is what eyewitnesses commonly do?
-
How do you know he he knew exactly what he saw and that he didn't get some details wrong which is what eyewitnesses commonly do?
:D
-
It has never been established that Oswald had the package tucked under his armpit. That was the recollection of ONE witness who by his own admission wasn't paying that much attention to it. Why the hell would he. Eyewitness recollections do not establish facts because eyewitnesses can be and often are wrong. As of Linnie May Randle's observation, whether right or wrong, you never bother to tell us why it would have been impossible for Oswald to carry the longer package in the manner described.
Hi John, I totally get why you believe Oswald is carrying his rifle in the bag.
The Back Yard photos are genuine and show Oswald with a Mannlicher-Carcano. It is perfectly reasonable to assume this is the same rifle found on the 6th floor of the TSBD building and that it was Oswald who brought it there.
Oswald finds out JFK will pass the building and decides, for some strange reason, to kill him (even though his sworn enemy, Connally, will be in the motorcade). He keeps his rifle at the Paine house, Marina testifies to seeing a gun stock in a blanket bag in the garage, he has to break his routine and go to the Paine house on Thursday, he collects the rifle (later that day Marina sees that the rifle is no longer in the blanket bag) and he shows up for his ride to work with an unusually long package in which there is something substantial.
I get it.
But the fact remains, both Frazier and, in particular, Randle seem to describe Oswald carrying this package in ways which refute the notion that there is a 34.8 inch object in the bag.
Both of them.
It is poor methodology to write off their witness statements because the evidence they provide undermines your theory (and it is a theory, never forget that).
Frazier might not have been paying special attention to the package but he was fully aware of it and asked Oswald about it. He saw it put on the back seat and he saw Oswald carrying it under his armpit. This puts a limit on how long the object in the package is and it is physically impossible for an object more than 34 inches to be carried in such a way.
Importantly, Randle corroborates this observation with her own. You don't seem to understand how this is the case.
She describes Oswald holding the package in his right hand by the folded top of the bag acting as a handle. This mean the object is hanging below his hand and just above the ground. If the object in the package was almost 3 feet long it would be dragging across the floor behind him as he walked along. Oswald's physical stature - his height, the length of his arms, the length of his legs, etc. - determines the length of an object being carried in such a way.
There are many other issues with this bag that don't sit quite right, not least the fact that he never even needed to construct a bag to carry the rifle as he had his blanket bag with the rifle already in it.
Personally, the biggest problem I have with the bag is that it is found in the Sniper's Nest which implies Oswald took the disassembled rifle to that spot and assembled it while he was sat in the Sniper's Nest. I don't see how this is possible.
-
Hi John, I totally get why you believe Oswald is carrying his rifle in the bag.
The Back Yard photos are genuine and show Oswald with a Mannlicher-Carcano. It is perfectly reasonable to assume this is the same rifle found on the 6th floor of the TSBD building and that it was Oswald who brought it there.
Oswald finds out JFK will pass the building and decides, for some strange reason, to kill him (even though his sworn enemy, Connally, will be in the motorcade). He keeps his rifle at the Paine house, Marina testifies to seeing a gun stock in a blanket bag in the garage, he has to break his routine and go to the Paine house on Thursday, he collects the rifle (later that day Marina sees that the rifle is no longer in the blanket bag) and he shows up for his ride to work with an unusually long package in which there is something substantial.
I get it.
But the fact remains, both Frazier and, in particular, Randall seem to describe Oswald carrying this package in ways which refute the notion that there is a 34.8 inch object in the bag.
Both of them.
It is poor methodology to write off their witness statements because the evidence they provide undermines your theory (and it is a theory, never forget that).
Frazier might not have been paying special attention to the package but he was fully aware of it and asked Oswald about it. He saw it put on the back seat and he saw Oswald carrying it under his armpit. This puts a limit on how long the object in the package is and it is physically impossible for an object more than 34 inches to be carried in such a way.
Importantly, Randall corroborates this observation with her own. You don't seem to understand how this is the case.
She describes Oswald holding the package in his right hand by the folded top of the bag acting as a handle. This mean the object is hanging below his hand and just above the ground. If the object in the package was almost 3 feet long it would be dragging across the floor behind him as he walked along. Oswald's physical stature - his height, the length of his arms, the length of his legs, etc. - determines the length of an object being carried in such a way.
There are many other issues with this bag that don't sit quite right, not least the fact that he never even needed to construct a bag to carry the rifle as he had his blanket bag with the rifle already in it.
Personally, the biggest problem I have with the bag is that it is found in the Sniper's Nest which implies Oswald took the disassembled rifle to that spot and assembled it while he was sat in the Sniper's Nest. I don't see how this is possible.
You agree that Oswald was carrying a long(ish) package to work that morning. If not the rifle, what was in the bag?
-
:D
OK. So you don't know. Thanks for clearing that up for us.
-
OK. So you don't know. Thanks for clearing that up for us.
I know nonsense that is not worth responding to.
-
Hi John, I totally get why you believe Oswald is carrying his rifle in the bag.
The Back Yard photos are genuine and show Oswald with a Mannlicher-Carcano. It is perfectly reasonable to assume this is the same rifle found on the 6th floor of the TSBD building and that it was Oswald who brought it there.
Oswald finds out JFK will pass the building and decides, for some strange reason, to kill him (even though his sworn enemy, Connally, will be in the motorcade). He keeps his rifle at the Paine house, Marina testifies to seeing a gun stock in a blanket bag in the garage, he has to break his routine and go to the Paine house on Thursday, he collects the rifle (later that day Marina sees that the rifle is no longer in the blanket bag) and he shows up for his ride to work with an unusually long package in which there is something substantial.
I get it.
But the fact remains, both Frazier and, in particular, Randall seem to describe Oswald carrying this package in ways which refute the notion that there is a 34.8 inch object in the bag.
Both of them.
This is the whole point. Eye and ear witnesses are not a reliable way to establish facts. We KNOW that witnesses often get important details wrong. They don't get everything wrong and they can be useful in the gathering of information but it is foolish to accept their statements as factual without corroboration. I am always suspect of any statement that starts out "So-and-so said that..." because without corroboration there is no way to tell for sure if so-and-so is right. In a situation where a witness tells us something that contradicts the forensic evidence, I'm going with the forensic evidence every time.
It is poor methodology to write off their witness statements because the evidence they provide undermines your theory (and it is a theory, never forget that).
I've never said we should write of witness statements. I'm saying we need to determine if what a witness tells us can be corroborated or refuted by other evidence. In this case both Frazier and Randle are refuted by the forensic evidence because the bag was found and measured to be 38 inches long, plenty long enough to hole the 34.8 inch stock. Are we supposed to believe that Oswald brought two bags into the TSBD, the one Frazier and Randle saw and the other one next to the sniper's nest? If you choose to believe that, then we still have the means for Oswald to have smuggled his rifle into the TSBD. I find it far more likely that the two bags were one and the same but if you think it is more likely that Oswald brought two different bags into the TSBD at two different times then that's an argument you need to make.
Frazier might not have been paying special attention to the package but he was fully aware of it and asked Oswald about it. He saw it put on the back seat and he saw Oswald carrying it under his armpit.
He SAID Oswald carried it under his armpit. That doesn't establish that Oswald carried it under his armpit. I will never understand why people choose to put absolute faith in an eyewitness statement that isn't corroborated by physical evidence and in this case is refuted by it.
This puts a limit on how long the object in the package is and it is physically impossible for an object more than 34 inches to be carried in such a way.
It puts no such limit on the objects in the bag unless you can prove Frazier's and Randle's memories and estimates are accurate. Do you have any such proof.
Importantly, Randall corroborates this observation with her own. You don't seem to understand how this is the case.
If one witness can be wrong about something then two people can be wrong. In the case of the earwitnesses in Dealey Plaza, we have two groups which gave mutually exclusive descriptions of where the shots originated from. One group or the other had to be wrong so we have an instance in which a whole lot of people got something very important very wrong.
She describes Oswald holding the package in his right hand by the folded top of the bag acting as a handle. This mean the object is hanging below his hand and just above the ground. If the object in the package was almost 3 feet long it would be dragging across the floor behind him as he walked along. Oswald's physical stature - his height, the length of his arms, the length of his legs, etc. - determines the length of an object being carried in such a way.
Your argument presumes to know at what level Oswald's hand was at when he was holding the bag. Do you have such knowledge? It would make a big deal of difference whether his hand was at waist height, chest height, or somewhere in between.
There are many other issues with this bag that don't sit quite right, not least the fact that he never even needed to construct a bag to carry the rifle as he had his blanket bag with the rifle already in it.
Why would you second guess Oswald's choice when what he did worked?
Personally, the biggest problem I have with the bag is that it is found in the Sniper's Nest which implies Oswald took the disassembled rifle to that spot and assembled it while he was sat in the Sniper's Nest. I don't see how this is possible.
Tell us why it isn't possible.
-
I know nonsense that is not worth responding to.
IOW, you have no response. You have no means to prove that Frazier's recollections about the length of the bag and how Oswald carried it are precise.
Why don't you just admit that and we can move on.
-
IOW, you have no response. You have no means to prove that Frazier's recollections about the length of the bag and how Oswald carried it are precise.
Why don't you just admit that and we can move on.
Thumb1: I believe what he said. - He knows what he saw.
Here is a picture of him demonstrating exactly what he saw.
(https://preview.ibb.co/cqGmgw/Slide18.gif)
You weren't there. He was.
-
This is the whole point. Eye and ear witnesses are not a reliable way to establish facts. We KNOW that witnesses often get important details wrong. They don't get everything wrong and they can be useful in the gathering of information but it is foolish to accept their statements as factual without corroboration. I am always suspect of any statement that starts out "So-and-so said that..." because without corroboration there is no way to tell for sure if so-and-so is right. In a situation where a witness tells us something that contradicts the forensic evidence, I'm going with the forensic evidence every time.
I've never said we should write of witness statements. I'm saying we need to determine if what a witness tells us can be corroborated or refuted by other evidence. In this case both Frazier and Randle are refuted by the forensic evidence because the bag was found and measured to be 38 inches long, plenty long enough to hole the 34.8 inch stock. Are we supposed to believe that Oswald brought two bags into the TSBD, the one Frazier and Randle saw and the other one next to the sniper's nest? If you choose to believe that, then we still have the means for Oswald to have smuggled his rifle into the TSBD. I find it far more likely that the two bags were one and the same but if you think it is more likely that Oswald brought two different bags into the TSBD at two different times then that's an argument you need to make.
He SAID Oswald carried it under his armpit. That doesn't establish that Oswald carried it under his armpit. I will never understand why people choose to put absolute faith in an eyewitness statement that isn't corroborated by physical evidence and in this case is refuted by it.
It puts no such limit on the objects in the bag unless you can prove Frazier's and Randle's memories and estimates are accurate. Do you have any such proof.
If one witness can be wrong about something then two people can be wrong. In the case of the earwitnesses in Dealey Plaza, we have two groups which gave mutually exclusive descriptions of where the shots originated from. One group or the other had to be wrong so we have an instance in which a whole lot of people got something very important very wrong.
Your argument presumes to know at what level Oswald's hand was at when he was holding the bag. Do you have such knowledge? It would make a big deal of difference whether his hand was at waist height, chest height, or somewhere in between.
Why would you second guess Oswald's choice when what he did worked?
Tell us why it isn't possible.
I've never said we should write of witness statements. I'm saying we need to determine if what a witness tells us can be corroborated or refuted by other evidence. In this case both Frazier and Randle are refuted by the forensic evidence because the bag was found and measured to be 38 inches long, plenty long enough to hole the 34.8 inch stock.
This is just about the most stupid statement I've seen you make so far. You have no evidence whatsoever that the bag found on the 6th floor ever left the TSBD, ever held a broken down rifle (an FBI export could find no markings in the bag that would be expected to be there if a broken down rifle had been in it) or that Oswald carried that bag on Friday morning. All you have are self-serving assumptions you call "forensic evidence". You do understand that with enough assumptions you can make anybody look guilty of anything, right.
So why don't you stop assuming and get back to us when you have some actual proof that the bag found on the 6th floor was indeed the bag Oswald was carrying (between the cup of his hand and his armpit) on Friday morning. This LN crap is getting so tiresome!
Randle corroborates Frazier when it comes to the maximum size of the bag. Accept it and get over it!
-
Randle corroborates Frazier when it comes to the maximum size of the bag. Accept it and get over it!
For what it's worth, there certainly is an FBI report which states that Linnie Mae Randle originally stated (on the afternoon of the assassination) that the bag she saw Oswald carry that morning was 36 inches long.
-
I've never said we should write of witness statements. I'm saying we need to determine if what a witness tells us can be corroborated or refuted by other evidence. In this case both Frazier and Randle are refuted by the forensic evidence because the bag was found and measured to be 38 inches long, plenty long enough to hole the 34.8 inch stock.
This is just about the most stupid statement I've seen you make so far. You have no evidence whatsoever that the bag found on the 6th floor ever left the TSBD, ever held a broken down rifle (an FBI export could find no markings in the bag that would expected to be there is a broken down rifle had been in it) or that Oswald carried that bag on Friday morning. All you have are self-serving assumptions that you call "forensic evidence". You do understand that with enough assumptions you can make anybody look guilty of anything, right.
No evidence? Seriously? How do you suppose the bag contained Oswald's prints and fibers matching the blanket Oswald used to store his rifle in the Paine garage. Maybe it was by PFM (Pure Freaking Magic)
So why don't you stop assuming and get back to us when you have some actual proof that the bag found on the 6th floor was indeed the bag Oswald was carrying (between the cup of his hand and his armpit) on Friday morning. This LN crap is getting so tiresome!
Absolute proof is not available nor does it need to be in order to be probative. Oswald carrying the rifle into the TSBD in the bag Frazier and Randle saw him with is simply far and away the most likely explanation and fits perfectly with all the other available evidence pointing to Oswald as the assassin. The rifle found on the 6th floor was probably his. It was matched to the shells in the sniper's nest and the only two recovered bullets from the shooting to the exclusion of all other weapons in the world. Oswald's palm and fingerprints were found on the boxes at the window where a shooter was seen. To believe Oswald brought his rifle into work that morning in the brown paper bag Frazier saw him with, I only have to believe that both Frazier and Randle misjudged the length of the bag, which is not a stretch at all. It's the kind of mistake witnesses routinely make. People simply aren't that observant about details and our brains are not equipped with DVRs.
Randle corroborates Frazier when it comes to the maximum size of the bag. Accept it and get over it!
One fallible witness is not much corroboration for another fallible witness.
-
For what it's worth, there certainly is an FBI report which states that Linnie Mae Randle originally stated (on the afternoon of the assassination) that the bag she saw Oswald carry that morning was 36 inches long.
It isn't worth much.
Indeed there is. Bookhout wrote the FD 302 for internal use. Randle never saw it and it can hardly be described as evidence.
But even if it could be considered to be evidence, it contradicts all other statements Randle ever made and it's only mentioning an estimation.
Isn't the LN clan allergic to estimates?
There is no way a 36 inch bag would fit between Oswald armpit and the cup of his hand, and it would have been impossible to be carried they way Randle described and not hit the ground.
You're flogging a dead horse.
-
No evidence? Seriously? How do you suppose the bag contained Oswald's prints and fibers matching the blanket Oswald used to store his rifle in the Paine garage. Maybe it was by PFM (Pure Freaking Magic)
Absolute proof is not available nor does it need to be in order to be probative. Oswald carrying the rifle into the TSBD in the bag Frazier and Randle saw him with is simply far and away the most likely explanation and fits perfectly with all the other available evidence pointing to Oswald as the assassin. The rifle found on the 6th floor was probably his. It was matched to the shells in the sniper's nest and the only two recovered bullets from the shooting to the exclusion of all other weapons in the world. Oswald's palm and fingerprints were found on the boxes at the window where a shooter was seen. To believe Oswald brought his rifle into work that morning in the brown paper bag Frazier saw him with, I only have to believe that both Frazier and Randle misjudged the length of the bag, which is not a stretch at all. It's the kind of mistake witnesses routinely make. People simply aren't that observant about details and our brains are not equipped with DVRs.
One fallible witness is not much corroboration for another fallible witness.
No evidence? Seriously? How do you suppose the bag contained Oswald's prints and fibers matching the blanket Oswald used to store his rifle in the Paine garage. Maybe it was by PFM (Pure Freaking Magic)
This has already been explained to you. Oswald's print on a bag made in the TSBD, found in the TSBD, on the floor where Oswald worked isn't remarkable at all. There are all sorts of ways his print could have gotten on that bag.
No matter how often you keep making this bogus claim, there are no fibers found in the bag that matched anything. At best the fibers are similar. And those fibers could easily have gotten on and in the bag as evidence photos show the bag and the blanket lying direct next to eachother at the DPD and at the FBI Lab. Only the possibility of cross contamination makes all this fiber nonsense obsolete and invalid.
As for Oswald using the blanket to store "his rifle" in Ruth Paine's garage, there isn't a shred off evidence for that at all. All we really know is that Marina said she looked in the blanket about a week after coming back from New Orleans and saw the wooden stock of a rifle. That was in late September 1963. Since then nobody has seen any rifle in Ruth Paine's garage.
You talk about it being magic, but in fact it is pure imagination on your part.
So, here's a question for you. Let's see if you can imagine an answer. When Oswald allegedly took a rifle to New Orleans by public transport nobody saw the damned thing. Considering he had allegedly just tried to kill General Walker with that rifle, taking it with him would have been a massive risk.
Now, we are to believe that when Ruth Paine, who wanted nothing to do with weapons, picked up Marina, in New Orleans, Oswald just wrapped a rifle in a blanket and put it in the back of Ruth's car, giving up total control over the weapon and risking that Ruth Paine would find the rifle. But that's not all, because enter Michael Paine, who said he took the blanket out of the car without noticing there was a rifle in it. He also said he had moved the package several times and never noticed anything wrong. He just thought that it was camping equipment. Yeah right! Years later Paine confirmed that he had seen Oswald with a rifle at Neely Street. So, he claims to have known that Oswald had a rifle yet he couldn't figure out that it might not be camping equipment in the blanket after all.
Absolute proof is not available nor does it need to be in order to be probative. Oswald carrying the rifle into the TSBD in the bag Frazier and Randle saw him with is simply far and away the most likely explanation and fits perfectly with all the other available evidence pointing to Oswald as the assassin. The rifle found on the 6th floor was probably his. It was matched to the shells in the sniper's nest and the only two recovered bullets from the shooting to the exclusion of all other weapons in the world. Oswald's palm and fingerprints were found on the boxes at the window where a shooter was seen. To believe Oswald brought his rifle into work that morning in the brown paper bag Frazier saw him with, I only have to believe that both Frazier and Randle misjudged the length of the bag, which is not a stretch at all. It's the kind of mistake witnesses routinely make. People simply aren't that observant about details and our brains are not equipped with DVRs.
One fallible witness is not much corroboration for another fallible witness.
Oh please... enough with the crappy story. There is no evidence that Oswald carried a rifle into the TSBD, regardless of what you think is the most likely explanation.
The rifle found on the 6th floor was probably his.
Hilarious! Now you don't even know for sure it it was Oswald's rifle. HAHAHAHAHAHA
To believe Oswald brought his rifle into work that morning in the brown paper bag Frazier saw him with, I only have to believe that both Frazier and Randle misjudged the length of the bag, which is not a stretch at all.
You can believe all you want, but when you have two witnesses who corroborate eachother, not on size estimates, but on the maximum size that package could be for it to be carried in the way they had seen it being carried, you need for more that assumption and what you believe.
And not the only thing you have to believe.
You need to believe there was a rifle stored in Ruth Paine's garage om 11/22/63
You need to believe that Oswald carried that rifle in a - according to Frazier - flimsy supermarkt bag that was too small to fit the broken down rifle
You need to believe that Frazier and Randle were wrong about the way they saw Oswald carry the parcel he had with him.
And all this believing doesn't give you an iota of evidence or proof. If you want to believe something, go to church!
One fallible witness is not much corroboration for another fallible witness.
They are only fallible in your biased mind, because you need them to be!
-
Thumb1: I believe what he said. - He knows what he saw.
Here is a picture of him demonstrating exactly what he saw.
(https://preview.ibb.co/cqGmgw/Slide18.gif)
You weren't there. He was.
I didn't ask if you believe Frazier. My question was why you believe him. How can you be sure Frazier got this detail right? What sets Frazier apart that makes his recollections more credible than eyewitnesses as a whole?
-
I've never said we should write of witness statements. I'm saying we need to determine if what a witness tells us can be corroborated or refuted by other evidence. In this case both Frazier and Randle are refuted by the forensic evidence because the bag was found and measured to be 38 inches long, plenty long enough to hole the 34.8 inch stock.
This is just about the most stupid statement I've seen you make so far.
You say that about most of the things I write.
[qiuote]
You have no evidence whatsoever that the bag found on the 6th floor ever left the TSBD, ever held a broken down rifle (an FBI export could find no markings in the bag that would be expected to be there if a broken down rifle had been in it) or that Oswald carried that bag on Friday morning. All you have are self-serving assumptions you call "forensic evidence". You do understand that with enough assumptions you can make anybody look guilty of anything, right.
[/quote}
The choice seems to be whether Oswald carried one bag into the TSBD that morning and Frazier simply misjudged the length of the bag
or
Frazier brought a bag about 2 feet long into the TSBD that morning which disappeared without a trace and at some other time, Oswald carried a 38 inch long bag in the TSBD which was long enough to hold the disassembled rifle and had Oswald's prints on it and fibers matching the blanket Oswald used to wrap his rifle in when it was in the Paine's garage. If you offered that choice to 100 people, you'd be lucky to find two who believed the latter.
So why don't you stop assuming and get back to us when you have some actual proof that the bag found on the 6th floor was indeed the bag Oswald was carrying (between the cup of his hand and his armpit) on Friday morning. This LN crap is getting so tiresome!
As I've told you before, the proof is in the entire body of evidence, not treating the bag as a standalone piece of evidence. The explanation that Oswald brought his rifle into the TSBD that morning in the bag Frazier saw dovetails with all the other evidence that indicates Oswald was the shooter. His rifle was the murder weapon. It had his palm print on it. It had fibers matching the shirt he wore that day on the butt plate of the rifle. The rifle was positively matched to the 3 shells in the sniper's nest and the two recovered bullets. Following the assassination, Oswald fled from his workplace, returned to his rooming house to fetch his revolver, shot and killed a cop about 45 minutes after the assassination, fled from that scene and was arrested a short time later in a theater a short distance from the scene of the cop killing with the murder weapon in his possession as well as the same two makes of bullets recovered from the dead cop's body. If you can come up with a plausible explanation for the above evidence that doesn't have Oswald as a double murderer, I'd love to hear it. I've asked that of more conspiracy hobbyists than I can count over the past 35 years and not one has even attempted to offer an alternative explanation that is the least bit plausible. It's easy to offer a plausible alternative for any one piece of evidence which is why the conspiracy hobbyists almost always resort to that ploy. It's impossible to come with a plausible explanation for the entire body of evidence other than the one the WC gave us. I'll predict right now, you won't even try. Prove me wrong.
Randle corroborates Frazier when it comes to the maximum size of the bag. Accept it and get over it!
That's nice but two people can be wrong about a detail just as easily as one can, especially when they live together and have had ample time to discuss what it is they saw. According to FBI Special Agent Bookhout's report of 11/23/63, Randle's estimate of the size of the bag was 3 feet by 6 inches. When testifying before the WC, she indicated Oswald was gripping the bag near the top with part of if folded over his grip. If Oswald's right hand was at the mid-thigh level, there would have to be about 30 inches below the grip to be almost touching the ground. if we add the 30 inches to the amount of the bag that was in his hand and the amount of the bag that was folded over, we are pretty close to 38 inches which was the length of the bag in the TSBD.
-
I didn't ask if you believe Frazier. My question was why you believe him. How can you be sure Frazier got this detail right? What sets Frazier apart that makes his recollections more credible than eyewitnesses as a whole?
Because he was, and still is, absolutely sure of what he saw.
Thumb1: you're the one trying to distort that
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, sir.
-
Because he was, and still is, absolutely sure of what he saw.
Thumb1: you're the one trying to distort that
So if somebody just says he's sure he's right, that's good enough for you.
That says a lot about you.
Why don't you tell us the real reason you believe him. You are a conspiracy hobbyist and you want to believe him.
-
So if somebody just says he's sure he's right, that's good enough for you.
That says a lot about you.
Why don't you tell us the real reason you believe him. You are a conspiracy hobbyist and you want to believe him.
:D Project much?
Two long time consistent problems nutters have never gotten past;
Frazier saw a bag too small to be the rifle.
Frazier refused to identity the bag allegedly found upstairs.
He was sure of both.
-
You say that about most of the things I write.
[qiuote]
You have no evidence whatsoever that the bag found on the 6th floor ever left the TSBD, ever held a broken down rifle (an FBI export could find no markings in the bag that would be expected to be there if a broken down rifle had been in it) or that Oswald carried that bag on Friday morning. All you have are self-serving assumptions you call "forensic evidence". You do understand that with enough assumptions you can make anybody look guilty of anything, right.
[/quote}
The choice seems to be whether Oswald carried one bag into the TSBD that morning and Frazier simply misjudged the length of the bag
or
Frazier brought a bag about 2 feet long into the TSBD that morning which disappeared without a trace and at some other time, Oswald carried a 38 inch long bag in the TSBD which was long enough to hold the disassembled rifle and had Oswald's prints on it and fibers matching the blanket Oswald used to wrap his rifle in when it was in the Paine's garage. If you offered that choice to 100 people, you'd be lucky to find two who believed the latter.
As I've told you before, the proof is in the entire body of evidence, not treating the bag as a standalone piece of evidence. The explanation that Oswald brought his rifle into the TSBD that morning in the bag Frazier saw dovetails with all the other evidence that indicates Oswald was the shooter. His rifle was the murder weapon. It had his palm print on it. It had fibers matching the shirt he wore that day on the butt plate of the rifle. The rifle was positively matched to the 3 shells in the sniper's nest and the two recovered bullets. Following the assassination, Oswald fled from his workplace, returned to his rooming house to fetch his revolver, shot and killed a cop about 45 minutes after the assassination, fled from that scene and was arrested a short time later in a theater a short distance from the scene of the cop killing with the murder weapon in his possession as well as the same two makes of bullets recovered from the dead cop's body. If you can come up with a plausible explanation for the above evidence that doesn't have Oswald as a double murderer, I'd love to hear it. I've asked that of more conspiracy hobbyists than I can count over the past 35 years and not one has even attempted to offer an alternative explanation that is the least bit plausible. It's easy to offer a plausible alternative for any one piece of evidence which is why the conspiracy hobbyists almost always resort to that ploy. It's impossible to come with a plausible explanation for the entire body of evidence other than the one the WC gave us. I'll predict right now, you won't even try. Prove me wrong.
That's nice but two people can be wrong about a detail just as easily as one can, especially when they live together and have had ample time to discuss what it is they saw. According to FBI Special Agent Bookhout's report of 11/23/63, Randle's estimate of the size of the bag was 3 feet by 6 inches. When testifying before the WC, she indicated Oswald was gripping the bag near the top with part of if folded over his grip. If Oswald's right hand was at the mid-thigh level, there would have to be about 30 inches below the grip to be almost touching the ground. if we add the 30 inches to the amount of the bag that was in his hand and the amount of the bag that was folded over, we are pretty close to 38 inches which was the length of the bag in the TSBD.
The choice seems to be whether Oswald carried one bag into the TSBD that morning and Frazier simply misjudged the length of the bag
Silly "choice" as it seems to be beyond discussion that Oswald carried a bag into the TSBD. It is not about Frazier estimating the length of the bag. He saw the bag being carried by Oswald under his armpit and in the cup of his hand. That's an observation not en estimate. Do you have any idea why Lt Day completely freaked out when Frazier denied the bag shown to him was the one Oswald carried and why did Captain Fritz nearly exploded and hit Frazier. And don't try to tell me that never happened, because there are reports that actually confirmed it!
So, if the question becomes which bag did Oswald carry, the choice is between the flimsy supermarkt bag Frazier said he saw to Fritz on Friday evening or the bag made from heavy duty wrapping paper that has in significant print of Oswald on it.
Frazier brought a bag about 2 feet long into the TSBD that morning which disappeared without a trace and at some other time, What? Frazier also brought in a 2 feet long bag? :D :D :D
What makes you think the bag Oswald brought into the TSBD disappeared with a trace? They never searched the TSBD for such a bag, so for all you and I know it could have been in a dustbin somewhere.
Oswald carried a 38 inch long bag in the TSBD which was long enough to hold the disassembled rifle and had Oswald's prints on it and fibers matching the blanket Oswald used to wrap his rifle in when it was in the Paine's garage.
This is like a tape recording full of utter BS for which there is no proof on a permanent loop. You can't prove Oswald carried a 38 inch bag, nor can you prove there was a rifle in Ruth Paine's garage on 11/22/63 and I am not even going to discuss the fiber crap again. As for Oswald's print on a bag made at the TSBD, from TSBD materials and found at the TSBD on the same floor Oswald worked that morning, is utterly worthless of anything except perhaps that Oswald must have touched that bag.
If you offered that choice to 100 people, you'd be lucky to find two who believed the latter.
Exactly right. Only die hard LNs would believe the 38 inch bag story, so for once I agree with you. Thumb1:
Could it be that you don't even know what you have written?
As I've told you before, the proof is in the entire body of evidence, not treating the bag as a standalone piece of evidence.
There is no "body of evidence". All there is, is a bag and a massive amount of assumptions and statements not supported by evidence.
His rifle was the murder weapon.
There is no evidence it was his rifle. All there is, is some questionable evidence for Oswald ordering a rifle from Klein's month earlier.
It had his palm print on it.
Did it? The FBI couldn't find it when their lab examined the weapon only hours after the murder.
The alleged palmprint didn't surface until several days later when Oswald was already in his grave.
It had fibers matching the shirt he wore that day on the butt plate of the rifle.
You don't know and can not prove which shirt Oswald was wearing on Friday morning!
The rifle was positively matched to the 3 shells in the sniper's nest and the two recovered bullets. Following the assassination, Oswald fled from his workplace, returned to his rooming house to fetch his revolver, shot and killed a cop about 45 minutes after the assassination, fled from that scene and was arrested a short time later in a theater a short distance from the scene of the cop killing with the murder weapon in his possession as well as the same two makes of bullets recovered from the dead cop's body. If you can come up with a plausible explanation for the above evidence that doesn't have Oswald as a double murderer, I'd love to hear it. I've asked that of more conspiracy hobbyists than I can count over the past 35 years and not one has even attempted to offer an alternative explanation that is the least bit plausible. It's easy to offer a plausible alternative for any one piece of evidence which is why the conspiracy hobbyists almost always resort to that ploy. It's impossible to come with a plausible explanation for the entire body of evidence other than the one the WC gave us. I'll predict right now, you won't even try.
I thought you said you had a body of evidence, but all you are coming up with are assumptions, speculation and terminology to imply Oswald's guilt. All you have is a contrived story with so many loose ends and holes in it that it falls apart under any kind of light scrutiny. That's why LNs always fail to answer critical questions, as you have been doing the past couple of days!
Prove me wrong.
Don't have to. You can't prove yourself right! You don't get to win by default simply because a question can not be answered to your pathetic standard.
Oh and btw, even if you are given an alternative story you will never accept or believe it anyway.
That's nice but two people can be wrong about a detail just as easily as one can, especially when they live together and have had ample time to discuss what it is they saw.
Ah, so now we have a conspiracy between Frazier and Randle? Oh boy....
According to FBI Special Agent Bookhout's report of 11/23/63, Randle's estimate of the size of the bag was 3 feet by 6 inches.
All through the decades the FBI has already refused to release FD 302 reports because the contain a lot of incorrect information. Randle never saw Bookhout's FB 302 and he could have written anything he liked in it. But none if that is important.
Frazier said he saw Oswald carry the package in the cup of his hand and under his armpit. Randle said she saw Oswald carry it at the top and hanging next to his leg, almost reaching the ground.
Those are no estimates! Just by going by Oswald's size of 5,9 it can easily be determined how long the package maximum could have been. So, why are you now so desperated to revisit the estimation discussion? Perhaps that way you feel you can dismiss the actual evidence more easily?
If Oswald's right hand was at the mid-thigh level, there would have to be about 30 inches below the grip to be almost touching the ground.
"If" doesn't cut it! You have no idea where Oswald's hand was when he carried the package. And even if the package was 30 inches, it still wouldn't have been large enough to conceal a 36" rifle. So, I'm sure where you are going with this. It's a dead end street!
If we add the 30 inches to the amount of the bag that was in his hand and the amount of the bag that was folded over, we are pretty close to 38 inches which was the length of the bag in the TSBD.
Hilarious. They would mean that Oswald had 8 inches of the bag folded up, including six where the barrel of the rifle would have been. Did Oswald fold up the barrel as well? Or you next going to argue the barrel was made out of soft plastic or rubber?
-
So if somebody just says he's sure he's right, that's good enough for you.
That says a lot about you.
Why don't you tell us the real reason you believe him. You are a conspiracy hobbyist and you want to believe him.
Well you constantly say you are right and that's most certainly not good enough.
Frazier has a lot more credibility than you will ever have. He saw the package. All you have is a self-serving theory for which you can offer no proof other than assumption and speculation.
-
:D Project much?
Two long time consistent problems nutters have never gotten past;
Frazier saw a bag too small to be the rifle.
Frazier refused to identity the bag allegedly found upstairs.
He was sure of both.
He was sure of both and he was wrong about both. There are people who are sure there is a God and there are people who are sure there is not. They can't both me right. So we know that people can be wrong about something they are sure about.
-
He was sure of both and he was wrong about both. There are people who are sure there is a God and there are people who are sure there is not. They can't both me right. So we know that people can be wrong about something they are sure about.
He was sure of both and he was wrong about both.
And you know this, how?
Your opinion doesn't trump witness testimony!
-
Well you constantly say you are right and that's most certainly not good enough.
Frazier has a lot more credibility than you will ever have. He saw the package. All you have is a self-serving theory for which you can offer no proof other than assumption and speculation.
I am right because I am able to weigh evidence. I know forensic evidence outweighs eyewitness testimony because the latter has been proven to be unreliable. Forensic evidence, on the other hand, can be tested and retested. If the person doing the testing has made a mistake, it will be there for all to see. The forensic evidence of Oswald's guilt has withstood the test of time. It's as valid today as they day it was collected and analyzed. The WC took the unusual step of getting second opinions regarding the findings of the FBI regarding the forensic evidence. Palm and fingerprint evidence was analyzed by the New York City fingerprint division. Recovered bullets and shells from both the JFKA and the Tippit murder were examined by the sate of Illinois crime labs. The only disagreement I know of is that the Illinois crime lab believed one of the bullets taken from Tippit's body could be positively matched to Oswald's revolver. The FBI found none of the bullets could be matched because the barrel of Oswald's .38 was oversized for the ,38 Special bullets. The true diameter of a .38 Special is .357 which is why a .357 can fired .38 Special ammo. I wouldn't put a .357 Magnum round in a .38 revolver.
-
He was sure of both and he was wrong about both.
And you know this, how?
Your opinion doesn't trump witness testimony!
My opinion doesn't but forensic evidence does. The bag Frazier saw was found by the sniper's nest and measured to be 38 inches, significantly longer than Frazier's estimate. I'll take the judgement of a tape measure over an estimate Frazier made after glancing at the bag. By his own admission, he said he didn't pay too much attention to Oswald as he was carrying the bag toward the TSBD.
-
I am right because I am able to weigh evidence. I know forensic evidence outweighs eyewitness testimony because the latter has been proven to be unreliable. Forensic evidence, on the other hand, can be tested and retested. If the person doing the testing has made a mistake, it will be there for all to see. The forensic evidence of Oswald's guilt has withstood the test of time. It's as valid today as they day it was collected and analyzed. The WC took the unusual step of getting second opinions regarding the findings of the FBI regarding the forensic evidence. Palm and fingerprint evidence was analyzed by the New York City fingerprint division. Recovered bullets and shells from both the JFKA and the Tippit murder were examined by the sate of Illinois crime labs. The only disagreement I know of is that the Illinois crime lab believed one of the bullets taken from Tippit's body could be positively matched to Oswald's revolver. The FBI found none of the bullets could be matched because the barrel of Oswald's .38 was oversized for the ,38 Special bullets. The true diameter of a .38 Special is .357 which is why a .357 can fired .38 Special ammo. I wouldn't put a .357 Magnum round in a .38 revolver.
I am right because I am able to weigh evidence.
Sorry, but you're wrong because you haven't got a clue about weighing evidence. Stop fooling yourself, as you are not fooling anybody else.
I know forensic evidence outweighs eyewitness testimony because the latter has been proven to be unreliable
BS.. in this case there is no forensic evidence to trump eyewitness testimony. Even if forensic evidence connects shells and bullet fragments to a rifle it tells you nothing about who shot the rifle.
Eye witness is mostly unreliable, but not in every case!
The forensic evidence of Oswald's guilt has withstood the test of time.
No it hasn't, because it doesn't exist
Everything else you have written is BS and needs no reply
-
I am right because I am able to weigh evidence.
Sorry, but you're wrong because you haven't got a clue about weighing evidence. Stop fooling yourself, as you are not fooling anybody else.
This coming from a guy who has absolute faith in eyewitness testimony over what the forensic evidence tells us.
I know forensic evidence outweighs eyewitness testimony because the latter has been proven to be unreliable
BS.. in this case there is no forensic evidence to trump eyewitness testimony. Even if forensic evidence connects shells and bullet fragments to a rifle it tells you nothing about who shot the rifle.
The bullet and shells don't tell us who fired the rifle butt the fibers on the bullet plate of the rifle that matched Oswald's shirt and Oswald's prints on the boxes in the sniper's nest do. It's truly amazing anyone would ignore those facts and continue to argue for Oswald's innocence. We have a plethora of evidence that points to Oswald's guilt and not a scrap of evidence that points to anybody else.
Eye witness is mostly unreliable, but not in every case!
Tell us why you think it is more reliable in this case.
The forensic evidence of Oswald's guilt has withstood the test of time.
No it hasn't, because it doesn't exist
"There is none so blind as he who will not see."
Everything else you have written is BS and needs no reply
That works out well because you don't seem to have one.
-
Is there any photo of the paper bag that CLEARLY shows WHERE on the bag that the palm print was found?
I found CE 142 but CE 626 seems to be missing. CE 142 is too dark to see anything distinct.
I’m asking because I recall having seen a photo in threads past of the bag that had the palm print on the MIDDLE of the bag and for the past 15 years that was a fact uncontested by anyone here on this forum to the best of my memory.
It may have been from an old Toni Fratini or Alan Ford thread back before even the PrayerMan saga. I’d like to confirm that the photo existed because otherwise I’m either experiencing a Mandela false memory effect or there has been revision of WC exhibits and WC testimony.
If the palm print was found at the bottom
Of the bag , then that’s even MORE reason to believe Fraziers description of the bag being Parallel straight up and down with the bottom in Oswald’s right hand and the top under his armpit without any part of the bag seen (noticed) protruding above Oswald’s shoulder.
Whether the middle or the bottom, It is still questionable if all other prints from Oswald’s hand touching this bag multiple times while making it, taping it , folding it and unfolding it, and while carrying the rifle in the bag multiple times, would have 100% evaporated leaving not even a trace.
There were about 3 hours from 8:30 am till 12:00pm that the earlier prints of Oswald could possibly have 100% evaporated but according to Latona even with evaporation, the silver nitrate treatment has good chances of exposing partial prints.
And the last 4 times that Oswald touched the would have been from 12:15-12:28 less than about 20 minutes before the SN was visited by Luke Mooney.
And then , interestingly no prints were found from the person who first lifted this bag from its alleged location laying folded on the floor in the SN. And who actually was the person who first removed this bag from the floor anyway?
-
It isn't worth much.
Indeed there is. Bookhout wrote the FD 302 for internal use. Randle never saw it and it can hardly be described as evidence.
But even if it could be considered to be evidence, it contradicts all other statements Randle ever made and it's only mentioning an estimation.
Isn't the LN clan allergic to estimates?
There is no way a 36 inch bag would fit between Oswald armpit and the cup of his hand, and it would have been impossible to be carried they way Randle described and not hit the ground.
You're flogging a dead horse.
Bookhout wrote the FD 302 for internal use. Randle never saw it and it can hardly be described as evidence.
But even if it could be considered to be evidence, it contradicts all other statements Randle ever made and it's only mentioning an estimation.
Yes but the difference is the "three feet long" estimate is made BEFORE she was aware that Buell (her brother) was going to insist that the package was only two feet long.
Bookhout's report is wrong or she changed the length of the bag.
There is no way a 36 inch bag would fit between Oswald armpit and the cup of his hand
Surely you're aware that Frazier admitted several times that he didn't pay too much attention to the bag. Are you sure it isn't possible that the top of the bag did not protrude out in front of Oswald's shoulder?
...and it would have been impossible to be carried they way Randle described and not hit the ground.
Specifically, what did Randle say which would make it impossible for Oswald to carry the bag and it not touch the ground?
-
it would have been impossible to be carried they way Randle described and not hit the ground.
BS:
(https://i.postimg.cc/L8LRdbZs/Randle-bag-near-touch-ground-b.jpg)
JohnM
-
This coming from a guy who has absolute faith in eyewitness testimony over what the forensic evidence tells us.
The bullet and shells don't tell us who fired the rifle butt the fibers on the bullet plate of the rifle that matched Oswald's shirt and Oswald's prints on the boxes in the sniper's nest do. It's truly amazing anyone would ignore those facts and continue to argue for Oswald's innocence. We have a plethora of evidence that points to Oswald's guilt and not a scrap of evidence that points to anybody else.
Tell us why you think it is more reliable in this case.
"There is none so blind as he who will not see."
That works out well because you don't seem to have one.
The bullet and shells don't tell us who fired the rifle butt the fibers on the bullet plate of the rifle that matched Oswald's shirt and Oswald's prints on the boxes in the sniper's nest do.
Only in your feeble mind. You have been schooled on the fact that there is no such thing as fibers matching with a particular object, but you won't learn, will you? Secondly, you don't know which shirt Oswald was wearing on Friday morning, so even if the fibers on the rifle butt matched that shirt, you still are nowhere near proving who fired the rifle. And as far as Oswald's prints on boxes go, the guy worked on the 6th floor and part of his job was to handle boxes and move them around. It would be a surprise if no prints were found.
If this is what you consider to be "evidence", you really need to consider getting another hobby!
We have a plethora of evidence
Now, there's a typical Mytton use of words. The resemblance is remarkable! Probably just a coincidence, though....
-
The bullet and shells don't tell us who fired the rifle butt the fibers on the bullet plate of the rifle that matched Oswald's shirt and Oswald's prints on the boxes in the sniper's nest do.
Only in your feeble mind. You have been schooled on the fact that there is no such thing as fibers matching with a particular object, but you won't learn, will you?
I don't need schooling from some one who doesn't know what he is talking about. If fibers can't be matched to an object, why would the FBI have a division that matches fibers to objects. Furthermore, suspected serial child killer Wayne Williams was convicted primarily on fiber matching and has already served 45 years in prison for that conviction. Without the fiber matching, the prosecutors wouldn't have had a case to take to trial. The reason fiber matching isn't 100% conclusive is that unlike fingerprint and ballistic matching, it is theoretically possible a matching fiber could have come from an identical object, even though that is a remote possibility.
Wayne Williams lawyers filed an appeal making the same claims you are about fiber evidence. The appeals court rejected the claim. Even though fiber evidence is not 100% conclusive, it is still highly probative when one considers the unlikelihood it came from an identical object to the one in question. You would have us believe it's just a coincidence that the fibers found on Oswald's rifle and in the rifle bag matched Oswald's shirt and blanket. If that is the case, Oswald had to be the unluckiest SOB that ever lived.
Secondly, you don't know which shirt Oswald was wearing on Friday morning, so even if the fibers on the rifle butt matched that shirt, you still are nowhere near proving who fired the rifle. And as far as Oswald's prints on boxes go, the guy worked on the 6th floor and part of his job was to handle boxes and move them around. It would be a surprise if no prints were found.
I can't believe Oswald's shitass luck. Not only did the fibers on the rifle and the bag match his shirt and his blanket, when he went back to his rooming house to change shirts, he just happened to pick the one that was identical to the one the real shooter was wearing.
If this is what you consider to be "evidence", you really need to consider getting another hobby!
It only seems like evidence to people with common sense.
We have a plethora of evidence
Now, there's a typical Mytton use of words. The resemblance is remarkable! Probably just a coincidence, though....
You do seem to believe in amazing coincidences.
-
BS:
(https://i.postimg.cc/L8LRdbZs/Randle-bag-near-touch-ground-b.jpg)
JohnM
Just how dishonest can you be. That is a jpg made by Tony Fratini and he was talking about the 20 inch bag... not the 38 inch bag.
the red stripe shows the size of a 38 inch bag. You've shot yourself in the foot, yet again! :D
-
I don't need schooling from some one who doesn't know what he is talking about. If fibers can't be matched to an object, why would the FBI have a division that matches fibers to objects. Furthermore, suspected serial child killer Wayne Williams was convicted primarily on fiber matching and has already served 45 years in prison for that conviction. Without the fiber matching, the prosecutors wouldn't have had a case to take to trial. The reason fiber matching isn't 100% conclusive is that unlike fingerprint and ballistic matching, it is theoretically possible a matching fiber could have come from an identical object, even though that is a remote possibility.
Wayne Williams lawyers filed an appeal making the same claims you are about fiber evidence. The appeals court rejected the claim. Even though fiber evidence is not 100% conclusive, it is still highly probative when one considers the unlikelihood it came from an identical object to the one in question. You would have us believe it's just a coincidence that the fibers found on Oswald's rifle and in the rifle bag matched Oswald's shirt and blanket. If that is the case, Oswald had to be the unluckiest SOB that ever lived.
I can't believe Oswald's shitass luck. Not only did the fibers on the rifle and the bag match his shirt and his blanket, when he went back to his rooming house to change shirts, he just happened to pick the one that was identical to the one the real shooter was wearing.
It only seems like evidence to people with common sense.
You do seem to believe in amazing coincidences.
It only seems like evidence to people with common sense.
Common sence is just another word for assumptions
-
But there's more, much more!
Oswald's prints were on top of the rifle rest Rolling Reader box orientated down Elm Street.
(https://i.postimg.cc/c4ZDzrJz/oswalds-prints-snipers-nest-zpstmsa2vdj.jpg)
Latona did print tests and determined that detectable prints using powder lasted a maximum of 24 hours, bizarrely when pinned down he said 3 days, I'm guessing to be safe, but he still classified the prints as fresh.
Mr. LATONA. We have, run some tests, and usually a minimum of 24 hours on a material of this kind, depending upon how heavy the sweat was, to try to say within a 24-hour period would be a guess on my part.
Mr. EISENBERG. I am not sure I understand your reference to a minimum of 24 hours.
Mr. LATONA. We have conducted tests with various types of materials as to how long it could be before we would not develop a latent print.
Mr. EISENBERG. Yes?
Mr. LATONA. Assuming that the same print was left on an object or a series of similar prints were left on an object, and powdering them, say, at intervals of every 4 hours or so, we would fail to develop a latent print of that particular type on that particular surface, say, within a 24-hour period.
Mr. EISENBERG. So that is a maximum of 24 hours?
Mr. LATONA. That is right.
-----------------------------------------------
Under circumstances, bearing in mind that here the box was powdered, and a print was developed with powder, the conclusion is that this is comparatively a fresh print. Otherwise, it would not have developed.
(https://i.postimg.cc/Z5XMKZmN/snipers-nest-prints.jpg)
And to top it off these Rolling Reader boxes with the fresh prints and according to Oswald's supervisor, William Shelley, were moved halfway across the floor and it was very unusual to see them in south west corner, Oswald's sniper's nest. The boxes were smaller and were obviously moved to make a suitable height for Oswald's rifle!
Mr. BALL. You have seen pictures of the window, haven't you?
Mr. SHELLEY. Oh, yes.
Mr. BALL. With the larger box on the floor and two Rolling Readers on the top?
Mr. SHELLEY. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. One Rolling Reader resting in the sill of the window?
Mr. SHELLEY. Yes.
Mr. BALL. Now, the Rolling Readers were stacked three aisles away, I believe you testified, haven't you, before?
Mr. SHELLEY. I'm not sure how many aisles we moved all that stock now, but it was at least three aisles.
Mr. BALL. Away from the southeast corner?
Mr. SHELLEY. Yes; they were at least half way across the building from this corner.
Mr. BALL. Had you ever instructed anybody to take two Rolling Readers over there?
Mr. SHELLEY. No, sir.
Mr. BALL. Would it have been unusual for two Rolling Readers to be out of the stack and over there?
Mr. SHELLEY. Very unusual, because they are different size cartons from everything else.
Mr. BALL. You mean from everything else in the southeast corner?
Mr. SHELLEY. Well, from any box on that floor.
Mr. BALL. They were?
Mr. SHELLEY. Yes; they were little boxes. The rest of them are pretty good sized.
Mr. BALL. You had had a special place for the Rolling Readers?
Mr. SHELLEY. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. Then, the two Rolling Readers that were over in the southeast corner were out of place, were they?
Mr. SHELLEY. They sure were.
Mr. BALL. Had you ever seen them out of place before?
Mr. SHELLEY. No, sir.
Mr. BALL. Had you ever seen those Rolling Readers in that corner before?
Mr. SHELLEY. No, sir.
Tom Alyes captured the Sniper's nest before any boxes were moved, and we can see the rolling reader rifle rest boxes.
(https://i.postimg.cc/brbBtBRR/Tom-Alyea-film-snipers-nest.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/dtp75SwM/oswalds-prints-snipers-nest.jpg)
JohnM
-
AI Overview
In 1963, determining the exact age or "freshness" of a latent fingerprint was not scientifically possible, as methods were limited to identifying WHO left the print rather than WHEN. Forensic techniques focused on visual enhancement, not chemical analysis of age.
He worked there. He would be expected to touch anything in the building.
-
AI Overview
In 1963, determining the exact age or "freshness" of a latent fingerprint was not scientifically possible, as methods were limited to identifying WHO left the print rather than WHEN. Forensic techniques focused on visual enhancement, not chemical analysis of age.
He worked there. He would be expected to touch anything in the building.
It's the only evidence assumptions they have. Poor souls
-
Just how dishonest can you be. That is a jpg made by Tony Fratini and he was talking about the 20 inch bag... not the 38 inch bag.
the red stripe shows the size of a 38 inch bag. You've shot yourself in the foot, yet again! :D
My dear boy, he wasn't carrying an Elephant gun!
I added a similar sized Oswald rifle bag and know what I did, you lose again!
Next time think before you blindly rush in because correcting your mistakes is becoming a full time job!
(https://i.postimg.cc/4drf6yDf/Oswald-69-inches-bag-38-inches.jpg)
JohnM
-
AI Overview
In 1963, determining the exact age or "freshness" of a latent fingerprint was not scientifically possible, as methods were limited to identifying WHO left the print rather than WHEN. Forensic techniques focused on visual enhancement, not chemical analysis of age.
He worked there. He would be expected to touch anything in the building.
AI?
Hilarious.
Garbage in Garbage out.
JohnM
-
AI?
Hilarious.
Garbage in Garbage out.
JohnM
Garbage in Garbage out.
If there is one person who knows just about everything about that, it's you.
Everything you post shows it
-
AI?
Hilarious.
Garbage in Garbage out.
JohnM
By all means, feel free to demonstrate how a print was dated in 1963.
:D Good luck with that
-
By all means, feel free to demonstrate how a print was dated in 1963.
:D Good luck with that
:D
Didn't you read my post? ;D
Latona did it practically using regular readings over a twenty four hour period. ;D :D
JohnM
-
:D
Didn't you read my post? ;D
Latona did it practically using regular readings over a twenty four hour period. ;D :D
JohnM
Explain how that works
-
Explain how that works
I can't dumb it down anymore.
Read Latona's testimony and if you have any questions, ask him!
https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/testimony/latona.htm
JohnM
-
I can't dumb it down anymore.
Read Latona's testimony and if you have any questions, ask him!
https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/testimony/latona.htm
JohnM
I didn't think you could:
In 1963, determining the exact age or "freshness" of a latent fingerprint was not scientifically possible, as methods were limited to identifying WHO left the print rather than WHEN. Forensic techniques focused on visual enhancement, not chemical analysis of age.
-
It only seems like evidence to people with common sense.
Common sence is just another word for assumptions
Not according to our courts. I have served on four juries, two criminal and two civil. In the judge's final instructions to the jury, they are told to draw logical inferences from the evidence. IOW, USE COMMON SENSE.
As it applies to this issue, had the case gone to trial, the jury would have been presented the evidence of the fiber matching. They would have had to ask themselves, how likely was it that the fibers on the butt plate of the rifle were from an identical shirt to the one Oswald was wearing when arrested. They would have to ask themselves how likely it was that the fibers from the bag were from a blanket identical to the one Oswald kept his rifle wrapped in. A logical inference is that the rifle fibers came from the shirt the rifle's owner was wearing when he was arrested. A logical inference would be that the bag fibers came from the blanket owned by the person whose prints were on the bag. When coupled with all the other evidence of Oswald's guilt, those are the only logical conclusions a reasonable person could reach.
If you want to cling to the theoretical possibility the fibers came from identical objects to the ones associated with Oswald, that is your right. Any thinking person who is interested in the truth of JFKA and is not determined to argue for Oswald's innocence, no matter how much evidence there is to the contrary, would understand how ridiculously unlikely those fibers came from objects not owned by Oswald.
The jury in the Wayne Williams case had to make similar judgements about the fiber evidence presented by the prosecution. They had no trouble finding him guilty and sending him to jail for the rest of his life, based primarily on the fiber evidence. They had no problem concluding there was no reasonable doubt that the fibers came from objects associated with Williams. They weren't assuming. They were making sound, common sense judgements. The fact that the spree of child murders in Atlanta ended when Williams was taken into custody vindicates their verdict.
-
Not according to our courts. I have served on four juries, two criminal and two civil. In the judge's final instructions to the jury, they are told to draw logical inferences from the evidence. IOW, USE COMMON SENSE.
As it applies to this issue, had the case gone to trial, the jury would have been presented the evidence of the fiber matching. They would have had to ask themselves, how likely was it that the fibers on the butt plate of the rifle were from an identical shirt to the one Oswald was wearing when arrested. They would have to ask themselves how likely it was that the fibers from the bag were from a blanket identical to the one Oswald kept his rifle wrapped in. A logical inference is that the rifle fibers came from the shirt the rifle's owner was wearing when he was arrested. A logical inference would be that the bag fibers came from the blanket owned by the person whose prints were on the bag. When coupled with all the other evidence of Oswald's guilt, those are the only logical conclusions a reasonable person could reach.
If you want to cling to the theoretical possibility the fibers came from identical objects to the ones associated with Oswald, that is your right. Any thinking person who is interested in the truth of JFKA and is not determined to argue for Oswald's innocence, no matter how much evidence there is to the contrary, would understand how ridiculously unlikely those fibers came from objects not owned by Oswald.
The jury in the Wayne Williams case had to make similar judgements about the fiber evidence presented by the prosecution. They had no trouble finding him guilty and sending him to jail for the rest of his life, based primarily on the fiber evidence. They had no problem concluding there was no reasonable doubt that the fibers came from objects associated with Williams. They weren't assuming. They were making sound, common sense judgements. The fact that the spree of child murders in Atlanta ended when Williams was taken into custody vindicates their verdict.
Not according to our courts. I have served on four juries, two criminal and two civil. In the judge's final instructions to the jury, they are told to draw logical inferences from the evidence. IOW, USE COMMON SENSE.
Logical inferences are the result of valid reasoning.
Common sense is far more speculative. That's why the judge uses "logical inferences" and not common sense.
how likely was it that the fibers on the butt plate of the rifle were from an identical shirt to the one Oswald was wearing when arrested.
And how exactly do you know if the shirt Oswald was wearing when he was arrested is the same as the one he was wearing at the TSBD on Friday morning.
Or is it perhaps more likely that Oswald changed shirt after wearing it in a dirty warehouse for four hours?
They would have to ask themselves how likely it was that the fibers from the bag were from a blanket identical to the one Oswald kept his rifle wrapped in.
Or they would have to wonder if there possibly had been cross contamination between the bag and blanket as they were photographed lying next to each other at the DPD office and the FBI Lab.
-
Not according to our courts. I have served on four juries, two criminal and two civil. In the judge's final instructions to the jury, they are told to draw logical inferences from the evidence. IOW, USE COMMON SENSE.
As it applies to this issue, had the case gone to trial, the jury would have been presented the evidence of the fiber matching. They would have had to ask themselves, how likely was it that the fibers on the butt plate of the rifle were from an identical shirt to the one Oswald was wearing when arrested. They would have to ask themselves how likely it was that the fibers from the bag were from a blanket identical to the one Oswald kept his rifle wrapped in. A logical inference is that the rifle fibers came from the shirt the rifle's owner was wearing when he was arrested. A logical inference would be that the bag fibers came from the blanket owned by the person whose prints were on the bag. When coupled with all the other evidence of Oswald's guilt, those are the only logical conclusions a reasonable person could reach.
presumptuous GARBAGE.
No one has made any claim of identical fibers.
If I'm on a jury... and Defense shows me the picture of the mouth of that bag in contact with the blanket
Or show me that picture of the officer wearing a jacket with his hand up inside that bag....
I reject the fiber evidence as an exact match by the rifle having been in the bag.
-
presumptuous GARBAGE.
No one has made any claim of identical fibers.
If I'm on a jury... and Defense shows me the picture of the mouth of that bag in contact with the blanket
Or show me that picture of the officer wearing a jacket with his hand up inside that bag....
I reject the fiber evidence as an exact match by the rifle having been in the bag.
This is why we sometimes get hung juries. All the defense needs is one juror who lacks common sense.
-
The Brown Paper Bag
I’ve only been able to find CE 142 photo of the bag after it was processed by Latona using the silver nitrate and I can’t see any indication that the open end was ever twisted around the barrel like Dan Rathers bag appears.
There is a CE 626 photo somewhere. Is that a photo of the bag BEFORE the bag got darkened and did it have a palm print in the middle of the bag or was the photo I saw a Toni Fratini and or an Alan Ford fake photo?
The way Dan Rather carried the package as he walked away , it can’t even be seen BETWEEN his arm and body . Nor can the package be seen in the palm of his right hand.
On the other hand when BW Fraziers demonstrated with a bag that is shorter and the top of bag wedged under armpit and bottom in his palm of right hand, it is EASY to see the bag between his arm and body and EASY to see the bottom of the package in the palm of his hand as he walks away.
IDK about Frazier. But I noticed the protruding upper part of the package beyond Dan Rathers shoulder even though it was twisted.
-
This is why we sometimes get hung juries. All the defense needs is one juror who lacks common sense.
one juror who lacks common sense.
You mean a juror who isn't as easily fooled as you are.
Even the possibility of cross contamination alone reduces the evidentiary value of a piece of evidence to a bare minimum. You don't have to like it, but there it is.
-
To believe that the bag found on the 6th floor was the one Oswald carried to the TSBD with a rifle in it on Friday morning, you have to believe;
- There was indeed a rifle stored in Ruth Paine's garage on 11/21/63
- Oswald figured he needed a paper bag despite the fact that he had far less conspicious duffel bags at Ruth Paine's garage.
- Oswald made the bag at the wrapping department of the TSBD on Thursday afternoon without being seen or being missed from his job on the 6th floor.
- Then he folded the bag and concealed it on his person in such a way that Frazier did not see it.
- Then he took it to Ruth Paine's house and hid it there until the next.
- At some point in time he dismantled the rifle, without anybody noticing, and put the individual pieces in the bag which he now had unfolded. And all that without leaving even one scratch on the inside of the bag.
- Then he carried the bag to Frazier's car and placed it on the back seat.
- Upon arrival at the TSBD car park, he picked up the package and placed it in the cup of his hand and under his armpit. It was at this time when he left one single parcial print on the package.
- He then took it up to the 6th floor, hid it there somewhere, until he needed the rifle. He then took out the pieces of the weapon and put it together again.
- After that he did not decide to dispose of the bag No, instead he folded it up and allegedly left it in the corner of the sniper's nest.
All that with leaving only one partial print! Go figure.
But there is more;
On Friday evening Detective R.D. Lewis ran a polygraph of Buell Wesley Frazier and found he was being truthful. While being polygraphed Frazier was shown the 6th floor bag and instantly denied it was the bag he had seen Oswald carry, which he described as a crickly brown paper sack. In his FD 302, FBI Vincent E. Drain writes, on 11/29/63, that the DPD is of the opinion that the 6th floor bag was used by Oswald to carry the rifle in. Drain concludes that the paper referred by Lewis is not a gun case at all!
So, you also have to believe that Frazier somehow managed to fool the polygraph and went against the wishes of Day and Fritz to identify the heavy duty paper bag. Not only did he do so while he was still considered to be a suspect but also had no reason to lie about the bag he had seen. At that point in time Frazier wouldn't even be able to know what the significance of the paper bag would be in the future.
Oh, btw, according to the same report by Drain, Lt Day said that the paper sack of the type described by Frazier was not recovered by the Police Department. It's possible, but improbable, that it was recovered by the Homicide Bureau. If so, they do not know anything about it in the Crime Laboratory of the Dallas Police Department. In other words, Day hasn't got a clue what happened or could have happend to the (how Frazier described it, according to Day) "thin, flimsy, sack like the one purchased in a dime store"
Now, I would love to read the LN explanation(s) for the above.
How did Oswald handle that paper bag as described and manage to only leave on partial print?
And how did Frazier manage to fool the polygraph and why would he lie (the polygraph said he told the truth) about the bag he had seen?
-
To believe that the bag found on the 6th floor was the one Oswald carried to the TSBD with a rifle in it on Friday morning, you have to believe;
- There was indeed a rifle stored in Ruth Paine's garage on 11/21/63
That's easy. Will these get harder as we go?
- Oswald figured he needed a paper bag despite the fact that he had far less conspicious duffel bags at Ruth Paine's garage.
Why would you second guess Oswald's successful choice?
- Oswald made the bag at the wrapping department of the TSBD on Thursday afternoon without being seen or being missed from his job on the 6th floor.
It could have been anytime that week but Thursday seems the most likely. He could have made it during the lunch break or any time he knew the wrapping station would be unattended.
- Then he folded the bag and concealed it on his person in such a way that Frazier did not see it.
The bag had creases in it so we know it was folded. It could easily have been tucked in his jacket without Frazier seeing it. Had it been discovered, he could have just told Frazier it was for the curtain rods he was going to get.
- Then he took it to Ruth Paine's house and hid it there until the next.
I'm guessing you meant to say until the next morning. We don't know what time he put the rifle in the bag but if it was me, I wouldn't have waited until the last minute. I would have done it the night before after everyone went to bed.
- At some point in time he dismantled the rifle, without anybody noticing, and put the individual pieces in the bag which he now had unfolded. And all that without leaving even one scratch on the inside of the bag.
None of that would have been difficult
- Then he carried the bag to Frazier's car and placed it on the back seat.
Yup.
- Upon arrival at the TSBD car park, he picked up the package and placed it in the cup of his hand and under his armpit. It was at this time when he left one single parcial print on the package.
It's never been established the top of the bag was tucked under his armpit.
- He then took it up to the 6th floor, hid it there somewhere, until he needed the rifle. He then took out the pieces of the weapon and put it together again.
- After that he did not decide to dispose of the bag No, instead he folded it up and allegedly left it in the corner of the sniper's nest.
So?
All that with leaving only one partial print! Go figure.
But there is more;
On Friday evening Detective R.D. Lewis ran a polygraph of Buell Wesley Frazier and found he was being truthful. While being polygraphed Frazier was shown the 6th floor bag and instantly denied it was the bag he had seen Oswald carry, which he described as a crickly brown paper sack. In his FD 302, FBI Vincent E. Drain writes, on 11/29/63, that the DPD is of the opinion that the 6th floor bag was used by Oswald to carry the rifle in. Drain concludes that the paper referred by Lewis is not a gun case at all!
A polygraph can indicate if a person is saying something he knows to be untrue. It measures stress through blood pressure, breathing rate, and a galvanic skit response. If he person believes he is telling the truth, even if he is wrong, there's no reason to think he will show stress.
So, you also have to believe that Frazier somehow managed to fool the polygraph
See above. For Frazier to pass the polygraph, he only had to fool himself which he apparently did.
[quote[
and went against the wishes of Day and Fritz to identify the heavy duty paper bag. Not only did he do so while he was still considered to be a suspect but also had no reason to lie about the bag he had seen. At that point in time Frazier wouldn't even be able to know what the significance of the paper bag would be in the future.
Exactly which is why we wouldn't expect Frazier to show any stress if he BELIEVED he was telling the truth.
I took a polygraph as a condition for employment once. I was asked a number of mundane questions to establish a baseline for my anxiety level. A polygraph shows spikes in the stress level when a person knowingly lies.
Oh, btw, according to the same report by Drain, Lt Day said that the paper sack of the type described by Frazier was not recovered by the Police Department. It's possible, but improbable, that it was recovered by the Homicide Bureau. If so, they do not know anything about it in the Crime Laboratory of the Dallas Police Department. In other words, Day hasn't got a clue what happened or could have happend to the (how Frazier described it, according to Day) "thin, flimsy, sack like the one purchased in a dime store"
Still relying on Frazier to establish the characteristics of a bag he only glance at.
Now, I would love to read the LN explanation(s) for the above.
What's there to explain? Nothing on your list seems the least bit improbable.
How did Oswald handle that paper bag as described and manage to only leave on partial print?
And how did Frazier manage to fool the polygraph and why would he lie (the polygraph said he told the truth) about the bag he had seen?
Whoever handled that makeshift bag managed to do so while only puting a partial finger print and palm print on the bag. Why couldn't that someone have been the guy who left the prints.
-
That's easy. Will these get harder as we go?
It could have been anytime that week but Thursday seems the most likely. He could have made it during the lunch break or any time he knew the wrapping station would be unattended.The bag had creases in it so we know it was folded. It could easily have been tucked in his jacket without Frazier seeing it. Had it been discovered, he could have just told Frazier it was for the curtain rods he was going to get.I'm guessing you meant to say until the next morning. We don't know what time he put the rifle in the bag but if it was me, I wouldn't have waited until the last minute. I would have done it the night before after everyone went to bed.
None of that would have been difficultYup.It's never been established the top of the bag was tucked under his armpit.So?A polygraph can indicate if a person is saying something he knows to be untrue. It measures stress through blood pressure, breathing rate, and a galvanic skit response. If he person believes he is telling the truth, even if he is wrong, there's no reason to think he will show stress.See above. For Frazier to pass the polygraph, he only had to fool himself which he apparently did.Still relying on Frazier to establish the characteristics of a bag he only glance at.What's there to explain? Nothing on your list seems the least bit improbable.
Whoever handled that makeshift bag managed to do so while only puting a partial finger print and palm print on the bag. Why couldn't that someone have been the guy who left the prints.
That's easy. Will these get harder as we go?
If it is so easy, why can't you answer the question?
It could have been anytime that week but Thursday seems the most likely. He could have made it during the lunch break or any time he knew the wrapping station would be unattended.The bag had creases in it so we know it was folded. It could easily have been tucked in his jacket without Frazier seeing it. Had it been discovered, he could have just told Frazier it was for the curtain rods he was going to get.I'm guessing you meant to say until the next morning. We don't know what time he put the rifle in the bag but if it was me, I wouldn't have waited until the last minute. I would have done it the night before after everyone went to bed.
None of that would have been difficult Yup.
You are deliberately missing the point. The question was how anybody could handle that bag in the way described and only leave one partial print?
It's never been established the top of the bag was tucked under his armpit.
Except for the fact that the only witness who actually saw it said so. You just don't like it. On the other hand you have not a shred of evidence that Oswald carried the 6th floor bag instead, and there you are instantly accepting that as "fact" when it clearly is anything but!
So?
A killer leaving evidence behind at the crime scene when he easily could have disposed of it and made it disappear, actually makes sense to you?
A polygraph can indicate if a person is saying something he knows to be untrue. It measures stress through blood pressure, breathing rate, and a galvanic skit response. If he person believes he is telling the truth, even if he is wrong, there's no reason to think he will show stress.
Oh boy. Polygraphs are far from perfect, I'll grant you that. But in this case we're dealing with a 19 years old kid who was arrested as a possible suspect in the murder of the President.
If that didn't produce stress, nothing would. Frazier doesn't have to believe he is telling the truth. He just has to tell the truth and when he did he had Lt Day in a massive panic.
See above. For Frazier to pass the polygraph, he only had to fool himself which he apparently did.
And you have of course evidence that Frazier fooled himself? Either that or you're full of it!
Exactly which is why we wouldn't expect Frazier to show any stress if he BELIEVED he was telling the truth.
So, a 19 year old arrested innocently as a suspect for killing the President is somebody you wouldn't expect to show stress. What planet do you live on?
Again, all Frazier had to do is tell the truth and that's what he did. And that's why he passed the polygraph. You seem to imply that he was lying but somehow believed he told the truth about a paper bag? Really?
I took a polygraph as a condition for employment once. I was asked a number of mundane questions to establish a baseline for my anxiety level. A polygraph shows spikes in the stress level when a person knowingly lies.
This tells me nothing of any significance. But if I understand your argument it is that Frazier lied without knowing that he was lying? What a crock! All this really shows is that you are completely unable to weigh evidence honestly, because your massive bias gets in the way!
Still relying on Frazier to establish the characteristics of a bag he only glance at.
Of course. And you rely on the fact that he was wrong without actually any evidence for it, except of course your "opinion"
Whoever handled that makeshift bag managed to do so while only puting a partial finger print and palm print on the bag. Why couldn't that someone have been the guy who left the prints.
No. If Oswald didn't make the bag, it was made by somebody else who did not leave any prints on the bag that were ever found, possibly because he wore gloves.
Have you ever read the reports about how Lt Day freaked out after Frazier passed the polygraph and confimed that the bag he had seen was a flimsy supermarket bag?
As yourself why Day freaked out like that and when you come up with an answer, let me know.
It has always amazed me how LNs have the audacity to think they know more about events they never witnessed than the people who were actually there.
-
That's easy. Will these get harder as we go?
If it is so easy, why can't you answer the question?
You didn't ask a question. You stated an obvious fact.
{quote]
It could have been anytime that week but Thursday seems the most likely. He could have made it during the lunch break or any time he knew the wrapping station would be unattended.The bag had creases in it so we know it was folded. It could easily have been tucked in his jacket without Frazier seeing it. Had it been discovered, he could have just told Frazier it was for the curtain rods he was going to get.I'm guessing you meant to say until the next morning. We don't know what time he put the rifle in the bag but if it was me, I wouldn't have waited until the last minute. I would have done it the night before after everyone went to bed.
None of that would have been difficult Yup.
[/quote]
You are deliberately missing the point. The question was how anybody could handle that bag in the way described and only leave one partial print?
[/quote]
"Longevity on Porous Surfaces
Porous materials, such as paper, cardboard, untreated wood, and fabric, absorb the oils and sweat from fingerprints, which can make the prints less visible initially but sometimes more stable within the material itself. On such surfaces, fingerprints may fade within hours or days under normal conditions, especially if exposed to moisture, heat, or physical handling."
If you don't like my source, you are free to provide your own.
It's never been established the top of the bag was tucked under his armpit.
Except for the fact that the only witness who actually saw it said so. You just don't like it. On the other hand you have not a shred of evidence that Oswald carried the 6th floor bag instead, and there you are instantly accepting that as "fact" when it clearly is anything but!
If only you could prove that one witness accurately remembered what he saw.
Oswald on the other hand did leave prints on the bag on the 6th floor so we know he handled it.
So?
A killer leaving evidence behind at the crime scene when he easily could have disposed of it and made it disappear, actually makes sense to you?
Since he left his rifle behind, I see no reason he would be concerned about doing the same with the bag.
[quote
A polygraph can indicate if a person is saying something he knows to be untrue. It measures stress through blood pressure, breathing rate, and a galvanic skit response. If he person believes he is telling the truth, even if he is wrong, there's no reason to think he will show stress.
Oh boy. Polygraphs are far from perfect,
[/quote]
So why did you cite it as evidence Frazier was accurate in his description of the bag.
I'll grant you that. But in this case we're dealing with a 19 years old kid who was arrested as a possible suspect in the murder of the President.
If that didn't produce stress, nothing would. Frazier doesn't have to believe he is telling the truth. He just has to tell the truth and when he did he had Lt Day in a massive panic.
That's why the people doing the polygraph test establish a baseline for how nervous the person is to begin with. They look for spikes in the three measurements for indications of deceit.
See above. For Frazier to pass the polygraph, he only had to fool himself which he apparently did.
And you have of course evidence that Frazier fooled himself? Either that or you're full of it!
I know he got the description of the bag wrong and still passed the polygraph which indicates to me he believed his mistaken recollection about the size of the bag.
Exactly which is why we wouldn't expect Frazier to show any stress if he BELIEVED he was telling the truth.
So, a 19 year old arrested innocently as a suspect for killing the President is somebody you wouldn't expect to show stress. What planet do you live on?
I've already explained that to you. The subject is started off with mundane questions to establish a base line for his stress level. It's when there are spikes in the stress level that indicate willful deceit.
Again, all Frazier had to do is tell the truth and that's what he did.
As best he remembered it. That doesn't establish he remembered what he saw correctly. It's very common for eyewitnesses to get details wrong, especially when the detail wouldn't have seemed important at the time it was observed.
And that's why he passed the polygraph. You seem to imply that he was lying but somehow believed he told the truth about a paper bag? Really?
A lie is when you knowingly tell a falsehood. I'm sure Frazier honestly believes what he said he saw. He just didn't accurately remember what he saw. Very common for eyewitnesses to do that. That's been explained to you many times but you refuse to accept that.
I took a polygraph as a condition for employment once. I was asked a number of mundane questions to establish a baseline for my anxiety level. A polygraph shows spikes in the stress level when a person knowingly lies.
This tells me nothing of any significance. But if I understand your argument it is that Frazier lied without knowing that he was lying? What a crock! All this really shows is that you are completely unable to weigh evidence honestly, because your massive bias gets in the way!
[/quote]
You still don't get it. Being honestly mistaken about something is not the same as lying. I never accused Frazier of lying. Why do you keep insisting that I have.
Still relying on Frazier to establish the characteristics of a bag he only glance at.
Of course. And you rely on the fact that he was wrong without actually any evidence for it, except of course your "opinion"
And the bag that was actually found on the 6th floor that was significantly longer than Frazier remembered.
Whoever handled that makeshift bag managed to do so while only puting a partial finger print and palm print on the bag. Why couldn't that someone have been the guy who left the prints.
No. If Oswald didn't make the bag, it was made by somebody else who did not leave any prints on the bag that were ever found, possibly because he wore gloves.
I've already cited a source that indicates prints on a porous surface can disappear in a matter of hours. Oswald would likely have taken the rifle out of the bag sometime around noon. That is the last time he was known to have handled it.
Have you ever read the reports about how Lt Day freaked out after Frazier passed the polygraph and confimed that the bag he had seen was a flimsy supermarket bag?
No I haven't. Do you have a reliable source for those reports?
As yourself why Day freaked out like that and when you come up with an answer, let me know.
I will as soon as you establish Day freaked out.
It has always amazed me how LNs have the audacity to think they know more about events they never witnessed than the people who were actually there.
Because the accounts of people who were there often conflict with the forensic evidence. I place far more faith in the latter.
-
Duplicate
-
The bag had creases in it so we know it was folded. It could easily have been tucked in his jacket without Frazier seeing it.
more presumptuous garbage.
That bag is 38in by about 8in wide - about 2 sq ft of hard paper and tape
X2 because it's a bag. How many times can you fold that on your person without looking odd? - or without making a sound?
4 Sq ft of hard paper and tape under a light jacket. Frazier saw no sign of it.
No reason at all to hide it. Buell will see it tomorrow. lol - or are we back to the unreliable witness BS when YOU choose?:
Frazier said he wore a light gray jacket to Irving Thursday night. - How did it end up in Oak Cliff on Friday?
-
Frazier said he wore a light gray jacket to Irving Thursday night. - How did it end up in Oak Cliff on Friday?
Frazier who sat next to Oswald for a half an hour on the way to the TSBD recalls never seeing CE163 before, so how did it end up in the Depository? Frazier's powers of observation regarding Oswald's clothing was not so good.
Mr. BALL - I have here Commission's 163, a gray blue jacket. Do you recognize this jacket?
Mr. FRAZIER - No, sir; I don't.
Mr. BALL - Did you ever see Lee Oswald wear this jacket?
Mr. FRAZIER - No, sir; I don't believe I have.
Mr. FRAZIER - No, sir; I don't believe I have because most time I noticed when Lee had it, I say he put off his shirt and just wear a T-shirt the biggest part of the time so really what shirt he wore that day I really didn't see it or didn't pay enough attention to it whether he did have a shirt on.
Mr. BALL - On that day you did notice one article of clothing, that is, he had a jacket?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL - What color was the jacket?
Mr. FRAZIER - It was a gray, more or less flannel, wool-looking type of jacket that I had seen him wear and that is the type of jacket he had on that morning.
Mr. BALL - Did it have a zipper on it?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir; it was one of the zipper types.
Mr. BALL - It isn't one of these two zipper jackets we have shown?
Mr. FRAZIER - No, sir.
Frazier recalls on "that day" which throughout the testimony was obviously referring to the 22nd, and Thursday was referred to as "Thursday", Frazier said Oswald had on a light grey jacket, yet the dark blue/grey jacket was found in the TSBD??
Mr. BALL - You are not able to tell us then anything or are you able to tell us, describe any of the clothing he had on that day, except this gray jacket?
Mr. FRAZIER - Right.
Mr. BALL - That is the only thing you can remember?
Mr. FRAZIER - Right.
Mr. BALL - I have here a paper sack which is Commission's Exhibit 364. That gray jacket you mentioned, did it have any design in it?
Mr. FRAZIER - No, sir.
Mr. BALL - Was it light or dark gray?
Mr. FRAZIER - It was light gray.
Mr. BALL - You mentioned it was woolen.
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL - Long sleeves?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL - Buttoned sleeves at the wrist, or do you remember?
Mr. FRAZIER - To be frank with you, I didn't notice that much about the jacket, but I had seen him wear that gray woolen jacket before.
Mr. BALL - You say it had a zipper on it?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir.
When Ball was specifically talking about Thursday, Frazier says it was the "same grey jacket"? How do you think Oswald can be wearing the same jacket on the way home on Thursday and back to work on Friday? And the only jacket found at the TSBD was the dark blue/grey jacket?
Mr. BALL - On Thursday afternoon when you went home, drove on home, did he carry any package with him?
Mr. FRAZIER - No, sir; he didn't
Mr. BALL - Did he have a jacket or coat on him?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL - What kind of a jacket or coat did he have?
Mr. FRAZIER - That, you know, like I say gray jacket.
Mr. BALL - That same gray jacket?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir.
Marina "seems", which isn't exactly definitive, to think that she saw Oswald wearing CE162 but the CT's say she lied a lot, so take that with a grain of salt.
Mrs. OSWALD. On Thursday I think he wore this shirt.
Mr. RANKIN. Is that Exhibit 150?
Mrs. OSWALD. Yes.
Mr. RANKIN. Do you remember anything else he was wearing at that time?
Mrs. OSWALD. It seems he had that jacket, also.
Mr. RANKIN. Exhibit 162?
Mrs. OSWALD. Yes.
So in conclusion, Frazier never recalls seeing Oswald's dark jacket before and says that Oswald was wearing a light grey jacket on that day(22nd), as I initially said Frazier's powers of observation were not that good!
Therefore Oswald wore the the dark grey/blue jacket to Irving and back to the TSBD, and the light grey zipper jacket was back at his rooming house, the jacket that Roberts saw Oswald zipping up.
JohnM
-
So Frazier AND Marina said the jacket Oswald wore to work on Friday was CE 162 the LIGHT GRAY jacket?
And CE 163, the Darker Blue Gray jacket was found in the Domino room TSBD?
So JohnM explanation is that we just can’t trust Marina or Fraziers perceptions therefore Oswald must have been wearing the CE 163 the blue gray jacket when he went to work?
So then Oswald left the TSBD after the shooting NOT wearing ANY jacket?
That would have to be the case if CE 162 was at the boarding house and CE 163 was found in the Domino room. ( exception would be that the CE 163 blue gray jacket was moved by DPD from presumably found at boarding house to the domino room a month later , which is even more bizzare.)
William Whaley the taxi driver said he saw Oswald wearing a jacket albeit a bit confusing how Whaley described the jacket.
Earlene Roberts compounds the problem by seeing Oswald just wearing a LIGHT colored shirt with long sleeves when he entered the boarding house.
NO WONDER it took 25 volumes of WC to explain the LN theory. 😳
-
So Frazier AND Marina said the jacket Oswald wore to work on Friday was CE 162 the LIGHT GRAY jacket?
And CE 163, the Darker Blue Gray jacket was found in the Domino room TSBD?
So JohnM explanation is that we just can’t trust Marina or Fraziers perceptions therefore Oswald must have been wearing the CE 163 the blue gray jacket when he went to work?
So then Oswald left the TSBD after the shooting NOT wearing ANY jacket?
That would have to be the case if CE 162 was at the boarding house and CE 163 was found in the Domino room. ( exception would be that the CE 163 blue gray jacket was moved by DPD from presumably found at boarding house to the domino room a month later , which is even more bizzare.)
William Whaley the taxi driver said he saw Oswald wearing a jacket albeit a bit confusing how Whaley described the jacket.
Earlene Roberts compounds the problem by seeing Oswald just wearing a LIGHT colored shirt with long sleeves when he entered the boarding house.
NO WONDER it took 25 volumes of WC to explain the LN theory. 😳
So Frazier AND Marina said the jacket Oswald wore to work on Friday was CE 162 the LIGHT GRAY jacket?
Marina doesn't remember the last time she saw CE163, which is odd considering that CT's believe that CE163 was at the house she was staying at for almost the last two weeks? She also didn't see Oswald get dressed that morning, so she hasn't a clue about what he was wearing.
Mr. RANKIN. When was the last time that you saw this jacket, Exhibit 163?
Mrs. OSWALD. I don't remember.
Mr. RANKIN. Do you remember seeing it on the morning of November 22, 1963?
Mrs. OSWALD. The thing is that I saw Lee in the room, and I didn't see him getting dressed in the room. That is why it is difficult for me to say. But I told him to put on something warm on the way to work.
Mr. RANKIN. Do you recall whether the jacket, Exhibit 163, is something that he put on in your presence at any time that day?
Mrs. OSWALD. Not in my presence.
JohnM
-
From the list of items taken from Ruth Paine's house, there is no items of Oswald's clothing listed. And considering Oswald was living at Beckley street it makes sense for Oswald to keep all his clothes where he spent the majority of his time.
I found it a bit weird that Oswald would wear the same clothes all weekend but according to Ruth, Oswald brought out some underwear and shirts to be washed and then left with clean clothing, so presumably he must have taken some fresh clothes out to Irving as well?
Mr. JENNER - Now, the same question with respect to laundry. That would be laundry largely. I take it from your telling us about you and Marina hanging up clothes in your backyard on the 22d of November that neither you nor she ever sent any laundry out for cleaning or washing.
Mrs. PAINE - No; and Lee brought his underwear and shirts to be washed at my house, and then Marina ironed his things and he would take clean things with him on Monday.
The owner of the Rooming house says that there was a Washeteria not very far away which Oswald seem to use when he didn't see his wife for some time or I guess for emergencies but otherwise Oswald still made his wife wash his clothes.
Mr. BALL. Let me ask you this: did he, that weekend, that was the weekend before the assassination, on a Saturday, make a trip to a place where they wash clothes?
Mrs. JOHNSON. Well, I think that he did go across to that washateria. I think he did.
Mr. BALL. Did you see him go any place, go out of the house except for that on that weekend?
Mrs. JOHNSON. That's the only time and I had just forgotten that but I do remember he carried some clothes out of that house that morning and the washateria is right across the street, less than a block.
Mr. BALL. But he left his room?
Mrs. JOHNSON. And he wasn't gone long and I didn't see him return with any clothes but I do know he was gone just about long enough to do a wash.
(https://i.postimg.cc/9FjZ3Mqs/property-taken-from-ruth-Paine-s-house.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/yYzcqdSb/property-taken-from-ruth-Paine-s-house-2.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/tCHW0TVx/property-taken-from-ruth-Paine-s-house-next-day.jpg)
The list of items taken from Beckley street sensibly had Oswald's clothes contained in his room, so why would Oswald keep a solitary jacket at the Paine residence and limit himself to his other jacket, it doesn't make sense and if for whatever reason Oswald didn't end up shooting the President, why would he leave one of his jackets at the Paine's house and again limit himself to having one jacket for another week?
(https://i.postimg.cc/CLVky1fW/Osw-ald-s-stuff-taken-from-rooming-house-1.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/65Nns3G1/Osw-ald-s-stuff-taken-from-rooming-house-2.jpg)
Oswald kept his clothes at the Beckley street rooming house because that is simply logical and wore the same jacket out to Irving and back to work. Leaving a jacket at the Paine's and then swapping his jacket and then leaving another jacket at the Paine's is a bit silly!
JohnM
-
You didn't ask a question. You stated an obvious fact.
{quote]
It could have been anytime that week but Thursday seems the most likely. He could have made it during the lunch break or any time he knew the wrapping station would be unattended.The bag had creases in it so we know it was folded. It could easily have been tucked in his jacket without Frazier seeing it. Had it been discovered, he could have just told Frazier it was for the curtain rods he was going to get.I'm guessing you meant to say until the next morning. We don't know what time he put the rifle in the bag but if it was me, I wouldn't have waited until the last minute. I would have done it the night before after everyone went to bed.
None of that would have been difficult Yup.
You are deliberately missing the point. The question was how anybody could handle that bag in the way described and only leave one partial print?
"Longevity on Porous Surfaces
Porous materials, such as paper, cardboard, untreated wood, and fabric, absorb the oils and sweat from fingerprints, which can make the prints less visible initially but sometimes more stable within the material itself. On such surfaces, fingerprints may fade within hours or days under normal conditions, especially if exposed to moisture, heat, or physical handling."
If you don't like my source, you are free to provide your own.
If only you could prove that one witness accurately remembered what he saw.
Oswald on the other hand did leave prints on the bag on the 6th floor so we know he handled it.
Since he left his rifle behind, I see no reason he would be concerned about doing the same with the bag.
So why did you cite it as evidence Frazier was accurate in his description of the bag.
That's why the people doing the polygraph test establish a baseline for how nervous the person is to begin with. They look for spikes in the three measurements for indications of deceit.
I know he got the description of the bag wrong and still passed the polygraph which indicates to me he believed his mistaken recollection about the size of the bag.
I've already explained that to you. The subject is started off with mundane questions to establish a base line for his stress level. It's when there are spikes in the stress level that indicate willful deceit.
As best he remembered it. That doesn't establish he remembered what he saw correctly. It's very common for eyewitnesses to get details wrong, especially when the detail wouldn't have seemed important at the time it was observed.
A lie is when you knowingly tell a falsehood. I'm sure Frazier honestly believes what he said he saw. He just didn't accurately remember what he saw. Very common for eyewitnesses to do that. That's been explained to you many times but you refuse to accept that.
This tells me nothing of any significance. But if I understand your argument it is that Frazier lied without knowing that he was lying? What a crock! All this really shows is that you are completely unable to weigh evidence honestly, because your massive bias gets in the way!
You still don't get it. Being honestly mistaken about something is not the same as lying. I never accused Frazier of lying. Why do you keep insisting that I have.
And the bag that was actually found on the 6th floor that was significantly longer than Frazier remembered.
I've already cited a source that indicates prints on a porous surface can disappear in a matter of hours. Oswald would likely have taken the rifle out of the bag sometime around noon. That is the last time he was known to have handled it.
No I haven't. Do you have a reliable source for those reports?
I will as soon as you establish Day freaked out.
Because the accounts of people who were there often conflict with the forensic evidence. I place far more faith in the latter.
You didn't ask a question. You stated an obvious fact.
No, I said you would have to believe there was a rifle stored at Ruth Paine's garage on 11/21/63.
It's pretty obvious that you believe exactly that without being able to provide a shred of proof for it.
"Longevity on Porous Surfaces
Porous materials, such as paper, cardboard, untreated wood, and fabric, absorb the oils and sweat from fingerprints, which can make the prints less visible initially but sometimes more stable within the material itself. On such surfaces, fingerprints may fade within hours or days under normal conditions, especially if exposed to moisture, heat, or physical handling."
If you don't like my source, you are free to provide your own.
Oh, I agree that prints don't last long on certain materials. But in this case there is a partial print left from carrying the package in the cup of his hand, and no print for picking up the parcel from the backseat of Frazier's car, only a moment sooner. Kinda strange, don't you think? How did Oswald manage to pick up that package from the backseat of the car and leave no print? And how did he manage to fold the bag in the sniper's nest and leave no print?
If only you could prove that one witness accurately remembered what he saw.
Don't have to. He passed a polygraph!
Oswald on the other hand did leave prints on the bag on the 6th floor so we know he handled it.
If only you could prove that bag ever left the TSBD to begin with.
Since he left his rifle behind, I see no reason he would be concerned about doing the same with the bag.
Just one more reason for not using a paper bag! If it was Oswald who left the rifle there, he would have been far better off using a duffel bag from Ruth Paine's garage to conceal the rifle in.
That way he could have actually walked out of the building with the rifle. None of it makes any sense.
So why did you cite it as evidence Frazier was accurate in his description of the bag.
Because, even if the polygraph is far from perfect, it doesn't mean it's worthless. Frazier passed the test and you instantly started to look for ways to rather stupidly explain away the result by claiming Frazier could have lied while believing he spoke the truth. You don't even understand just how lame that is? The fact remains that Frazier passed the test and that was enough to cause massive panic by Lt Day!
That's why the people doing the polygraph test establish a baseline for how nervous the person is to begin with. They look for spikes in the three measurements for indications of deceit.
So what? That's what they would have done with Frazier as well, right?
I know he got the description of the bag wrong and still passed the polygraph which indicates to me he believed his mistaken recollection about the size of the bag.
No. You don't know anything of the kind. You just don't want to accept that he got the description of the bag right and thus passed the test.
As best he remembered it. That doesn't establish he remembered what he saw correctly. It's very common for eyewitnesses to get details wrong, especially when the detail wouldn't have seemed important at the time it was observed.
It doesn't mean he remembered it incorrectly. Again... there is no way you can prove that the bag from the 6th floor was the same one Oswald carried. It's all wishful thinking on your part and that is what is causing you to question and doubt anything that destroys your silly opinion. You can be a stubborn as you like, but that still doesn't make you right and it never will.
If I have to chose between Frazier's real time observations and statement and your opinion you always lose!
A lie is when you knowingly tell a falsehood. I'm sure Frazier honestly believes what he said he saw. He just didn't accurately remember what he saw. Very common for eyewitnesses to do that. That's been explained to you many times but you refuse to accept that.
Classic LN BS: If a witness says something I don't like, the witness must be wrong, because my opinion always supersedes what somebody say who was actually there and saw what happened.
You're right. I don't accept your opinion, exactly because it's an opinion for which there isn't a shred of proof. A print on a paper bag made from TSBD materials and found at the TSBD where Oswald worked proves nothing and it certainly doesn't prove that this was the bag Oswald carried. You desperately want it to be, just like Ltd Day did on day one, but the facts are clear and the one who doesn't want to accept them is you.
No I haven't. Do you have a reliable source for those reports?
So you don't know the evidence! And yes, I have a reliable source; I have the reports themself! They are available on line. Do some research before you make comments!
Because the accounts of people who were there often conflict with the forensic evidence. I place far more faith in the latter.
No, you place more faith in your opinion which you somehow incorrectly consider to be "forensic evidence".
-
Marina doesn't remember the last time she saw CE163, which is odd considering that CT's believe that CE163 was at the house she was staying at for almost the last two weeks? She also didn't see Oswald get dressed that morning, so she hasn't a clue about what he was wearing.
Mr. RANKIN. When was the last time that you saw this jacket, Exhibit 163?
Mrs. OSWALD. I don't remember.
Mr. RANKIN. Do you remember seeing it on the morning of November 22, 1963?
Mrs. OSWALD. The thing is that I saw Lee in the room, and I didn't see him getting dressed in the room. That is why it is difficult for me to say. But I told him to put on something warm on the way to work.
Mr. RANKIN. Do you recall whether the jacket, Exhibit 163, is something that he put on in your presence at any time that day?
Mrs. OSWALD. Not in my presence.
JohnM
which is odd considering that CT's believe that CE163 was at the house she was staying at for almost the last two weeks?
Really? Which CTs would that be? I've never spoken to one who believes that.
-
From the list of items taken from Ruth Paine's house, there is no items of Oswald's clothing listed. And considering Oswald was living at Beckley street it makes sense for Oswald to keep all his clothes where he spent the majority of his time.
I found it a bit weird that Oswald would wear the same clothes all weekend but according to Ruth, Oswald brought out some underwear and shirts to be washed and then left with clean clothing, so presumably he must have taken some fresh clothes out to Irving as well?
Mr. JENNER - Now, the same question with respect to laundry. That would be laundry largely. I take it from your telling us about you and Marina hanging up clothes in your backyard on the 22d of November that neither you nor she ever sent any laundry out for cleaning or washing.
Mrs. PAINE - No; and Lee brought his underwear and shirts to be washed at my house, and then Marina ironed his things and he would take clean things with him on Monday.
The owner of the Rooming house says that there was a Washeteria not very far away which Oswald seem to use when he didn't see his wife for some time or I guess for emergencies but otherwise Oswald still made his wife wash his clothes.
Mr. BALL. Let me ask you this: did he, that weekend, that was the weekend before the assassination, on a Saturday, make a trip to a place where they wash clothes?
Mrs. JOHNSON. Well, I think that he did go across to that washateria. I think he did.
Mr. BALL. Did you see him go any place, go out of the house except for that on that weekend?
Mrs. JOHNSON. That's the only time and I had just forgotten that but I do remember he carried some clothes out of that house that morning and the washateria is right across the street, less than a block.
Mr. BALL. But he left his room?
Mrs. JOHNSON. And he wasn't gone long and I didn't see him return with any clothes but I do know he was gone just about long enough to do a wash.
(https://i.postimg.cc/9FjZ3Mqs/property-taken-from-ruth-Paine-s-house.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/yYzcqdSb/property-taken-from-ruth-Paine-s-house-2.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/tCHW0TVx/property-taken-from-ruth-Paine-s-house-next-day.jpg)
The list of items taken from Beckley street sensibly had Oswald's clothes contained in his room, so why would Oswald keep a solitary jacket at the Paine residence and limit himself to his other jacket, it doesn't make sense and if for whatever reason Oswald didn't end up shooting the President, why would he leave one of his jackets at the Paine's house and again limit himself to having one jacket for another week?
(https://i.postimg.cc/CLVky1fW/Osw-ald-s-stuff-taken-from-rooming-house-1.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/65Nns3G1/Osw-ald-s-stuff-taken-from-rooming-house-2.jpg)
Oswald kept his clothes at the Beckley street rooming house because that is simply logical and wore the same jacket out to Irving and back to work. Leaving a jacket at the Paine's and then swapping his jacket and then leaving another jacket at the Paine's is a bit silly!
JohnM
Oswald kept his clothes at the Beckley street rooming house because that is simply logical and wore the same jacket out to Irving and back to work. Leaving a jacket at the Paine's and then swapping his jacket and then leaving another jacket at the Paine's is a bit silly!
Oswald worked in an extremely dusty warehouse. At the end of the day his clothes must have been full of dust, and so would his jacket be. It makes sense to have one clean jacket in Irving and switch it with the dirty one during every visit. So, leaving the TSBD wearing CE 162 and switching it for a clean CE 163 actually makes a lot of sense.
-
which is odd considering that CT's believe that CE163 was at the house she was staying at for almost the last two weeks?
Really? Which CTs would that be? I've never spoken to one who believes that.
So you don't believe that CE163 was at the Paine's residence prior to Oswald arriving on the 21st, good, finally we're getting somewhere.
JohnM
-
(https://i.postimg.cc/CLQPph17/riflebagposition.png) (https://postimages.org/)
Tell me that's not funny.
A dotted outline showing where the evidence should be!
There can be no better example of the staggering incompetence of the DPD's investigation.
I'm assuming the LN narrative runs along the following lines:
Oswald waited for the 6th floor crew to break for lunch and, when he had the floor to himself, he collected the stashed rifle bag and took it to the southeast corner where he prepared the Sniper's Perch. He took the disassembled rifle from the paper bag and placed the now empty bag to one side while he assembled the rifle.
The final report of the Warren Commission is a string of lies, omissions and falsifications designed to demonstrate the pre-ordained Lone Assassin narrative. One of the most brazen lies contained in the report is the claim, made on more than one occasion, that Charles Givens was the last TSBD employee to see Oswald prior to the assassination and that he saw Oswald in the vicinity of the southeast corner of the 6th floor.
The Givens issue has been dealt with in detail by others such as Sylvia Meagher and Pat Speer and there is little doubt this belated addition to his account of events is a pack of lies told at the behest of the WC itself.
But Givens was not the last TSBD employee to see Oswald prior to the assassination - Eddie Piper was.
Piper testified that, as he broke for lunch at 12:00pm, he had a conversation with Oswald ON THE FIRST FLOOR. This makes complete sense when we take into account the collective statements of the floor-laying crew and their elevator race after breaking for lunch. Each day the floor-laying crew would race the elevators down to the first floor after breaking for lunch. The day of the assassination was no different. Charles Givens was in one elevator and the other three members of the crew were in the other. As the race got under way Oswald appeared on the fifth floor asking Givens to let him on the elevator. Givens refused, he was racing after all, so Oswald called after them to make sure to close the gates on the elevator so he could call it back up.
Far from hiding in the shadows, biding his time, Oswald was clearly looking to get down to the first floor. At some point after this Oswald makes his way down to the first floor and has his interaction with Eddie Piper.
The WC Sham brushed all this testimony under the carpet in the final report because they had to disguise a very inconvenient fact - while Oswald was on the first floor having his interaction with Eddie Piper, Bonnie Ray Williams had collected his lunch and made his way back up to the 6th floor where, according to the WC, he took up position just a few yards away from the SN to have his lunch. The importance of this fact was also glossed over in the final report.
So, the WC would have us believe that Oswald carried his disassembled rifle in the paper bag over to the southeast corner and assembled his rifle just a few yards away from Bonnie Ray without being detected!
I'm not really sure how that is possible.
-
Oswald kept his clothes at the Beckley street rooming house because that is simply logical and wore the same jacket out to Irving and back to work. Leaving a jacket at the Paine's and then swapping his jacket and then leaving another jacket at the Paine's is a bit silly!
Oswald worked in an extremely dusty warehouse. At the end of the day his clothes must have been full of dust, and so would his jacket be. It makes sense to have one clean jacket in Irving and switch it with the dirty one during every visit. So, leaving the TSBD wearing CE 162 and switching it for a clean CE 163 actually makes a lot of sense.
We're making a lot of progress today, of course Oswald would want access to clean clothes and wearing a dusty jacket ALL week is absurd, that's why he would keep his back-up jacket with him, so it's accessible. Thanks Martin, you're finally starting to understand! Thumb1:
JohnM
-
So you don't believe that CE163 was at the Paine's residence prior to Oswald arriving on the 21st, good, finally we're getting somewhere.
JohnM
If you constantly misrepresent what people say, you've lost the argument even before you made it.
I asked you which CTs believe what you claimed and as per usual you can't answer.
Of course CE 163 was at the Paine residence on 11/21/63. If it hadn't been Oswald couldn't have worn it to the TSBD the next day.
-
We're making a lot of progress today, of course Oswald would want access to clean clothes and wearing a dusty jacket ALL week is absurd, that's why he would keep his back-up jacket with him, so it's accessible. Thanks Martin, you're finally starting to understand! Thumb1:
JohnM
wearing a dusty jacket ALL week is absurd
The jacket was only worn in the morning and evening and was likely not as dirty as his other clothes.
Marina washed his clothes so he would have gotten a clean jacket from her.
-
If you constantly misrepresent what people say, you've lost the argument even before you made it.
I asked you which CTs believe what you claimed and as per usual you can't answer.
Of course DE 163 was at the Paine residence on 11/21/63. If it hadn't been Oswald couldn't have worn it to the TSBD the next day.
If you constantly misrepresent what people say, you've lost the argument even before you made it.
I never said ALL CT's, I simply said CT's and since this theory is shared by yourself and Capasse, the two CT's currently debating harassing me, then I never misrepresented anyone.
Of course DE 163 was at the Paine residence on 11/21/63. If it hadn't been Oswald couldn't have worn it to the TSBD the next day.
Yep, Oswald wore it from the Depostory to Irving on the 21st, so you're right again CE163 was at the Paine residence on the 21st! Thumb1:
JohnM
-
wearing a dusty jacket ALL week is absurd
The jacket was only worn in the morning and evening and was likely not as dirty as his other clothes.
Marina washed his clothes so he would have gotten a clean jacket from her.
(https://thumbs.dreamstime.com/b/emoticon-pointing-down-happy-emoji-his-finger-168543540.jpg)
At the end of the day his clothes must have been full of dust, and so would his jacket be.
(https://i.pinimg.com/736x/11/71/e5/1171e55b82e1419c6a74820fe37da605.jpg)
JohnM
-
(https://thumbs.dreamstime.com/b/emoticon-pointing-down-happy-emoji-his-finger-168543540.jpg)
(https://i.pinimg.com/736x/11/71/e5/1171e55b82e1419c6a74820fe37da605.jpg)
JohnM
I was wondering just how long it would take before your childish nature would manifest itself.
Always desperately looking for gotcha moments, to satisfy your massive ego.
Not capable to have a normal conversation and unable to deal with evidence honestly.
That's you.
-
I was wondering just how long it would take before your childish nature would manifest itself.
Always desperately looking for gotcha moments, to satisfy your massive ego.
Not capable to have a normal conversation and unable to deal with evidence honestly.
That's you.
You're so desperate to win, you just make up any old crap as you go along and considering the quote I "gotcha" with was less than an hour before your post, just shows how dishonest you are!!
JohnM
-
Tell me that's not funny.
A dotted outline showing where the evidence should be!
There can be no better example of the staggering incompetence of the DPD's investigation.
I'm assuming the LN narrative runs along the following lines:
Oswald waited for the 6th floor crew to break for lunch and, when he had the floor to himself, he collected the stashed rifle bag and took it to the southeast corner where he prepared the Sniper's Perch. He took the disassembled rifle from the paper bag and placed the now empty bag to one side while he assembled the rifle.
The final report of the Warren Commission is a string of lies, omissions and falsifications designed to demonstrate the pre-ordained Lone Assassin narrative. One of the most brazen lies contained in the report is the claim, made on more than one occasion, that Charles Givens was the last TSBD employee to see Oswald prior to the assassination and that he saw Oswald in the vicinity of the southeast corner of the 6th floor.
The Givens issue has been dealt with in detail by others such as Sylvia Meagher and Pat Speer and there is little doubt this belated addition to his account of events is a pack of lies told at the behest of the WC itself.
But Givens was not the last TSBD employee to see Oswald prior to the assassination - Eddie Piper was.
Piper testified that, as he broke for lunch at 12:00pm, he had a conversation with Oswald ON THE FIRST FLOOR. This makes complete sense when we take into account the collective statements of the floor-laying crew and their elevator race after breaking for lunch. Each day the floor-laying crew would race the elevators down to the first floor after breaking for lunch. The day of the assassination was no different. Charles Givens was in one elevator and the other three members of the crew were in the other. As the race got under way Oswald appeared on the fifth floor asking Givens to let him on the elevator. Givens refused, he was racing after all, so Oswald called after them to make sure to close the gates on the elevator so he could call it back up.
Far from hiding in the shadows, biding his time, Oswald was clearly looking to get down to the first floor. At some point after this Oswald makes his way down to the first floor and has his interaction with Eddie Piper.
The WC Sham brushed all this testimony under the carpet in the final report because they had to disguise a very inconvenient fact - while Oswald was on the first floor having his interaction with Eddie Piper, Bonnie Ray Williams had collected his lunch and made his way back up to the 6th floor where, according to the WC, he took up position just a few yards away from the SN to have his lunch. The importance of this fact was also glossed over in the final report.
So, the WC would have us believe that Oswald carried his disassembled rifle in the paper bag over to the southeast corner and assembled his rifle just a few yards away from Bonnie Ray without being detected!
I'm not really sure how that is possible.
First, Givens told the FBI he had seen Lee on the 1st floor @ about 11:50am reading the paper:
(https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7805/39699356693_4063ee755a_b.jpg)
Bill Shelley and Eddie Piper confirmed that with the WC
William Shelly Employee, TSBD
Mr. BALL. On November 22, 1963, the day the President was shot, when is the last time you saw Oswald?
Mr. SHELLEY. It was 10 or 15 minutes before 12.
Mr. BALL. Where?
Mr. SHELLEY. On the first floor over near the telephone.
Eddie Piper Janitor, TSBD
Mr. BALL. Was that the last time you saw him?
Mr. PIPER. Just at 12 o’clock.
Mr. BALL. Where were you at 12 o’clock?
Mr. PIPER. Down on the first floor.
Meanwhile, Givens told Inspector Sawyer (DPD) that he would change his story for money
(https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7843/39699356773_214975c0db_b.jpg)
Then he did:
“At about. 11:45 a.m. the. floor-laying crew used both elevators to come down from the sixth floor. The employees raced the elevators to the first floor. Givens saw Oswald standing at the gate on the fifth floor as the elevator went by. Givens testified that after reaching the first floor, “I discovered I left my cigarettes in my jacket pocket upstairs, and I took the elevator back upstairs to get my jacket with my cigarettes in it.” He saw Oswald, a clipboard in hand, walking from the southeast corner of the sixth floor toward the elevator…” [WCR page 143]
Mr. BELIN. Coming towards the elevators?
Mr. GIVENS. Yes, sir.
Mr. BELIN. Did you see all of his body or not?
Mr. GIVENS. Yes, sir; he had his clipboard in his hand.
Mr. BELIN. He had his clipboard in his hand?
Mr. GIVENS. Yes, sir.
Thumb1: BEWARE! Nutters cherry pick and deny witness testimony to suit their own pretext.
-
You're so desperate to win, you just make up any old crap as you go along and considering the quote I "gotcha" with was less than an hour before your post, just shows how dishonest you are!!
JohnM
Project much...
I don't care about winning. There is nothing to win. Oswald has been dead for more than 60 years. The only one constantly talking in terms of "winning" is you! But you are not even man enough to admit it, despite the fact that is obvious for every sane reader.
If Oswald was a double killer than so be it. All I ask is for solid evidence to show his guilt and all I get it LN crap based on assumptions and speculation. I can't help it that you can't provide solid evidence and thus constantly play stupid childish games.
-
more presumptuous garbage.
If there's no snow on the ground when you go to bed and you wake up and there's snow on the ground, is it presumptuous to assume it snowed over night?
That bag is 38in by about 8in wide - about 2 sq ft of hard paper and tape
X2 because it's a bag. How many times can you fold that on your person without looking odd? - or without making a sound?
4 Sq ft of hard paper and tape under a light jacket. Frazier saw no sign of it.
No reason at all to hide it. Buell will see it tomorrow. lol - or are we back to the unreliable witness BS when YOU choose?:
you need to redo your arithmetic. A 38 inch by 8 inch bag is not 4 square feet. It's a little over half that.
Frazier said he wore a light gray jacket to Irving Thursday night. - How did it end up in Oak Cliff on Friday?
Damn good question. Another example of Frazier's less than stellar powers of observation.
-
If there's no snow on the ground when you go to bed and you wake up and there's snow on the ground, is it presumptuous to assume it snowed over night?you need to redo your arithmetic. A 38 inch by 8 inch bag is not 4 square feet. It's a little over half that.Damn good question. Another example of Frazier's less than stellar powers of observation.
Damn good question.
And one you clearly can't answer. The list of questions you can't answer is getting longer by the minute.
Another example of Frazier's less than stellar powers of observation.
A honest person would say, either Frazier got it wrong or Earlene Roberts did.
You are clearly not a honest person.
-
If there's no snow on the ground when you go to bed and you wake up and there's snow on the ground, is it presumptuous to assume it snowed over night?
If I know I saw something. I KNOW what I saw.
you need to redo your arithmetic. A 38 inch by 8 inch bag is not 4 square feet.
The area of a 38-inch by 8-inch bag is approximately 2.11 square feet.
It is a bag and therefore has two front and back sides - Double it.
Damn good question. Another example of Frazier's less than stellar powers of observation.
I'm sure you'll find a way to distort it. Mytton is already way ahead of you.
Thumb1: he just fails miserably. I doubt you could do any better.
-
You didn't ask a question. You stated an obvious fact.
No, I said you would have to believe there was a rifle stored at Ruth Paine's garage on 11/21/63.
It's pretty obvious that you believe exactly that without being able to provide a shred of proof for it.
Another fine example of your inability to make logical inferences. Marina knew Oswald kept his rifle in a blanket in the Paine's garage. The morning of the 22nd, Oswald takes a long brown paper package to work. After the shooting, Oswald's rifle is found on the floor where the shooter was seen and spent shells were on the floor. A short distance away, am empty brown paper bag is found with Oswald's prints on it and fibers matching Oswald's blanket and you can't put all these factors together to reach the logical inference that Oswald took his rifle to work in the long brown paper package? You need it proven to you to an absolute certainty? Damn, if I ever commit a serious crime, I hope I get someone like you on my jury.
"Longevity on Porous Surfaces
Porous materials, such as paper, cardboard, untreated wood, and fabric, absorb the oils and sweat from fingerprints, which can make the prints less visible initially but sometimes more stable within the material itself. On such surfaces, fingerprints may fade within hours or days under normal conditions, especially if exposed to moisture, heat, or physical handling."
If you don't like my source, you are free to provide your own.
Oh, I agree that prints don't last long on certain materials. But in this case there is a partial print left from carrying the package in the cup of his hand, and no print for picking up the parcel from the backseat of Frazier's car, only a moment sooner. Kinda strange, don't you think? How did Oswald manage to pick up that package from the backseat of the car and leave no print? And how did he manage to fold the bag in the sniper's nest and leave no print?
Why do you think he folded it in the sniper's nest?
If only you could prove that one witness accurately remembered what he saw.
Don't have to. He passed a polygraph!
You obviously don't know what it is that polygraphs do. Hint: they can't indicate whether a person accurately remembered an event.
[Oswald on the other hand did leave prints on the bag on the 6th floor so we know he handled it.[/b]
If only you could prove that bag ever left the TSBD to begin with.
That requires one to make logical inferences. You seem incapable of doing that. Or is it that your unwilling to do that?
Since he left his rifle behind, I see no reason he would be concerned about doing the same with the bag.
Just one more reason for not using a paper bag! If it was Oswald who left the rifle there, he would have been far better off using a duffel bag from Ruth Paine's garage to conceal the rifle in.
That way he could have actually walked out of the building with the rifle. None of it makes any sense.
One question. Do you honestly believe that? Do you really think he could have left the building from which someone had just shot the POTUS carrying a duffle bag with a heavy object and no one would have been the least bit suspicious. More to the point, do you think Oswald would have thought that?
So why did you cite it as evidence Frazier was accurate in his description of the bag.
Because, even if the polygraph is far from perfect, it doesn't mean it's worthless. Frazier passed the test and you instantly started to look for ways to rather stupidly explain away the result by claiming Frazier could have lied while believing he spoke the truth. You don't even understand just how lame that is? The fact remains that Frazier passed the test and that was enough to cause massive panic by Lt Day!
At best, a polygraph can indicate if someone is being DELIBERATELY deceitful. It can't give an indication if someone didn't remember an event accurately. That's why they call it a lie detector. It's not called a can't-remember-shit detector.
That's why the people doing the polygraph test establish a baseline for how nervous the person is to begin with. They look for spikes in the three measurements for indications of deceit.
So what? That's what they would have done with Frazier as well, right?
Yes, it is and if Frazier was honestly telling them what he remembered, there would have been no indication of deceit. If Frazier inaccurately remembered the event, a polygraph would have given no indication of that. Polygraphs are used to determine if a person is being honest, not if they are being accurate.
I know he got the description of the bag wrong and still passed the polygraph which indicates to me he believed his mistaken recollection about the size of the bag.
No. You don't know anything of the kind. You just don't want to accept that he got the description of the bag right and thus passed the test.
You have never provided a bit of corroborating forensic evidence that proves Frazier accurately remember the package he saw Oswald carry.
As best he remembered it. That doesn't establish he remembered what he saw correctly. It's very common for eyewitnesses to get details wrong, especially when the detail wouldn't have seemed important at the time it was observed.
It doesn't mean he remembered it incorrectly.
[/quote]
No it doesn't. If all we had to go on was Frazier's description of the bag, the logical conclusion would be the bag might or might not be the length Frazier remembered. But that isn't all we have to go on. A bag was found in the TSBD with Oswald's prints on it which matched Frazier's description of the bag in every way except for the length.
Again... there is no way you can prove that the bag from the 6th floor was the same one Oswald carried. It's all wishful thinking on your part and that is what is causing you to question and doubt anything that destroys your silly opinion. You can be a stubborn as you like, but that still doesn't make you right and it never will.
Again, it requires one to make logical inferences in order to conclude that the bag found in the TSBD is the same one Frazier saw Oswald carry into the TSBD. You seem either unable or unwilling to do that.
If I have to chose between Frazier's real time observations and statement and your opinion you always lose!
You don't have to choose between Frazier's opinion and my opinion. If's a choice as to whether you believe Frazier or the forensic evidence.
A lie is when you knowingly tell a falsehood. I'm sure Frazier honestly believes what he said he saw. He just didn't accurately remember what he saw. Very common for eyewitnesses to do that. That's been explained to you many times but you refuse to accept that.
Classic LN BS: If a witness says something I don't like, the witness must be wrong, because my opinion always supersedes what somebody say who was actually there and saw what happened.
Again, it isn't a case of whether Frazier's account conflicts with my opinion. Frazier's account conflicts with the forensic evidence.
You're right. I don't accept your opinion, exactly because it's an opinion for which there isn't a shred of proof. A print on a paper bag made from TSBD materials and found at the TSBD where Oswald worked proves nothing and it certainly doesn't prove that this was the bag Oswald carried. You desperately want it to be, just like Ltd Day did on day one, but the facts are clear and the one who doesn't want to accept them is you.
It proves nothing BY ITSELF. This is where conspiracy hobbyists always fall down. They look at one piece of evidence and say it doesn't prove anything. You have to put the pieces together to figure out what the puzzle looks like. We have a paper bag with Oswald's prints found near the location where someone saw a shooter and which shells were found that matched a rifle found elsewhere on the same floor which was proven to belong to Oswald and the bag contained fibers that matched the blanket Oswald was known to have stored his rifle in. Can you really not put all those pieces together and reach a logical conclusion or do you just not want to accept the logical conclusion?
No I haven't. Do you have a reliable source for those reports?
So you don't know the evidence! And yes, I have a reliable source; I have the reports themself! They are available on line. Do some research before you make comments!
So you expect me to find the proof to support your assertion. Since you are the one claiming that proof exists, shouldn't you be the one providing it.
I wish I had a nickel for every time I've seen a conspiracy hobbyist resort to that ploy. Long time conspiracy hobbyist Tony Marsh's stock reply when asked to provide support for one of his claims was, "Learn to google". This is just more of the same.
Why don't your surprise us. Prove to us you didn't just make this story up.
Because the accounts of people who were there often conflict with the forensic evidence. I place far more faith in the latter.
No, you place more faith in your opinion which you somehow incorrectly consider to be "forensic evidence".
The difference between us is that my opinions are supported by hard evidence, Yours, not so much.
-
So Frazier AND Marina said the jacket Oswald wore to work on Friday was CE 162 the LIGHT GRAY jacket?
And CE 163, the Darker Blue Gray jacket was found in the Domino room TSBD?
So JohnM explanation is that we just can’t trust Marina or Fraziers perceptions therefore Oswald must have been wearing the CE 163 the blue gray jacket when he went to work?
So then Oswald left the TSBD after the shooting NOT wearing ANY jacket?
That would have to be the case if CE 162 was at the boarding house and CE 163 was found in the Domino room. ( exception would be that the CE 163 blue gray jacket was moved by DPD from presumably found at boarding house to the domino room a month later , which is even more bizzare.)
William Whaley the taxi driver said he saw Oswald wearing a jacket albeit a bit confusing how Whaley described the jacket.
Earlene Roberts compounds the problem by seeing Oswald just wearing a LIGHT colored shirt with long sleeves when he entered the boarding house.
NO WONDER it took 25 volumes of WC to explain the LN theory. 😳
On the day after the assassination, William Whaley described what Oswald was wearing in his cab (even describing the shirt to some detail) and makes no mention of a jacket at all.
-
Whaley told the Commission he saw both jackets;
Mr. BALL. Here is Commission No. 162 which is a gray jacket with zipper.
Mr. WHALEY. I thank that is the jacket he had on when he rode with me in the cab.
Mr. BALL. Look something like it?
And here is Commission Exhibit No. 163, does this look like anything he had on?
Mr. WHALEY. He had this one on or the other one.
Mr. BALL. That is right.
Mr. WHALEY. That is what I told you I noticed. I told you about the shirt being open, he had on the two jackets with the open shirt.
Dec 18, 63 to the FBI - He called it a gray work jacket;
"...OSWALD was wearing grey work pants and a grey work jacket and had on a darker shirt which had a gold streak in it .
He also recalled that this shirt was opened down the front to about the fourth button, and he does not recall OSWALD wearing
an undershirt. He also recalled that the. sh1rt, as well as the rest of OSWALD's attire, was unpressed and wrinkled as though
it had not been ironed after washing or as though he had slept in the clothes."
-
Whaley told the Commission he saw both jackets;
Mr. BALL. Here is Commission No. 162 which is a gray jacket with zipper.
Mr. WHALEY. I thank that is the jacket he had on when he rode with me in the cab.
Mr. BALL. Look something like it?
And here is Commission Exhibit No. 163, does this look like anything he had on?
Mr. WHALEY. He had this one on or the other one.
Mr. BALL. That is right.
Mr. WHALEY. That is what I told you I noticed. I told you about the shirt being open, he had on the two jackets with the open shirt.
Dec 18, 63 to the FBI - He called it a gray work jacket;
"...OSWALD was wearing grey work pants and a grey work jacket and had on a darker shirt which had a gold streak in it .
He also recalled that this shirt was opened down the front to about the fourth button, and he does not recall OSWALD wearing
an undershirt. He also recalled that the. sh1rt, as well as the rest of OSWALD's attire, was unpressed and wrinkled as though
it had not been ironed after washing or as though he had slept in the clothes."
(https://i.postimg.cc/wj1FCmLb/Whaley-No-Jacket.jpg) (https://postimg.cc/PCkmZN6m)
-
(https://i.postimg.cc/wj1FCmLb/Whaley-No-Jacket.jpg) (https://postimg.cc/PCkmZN6m)
:D Pick & choose. Pick and choose.
an irrefutable pile of garbage
-
:D Pick & choose. Pick and choose.
This is where you're confused. I'm not the one picking and choosing. I'm willing to throw out everything Whaley says about what Oswald was wearing inside his cab. YOU are the one insisting Oswald was wearing a jacket inside the cab.
-
This is where you're confused. I'm not the one picking and choosing. I'm willing to throw out everything Whaley says about what Oswald was wearing inside his cab. YOU are the one insisting Oswald was wearing a jacket inside the cab.
I've said no such thing.
You have both conflicting statements and evidence throughout, then cherry pick what you want from this garbage
-
Another fine example of your inability to make logical inferences. Marina knew Oswald kept his rifle in a blanket in the Paine's garage. The morning of the 22nd, Oswald takes a long brown paper package to work. After the shooting, Oswald's rifle is found on the floor where the shooter was seen and spent shells were on the floor. A short distance away, am empty brown paper bag is found with Oswald's prints on it and fibers matching Oswald's blanket and you can't put all these factors together to reach the logical inference that Oswald took his rifle to work in the long brown paper package? You need it proven to you to an absolute certainty? Damn, if I ever commit a serious crime, I hope I get someone like you on my jury.
Why do you think he folded it in the sniper's nest?
You obviously don't know what it is that polygraphs do. Hint: they can't indicate whether a person accurately remembered an event.
That requires one to make logical inferences. You seem incapable of doing that. Or is it that your unwilling to do that?
One question. Do you honestly believe that? Do you really think he could have left the building from which someone had just shot the POTUS carrying a duffle bag with a heavy object and no one would have been the least bit suspicious. More to the point, do you think Oswald would have thought that?
At best, a polygraph can indicate if someone is being DELIBERATELY deceitful. It can't give an indication if someone didn't remember and event accurately. That's why they call it a lie detector. It's not called a can't-remember-shit detector.
Yes, it is and if Frazier was honestly telling them what he remembered, there would have been no indication of deceit. If Frazier inaccurately remembered the event, a polygraph would have given no indication of that. Polygraphs are used to determine if a person is being honest, not if they are being accurate.
You have never provided a bit of corroborating forensic evidence that proves Frazier accurately remember the package he saw Oswald carry.
No it doesn't. If all we had to go on was Frazier's description of the bag, the logical conclusion would be the bag might or might not be the length Frazier remembered. But that isn't all we have to go on. A bag was found in the TSBD with Oswald's prints on it which matched Frazier's description of the bag in every way except for the length.
Again, it requires one to make logical inferences in order to conclude that the bag found in the TSBD is the same one Frazier saw Oswald carry into the TSBD. You seem either unable or unwilling to do that.
You don't have to choose between Frazier's opinion and my opinion. If's a choice as to whether you believe Frazier or the forensic evidence.
Again, it isn't a case of whether Frazier's account conflicts with my opinion. Frazier's account conflicts with the forensic evidence.
It proves nothing BY ITSELF. This is where conspiracy hobbyists always fall down. They look at one piece of evidence and say it doesn't prove anything. You have to put the pieces together to figure out what the puzzle looks like. We have a paper bag with Oswald's prints found near the location where someone saw a shooter and which shells were found that matched a rifle found elsewhere on the same floor which was proven to belong to Oswald and the bag contained fibers that matched the blanket Oswald was known to have stored his rifle in. Can you really not put all those pieces together and reach a logical conclusion or do you just not want to accept the logical conclusion?
So you expect me to find the proof to support your assertion. Since you are the one claiming that proof exists, shouldn't you be the one providing it.
I wish I had a nickel for every time I've seen a conspiracy hobbyist resort to that ploy. Long time conspiracy hobbyist Tony Marsh's stock reply when asked to provide support for one of his claims was, "Learn to google". This is just more of the same.
Why don't your surprise us. Prove to us you didn't just make this story up.
The difference between us is that my opinions are supported by hard evidence, Yours, not so much.
Another fine example of your inability to make logical inferences. Marina knew Oswald kept his rifle in a blanket in the Paine's garage.
Another dishonest reply. Marina didn't know anything of the sort. She checked the blanket once, in late september, and saw the wooden stock of a rifle. She assumed it was Oswald's, and it may well have been. But what she didn't know is what happened to that rifle after late September. She may have seen the blanket lying on the ground but she could only assume (and not know) if the rifle was still in it.
After the shooting, Oswald's rifle is found on the floor where the shooter was seen and spent shells were on the floor.
"Pswald's rifle" LOL
The morning of the 22nd, Oswald takes a long brown paper package to work. After the shooting, Oswald's rifle is found on the floor where the shooter was seen and spent shells were on the floor. A short distance away, am empty brown paper bag is found with Oswald's prints on it and fibers matching Oswald's blanket and you can't put all these factors together to reach the logical inference that Oswald took his rifle to work in the long brown paper package?
Apart for the fact that you keep representing the evidence, of course I can make an assumption (which is actually what you mean by "logical inference", but that doesn't mean that this would the correct conclusion.
You need it proven to you to an absolute certainty?
So, you don't know for certain there was a rifle in Ruth Paine's garage on 11/21/63. Got it.
Nobody is applying such a high standard. All I have asked for is even the slightest bit of actual evidence to show there was actually a rifle stored in Ruth Paine's garage. What is clear beyond absolute certainty is that you haven't any. All you have is information that is being misrepresented and assumptions. In other words; you've got nothing. But I expect you will never understand that!
Why do you think he folded it in the sniper's nest?
The bag was found folded up in the sniper's nest. If you like think it was folder somewhere else, be my guest.
I take it you also can't provide an explanation for the absence of prints that would have been placed on the bag when it was folded.
You obviously don't know what it is that polygraphs do. Hint: they can't indicate whether a person accurately remembered an event.
And nobody said they could. Only a dishonest person would bring up something this stupid. A polygraph is not perfect, but it's the best tool there is to determine if somebody is telling the truth about what he or she had seen.
That requires one to make logical inferences. You seem incapable of doing that. Or is it that your unwilling to do that?
Whenever I make a logical inference, I do so based on actual verifiable evidence and not just speculation and wishful thinking as you do.
So, in summary, we have so far;
You have no evidence that a rifle was stored in Ruth Paine's garage on 11/21/63. You only have assumption
You have no explanation for the absence of prints on the bag that would recently have been made when the bag was folded.
And you have no evidence to support your claim that the 6th floor bag ever left the TSBD
Wow!
One question. Do you honestly believe that? Do you really think he could have left the building from which someone had just shot the POTUS carrying a duffle bag with a heavy object and no one would have been the least bit suspicious.
Yes, sure. he could have easily done that. He could have walked out the back of the building with a duffel bag and mingle with people in the street in seconds. He also could have left the building through the front door (which LNs believe he did) and walked out with a back into a sense of massive commotion. We know that nobody saw him leave in any event. As soon as he crossed the street and walked towards a bus he was just another guy in a crowd. Sometimes the best place to hide is in plain sight!
More to the point, do you think Oswald would have thought that?
I don't know what Oswald was thinking. I just don't understand the reasoning for making a paper bag, when he had duffel bags in Ruth Paine's garage and he alleged managed to take the rifle to New Orleans on public transport without being noticed.
At best, a polygraph can indicate if someone is being DELIBERATELY deceitful. It can't give an indication if someone didn't remember and event accurately. That's why they call it a lie detector. It's not called a can't-remember-shit detector.
And Frazier clearly wasn't deliberately deceitful. He simply told the truth, but that's something you just don't like.
Yes, it is and if Frazier was honestly telling them what he remembered, there would have been no indication of deceit. If Frazier inaccurately remembered the event, a polygraph would have given no indication of that. Polygraphs are used to determine if a person is being honest, not if they are being accurate.
And what in the world makes you think that Frazier inaccurately remembered anything? Let me guess.... back to the pathetic massive assumptions about the 6th floor bag.
You do understand that your entire flawed theory is based on a partial print on a paper bag that was found at Oswald's place of work? On second thought; you probably don't understand that at all.
You have never provided a bit of corroborating forensic evidence that proves Frazier accurately remember the package he saw Oswald carry.
Don't have to. Frazier saw the bag and gets the benefit of the doubt until actual evidence shows he was wrong. So, it's up to you to provide that evidence and you can't do it.
No it doesn't. If all we had to go on was Frazier's description of the bag, the logical conclusion would be the bag might or might not be the length Frazier remembered. But that isn't all we have to go on. A bag was found in the TSBD with Oswald's prints on it which matched Frazier's description of the bag in every way except for the length.
This is getting tiresome. You have nothing to put the bag found at the 6th floor in Oswald's cup of hand. And you really need to stop lying. Frazier's description of the bag did not match the 6th floor bag, made from heavy duty wrapping paper, at all.
Detective Lewis states for the record that Frazier described the bag he saw as being a "crickly brown paper sack" and Ltd Day confirmed that Frazier told him that "the sack he observed in possession of Oswald early that morning was definitely a thin, flimsy sack like on purchased in a dime store"
So, who do you lie?
Again, it requires one to make logical inferences in order to conclude that the bag found in the TSBD is the same one Frazier saw Oswald carry into the TSBD. You seem either unable or unwilling to do that.
Translation; It's an assumption for which I don't have a shred of evidence, so I just call it a "logical inference". Pathetic!
You don't have to choose between Frazier's opinion and my opinion. If's a choice as to whether you believe Frazier or the forensic evidence.
Again, your opinion isn't "forensic evidence". The only forensic value the 6th floor bag has is to show that a partial print of Oswald was found on it. That's it! Everything else is you making stuff up, which is something the WC didn't even do. They just stated as fact that it was the bag Oswald had carried and completely ignored what Frazier said. That's some investigation!
It proves nothing BY ITSELF. This is where conspiracy hobbyists always fall down. They look at one piece of evidence and say it doesn't prove anything.
And you just agreed it proves nothing.
You have to put the pieces together to figure out what the puzzle looks like. We have a paper bag with Oswald's prints found near the location where someone saw a shooter and which shells were found that matched a rifle found elsewhere on the same floor which was proven to belong to Oswald and the bag contained fibers that matched the blanket Oswald was known to have stored his rifle in. Can you really not put all those pieces together and reach a logical conclusion or do you just not want to accept the logical conclusion?
Hilarious. The only piece of physical evidence is the 6th floor bag with Oswald's partial print on it. Claiming that the rifle "was proven to belong to Oswald" is a gross overstatement of the facts. And this fiber BS is getting tedious. Anybody who cherry picks the evidence and simply rejects or ignores the real possibility of cross contamination is not serious.
There are no pieces to put together. All you have are claims you wish to believe. It is and can never be a logical conclusion when it is based on purposely misrepresented, so-called "facts".
So you expect me to find the proof to support your assertion. Since you are the one claiming that proof exists, shouldn't you be the one providing it.
First of all, don't pretend to know better about the assassination than me and they ask me to school you. It's pathetic! Do your homework!
And secondly, as to providing evidence; since you never provide any evidence for your claims, I would say; no it's not a given that I should help you out.
I actually don't care if you believe the reports exist of not. If you claim they don't exist, you do so at your own peril, because there are plenty of people who know far more than you ever will who will see you for the buffoon you really are.
I wish I had a nickel for every time I've seen a conspiracy hobbyist resort to that ploy. Long time conspiracy hobbyist Tony Marsh's stock reply when asked to provide support for one of his claims was, "Learn to google". This is just more of the same. Why don't your surprise us. Prove to us you didn't just make this story up.
It's not a ploy. I couldn't care less what you think. I have the reports here and that's all I need to know. The last thing I will try to do is convince you of anything as that would be a pointless exercise
The difference between us is that my opinions are supported by hard evidence, Yours, not so much.
You're funny little man. Oh well, even the biggest fool considers himself to be a genius.....
-
I've said no such thing.
You have both conflicting statements and evidence throughout, then cherry pick what you want from this garbage
You're still confused.
My only point here is that Whaley's Warren Commission testimony doesn't make it a fact that Oswald was wearing a jacket while in his cab.
Therefore, it is faulty to state as a fact that Oswald was wearing a jacket while inside the cab.
-
You're still confused.
My only point here is that Whaley's Warren Commission testimony doesn't make it a fact that Oswald was wearing a jacket while in his cab.
Therefore, it is faulty to state as a fact that Oswald was wearing a jacket while inside the cab.
WHAT? - therefore, it is also faulty to state as a fact that Oswald was not wearing a jacket while inside the cab.
Cherry picking isn't proof of anything
Whaley told the Commission he saw both jackets;
Mr. BALL. Here is Commission No. 162 which is a gray jacket with zipper.
Mr. WHALEY. I thank that is the jacket he had on when he rode with me in the cab.
Mr. BALL. Look something like it?
And here is Commission Exhibit No. 163, does this look like anything he had on?
Mr. WHALEY. He had this one on or the other one.
Mr. BALL. That is right.
Mr. WHALEY. That is what I told you I noticed. I told you about the shirt being open, he had on the two jackets with the open shirt.
Dec 18, 63 to the FBI - He called it a gray work jacket;
"...OSWALD was wearing grey work pants and a grey work jacket and had on a darker shirt which had a gold streak in it .
He also recalled that this shirt was opened down the front to about the fourth button, and he does not recall OSWALD wearing
an undershirt. He also recalled that the. sh1rt, as well as the rest of OSWALD's attire, was unpressed and wrinkled as though
it had not been ironed after washing or as though he had slept in the clothes."
-
At best, a polygraph can indicate if someone is being DELIBERATELY deceitful. It can't give an indication if someone didn't remember an event accurately. That's why they call it a lie detector. It's not called a can't-remember-shit detector.
Well said.
Some people just don't get it.
It's the same with Roy Vaughn, who was guarding the top of the Main Street ramp on Sunday morning. Vaughn took a polygraph and stated that Ruby did not enter the basement through that ramp. Vaughn passed the polygraph. This does not prove that Ruby did not walk down that ramp. It only proved that Vaughn's belief was that Ruby did not walk down that ramp.
-
WHAT? - therefore, it is also faulty to state as a fact that Oswald was not wearing a jacket while inside the cab.
Whaley told the Commission he saw both jackets;
Mr. BALL. Here is Commission No. 162 which is a gray jacket with zipper.
Mr. WHALEY. I thank that is the jacket he had on when he rode with me in the cab.
Mr. BALL. Look something like it?
And here is Commission Exhibit No. 163, does this look like anything he had on?
Mr. WHALEY. He had this one on or the other one.
Mr. BALL. That is right.
Mr. WHALEY. That is what I told you I noticed. I told you about the shirt being open, he had on the two jackets with the open shirt.
Dec 18, 63 to the FBI - He called it a gray work jacket;
"...OSWALD was wearing grey work pants and a grey work jacket and had on a darker shirt which had a gold streak in it .
He also recalled that this shirt was opened down the front to about the fourth button, and he does not recall OSWALD wearing
an undershirt. He also recalled that the. sh1rt, as well as the rest of OSWALD's attire, was unpressed and wrinkled as though
it had not been ironed after washing or as though he had slept in the clothes."
Right.
And his 11/23/63 affidavit makes no mention of any jacket, even though he described (in detail) Oswald's shirt, bracelet, etc...
So none of us can say with any certainty (based on the statements to the FBI, the Warren Commission and his next day affidavit) whether or not Oswald was wearing any jacket inside the cab.
Understand now or still confused?
-
You're still confused.
My only point here is that Whaley's Warren Commission testimony doesn't make it a fact that Oswald was wearing a jacket while in his cab.
Therefore, it is faulty to state as a fact that Oswald was wearing a jacket while inside the cab.
My only point here is that Whaley's Warren Commission testimony doesn't make it a fact that Oswald was wearing a jacket while in his cab.
But Roberts' WC testimony about Oswald leaving with a jacket somehow does make it a fact that he did indeed leave with a jacket?
You want your cake and eat it too
-
My only point here is that Whaley's Warren Commission testimony doesn't make it a fact that Oswald was wearing a jacket while in his cab.
But Roberts' WC testimony about Oswald leaving with a jacket somehow does make it fact that he did indeed leave with a jacket?
You want your cake and eat it too
That doesn't make sense. Apples & oranges.
There is evidence for both arguments, re: Whaley and whether Oswald was/was not wearing a jacket in the cab.
Unless of course you can cite for Earlene Roberts saying anything which is at odds with her statements that Oswald left in a jacket. Betcha can't.
-
Right.
And his 11/23/63 affidavit makes no mention of any jacket, even though he described (in detail) Oswald's shirt, bracelet, etc...
So none of us can say with any certainty (based on the statements to the FBI, the Warren Commission and his next day affidavit) whether or not Oswald was wearing any jacket inside the cab.
Understand now or still confused?
Understand now or still confused?
Thanks for clarifying. Much like Fox News, you simply didn't provide all the facts to Zeon;
On the day after the assassination, William Whaley described what Oswald was wearing in his cab (even describing the shirt to some detail) and makes no mention of a jacket at all.
-
That doesn't make sense. Apples & oranges.
There is evidence for both arguments, re: Whaley and whether Oswald was/was not wearing a jacket in the cab.
Unless of course you can cite for Earlene Roberts saying anything which is at odds with her statements that Oswald left in a jacket. Betcha can't.
You're such a hypocrite.
You can't cite any statement by Frazier that is at odds with the way he described Oswald carried the package (in the cup of his hand and under his armpit) yet you don't believe him.
Why, because he is saying you don't like.
Roberts on the other hand is saying something you not only do like but desperately need to keep the narrative alive. That's why you blindly believe her.
Roberts couldn't even identify the jacket when it was shown to her during her WC testimony and she went completely of the rails by claiming the jacket she had seen was dark colored
-
You're such a hypocrite.
You can't cite any statement by Frazier that is at odds with the way he described Oswald carried the package (in the cup of his hand and under his armpit) yet you don't believe him.
Why, because he is saying you don't like.
Roberts on the other hand is saying something you not only do like but desperately need to keep the narrative alive. That's why you blindly believe her.
Roberts couldn't even identify the jacket when it was shown to her during her WC testimony and she went completely of the rails by claiming the jacket she had seen was dark colored
I have no need for hypocrisy here. I have indeed shown a statement (signed, in fact) by Frazier where he acknowledges that the rifle was in the bag, i.e. the bag was large enough for the rifle, i.e. the bag couldn't have been carried the way Frazier described.
-
I have no need for hypocrisy here. I have indeed shown a statement (signed, in fact) by Frazier where he acknowledges that the rifle was in the bag, i.e. the bag was large enough for the rifle, i.e. the bag couldn't have been carried the way Frazier described.
Hilarious.
I'm not going to get into a "prove it's fake" conversation. If you want people to believe that Frazier actually would admit in a real affidavit that he lied to the police and the WC, have at it!
The next time you see him (if you ever saw him to begin with) tell him about your "find" at Ripley's believe it or not and see how he responds.
-
Frazier signed that car statement for the buyer. For the car. It didn't get him any more than $10. The buyer was planning a "Tragedy Museum". When that fell thru the car was sold to Ripley's and is now in Texas. Those documents are on the side windows.
That was Oct. '64. The Warren Report was out - but not the 26 volumes. There was some talk of a Mauser gun or Gerald Ford leaking the Back Yard Photos to LIFE Magazine. No one had tapped Frazier for what he saw and he believed what he was told. That only changed to what he believes today.
They (WC) used him and excluded him without even confronting his "mistakes" directly - it took most of 1965-66 for researchers like Weisberg or Meager or Mark Lane to uncover initial failures in the evidence.
-
Frazier signed that car statement for the buyer. For the car. It didn't get him any more than $10. The buyer was planning a "Tragedy Museum". When that fell thru the car was sold to Ripley's and is now in Texas. Those documents are on the side windows.
That was Oct. '64. The Warren Report was out - but not the 26 volumes. There was some talk of a Mauser gun or Gerald Ford leaking the Back Yard Photos to LIFE Magazine. No one had tapped Frazier for what he saw and he believed what he was told. That only changed to what he believes today.
They (WC) used him and excluded him without even confronting his mistakes directly - it took most of 1965-66 for researchers like Weisberg or Meager or Mark Lane to uncover initial failures in the evidence.
I find it amazing that somebody like Bill Brown could be so easily fooled by those documents.
Even more so as Frazier's signature on the car registration document is completely different from the ones on those fakes! Bill knows this of course, as the photos he has posted and the registration document are found on the Ripley's Son Antonio website.
-
Another fine example of your inability to make logical inferences. Marina knew Oswald kept his rifle in a blanket in the Paine's garage.
Another dishonest reply. Marina didn't know anything of the sort. She checked the blanket once, in late september, and saw the wooden stock of a rifle. She assumed it was Oswald's, and it may well have been. But what she didn't know is what happened to that rifle after late September. She may have seen the blanket lying on the ground but she could only assume (and not know) if the rifle was still in it.
Marina mad a logical inference that the rifle was still in the blanket. I'm not surprised this escapes you.
After the shooting, Oswald's rifle is found on the floor where the shooter was seen and spent shells were on the floor.
"Pswald's rifle" LOL
Yes, Oswald's rifle
The on that had his palm print on the underside of the barrel.
The one with fibers matching the shirt he wore that day.
The one he had several photographs take of him holding the rifle.
The one for which there is a clear paper trail showing he ordered the rifle from Klein's Sporting Goods.
Your scoffing at the notion that it is Oswald's rife shows no amount of evidence will ever convince a dedicated conspiracy hobbyist of Oswald's guilt. They will always find an excuse to dismiss it.
The morning of the 22nd, Oswald takes a long brown paper package to work. After the shooting, Oswald's rifle is found on the floor where the shooter was seen and spent shells were on the floor. A short distance away, am empty brown paper bag is found with Oswald's prints on it and fibers matching Oswald's blanket and you can't put all these factors together to reach the logical inference that Oswald took his rifle to work in the long brown paper package?
Apart for the fact that you keep representing the evidence, of course I can make an assumption (which is actually what you mean by "logical inference", but that doesn't mean that this would the correct conclusion.
An assumption is something that is made without evidence. A logical inference is made based on evidence. I'm not surprised you don't understand the difference.
You need it proven to you to an absolute certainty?
So, you don't know for certain there was a rifle in Ruth Paine's garage on 11/21/63. Got it.
That conclusion is based on common sense. I guess that leaves you out.
Nobody is applying such a high standard. All I have asked for is even the slightest bit of actual evidence to show there was actually a rifle stored in Ruth Paine's garage. What is clear beyond absolute certainty is that you haven't any. All you have is information that is being misrepresented and assumptions. In other words; you've got nothing. But I expect you will never understand that!
[/quote[
I've tried my best but I just can't find a way to dumb it down enough for you to understand.
Why do you think he folded it in the sniper's nest?
The bag was found folded up in the sniper's nest. If you like think it was folder somewhere else, be my guest.
It wasn't found folded up. It had creases in it indicating it had been folded at one time.
I take it you also can't provide an explanation for the absence of prints that would have been placed on the bag when it was folded.
I can't explain your false premise.
You obviously don't know what it is that polygraphs do. Hint: they can't indicate whether a person accurately remembered an event.
And nobody said they could. Only a dishonest person would bring up something this stupid. A polygraph is not perfect, but it's the best tool there is to determine if somebody is telling the truth about what he or she had seen.
You presented the polygraph as evidence Frazier accurately recalled the length of the package. A polygraph measures honesty, not accuracy.
That requires one to make logical inferences. You seem incapable of doing that. Or is it that your unwilling to do that?
Whenever I make a logical inference, I do so based on actual verifiable evidence and not just speculation and wishful thinking as you do.
Every time you try, you show how bad you are at weighing evidence. You put absolute faith in Frazier's recollections and dismiss all the hard evidence of Oswald's guilt.
So, in summary, we have so far;
You have no evidence that a rifle was stored in Ruth Paine's garage on 11/21/63. You only have assumption
You have no explanation for the absence of prints on the bag that would recently have been made when the bag was folded.
And you have no evidence to support your claim that the 6th floor bag ever left the TSBD
Wow!
As I already said, I can't dumb it down enough for you to understand. I guess that's a failure on my part.
One question. Do you honestly believe that? Do you really think he could have left the building from which someone had just shot the POTUS carrying a duffle bag with a heavy object and no one would have been the least bit suspicious.
Yes, sure. he could have easily done that. He could have walked out the back of the building with a duffel bag and mingle with people in the street in seconds. He also could have left the building through the front door (which LNs believe he did) and walked out with a back into a sense of massive commotion. We know that nobody saw him leave in any event. As soon as he crossed the street and walked towards a bus he was just another guy in a crowd. Sometimes the best place to hide is in plain sight!
No comment from me is even necessary at this point.
More to the point, do you think Oswald would have thought that?
I don't know what Oswald was thinking. I just don't understand the reasoning for making a paper bag, when he had duffel bags in Ruth Paine's garage and he alleged managed to take the rifle to New Orleans on public transport without being noticed.
Oswald made the bag to smuggle the rifle into the TSBD. He succeeding in doing that. Why would you second guess his decision.
Killing JFK was probably the one thing Oswald succeeded at in his short miserable life, and the conspiracy hobbyists have spent the last 62 years denying him credit for it. Give the guy a break. If Oswald could comeback, I'm sure he would tell you all to STFU.
{quote]
At best, a polygraph can indicate if someone is being DELIBERATELY deceitful. It can't give an indication if someone didn't remember and event accurately. That's why they call it a lie detector. It's not called a can't-remember-shit detector.
And Frazier clearly wasn't deliberately deceitful. He simply told the truth, but that's something you just don't like.
I'll bet he told us what he thought to be the truth. He just got one very important detail wrong.
Yes, it is and if Frazier was honestly telling them what he remembered, there would have been no indication of deceit. If Frazier inaccurately remembered the event, a polygraph would have given no indication of that. Polygraphs are used to determine if a person is being honest, not if they are being accurate.
And what in the world makes you think that Frazier inaccurately remembered anything? Let me guess.... back to the pathetic massive assumptions about the 6th floor bag.
[/quote}
His description of the length of the bag he saw Oswald carry into the TSBD was different from the bag found in the TSBD with Oswald's prints on it and no shorter bag was ever found. But keep telling yourself Frazier got every detail of the bag correct even though he had no reason to pay much attention to it at the time and admitted he didn't.
You do understand that your entire flawed theory is based on a partial print on a paper bag that was found at Oswald's place of work? On second thought; you probably don't understand that at all.
One print is all that is necessary to prove Oswald handled the bag that was found next to the sniper's nest.
You have never provided a bit of corroborating forensic evidence that proves Frazier accurately remember the package he saw Oswald carry.
Don't have to. Frazier saw the bag and gets the benefit of the doubt until actual evidence shows he was wrong. So, it's up to you to provide that evidence and you can't do it.
The evidence is there. You just refuse to accept it. The fact you are willing to assume Frazier was 100% accurate reveals how misguided you are. It makes no sense to assume any witness is 100% accurate because usually they are not. Witnesses get some things wrong and some things right. We can confirm or refute what they say by how it jives with the physical evidence. What Frazier is to you is an excuse to dismiss all the daming evidence of Oswald's guilt. An excuse is all a determined conspiracy hobbyist needs too delude himself. WTG
No it doesn't. If all we had to go on was Frazier's description of the bag, the logical conclusion would be the bag might or might not be the length Frazier remembered. But that isn't all we have to go on. A bag was found in the TSBD with Oswald's prints on it which matched Frazier's description of the bag in every way except for the length.
This is getting tiresome. You have nothing to put the bag found at the 6th floor in Oswald's cup of hand. And you really need to stop lying. Frazier's description of the bag did not match the 6th floor bag, made from heavy duty wrapping paper, at all.
Well fore once we agree, This is tiresome trying to clue you in. I've been at this for 35 years and have learned that no amount of evidence will ever convince a dediccated conspiracy hobbyist he is wrong. He will cling to his beliefs no matter how much evidence there is to the contrary.
Detective Lewis states for the record that Frazier described the bag he saw as being a "crickly brown paper sack" and Ltd Day confirmed that Frazier told him that "the sack he observed in possession of Oswald early that morning was definitely a thin, flimsy sack like on purchased in a dime store"
So, who do you lie?
You keep relying on Frazier to describe the bag and ignore the bag that was actually found in the TSBD. With Oswald's prints on it. What a silly way to weigh the evidence.
Again, it requires one to make logical inferences in order to conclude that the bag found in the TSBD is the same one Frazier saw Oswald carry into the TSBD. You seem either unable or unwilling to do that.
Translation; It's an assumption for which I don't have a shred of evidence, so I just call it a "logical inference". Pathetic!
The evidence has been presented. You refuse to accept it. That's your problem, not mine. It's the reason that 62 years later, you still can't figure out a simple murder case that the DPD had solved in the first 12 hourse.
You don't have to choose between Frazier's opinion and my opinion. If's a choice as to whether you believe Frazier or the forensic evidence.
Again, your opinion isn't "forensic evidence". The only forensic value the 6th floor bag has is to show that a partial print of Oswald was found on it. That's it! Everything else is you making stuff up, which is something the WC didn't even do. They just stated as fact that it was the bag Oswald had carried and completely ignored what Frazier said. That's some investigation!
You can lead a horse to water...
It proves nothing BY ITSELF. This is where conspiracy hobbyists always fall down. They look at one piece of evidence and say it doesn't prove anything.
And you just agreed it proves nothing.
Try reading for comprehension. Did you miss the qualifier BY ITSELF.?
You have to put the pieces together to figure out what the puzzle looks like. We have a paper bag with Oswald's prints found near the location where someone saw a shooter and which shells were found that matched a rifle found elsewhere on the same floor which was proven to belong to Oswald and the bag contained fibers that matched the blanket Oswald was known to have stored his rifle in. Can you really not put all those pieces together and reach a logical conclusion or do you just not want to accept the logical conclusion?
Hilarious. The only piece of physical evidence is the 6th floor bag with Oswald's partial print on it. Claiming that the rifle "was proven to belong to Oswald" is a gross overstatement of the facts. And this fiber BS is getting tedious. Anybody who cherry picks the evidence and simply rejects or ignores the real possibility of cross contamination is not serious.
The fact you dispute Oswald's ownership of the rifle and the validity of fiber evidence speaks volumes about your unwillingness to accept credible evidence.
There are no pieces to put together. All you have are claims you wish to believe. It is and can never be a logical conclusion when it is based on purposely misrepresented, so-called "facts".
Nothing has been misrepresented. The fact that you refuse to accept the evidence of Oswald's guilt is a reflection on you, not the evidence.
So you expect me to find the proof to support your assertion. Since you are the one claiming that proof exists, shouldn't you be the one providing it.
First of all, don't pretend to know better about the assassination than me
I don't have to pretend.
and they ask me to school you.
You are the last person I would want schooling me. You are at the head of the dunce class.
It's pathetic! Do your homework!
It's not my homework. It's yours. The burden of proof is on the person making the claim. You obviously can't meet that burden so you try to shift it to me. Why would I search for something that you made up out if thin air. If you had a source for this story, you would have no trouble providing it but you won't because you can't.
And secondly, as to providing evidence; since you never provide any evidence for your claims, I would say; no it's not a given that I should help you out.
Why do you keep lying. I've provided solid evidence for everything I've stated. The fact you refuse to accept the evidence is a reflection on you, not me.
I actually don't care if you believe the reports exist of not.
We both know they don't.
If you claim they don't exist, you do so at your own peril, because there are plenty of people who know far more than you ever will who will see you for the buffoon you really are.
If these reports actually existed, you would have no trouble providing them.
I've called your bluff. It's time for you to show your cards or fold your hand.
I wish I had a nickel for every time I've seen a conspiracy hobbyist resort to that ploy. Long time conspiracy hobbyist Tony Marsh's stock reply when asked to provide support for one of his claims was, "Learn to google". This is just more of the same. Why don't your surprise us. Prove to us you didn't just make this story up.
It's not a ploy. I couldn't care less what you think.
You must not care what anybody thinks. You'ee been called out and still you can't support your made up story. That says it all.
I have the reports here
Stop lying.
and that's all I need to know. The last thing I will try to do is convince you of anything as that would be a pointless exercise
The difference between us is that my opinions are supported by hard evidence, Yours, not so much.
You're funny little man. Oh well, even the biggest fool considers himself to be a genius.....
That's called projection.
-
Hilarious.
I'm not going to get into a "prove it's fake" conversation. If you want people to believe that Frazier actually would admit in a real affidavit that he lied to the police and the WC, have at it!
The next time you see him (if you ever saw him to begin with) tell him about your "find" at Ripley's believe it or not and see how he responds.
Hey dumb ass... I did indeed have pizza with Buell Frazier last November. I already told you that I won't disclose to Kooks like you what was said until I have permission. I am friends with Dave Perry, who set up the pizza dinner with Buell Frazier. Perry and Frazier are really good friends and I won't disrespect Dave Perry by running around posting what we talked about for those two hours. Working on this. I already told you that I had a video call with Dave Perry almost two weeks ago for the sole purpose of discussing the Ripley's affidavits (you know, the ones where Buell admits the rifle was in the bag).
Like it or not, Buell Frazier, in October of 1964, acknowledged that the rifle was in the bag when he stated that his car is the car which transported the rifle to work that morning.
I understand why you don't like it, but thems the facts, as they say.
-
Hey dumb ass... I did indeed have pizza with Buell Frazier last November. I already told you that I won't disclose to Kooks like you what was said until I have permission. I am friends with Dave Perry, who set up the pizza dinner with Buell Frazier. Perry and Frazier are really good friends and I won't disrespect Dave Perry by running around posting what we talked about for those two hours. Working on this. I already told you that I had a video call with Dave Perry almost two weeks ago for the sole purpose of discussing the Ripley's affidavits (you know, the ones where Buell admits the rifle was in the bag).
Like it or not, Buell Frazier, in October of 1964, acknowledged that the rifle was in the bag when he stated that his car is the car which transported the rifle to work that morning.
I understand why you don't like it, but thems the facts, as they say.
Hey dumb ass... I did indeed have pizza with Buell Frazier last November.
Did you? All we have is your word for it and that's not worth much.
I already told you that I won't disclose to Kooks like you what was said until I have permission. I am friends with Dave Perry, who set up the pizza dinner with Buell Frazier. Perry and Frazier are really good friends and I won't disrespect Dave Perry by running around posting what we talked about for those two hours.
Then perhaps you should have said nothing at all instead of boasting about the meeting!
Over the years I have met and spoken with a number of people directly involved in this case and have never said anything about it. But then, I only want to find out for myself if the case against Oswald is solid or not and do not have an ego to validate.
-
Hey dumb ass... I did indeed have pizza with Buell Frazier last November.
Did you? All we have is your word for it and that's not worth much.
I already told you that I won't disclose to Kooks like you what was said until I have permission. I am friends with Dave Perry, who set up the pizza dinner with Buell Frazier. Perry and Frazier are really good friends and I won't disrespect Dave Perry by running around posting what we talked about for those two hours.
Then perhaps you should have said nothing at all instead of boasting about the meeting!
Over the years I have met and spoken with a number of people directly involved in this case and have never said anything about it. But then, I only want to find out for myself if the case against Oswald is solid or not and do not have an ego to validate.
Hey dumb ass... I did indeed have pizza with Buell Frazier last November.
Did you? All we have is your word for it and that's not worth much.
I have no need to lie. Also, I have pics. Not that you'll ever see them.
As for your "ego" comment, you're being foolish. I didn't speak of having dinner with Buell Frazier until it was necessary. I posted the two affidavits where Frazier acknowledges that the rifle was in the car. You called them fakes. That prompted me to inform you that I've already made an attempt to verify.
Like you, I simply wanted to verify for myself (in this case, the authenticity of the two affidavits). If I had plans to speak of what was discussed during this pizza dinner with Buell, then I would have asked him (and Dave Perry) right then and there if I could discuss (on various internet forums and Facebook groups) what we talked about.
How many times are you going to comment on something which you know nothing about?
-
Marina mad a logical inference that the rifle was still in the blanket. I'm not surprised this escapes you.Yes, Oswald's rifle
The on that had his palm print on the underside of the barrel.
The one with fibers matching the shirt he wore that day.
The one he had several photographs take of him holding the rifle.
The one for which there is a clear paper trail showing he ordered the rifle from Klein's Sporting Goods.
Your scoffing at the notion that it is Oswald's rife shows no amount of evidence will ever convince a dedicated conspiracy hobbyist of Oswald's guilt. They will always find an excuse to dismiss it.
An assumption is something that is made without evidence. A logical inference is made based on evidence. I'm not surprised you don't understand the difference.
That conclusion is based on common sense. I guess that leaves you out.
The bag was found folded up in the sniper's nest. If you like think it was folder somewhere else, be my guest.
It wasn't found folded up. It had creases in it indicating it had been folded at one time.
I can't explain your false premise.
You presented the polygraph as evidence Frazier accurately recalled the length of the package. A polygraph measures honesty, not accuracy.Every time you try, you show how bad you are at weighing evidence. You put absolute faith in Frazier's recollections and dismiss all the hard evidence of Oswald's guilt.
As I already said, I can't dumb it down enough for you to understand. I guess that's a failure on my part. No comment from me is even necessary at this point.Oswald made the bag to smuggle the rifle into the TSBD. He succeeding in doing that. Why would you second guess his decision.
Killing JFK was probably the one thing Oswald succeeded at in his short miserable life, and the conspiracy hobbyists have spent the last 62 years denying him credit for it. Give the guy a break. If Oswald could comeback, I'm sure he would tell you all to STFU.
{quote]
At best, a polygraph can indicate if someone is being DELIBERATELY deceitful. It can't give an indication if someone didn't remember and event accurately. That's why they call it a lie detector. It's not called a can't-remember-shit detector.
And Frazier clearly wasn't deliberately deceitful. He simply told the truth, but that's something you just don't like.
I'll bet he told us what he thought to be the truth. He just got one very important detail wrong.One print is all that is necessary to prove Oswald handled the bag that was found next to the sniper's nest.The evidence is there. You just refuse to accept it. The fact you are willing to assume Frazier was 100% accurate reveals how misguided you are. It makes no sense to assume any witness is 100% accurate because usually they are not. Witnesses get some things wrong and some things right. We can confirm or refute what they say by how it jives with the physical evidence. What Frazier is to you is an excuse to dismiss all the daming evidence of Oswald's guilt. An excuse is all a determined conspiracy hobbyist needs too delude himself. WTG
You keep relying on Frazier to describe the bag and ignore the bag that was actually found in the TSBD. With Oswald's prints on it. What a silly way to weigh the evidence.The evidence has been presented. You refuse to accept it. That's your problem, not mine. It's the reason that 62 years later, you still can't figure out a simple murder case that the DPD had solved in the first 12 hourse. You can lead a horse to water...Try reading for comprehension. Did you miss the qualifier BY ITSELF.?The fact you dispute Oswald's ownership of the rifle and the validity of fiber evidence speaks volumes about your unwillingness to accept credible evidence. Nothing has been misrepresented. The fact that you refuse to accept the evidence of Oswald's guilt is a reflection on you, not the evidence. I don't have to pretend.You are the last person I would want schooling me. You are at the head of the dunce class.It's not my homework. It's yours. The burden of proof is on the person making the claim. You obviously can't meet that burden so you try to shift it to me. Why would I search for something that you made up out if thin air. If you had a source for this story, you would have no trouble providing it but you won't because you can't.Why do you keep lying. I've provided solid evidence for everything I've stated. The fact you refuse to accept the evidence is a reflection on you, not me.If these reports actually existed, you would have no trouble providing them.
I've called your bluff. It's time for you to show your cards or fold your hand.You must not care what anybody thinks. You'ee been called out and still you can't support your made up story. That says it all.Stop lying.That's called projection.
If you want me to reply to this mess, clean up the post.
On second thought don't even bother. I am not wasting my time in going over the same lies and assumptions every time.
All this constant BS about "logical inference" when it is in fact a mere assumption, the BS about "matching" fibers, the idiotic conclusions based on "common sense" claims and massive lies, like that the paper bag was not folded up when it was found (when the WC actually said it was) and your bogus claim that I consider the polygraph as evidence that Frazier accurately recalled the length of the package (when in fact he told to truth about how he saw Oswald carry in the cup of his hand and under his armpit) is more enough for me to conclude that you are a complete idiot who couldn't tell the truth if it saved his life. We're done.
-
I have no need to lie. Also, I have pics. Not that you'll ever see them.
As for your "ego" comment, you're being foolish. I didn't speak of having dinner with Buell Frazier until it was necessary. I posted the two affidavits where Frazier acknowledges that the rifle was in the car. You called them fakes. That prompted me to inform you that I've already made an attempt to verify.
Like you, I simply wanted to verify for myself (in this case, the authenticity of the two affidavits). If I had plans to speak of what was discussed during this pizza dinner with Buell, then I would have asked him (and Dave Perry) right then and there if I could discuss (on various internet forums and Facebook groups) what we talked about.
How many times are you going to comment on something which you know nothing about?
I didn't speak of having dinner with Buell Frazier until it was necessary.
And what exactly made it necessary? There wasn't anything, as far as I can tell. By your own words, you knew two weeks ago that the "affidavits" came from Ripley's. That should have been enough to know that they couldn't be relied on.
And no, Frazier didn't acknowledge that the rifle was in the bag. The massive difference with his autograph on the car registration makes it obvious those documents are fake.
And you understood that also two weeks ago, because if you thought for a second that they were authentic you would not have had a need to discuss them with Dave Perry.
-
I didn't speak of having dinner with Buell Frazier until it was necessary.
And what exactly made it necessary? There wasn't anything, as far as I can tell. By your own words, you knew two weeks ago that the "affidavits" can from Ripley's. That should have been enough to know that they couldn't be relied on.
And no, Frazier didn't acknowledge that the rifle was in the bag. The massive difference with his autograph on the car registration makes it obvious those documents are fake.
And you understood that also two weeks ago, because if you thought for a second that they were authentic you would not have had a need to discuss them with Dave Perry.
You simply don't get it. I posted an image of both affidavits, with no commentary; just the images, nothing more. YOU then challenged their authenticity. Then we went from there. Perhaps you should scroll back and have a look.
As for the documents being fake, as you claim... I completely disagree. Like I told you before, the simple fact that the affidavits say "Erwin" (instead of Irving) should tell you that someone was transcribing as they were listening to Frazier speak with that unmistakable accent of his (as opposed to someone simply typing in the word "Erwin" for some other reason which makes no sense). You don't display the ability to think logically. That's your biggest problem.
-
You simply don't get it. I posted an image of both affidavits, with no commentary; just the images, nothing more. YOU then challenged their authenticity. Then we went from there. Perhaps you should scroll back and have a look.
As for the documents being fake, as you claim... I completely disagree. Like I told you before, the simple fact that the affidavits say "Erwin" (instead of Irving) should tell you that someone was transcribing as they were listening to Frazier speak with that unmistakable accent of his (as opposed to someone simply typing in the word "Erwin" for some other reason which makes no sense). You don't display the ability to think logically. That's your biggest problem.
Some things never change.
Perhaps you should scroll back and have a look.
I did. That's why I know there was no reason to bring up eating pizza with Frazier. Oh wait, perhaps a completely failed appeal to authority?
As for the documents being fake, as you claim... I completely disagree.
Of course you do. A LN will always accept anything that supports his narrative regardless if it is authentic evidence or not.
Like I told you before, the simple fact that the affidavits say "Erwin" (instead of Irving) should tell you that someone was transcribing as they were listening to Frazier speak
No. You just made that up. There isn't a notary that would accept such a mistake.
You don't display the ability to think logically. That's your biggest problem.
Let me guess, you consider it to be completely logical to use documents from, off all places, Ridley's. Not to mention that they don't have the usual form of an affidavit (you have seen enough real ones to know this) and not to mention that Frazier's signature is completely different.
I think my biggest problem is that I am talking to a dumbass who thinks he is thinking logically!
-
This is where you're confused. I'm not the one picking and choosing. I'm willing to throw out everything Whaley says about what Oswald was wearing inside his cab. YOU are the one insisting Oswald was wearing a jacket inside the cab.
Another reason to doubt Oswald was wearing a jacket post-assassination is that his former landlady spotted him on Cecil McWatters bus shortly after the assassination. She described a hole Oswald had in the elbow of a shirt, a whole that was present in the shirt Oswald was wearing when arrested. Bledsoe could not have seen that hole if Oswald was wearing a jacket.
"Having considered the probabilities as explained in Stombaugh's testimony, the Commission has concluded that the fibers in the tuft on the rifle most probably came from the shirt worn by Oswald when he was arrested, and that this was the same shirt which Oswald wore on the morning of the assassination. Marina Oswald testified that she thought her husband wore this shirt to work on that day. The testimony of those who saw him after the assassination was inconclusive about the color of Oswald's shirt,72 but Mary Bledsoe, a former landlady of Oswald, saw him on a bus approximately 10 minutes after the assassination and identified the shirt as being the one worn by Oswald primarily because of a distinctive hole in the shirt's right elbow. 73 Moreover, the bus transfer which he obtained as he left. the bus was still in the pocket when he was arrested.74 Although Oswald returned to his roominghouse after the assassination and when questioned by the police, claimed to have changed his shirt,75 the evidence indicates that he continued wearing the same shirt which he was wearing all morning and which he was still wearing when arrested."
From pages 124-125 of the Warren Commission Report.
Note to Martin Wiedmann:
This is how one provides a cite to support a statement one has made. I realize it's not possible for you to do this when you have just made something up out of thin air.
-
If you want me to reply to this mess, clean up the post.
On second thought don't even bother. I am not wasting my time in going over the same lies and assumptions every time.
All this constant BS about "logical inference" when it is in fact a mere assumption, the BS about "matching" fibers, the idiotic conclusions based on "common sense" claims and massive lies, like that the paper bag was not folded up when it was found (when the WC actually said it was) and your bogus claim that I consider the polygraph as evidence that Frazier accurately recalled the length of the package (when in fact he told to truth about how he saw Oswald carry in the cup of his hand and under his armpit) is more enough for me to conclude that you are a complete idiot who couldn't tell the truth if it saved his life. We're done.
I accept your surrender.
-
I accept your surrender.
And I expected your pathetic comment, JM
-
It has been stated a number of times on in this thread and others that Oswald's palm print was on the middle of the paper bag found in the sniper's nest. That didn't sound right to me but because I hadn't dealt directly with this issue in at least five years, I left that claim go unchallenged. After going to the WCR to check it out, I find that my memory was correct. The palm print was on the bottom of the bag.
From page 135 of the WCR:
"Oswald's fingerprint and palmprint found on bag.--Using a standard chemical method involving silver nitrates 180 the FBI Laboratory developed a latent palmprint and latent fingerprint on the bag. (See app. X, p. 565.) Sebastian F. Latona, supervisor of the FBI's Latent Fingerprint Section, identified these prints as the left index fingerprint and right palmprint of Lee Harvey Oswald.181 The portion of the palm which was identified was the heel of the right palm, i.e., the area near the wrist, on the little finger side.182 These prints were examined independently by Ronald G. Wittmus of the FBI,183 and by Arthur Mandella, a fingerprint expert with the New York City Police Department. 184 Both concluded that the prints were the right palm and left index finger of Lee Oswald. No other identifiable prints were found on the bag.185
Oswald's palmprint on the bottom of the paper bag indicated, of course, that he had handled the bag. Furthermore, it was consistent with the bag having contained a heavy or bulky object when he handled it since a light object is usually held by the fingers.186 The palmprint was found on the closed end of the bag. It was from Oswald's right hand, in which he carried the long package as he walked from Frazier's car to the building.187"
The palm print at the bottom of the bag is consistent with the way Frazier said Oswald carried the bag, cupped in his right hand. In providing this cite, I have done something Martin Wiedmann has consistently refused to do. I have provided corroboration for a portion of Frazier's statement regarding how Oswald carried the bag. Frazier's description of how Oswald carred the bag was half right. That's more than we can say for Marty.
-
Back for a second for bit of fun;
You posted this, right;
You are the last person I would want schooling me. You are at the head of the dunce class.It's not my homework. It's yours. The burden of proof is on the person making the claim. You obviously can't meet that burden so you try to shift it to me. Why would I search for something that you made up out if thin air. If you had a source for this story, you would have no trouble providing it but you won't because you can't.Why do you keep lying. I've provided solid evidence for everything I've stated. The fact you refuse to accept the evidence is a reflection on you, not me.If these reports actually existed, you would have no trouble providing them.
I didn't know how to post images on this forum, but I've had some help, so here is the evidence that you said didn't exist.
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/55212288775_19c9743617.jpg)
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/55211887491_789e0dc253.jpg)
Consider yourself schooled!
-
Back for a second for bit of fun;
You posted this, right;
I didn't know how to post images on this forum, but I've had some help, so here is the evidence that you said didn't exist.
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/55212288775_19c9743617.jpg)
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/55211887491_789e0dc253.jpg)
Consider yourself schooled!
OK. I was wrong. You didn't make this up. You just lied about it. Earlier, you stated:
"The fact remains that Frazier passed the test and that was enough to cause massive panic by Lt Day"
Please point out anything in either document you posted that Day exhibited "massive panic". Sounds like Day's reaction was rather matter of fact.
-
An honest forensic officer follows the evidence where it leads him.
A corrupt forensic officer, who thinks he has a "gun sack" but is then confronted with a credible witness, who is being polygraphed, who not only denies the "gun sack" was the one Oswald carried but also described the actual bag as flimsy, would desperately look for a way to explain the "gun sack" by claiming it's possible that Oswald placed the heavy duty "gun sack" in the flimsy bag Frazier described despite the fact that the heavy duty sack is far bigger than the flimsy bag.
That's not following the evidence, it's desperately trying to keep in play the heavy duty bag. So, much for an honest investigation. Of course, Day panicked, but they are not going to write that in a official report, are they now? Frazier said that Captain Fritz wanted to hit him for not identifying the heavy duty bag. That's the corrupt DPD for you!
Btw, this Lt Day is the same guy who days after the facts, when Oswald was dead and buried, produced a palmprint he claimed he had found on the rifle. The FBI found no trace of such a print and Latona said it was nearly impossible to take a print of a surface and leave no trace at all.
-
OK. I was wrong. You didn't make this up. You just lied about it. Earlier, you stated:
"The fact remains that Frazier passed the test and that was enough to cause massive panic by Lt Day"
Please point out anything in either document you posted that Day exhibited "massive panic". Sounds like Day's reaction was rather matter of fact.
The honest way of dealing with it was to admit you made a mistake and leave it at that. I would have accepted and respected that and moved on.
The crappy LN way is to try to weasel out of it by making up some bogus issue.
You got schooled and even if your arrogant ego has a problem with it, take your loss and I won't embarrass you further.
You're a little man who thinks he knows everything better than everybody else, but you walked straight into this one which shows you really know nothing at all.
So far, I've been kind to you. You tried to test me once and failed miserably. Care to test me again?
-
Duplicate
-
The honest way of dealing with it was to admit you made a mistake and leave it at that. I would have accepted and respected that and moved on.
The crappy LN way is to try to weasel out of it by making up some bogus issue.
You got schooled and even if your arrogant ego has a problem with it, take your loss and I won't embarrass you further.
You're a little man who thinks he knows everything better than everybody else, but you walked straight into this one which shows you really know nothing at all.
So far, I've been kind to you. You tried to test me once and failed miserably. Care to test me again?
The honest way of dealing with it was to admit you made a mistake and leave it at that. I would have accepted and respected that and moved on.
The crappy LN way is to try to weasel out of it by making up some bogus issue.
You got schooled and even if your arrogant ego has a problem with it, take your loss and I won't embarrass you further.
You're a little man who thinks he knows everything better than everybody else, but you walked straight into this one which shows you really know nothing at all.
So far, I've been kind to you. You tried to test me once and failed miserably. Care to test me again?
You've been exposed as a liar. The letter that you claimed showed Day had shown a "massive panic" doesn't say anything the remotely indicates anything of the sort. You simply fabricated the part about Day panicking about Frazier's polygraph. Why don't you just admit your deceit and move on.
-
You've been exposed as a liar. The letter that you claimed showed Day had shown a "massive panic" doesn't say anything the remotely indicates anything of the sort. You simply fabricated the part about Day panicking about Frazier's polygraph. Why don't you just admit your deceit and move on.
Thank you for showing why you are not a credible person to talk to.
You have been warned. Try to mess with me from now on and be crushed as the weasel you are.
-
Thank you for showing why you are not a credible person to talk to.
You have been warned. Try to mess with me from now on and be crushed as the weasel you are.
<chuckle>
-
<chuckle>
How big is the truck you move your overinflated ego in? It must be massive....
-
How big is the truck you move your overinflated ego in? It must be massive....
For once you are right. I do have a big ego. And with good reason.
-
For once you are right. I do have a big ego. And with good reason.
And that alone makes you the last person in the world anybody should try to have a normal conversation with.
What a pathetic little man you really are. I truly feel sorry for you.
-
And that alone makes you the last person in the world anybody should try to have a normal conversation with.
What a pathetic little man you really are. I truly feel sorry for you.
I don't know whether to kill myself or go bowling.
-
You've been exposed as a liar. The letter that you claimed showed Day had shown a "massive panic" doesn't say anything the remotely indicates anything of the sort. You simply fabricated the part about Day panicking about Frazier's polygraph. Why don't you just admit your deceit and move on.
You've been exposed as a liar.
Welcome to the World Of Martin Weidmann! Thumb1:
JohnM
-
Frazier said that Captain Fritz wanted to hit him for not identifying the heavy duty bag. That's the corrupt DPD for you!
Fritz brought in a confession for Frazier to sign. Frazier told Fritz he wasn't going to sign it. Frazier stated that Fritz balled up his fist threatening to hit Frazier if he didn't sign it. But when did Frazier say the action of Fritz threatening to hit him was related to anything about the bag?
-
Welcome to the World Of Martin Weidmann! Thumb1:
JohnM
Oh look at this. The twin brother jumps in. What a surprise!
Btw It's a great honor to be recognized by the greatest liar of them all as well the world's best expert at projection!
-
Fritz brought in a confession for Frazier to sign. Frazier told Fritz he wasn't going to sign it. Frazier stated that Fritz balled up his fist threatening to hit Frazier if he didn't sign it. But when did Frazier say the action of Fritz threatening to hit him was related to anything about the bag?
Don't ask me questions if you are not going to answer mine!
-
You've been exposed as a liar. The letter that you claimed showed Day had shown a "massive panic" doesn't say anything the remotely indicates anything of the sort. You simply fabricated the part about Day panicking about Frazier's polygraph. Why don't you just admit your deceit and move on.
You've been exposed as a liar.
My original post.
Welcome to the World Of Martin Weidmann, until recently I hadn't had any many major interactions with old Weidy because he got tedious and kept using these bizarre tactics like misinterpretations of the evidence, outright lies, BS personal anecdotes and the wall of insults and now in my short time debating him again, he's pulled all of his old tricks out of the bag. I thought he'd mellow in his old age but if anything he's more angry and belligerent
Whenever he gets really angry he plays the "ego" card and a member here Lance Payette, a lawyer, very quickly discovered Old Weidy was using sock puppet accounts and these sock puppet accounts would use all the same tactics in addition to giving thumbs up emojis to his posts, it became a running joke. Years ago Bill Brown and myself independently exposed Old Weidy using a sock puppet account named "Roger Collins" who would use the exact same sentence structure, same anger issues, same peculiar ideas and the excessive use of supporting each others posts. Over the years Old Weidy introduced many of these accounts and these newbies would immediately have a vile attitude towards Old Weidy's enemy's, but we didn't bother exposing him and just exchanged PM's having a good ole laugh. LOL!
In the very entertaining "Sock Puppet" thread the following exchange highlights Lance exposing a very sad old man.
MW: Oh boy, he's getting angry. I must have hit a nerve. Now, he's getting his wife involved.... Hilarious! No wonder "Mytton" is staying out of this conversation.
I don't care what you have no doubt about. Your ego-driven opinions mean nothing to me.
You are 100% wrong and I am not even going to bother to prove you wrong. That's how insignificant you are.
Hey, "Tom" played the ego card this morning! What a coincidence!
Have you or "Tom" noticed how many of your insults have their roots in psychology? "Split personality," "ego-driven," "paranoia" - I could assemble a list from your posts and "Tom's" - not just directed at me, mind you- that would be quite startling. Should this perhaps suggest something to you? To us?
Ah, and now we have the "I'm not going to bother" card. Please, go ahead and "bother." We're waiting ...
You and DVP, eh? Now there is an odd pairing. Perhaps DVP finds it all humorous, but I find it rather pathetic. You are one bizarre dude, dude.
JohnM
-
My original post.
Welcome to the World Of Martin Weidmann, until recently I hadn't had any many major interactions with old Weidy because he got tedious and kept using these bizarre tactics like misinterpretations of the evidence, outright lies, BS personal anecdotes and the wall of insults and now in my short time debating him again, he's pulled all of his old tricks out of the bag. I thought he'd mellow in his old age but if anything he's more angry and belligerent
Whenever he gets really angry he plays the "ego" card and a member here Lance Payette, a lawyer, very quickly discovered Old Weidy was using sock puppet accounts and these sock puppet accounts would use all the same tactics in addition to giving thumbs up emojis to his posts, it became a running joke. Years ago Bill Brown and myself independently exposed Old Weidy using a sock puppet account named "Roger Collins" who would use the exact same sentence structure, same anger issues, same peculiar ideas and the excessive use of supporting each others posts. Over the years Old Weidy introduced many of these accounts and these newbies would immediately have a vile attitude towards Old Weidy's enemy's, but we didn't bother exposing him and just exchanged PM's having a good ole laugh. LOL!
In the very entertaining "Sock Puppet" thread the following exchange highlights Lance exposing a very sad old man.
JohnM
Just one more post to show how paranoid some LNs are.... and of course more classic projection. But with Mytton that's a given.
-
Just one more post to show how paranoid some LNs are.... and of course more classic projection. But with Mytton that's a given.
;D :D ;D :D ;D :D ;D :D ;D :D ;D :D ;D :D
A sock puppet among us?
https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,4306.0.html
BTW Weidmann, whatever happened to Roger Collins, Tom Sorenson, Otto, Peter Goth and others I couldn't be bothered looking up?
That's right every single one, yes every single one of them just disappeared as soon as you they were accused of being one of your sock puppets, when they were posting they ALL supported ALL your silly conspiracy ideas but after being exposed they just disappeared "POOF" into the ether! Hilarious.
Some examples where a sock puppet demands answers for Weidmann. How pathetic!
Then, when Martin questions you to show proof of your claim, you dance.
Martin's question is quite clear.
JohnM
-
;D :D ;D :D ;D :D ;D :D ;D :D ;D :D ;D :D
A sock puppet among us?
https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,4306.0.html
BTW Weidmann, whatever happened to Roger Collins, Tom Sorenson, Otto, Peter Goth and others I couldn't be bothered looking up?
That's right every single one, yes every single one of them just disappeared as soon as you they were accused of being one of your sock puppets, when they were posting they ALL supported ALL your silly conspiracy ideas but after being exposed they just disappeared "POOF" into the ether! Hilarious.
Some examples where a sock puppet demands answers for Weidmann. How pathetic!
JohnM
This is what happens when you have a pathetic life. You start collecting and storing, for many years, posts written by users on a public forum, in the stupid belief that you can use those posts in the future. What kind of a weirdo does that?
Funny thing is that I never bothered to respond to any of the BS posted by Payette because I understood it wouldn't make a damned bit of difference if I did.
I do recall asking Duncan to check my IP and find out how many accounts were connected to it, but he never did. He did however put Payette in his place when he falsely claimed that another user and I were the same person. So he had to eat humble pie when Duncan told them the two people were in fact two people!
I kinda feel sorry for Mytton. I've been living rent free in his head for years and his obsession with me is getting totally out of control. I think it's best to let him be with his delusions and ignore the BS he writes. Perhaps that way he'll calm down, although I somehow doubt it.
Anyway, for me it's back to the JFK debate, so that little Johnny can desperately try to convince others and fail miserably, because history shows, except for a few crazy LNs nobody cares!
-
My original post.
Welcome to the World Of Martin Weidmann, until recently I hadn't had any many major interactions with old Weidy because he got tedious and kept using these bizarre tactics like misinterpretations of the evidence, outright lies, BS personal anecdotes and the wall of insults and now in my short time debating him again, he's pulled all of his old tricks out of the bag. I thought he'd mellow in his old age but if anything he's more angry and belligerent
Whenever he gets really angry he plays the "ego" card and a member here Lance Payette, a lawyer, very quickly discovered Old Weidy was using sock puppet accounts and these sock puppet accounts would use all the same tactics in addition to giving thumbs up emojis to his posts, it became a running joke. Years ago Bill Brown and myself independently exposed Old Weidy using a sock puppet account named "Roger Collins" who would use the exact same sentence structure, same anger issues, same peculiar ideas and the excessive use of supporting each others posts. Over the years Old Weidy introduced many of these accounts and these newbies would immediately have a vile attitude towards Old Weidy's enemy's, but we didn't bother exposing him and just exchanged PM's having a good ole laugh. LOL!
In the very entertaining "Sock Puppet" thread the following exchange highlights Lance exposing a very sad old man.
JohnM
I've been dealing with JFKA conspiracy crowd for 35 years now and I've just about seen it all. Generally, I don't get POed by them. For example, I find Benjamin Cole to be a bit misguided but he is respectful and seems sincere in his beliefs. I try to respond in kind. The exception is when they resort to outright lying like Weidmann did with his claim that Lt. Day went into panic mode upon learning that Frazier passed his polygraph. I pressed him on supporting that claim several times and he refused to provide a source to back up his claim. Finally, he produced a letter that didn't even remotely suggest Day had reacted anything like what he had claimed. IOW, he completely made up the part about Day going into panic mode. Whenever I catch a conspiracy hobbyist in a bald-faced lie, I have to remind myself to calm down. It's not worth getting upset over it. It's question of mind over matter. If I don't mind, they sure as hell don't matter.
-
My original post.
Welcome to the World Of Martin Weidmann, until recently I hadn't had any many major interactions with old Weidy because he got tedious and kept using these bizarre tactics like misinterpretations of the evidence, outright lies, BS personal anecdotes and the wall of insults and now in my short time debating him again, he's pulled all of his old tricks out of the bag. I thought he'd mellow in his old age but if anything he's more angry and belligerent
Whenever he gets really angry he plays the "ego" card and a member here Lance Payette, a lawyer, very quickly discovered Old Weidy was using sock puppet accounts and these sock puppet accounts would use all the same tactics in addition to giving thumbs up emojis to his posts, it became a running joke. Years ago Bill Brown and myself independently exposed Old Weidy using a sock puppet account named "Roger Collins" who would use the exact same sentence structure, same anger issues, same peculiar ideas and the excessive use of supporting each others posts. Over the years Old Weidy introduced many of these accounts and these newbies would immediately have a vile attitude towards Old Weidy's enemy's, but we didn't bother exposing him and just exchanged PM's having a good ole laugh. LOL!
In the very entertaining "Sock Puppet" thread the following exchange highlights Lance exposing a very sad old man.
JohnM
I'd forgotten about the sock puppet ploy. We had a guy on John McAdams old forum who was famous for that. I think his handle was Bob Harris and he made most of his arguments under that name. He is one of the few CTs who actually accepts the SBT but his pet theory was there was a missed shot fired at Z285 which would have made it impossible for Oswald to have fired that shot and the kill shot. He had several sock puppets but his favorite was some guy purported to be from Sweden or Norway who would post just to cheer Bob on and tell him how brilliant he was. He wasn't fooling anyone, not even his fellow CTs. Tony Marsh would get especially angry at him because he thought Bob was embarrassing the other CTs, as if they needed any help in doing that.
They tell me that Bob would bounce around among forums. He'd stick around until he was either banned or verbally beaten up on one forum and then move on to another to bore them for a while. He was never banned from our group but he would disappear for months at a time and then reappear out of nowhere.
-
This is what happens when you have a pathetic life. You start collection and storing, for many years, posts written by users on a public forum, in the stupid belief that you can use those posts in the future. What kind of a weirdo does that?
Funny thing is that I never bothered to respond to any of the BS posted by Payette because I understood it wouldn't make a damned bit of difference if I did.
I do recall asking Duncan to check my IP and find out how many accounts were connected to it, but he never did. He did however put Payette in his place when he falsely claimed that another user and I were the same person. So he had to eat humble pie when Duncan told them the two people were in fact two people!
I kinda feel sorry for Mytton. I've been living rent free in his head for years and his obsession with me is getting totally out of control. I think it's best to let him be with his delusions and ignore the BS he writes. Perhaps that way he'll calm down, although I somehow doubt it.
Anyway, for me it's back to the JFK debate, so that little Johnny can desperately try to convince others and fail miserably, because history shows, except for a few crazy LNs nobody cares!
Hey, Marty. When you are forced to lie about the evidence, doesn't it make you at least question your beliefs. After all, if the evidence actually shows what you claim it does, why do you have to embellish (a kind word) the evidence to make your points. If I couldn't make an argument without lying about the evidence, I sure as hell would have to question what I believe. Why did you find it necessary to claim Lt. Day went into panic mode over Frazier passing his polygraph. I can't remember if it was you or Michael Capasse who told me Oswald's palm print was on the middle of the bag not the bottom as I had stated. That didn't sound right to me but because I hadn't discussed that aspect for at least five years, I let that claim go unchallenged. Just yesterday, I went back to the WCR and discovered I had been right all along. The palm print was on the bottom of the bag, just where we would expect it to be if the bag contained a weighty object and Oswald carried it cupped in his hand as Frazier had described. Was it you who stated Oswald's palm print was in the middle of the bag? If so, why did you feel the need to lie about it. If it was Capasse, I have to ask. Is he one of your sock puppets?
-
Hey dumb ass... I did indeed have pizza with Buell Frazier last November.
Did you? All we have is your word for it and that's not worth much.
His word is certainly worth more than yours. I could say that about pretty much every other poster I've seen on this forum in the few months I have participated in it.
-
It seems now there are two Johns in whose head I live rent free. Or is it perhaps one... I lose track sometimes.
Gotta love it Thumb1:
-
Funny thing is that I never bothered to respond to any of the BS posted by Payette because I understood it wouldn't make a damned bit of difference if I did.
Are you joking, you made 50 posts in that thread, and you're the reason the thread went for 18 pages, because you desperately tried to clear your name but the more you squirmed the more evidence was piled on, and then to save face you disappeared not long after for months and months. And in your absence there was no CT's with anger issues, fancy that, what a coincidence! Hahaha!
JohnM
-
It seems now there are two Johns in whose head I live rent free. Or is it perhaps one... I lose track sometimes.
Gotta love it Thumb1:
Maybe you haven't figured this out but the only useful purpose you serve here is for comic relief.
-
John McAdams was a die-hard Nutter professor that taught a class on JFK at Marquette University. He is dead.
Bob Harris is a JFK researcher and author that can be seen on You Tube and various websites.
Tom Sorensen is a real person that posts on my website JFK.Boards
I know for a fact Peter Goth was not Martin because I know who that was.
(no, it was not Tom)
I wonder about John Corbett, came out of nowhere in discussions like he's always been here.
I wonder about Vince Baxter, I caught him a couple of times "quoting Mytton" curious he has the same initials as one of his bedtime heroes.
I wonder what happened to "Richard Smith" I guess he was shamed by the Trump thread and his golden boy now tangled up in Operation Epic Failure.
I'm sure there are many more and VPNs make it difficult for Duncan to keep it clean.
-
John McAdams was a die-hard Nutter professor that taught a class on JFK at Marquette University. He is dead.
Bob Harris is a JFK researcher and author that can be seen on You Tube and various websites.
Tom Sorensen is a real person that posts on my website JFK.Boards
I know for a fact Peter Goth was not Martin because I know who that was.
(no, it was not Tom)
I wonder about John Corbett, came out of nowhere in discussions like he's always been here.
I wonder about Vince Baxter, I caught him a couple of times "quoting Mytton" curious he has the same initials as one of his bedtime heroes.
I wonder what happened to "Richard Smith" I guess he was shamed by the Trump thread and his golden boy now tangled up in Operation Epic Failure.
I'm sure there are many more and VPNs make it difficult for Duncan to keep it clean.
And who suddenely appears to rescue Weidmann, Capasse, ya gotta love it!
JohnM
-
And outa nowhere here comes Capasse to rescue Weidmann, ya gotta love it!
JohnM
:D I've been here since 2013
-
:D I've been here since 2013
So what?
JohnM
-
I know for a fact Peter Goth was not Martin because I know who that was.
(no, it was not Tom)
Here's three posts in a row of Peter Goth doing the talking for Weidmann, I've been around and never seen such devotion for another member! And this is only part of the evidence! so you better back off Capasse or this won't go down well for your man! Muhahaha!
(https://i.postimg.cc/05XpxDyc/peter-goth-or-martin-weidmann.jpg)
JohnM
-
Here's three posts in a row of Peter Goth doing the talking for Weidmann, I've been around and never seen such devotion for another member! And this is only part of the evidence! so you better back off Capasse or this won't go down well for your man! Muhahaha!
(https://i.postimg.cc/05XpxDyc/peter-goth-or-martin-weidmann.jpg)
JohnM
Good for you Mytton - Unfortunately doesn't mean a damn thing
Besides as a witness you are not very reliable.
Thumb1: You know, witnesses are so often wrong.
Where does it say those replies are from Goth?
-
Where does it say those replies are from Goth?
;D
https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php?action=profile;u=885;area=showposts;start=63
JohnM
-
;D
https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php?action=profile;u=885;area=showposts;start=63
JohnM
I know it wasn't me. Good job Mytton
Thumb1: Wow. Martin really does live in your head huh?
-
Good job Mytton
No worries, Capasse, thanks! Thumb1:
Johnm
-
Are you joking, you made 50 posts in that thread, and you're the reason the thread went for 18 pages, because you desperately tried to clear your name but the more you squirmed the more evidence was piled on, and then to save face you disappeared not long after for months and months. And in your absence there was no CT's with anger issues, fancy that, what a coincidence! Hahaha!
JohnM
I just remembered a blunder Bob Harris made back on John McAdams forum. He apparently forgot he was signed on as one of his alter egos (sock puppets) and signed the post as Bob Harris at the bottom, completely giving away the ruse. He apparently was so embarrassed he disappeared for many months before returning, hoping we had forgotten his blunder. We hadn't.
-
Bob Harris is a JFK researcher and author that can be seen on You Tube and various websites.
I used to thank Bob for his videos. I found them to be a better alternative than sleeping pills.
I wonder about John Corbett, came out of nowhere in discussions like he's always been here.
I'm relatively new to this forum but I've been sparring with the CTs off and on for 35 years on various forums. I started on the old Prodigy network until they changed from unlimited posting each month to very limited posting before they charged a premium. That killed that group. I posted sporadically on other forums until I found a home on McAdams' moderated group (alt.assassination.jfk) and the companion unmoderated group (alt.conspiracy.jfk). I was a regular there from 2008 until John passed away in 2021.
-
So who found the bag in its alleged position laying folded on the floor of the SN as the reconstruction photo outline indicates?
So who found the jacket alleged to be laying under a car?
So why does a jacket that’s carried by an officer in the photo appear as white as the white car in the background? Was the car light gray also?
So why was CE 163 , the blue gray jacket found in the TSBD Domino room?
So why did Whaley the taxi driver indicate that Oswald was wearing at least one jacket?
So why did McWatters the bus driver say that the man he gave the ticket to was wearing a jacket?
So where on CE 142 or CE 626 (the 2 WC photos of the bag after processed for prints by Latona is the palm print? Please SHOW ME WHERE in those photos ,where the 2 prints found are indicated by some mark or outline?
-
So who found the bag in its alleged position laying folded on the floor of the SN as the reconstruction photo outline indicates?
So who found the jacket alleged to be laying under a car?
So why does a jacket that’s carried by an officer in the photo appear as white as the white car in the background? Was the car light gray also?
So why was CE 163 , the blue gray jacket found in the TSBD Domino room?
So why did Whaley the taxi driver indicate that Oswald was wearing at least one jacket?
So why did McWatters the bus driver say that the man he gave the ticket to was wearing a jacket?
So where on CE 142 or CE 626 (the 2 WC photos of the bag after processed for prints by Latona is the palm print? Please SHOW ME WHERE in those photos ,where the 2 prints found are indicated by some mark or outline?
So why do you focus on such trivial things and ignore the hard evidence that unmistakably screams OSWALD DID IT.
-
John McAdams was a die-hard Nutter professor that taught a class on JFK at Marquette University. He is dead.
Bob Harris is a JFK researcher and author that can be seen on You Tube and various websites.
Tom Sorensen is a real person that posts on my website JFK.Boards
I know for a fact Peter Goth was not Martin because I know who that was.
(no, it was not Tom)
I wonder about John Corbett, came out of nowhere in discussions like he's always been here.
I wonder about Vince Baxter, I caught him a couple of times "quoting Mytton" curious he has the same initials as one of his bedtime heroes.
I wonder what happened to "Richard Smith" I guess he was shamed by the Trump thread and his golden boy now tangled up in Operation Epic Failure.
I'm sure there are many more and VPNs make it difficult for Duncan to keep it clean.
I wonder about Vince Baxter, I caught him a couple of times "quoting Mytton" curious he has the same initials as one of his bedtime heroes.
Guess who graced us with his presence today; Mytton's buddy Vincent Baxter
He hasn't posted since 2019, but today there he was;
https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php?action=profile;u=925
Must be a coincidence, right?
-
So who found the bag in its alleged position laying folded on the floor of the SN as the reconstruction photo outline indicates?
So who found the jacket alleged to be laying under a car?
So why does a jacket that’s carried by an officer in the photo appear as white as the white car in the background? Was the car light gray also?
So why was CE 163 , the blue gray jacket found in the TSBD Domino room?
So why did Whaley the taxi driver indicate that Oswald was wearing at least one jacket?
So why did McWatters the bus driver say that the man he gave the ticket to was wearing a jacket?
So where on CE 142 or CE 626 (the 2 WC photos of the bag after processed for prints by Latona is the palm print? Please SHOW ME WHERE in those photos ,where the 2 prints found are indicated by some mark or outline?
All valid questions which are kryptonite for the die hard LNs.
-
All valid questions which are kryptonite for the die hard LNs.
It might look like kryptonite to you but it is really just Silly Putty.
-
It might look like kryptonite to you but it is really just Silly Putty.
I just wanted to know the names of the persons whom found the bag and the jacket?
And maybe clean up the WC narrative so it is more understandable to some of the other skeptics like Martin, Micheal C , Royell and ME too LOL.
Strange we have 2 lefties and 2 Trumpers whom
Are agreeing that there’s something amiss about the WC theory.
-
I just wanted to know the names of the persons whom found the bag and the jacket?
And maybe clean up the WC narrative so it is more understandable to some of the other skeptics like Martin, Micheal C , Royell and ME too LOL.
Strange we have 2 lefties and 2 Trumpers whom
Are agreeing that there’s something amiss about the WC theory.
LNs are never going to answer a question that could destroy their narrative.
The only person who saw Oswald leaving the rooming house allegedly wearing a jacket is Earlene Roberts. She was wrong about everything else but when it comes to the jacket the LNs believe her without question. I asked Bill Brown what made Roberts so special that she should be believed he refused to answer.
On the other hand, Frazier saw Oswald carry the flimsy paper bag in the cup of his hand and under his armpit and the LNs are falling all over themselves by desperately trying to discredit Frazier in every way they can imagine.
Frazier had 20/20 vision, Roberts didn't, Frazier saw Oswald for a longer period of time, Roberts only saw him a couple of seconds as he left the house.
Frazier took a polygraph and passed, Roberts was described by her employer as somebody who made up stories.
Frazier was able to describe the bag he had seen, Roberts was unable to describe anything accurate about the jacket.
And yet, according to the LNs Frazier is unreliable and mistaken and Roberts is spot on and 100% believable.
In what universe does that even make sense?
-
I just wanted to know the names of the persons whom found the bag and the jacket?
And maybe clean up the WC narrative so it is more understandable to some of the other skeptics like Martin, Micheal C , Royell and ME too LOL.
Strange we have 2 lefties and 2 Trumpers whom
Are agreeing that there’s something amiss about the WC theory.
I have never found a correlation between one's political POV and their POV about the question of conspiracy. There are both LNs and CTs all across the political spectrum. I don't see how one's political leanings should influence whether or not they believe JFK died as a result of a conspiracy. The CTs might be influenced as to who they think the bad guys are but the LNs have no such problem. We know Oswald did it. We see zero compelling evidence that he had any help.
-
LNs are never going to answer a question that could destroy their narrative.
Questions don't destroy narratives. Answers do. All the CTs have ever been able to do is raise questions. They never seem to have any answers. At least no the right ones.
-
Answers do indeed destroy narratives. That's why LNs don't answer critical questions.
In the past 20 years I have met only one LN who had the cojones to agree that certain claims in the WC reports were not supported by evidence and that certain parts of the narrative were extremely problematic. He died a few years ago but I still miss our open and honest discussions. Too bad there are not more LNs like him. Instead I'm dealing with a bunch of lying, dishonest weasels who are desperately trying to defend the indefensible.
-
Answers do indeed destroy narratives. That's why LNs don't answer critical questions.
In the past 20 years I have met only one LN who had the cojones to agree that certain claims in the WC reports were not supported by evidence and that certain parts of the narrative were extremely problematic. He died a few years ago but I still miss our open and honest discussions. Too bad there are not more LNs like him. Instead I'm dealing with a bunch of lying, dishonest weasels who are desperately trying to defend the indefensible.
These LN's are stuck now. All they can do is make stuff up whenever they are forced into the jackpot. I got a card carrying LN now claiming Officer Haygood made 2 separate trips into the railroad yard. I got another claiming Amos Euins was Not loaded into Inspector Sawyer's car until 1:00 PM. Jam 'em up and they immediately rewrite 62+ yr old history on-the-spot. They rely on people Not knowing to begin with or having forgotten over the course of time. Not happening with some of us still ready to get in their grill.
-
These LN's are stuck now. All they can do is make stuff up whenever they are forced into the jackpot. I got a card carrying LN now claiming Officer Haygood made 2 separate trips into the railroad yard. I got another claiming Amos Euins was Not loaded into Inspector Sawyer's car until 1:00 PM. Jam 'em up and they immediately rewrite 62+ yr old history on-the-spot. They rely on people Not knowing to begin with or having forgotten over the course of time. Not happening with some of us still ready to get in their grill.
They rely on people Not knowing to begin with or having forgotten over the course of time.
Royell, in other discussion I don't agree with you, but in this case you are absolutely right.
I have tried to figure out what would cause that level of determination to misrepresent and lie about evidence and make stuff up in a 6 decades old case the general public nowadays hasn't got a clue and doesn't give a damn about. One would think it should be possible to have a normal discussion with those creeps, but for some reason they keep defending an indefensible case.
-
Answers do indeed destroy narratives. That's why LNs don't answer critical questions.
In the past 20 years I have met only one LN who had the cojones to agree that certain claims in the WC reports were not supported by evidence
Such as...
and that certain parts of the narrative were extremely problematic.
Such as...
[quote[
He died a few years ago but I still miss our open and honest discussions. Too bad there are not more LNs like him. Instead I'm dealing with a bunch of lying, dishonest weasels who are desperately trying to defend the indefensible.
[/quote]
Projecting again.
-
I repeat;
One would think it should be possible to have a normal discussion with those creeps, but for some reason they keep defending an indefensible case.
Evidence has just been provided by one of the creeps. Gotta love their ignorance! :D
And here's some more;
This idiot claimed that I had made up evidence out of thin air, so I showed him the evidence by posting two of the reports (there are more!) and schooled him.
He admitted he had been wrong but did not apologize. Instead he started to argue about the word "panicked" I had used while expressing my opinion and this vile creature instantly claimed I had lied, by simply expressing my opinion. And why did he do that? Because the creep disagreed in his opinion with the use of the word "panicked".
Now, just how sick is that?
-
I wonder about Vince Baxter, I caught him a couple of times "quoting Mytton" curious he has the same initials as one of his bedtime heroes.
Guess who graced us with his presence today; Mytton's buddy Vincent Baxter
He hasn't posted since 2019, but today there he was;
https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php?action=profile;u=925
Must be a coincidence, right?
What can I say, you got me, because of my split personality I need to view this site through two different perspectives, hence the reason I regularly log in my alter ego and even though I haven't posted for 7 years as support for my own posts I still have an undeniable need to have his name in the recently logged in members, just to mess with you!
Whereas all your sock puppets who while posting were the most angry fanatical JFKA posters the World has ever seen, but suddenly lost all interest after their sock puppet status was discovered and ALL of them, every single one fell off the face of the Planet, Hmmm, how about that!?
JohnM
-
What can I say, you got me, because of my split personality I need to view this site through two different perspectives, hence the reason I regularly log in my alter ego and even though I haven't posted for 7 years as support for my own posts I still have an undeniable need to have his name in the recently logged in members, just to mess with you!
Whereas all your sock puppets who while posting were the most angry fanatical JFKA posters the World has ever seen, but suddenly lost all interest after their sock puppet status was discovered and ALL of them, every single one fell off the face of the Planet, Hmmm, how about that!?
JohnM
It's amazing that you decided to comment. If Baxter had no relationship with you, there would have been no reason for you to comment. But then, your ego gets in the way, doesn't it. You have to comment if you want to or not. It's compulsory for you.
So, yes, you got caught!
And no, you didn't regularly log in your alter ego (nice of you to admit it is indeed your alter ego), you had him show up after seven years at the exact moment that his name came up in the discussion! I had forgotten about him. But you, as the obsessive savant will carry this crap all your life and take it to your grave and that's just sad.
Whereas all your sock puppets who while posting were the most angry fanatical JFKA posters the World has ever seen, but suddenly lost all interest after their sock puppet status was discovered and ALL of them, every single one fell off the face of the Planet, Hmmm, how about that!?
Thank you for exposing your obsession yet again. Why don't you get it through your thick skull that nobody except you is interested in this crap? It says more about you than about me.
-
And no, you didn't regularly log in your alter ego (nice of you to admit it is indeed your alter ego), you had him show up after seven years at the exact moment that his name came up in the discussion! I had forgotten about him.
Well actually a quick check of Vincent Baxter's posting history shows that he last posted in 2022, so you got that wrong, can't you get anything right!
And talk about obsession, you poor deluded little man, you've made numerous posts mentioning Vincent Baxter and he didn't magically appear, not once, so you got that wrong too. Pathetic!
"John Mytton" is indeed using a fake name, so, yes, it's possible.
Remarkable that you decided to come to his aid, or maybe not since you two have so much in common. :D
Now all we have to do is wait for Vincent Baxter and the party is complete.
BTW where's Tom?
I suspect he's with Vincent Baxter
Obviously I'm not really John Mytton because he died a long time ago, but perhaps I'm Vincent Baxter or even Roger Collins or Otto Beck.... It's all very confusing.
JohnM
-
Well actually a quick check of Vincent Baxter's posting history shows that he last posted in 2022, so you got that wrong, can't you get anything right!
And talk about obsession, you poor deluded little man, you've made numerous posts mentioning Vincent Baxter and he didn't magically appear, not once, so you got that wrong too. Pathetic!
JohnM
Well actually a quick check of Vincent Baxter's posting history shows that he last posted in 2022, so you got that wrong, can't you get anything right!
You are right. He joined in 2019. But then, no surprise that you would know that. You are probably the one person in the world who would that wouldn't it?
It's interesting that you feel the need to get involved when all I said was that it was probably a mere coincidence that Baxter showed up.
And talk about obsession, you poor deluded little man, you've made numerous posts mentioning Vincent Baxter and he didn't magically appear, not once, so you got that wrong too. Pathetic!
Really? I actually can't even remember making numerous posts about Baxter, so I'm kinda wonderin how you, who claims to have nothing to do with Baxter, would know this to begin with.
Let me guess, as part of your obsession, you probably have all old post saved, so perhaps you could show a few of mine dated after Baxter left in 2019.
I would love to see them....
-
Duplicate
-
Duplicate
-
Duplicate
-
Duplicate
-
Well actually a quick check of Vincent Baxter's posting history shows that he last posted in 2022, so you got that wrong, can't you get anything right!
Not according to his profile, but if there one person in the world who would it, it would be you, wouldn't it?
And talk about obsession, you poor deluded little man, you've made numerous posts mentioning Vincent Baxter and he didn't magically appear, not once, so you got that wrong too. Pathetic!
Really? I actually can't even remember making numerous posts about Baxter, so I'm kinda wonderin how you, who claims to have nothing to do with Baxter, would know this to begin with.
Let me guess, as part of your obsession, you probably have all old post saved, so perhaps you could show a few of mine dated after Baxter left in 2019.
I would love to see them....
Well actually a quick check of Vincent Baxter's posting history shows that he last posted in 2022, so you got that wrong, can't you get anything right!
Not according to his profile, but if there one person in the world who would it, it would be you, wouldn't it?
You've never been the sharpest tool in the shed, but you yourself replied to Vincent Baxter in 2022, check you history. Vincent joined in 2019. You are seriously the dumbest person to ever post on this forum!
(https://i.postimg.cc/0jCDQBVL/Martin-Weidmann-reply-to-Baxter-2022.jpg)
Really? I actually can't even remember making numerous posts about Baxter, so I'm kinda wonderin how you, who claims to have nothing to do with Baxter, would know this to begin with.
Let me guess, as part of your obsession, you probably have all old post saved, so perhaps you could show a few of mine dated after Baxter left in 2019.
It literally took me a minute to use the "search" function at the top of the page to locate all the necessary posts that I used to humiliate you. You are not only the dumbest person to ever post on this Forum, you are the Dumbest person to ever live on this planet!
JohnM
-
You've never been the sharpest tool in the shed, but you yourself replied to Vincent Baxter in 2022, check you history. Vincent joined in 2019. You are seriously the dumbest person to ever post on this forum!
(https://i.postimg.cc/0jCDQBVL/Martin-Weidmann-reply-to-Baxter-2022.jpg)
It literally took me a minute to use the "search" function at the top of the page to locate all the necessary posts that I used to humiliate you. You are not only the dumbest person to ever post on this Forum, you are the Dumbest person to ever live on this planet!
JohnM
Do you really think I am just as fanatical as you and remember every post? The mere fact that you produced one within minutes tells us just how obsessed you are with this kind of crap.
Try to get a life.
I agreed that Baxter joined in 2019 and that I didn't check his actual posts. But for an idiot like you that will never be enough.
The fact remains that Baxter showed up exactly on the day his name was mentioned and you are the only one who is trying to explain/justify it. And that is all anybody needs to know.
Oh, btw.... your pathetic childish insults are telling more about you than me. I'm laughing about them and you seem really really angry. Now why is that.... because of Vincent Baxter? HAHAHAHAHAHA
-
Do you really think I am just as fanatical as you and remember every post? The mere fact that you produced one within minutes tells us just how obsessed you are with this kind of crap.
What are you babbling about?
The search function is there so no one has to remember anything.
Since you need even more schooling here's how it works, you enter in the name of the person who made the posts, I.E. you! And then put in the word to be searched by the person who made the posts I.E. Your posts mentioning Vincent Baxter. Which takes all of 30 seconds!
This crazy belief that I have a history of your posts stored in my brain/computer when all I had to do was use the "search" function is just further proof of your deluded narcissism, you're just not that important, and in fact you're just another piece of crap that's stuck under my shoe!
JohnM
-
What are you babbling about?
The search function is there so no one has to remember anything.
Since you need even more schooling here's how it works, you enter in the name of the person who made the posts, I.E. you! And then put in the word to be searched by the person who made the posts I.E. Your posts mentioning Vincent Baxter. Which takes all of 30 seconds!
This crazy belief that I have a history of your posts stored in my brain/computer when all I had to do was use the "search" function is just further proof of your deluded narcissism, you're just not that important, and in fact you're just another piece of crap that's stuck under my shoe!
JohnM
Your desperate attempts to defend yourself only prove what is obvious; Vincent Baxter is your sock puppet and you got caught. Period?
This crazy belief that I have a history of your posts stored in my brain/computer
There is nothing crazy about it. You have my history stored and those of many others. You are paranoid and obsessed. That has been obvious for a very long time.
And regardless of all your denials, I have been living rent free in your head for many years and your biggest problem is that you can't get rid of it. I feel sorry for you!
Btw the question that still needs to be answered is; why are you involved in this at all if you have nothing to do with Vincent Baxter?
-
Your desperate attempts to defend yourself only prove what is obvious; Vincent Baxter is your sock puppet and you got caught. Period?
This crazy belief that I have a history of your posts stored in my brain/computer
There is nothing crazy about it. You have my history stored and those of many others. You are paranoid and obsessed. That has been obvious for a very long time.
Marty continues to project.