Since the tale of the paper bag rests on Buell Frazier's statement that Lee Oswald carried a paper bag on the back seat of the car when he drove them to work on the morning of the murder of President Kennedy. And since the Warren Commission ignored both Frazier and his sister when they testified that the bag they saw Lee Oswald carry was not long enough to have contained the Mannlicher Carcano rifle that was found where it had been carefully hidden beneath boxes of books. The key question becomes ...Was Buell Frazier telling the truth? Can we rely on Frazier's veracity?
Since the tale of the paper bag rests on Buell Frazier's statement that Lee Oswald carried a paper bag on the back seat of the car when he drove them to work on the morning of the murder of President Kennedy. And since the Warren Commission ignored both Frazier and his sister when they testified that the bag they saw Lee Oswald carry was not long enough to have contained the Mannlicher Carcano rifle that was found where it had been carefully hidden beneath boxes of books. The key question becomes ...Was Buell Frazier telling the truth? Can we rely on Frazier's veracity?
Actually, the record shows that Frazier was shown the paper bag from the TSBD while he was being polygraphed in the evening hours of 11/22/63. Frazier not only failed to identify the bag but also added that the bag Oswald had carried was "definitely a thin, flimsy sack like the one purchased in a dime store".
A memo from James Anderton to SAC Dallas, dated 11/29/63, reveals the desperation of Lt. Day after Frazier failed to identify the heavy bag found at the TSBD. Anderton writes;
"Lt. Day states that he and other officers have surmised that Oswald, by dismantling the rifle, could have placed it in the thick brown sack folder over, and then placed the entire package in the flimsy paper sack"
The obvious question is why Day was so desperate to explain the discrepancy between the heavy bag allegedly found on the 6th floor of the TSBD and the flimsy bag Frazier had seen that he would come up with this theory. Even more so, if he really had found Oswald's prints on the heavy bag and the MC rifle......
The bag that Buell Wesley Frazier and Linnie May Randle saw the bag Oswald had is a classic example of, when life hands you a lemon, make lemonade.
Buell and Linnie saw Oswald carrying a long bag to work on the morning of November 22. That is bad. This only makes Oswald look guilty. Why is he carrying a long package into work on that day, of all days?
But, the solution is the focus on some minutiae. Both witnesses remember the bag being a bit too short. If taken as the absolute truth, it means Oswald did not bring his rifle in to work that day.
But can we take this as the absolute truth? Couldn?t the witnesses have been off on the exact length of the bag. Particularly since neither had any reason at the time to carefully note the exact length of the bag?
Also, CTers ignore that both witnesses had reasons for underestimating the length of the bag. Buell was accused of being an accessory to a murder. Because he had driver the accused assassin and his rifle to the plaza. Neither Buell nor Linnie, his sister, wanted this to happen. So naturally, they both have an incentive to underestimate the length of the bag. If the bag is too short to hold the rifle, then Buell cannot be charged.
So, this argument by CTers ignores three points.
1. The witnesses could be off a bit on the exact length of the bag.
2. Both witnesses have an incentive to underestimate the length of the bag.
3. CTers see no need to explain what Oswald was carrying in his long bag, if not his rifle.
The bag that Buell Wesley Frazier and Linnie May Randle saw the bag Oswald had is a classic example of, when life hands you a lemon, make lemonade.
Buell and Linnie saw Oswald carrying a long bag to work on the morning of November 22. That is bad. This only makes Oswald look guilty. Why is he carrying a long package into work on that day, of all days?
But, the solution is the focus on some minutiae. Both witnesses remember the bag being a bit too short. If taken as the absolute truth, it means Oswald did not bring his rifle in to work that day.
But can we take this as the absolute truth? Couldn?t the witnesses have been off on the exact length of the bag. Particularly since neither had any reason at the time to carefully note the exact length of the bag?
Also, CTers ignore that both witnesses had reasons for underestimating the length of the bag. Buell was accused of being an accessory to a murder. Because he had driver the accused assassin and his rifle to the plaza. Neither Buell nor Linnie, his sister, wanted this to happen. So naturally, they both have an incentive to underestimate the length of the bag. If the bag is too short to hold the rifle, then Buell cannot be charged.
So, this argument by CTers ignores three points.
1. The witnesses could be off a bit on the exact length of the bag.
2. Both witnesses have an incentive to underestimate the length of the bag.
3. CTers see no need to explain what Oswald was carrying in his long bag, if not his rifle.
3. CTers see no need to explain what Oswald was carrying in his long bag, if not his rifle.
Since the tale of the paper bag rests on Buell Frazier's statement that Lee Oswald carried a paper bag on the back seat of the car when he drove them to work on the morning of the murder of President Kennedy. And since the Warren Commission ignored both Frazier and his sister when they testified that the bag they saw Lee Oswald carry was not long enough to have contained the Mannlicher Carcano rifle that was found where it had been carefully hidden beneath boxes of books. The key question becomes ...Was Buell Frazier telling the truth? Can we rely on Frazier's veracity?
In the book The Day Kennedy Was Shot ( page 432) the author Bishop says that DPD detective Gus Rose had been informed by Linnie Mae Randall that Lee Oswald was carrying a paper sack that contained curtain rods ...
Quote.."A woman neighbor of the Oswalds has said that her brother had driven Oswald to work with curtain rods." unquote This is completely at odds with the official tale in which Buell Frazier is credited with presenting the curtain rod tale at the police station on the night of the murder.
The question is: Who first mentioned the curtain rods ?? IMO It was the Dallas police who told Frazier that Lee claimed that the paper sack contained curtain rods, when in reality Lee Oswald had said nothing of the kind ( just as he denied)
The cops were desperate to present a method by which Lee could have smuggled the Carcano into the TSBD. They needed Frazier to confirm that Lee Oswald had carried a long paper sack that morning. Thus they told Frazier that Lee has admitted that he had carried a long paper sack that contained curtain rods. The police had already tried to implicate Frazier by saying they could charge him as an accessory because he had transported the murder weapon in his car that morning......So when they told Frazier that Lee Oswald had said that the sack contained curtain rods Frazier jumped at the opportunity to clear himself of the charge of being an accessory and said that yes It was true that lee had told him that there were curtain rods in the sack. The wily cops cemented the curtain rod story for all time when they said that Frazier was telling the truth about the curtain rod story because he had passed a lie detector test in which he was questioned about the curtain rods..... In reality any results of a "lie detector" test would have been completely worthless
under the conditions in which it was administered.
So when they told Frazier that Lee Oswald had said that the sack contained curtain rods Frazier jumped at the opportunity to clear himself of the charge of being an accessory and said that yes It was true that lee had told him that there were curtain rods in the sack.
You are (perhaps on purpose) ignoring two crucial pieces of information;
1. Frazier was shown the TSBD bag on Friday evening (at around 11.30 pm). This was the first time Frazier was asked about the bag and he would IMO have no way of knowing anything about it's later significance. This was also before the bag was ruined with silver nitrate (by Latona) and thus still had it's original color. So, while he was being polygraphed, Frazier instantly dismissed the bag shown to him as the one he saw Oswald carry.
Are you claiming that Frazier, while being polygraphed, purposely lied about the size of a bag which more than likely was insignificant to him at that time?
2. Frazier told the DPD officers that same night that the bag he had seen Oswald carry was "definitely a thin, flimsy sack like the one purchased in a dime store".
You can believe and argue all you want that Frazier and Randle underestimated the size of the bag, but how do you explain the points I have raised?
Simply by ignoring them, perhaps?
Are you claiming that Frazier, while being polygraphed, purposely lied about the size of a bag which more than likely was insignificant to him at that time?
You are (perhaps on purpose) ignoring two crucial pieces of information;
1. Frazier was shown the TSBD bag on Friday evening (at around 11.30 pm). This was the first time Frazier was asked about the bag and he would IMO have no way of knowing anything about it's later significance. This was also before the bag was ruined with silver nitrate (by Latona) and thus still had it's original color. So, while he was being polygraphed, Frazier instantly dismissed the bag shown to him as the one he saw Oswald carry.
Are you claiming that Frazier, while being polygraphed, purposely lied about the size of a bag which more than likely was insignificant to him at that time?
2. Frazier told the DPD officers that same night that the bag he had seen Oswald carry was "definitely a thin, flimsy sack like the one purchased in a dime store".
You can believe and argue all you want that Frazier and Randle underestimated the size of the bag, but how do you explain the points I have raised?
Simply by ignoring them, perhaps?
Didn't they attach cables from a car battery to his testicles so he would say that the bag was only 2 feet long? You know, those dirty tactics that cops use.
That answers my question, I guess.... you deal with the facts by ignoring them!
You wish.
Frazier that being threatened with being charged with being an accessory to the murder. By transporting the assassin and the rifle contained within a bag. This went on for many hours and was still going on at 11:30 pm.
Given this pressure, it is natural that Frazier would:
1. State the bag he saw with Oswald was too short to hold the rifle.
2. State that the bag he saw with Oswald bag was too flimsy to hold the rifle.
3. State that the bag presented to him, which was long enough and not too flimsy, was not the bag he saw Oswald with.
Given the pressure put on Frazier to confess, would it not be natural for Frazier to convince himself of this? If any of claims 1, 2 or 3 are true, the charges of the state against Frazier collapses.
Your airily claim that Frazier would not have known about the significance of the bag at 11:30 pm is false. He had already been questioned about it for hours and strongly urged to sign a written confession. Of course, he knew the significance of the bag presented to him at 11:30 pm.
His sister initially said it was about 3 feet by 6 inches. Then it shrunk.
You don't know this for a fact.
It was Bookhout who wrote that in an internal FBI report, which Linny Mae never read or signed.
Well it's unlikely she chose to reveal she had seen Oswald carrying a lunch sack that morning.
She lied to protect her brother. Then she lied for the rest of her life to protect her integrity.
Call it biased opinion. Call it logic. Whatever. Makes no odds anyway. Unless one chooses to believe Oswald didn't take a rifle into the TSBD.
Oh but it makes odds. This is some logic for you;
Without the paper bag being big enough you have no way to demonstrate that Oswald ever took a rifle into the TSBD.
So I guess you just choose to believe that Oswald brought the rifle into the TSBD regardless of the fact that there isn't a shred of evidence for it...
They're not allowed to believe otherwise, Martin. Haven't you figured them out yet?
Oh but it makes odds. This is some logic for you;
Without the paper bag being big enough you have no way to demonstrate that Oswald ever took a rifle into the TSBD.
So I guess you just choose to believe that Oswald brought the rifle into the TSBD regardless of the fact that there isn't a shred of evidence for it...
I don't need to prove anything. He took it in and he used it. Proving it in a court of law isn't something I need to concern myself with.
OJ Simpson butchered two people. The prosecution didn't do enough to convince the jury but the defence did enough to introduce reasonable doubt in their minds. He still did it though, or at the very least he can be placed at the scene of the crime during or after the crime. Was anyone else involved? Who knows. LAPD didn't seem to consider that so we'll probably never know.
Oswald shot Kennedy and Tippit. Was anyone else involved? Who knows. If there ever was any evidence of that it was destroyed years ago but anyone still claiming Oswald was a Patsy after all these years has a screw loose or they are just misinformed.
....Making such a claim without being able to back it up with even a shred of evidence...
So, without any evidence for it, you are basically accusing Frazier of purposely outright lying about the size and nature of the bag....
That's a far cry from saying that Frazier wasn't paying attention and was simply mistaken.... but if that's the way you want to go....
Btw, for what it's worth, Lt Day clearly believed him, because on 11/29/63 Day was still developing his flawed theory that Oswald could have used the flimsy bag to conceal the heavy bag in which he carried the rifle....
So, Frazier convinced himself that his lies are actually true, thus beating the polygraph.... Is that what you are saying?
The first question to be answered of course is; when exactly did Frazier give and sign the affidavit? Was it prior to him being polygraphed or after it?
Since when is it police procedure to let a potential suspect first give an affidavit and only then, maybe for the fun of it, apply pressure on him by having him polygraphed?
Secondly, the affidavit clearly shows that Frazier must have been questioned about the events of the day, including the bag, by then, but there is nothing in the affidavit that would suggest that he was made aware why the police was so interested in that bag. It's not normal procedure for police to volunteer information to potential suspects, is it?
Really? And you know this how? You wouldn't just be giving us your biased opinion, would you?
And what about Buell Frazier.... he still stands by his first day testimony to this day. Is he lying also?
I do not know if Mr. Frazier was lying about the bag. I see no reason to believe he was lying. More likely, he was honestly mistaken. The threats the police made to him, of charging him with being an accessory to a murder, very likely would influence him into believing that the bag he saw Oswald with could not have contained the rifle. If this is true, Frazier is in the clear and it would be natural for him to fall into this belief.
A theory that pretty well falls apart with the failure to find the ?outer? bag. Did Oswald eat the outer bag?
Under the best of conditions, the polygraph is not the most reliable way of telling the truth. Courts have found it to be not reliable. Hence, the results of polygraph tests are not allowed in court cases in most states in the country. While fingerprint evidence, which has with proven much more reliable, are allowed in all 50 states.
But if a polygraph test is reliable, it would be on questions the subject knows the answer to. ?Did you murder your wife?. ?Did you steal that man?s wallet?.
In Frazier?s case, his fears and hopes may very well of convinced him that the bag he saw was too short to hold a rifle, too flimsy to hold that rifle and that the bag the police was showing him was not the bag he saw Oswald with earlier in the day. It?s possible Frazier was lying. But it?s also possible he was being honest and thought he was telling the truth. If this is true, naturally we might expect him to pass a polygraph test that the bag he saw earlier was not the same bag the police showed him.
If a subject believes a falsehood, and he is questioned while being polygraphed about this falsehood, naturally the polygraph test will indicate that this statement is true. If a Scientific Creationist is questioned whether Theory of Evolution is true or not, the polygraph test will indicate that it is false. If a Holocaust Denier is question whether Holocaust really occurred or not, the polygraph test will indicate that it did not. Hence, we cannot conclude that the bag Oswald was carrying could not have contained a rifle because of a polygraph test.
In conclusion, I don?t know if Frazier was lying about the bag. I see no reason to believe he was lying, even if the bag presented to him was the same one he saw Oswald carrying. I see no reason not to give Mr. Frazier the benefit of the doubt. I believe that Mr. Frazier was probably honestly mistaken. His mistakes likely originated with the threats the police made to him.
I don?t know what police procedures were back then. I imagine it varied from office to office. Some police might use a polygraph test. Others might not. Let alone a standard procedure on the order affidavits are signed and polygraph tests are given. If they get a confession after the polygraph test, they can always have the subject sign a different affidavit.
I don't need to prove anything. He took it in and he used it.
Really?
Proving it in a court of law isn't something I need to concern myself with.
It is of course far easier to just make unsubstantiated claims based on bias....
OJ Simpson butchered two people. The prosecution didn't do enough to convince the jury but the defence did enough to introduce reasonable doubt in their minds. He still did it though, or at the very least he can be placed at the scene of the crime during or after the crime. Was anyone else involved? Who knows. LAPD didn't seem to consider that so we'll probably never know.
I agree with you. I too think he was guilty but I nevertheless agreed with the verdict of the jury because the prosecution failed to make it's case beyond a reasonable doubt.
The problem for you is that the Simpson case has nothing to do with the JFK murder, except of course for the comparison that the WC also failed to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt.
Oswald shot Kennedy and Tippit.
There is the biased opinion again.... Making such a claim without being able to back it up with even a shred of evidence makes you completely insignificant for this forum.
That's a highly convoluted, speculative, far reaching and self-serving assumption to make. I don't believe it for a second that Frazier convinced himself in only a few hours time that he saw something different from what he actually saw and thus in doing so fooled the polygraph. A far more logical and honest conclusion would be that he simply told the truth..... but I can understand why that would be a problem for you.
I am not being highly speculative.
The evidence is clear that Oswald brought his rifle into work that day.
1. He got a ride to the Paine?s house on a Thursday night. He had never done that before. He always got a ride on a Friday night, so he can visit with his wife and children the whole weekend. Why come home on a Thursday night when he can only stay overnight? CTers don?t even try to answer that one.
2. He was seen by two witnesses bringing to work a long paper bag that seemed to contain something. CTers don?t even try to answer what could have been in that bag.
3. Oswald denied to the police bringing in a long bag with him at all that day.
The simple, straight forward, Occam?s Razor?s answer is, that Oswald was smuggling in his rifle.
Counter argument arguments require a lot of people lying, a Large-Secret-Enduring Conspiracy. Something that skeptics don?t believe in.
Your beliefs are highly speculative. And require a lot of unreasonable assumptions.
The police were lying when they said Oswald claimed he did not bring in a long package that day. The police made the package that could have contained a rifle and snuck the original out of the building.
Perhaps Mr. Frazier and Mrs. Randle were lying when they told the police that Oswald carried a long package into work that day. If so, the police repaid them in a funny way, threating Mr. Frazier with a charge of being an accessory to the murder. Getting his sister, Mrs. Randle, all upset.
Maybe the police are lying about Mr. Frazier and Mrs. Randle saying they saw Oswald with a long package. Maybe they both lied for the rest of their lives for fear of this Large-Secret-Enduring Conspiracy.
Maybe Mr. Frazier and the others are lying when they claim that Oswald never came to the Paine?s home on a Thursday night before. Or maybe they are all lying about him coming home that Thursday night at all.
The testimony of Mr. Frazier and Mrs. Randle ?proves? the bag could not have contained the rifle. Never mind the photographs of the police carrying a bag long enough to contain the rifle out of the building. They could have made that bag or tampered with the photographs and films since the news media was in on the conspiracy too.
The bottom line is not that I am being very speculative. I am following simple logical reasoning, coming to the most probable conclusion.
The only apart I am being speculative about, is assuming that Mr. Frazier and Mrs. Randle were honestly mistaken, influenced by their fears of what might happen to Mr. Frazier. Perhaps they were lying. But I see no reason to not give them the benefit of the doubt.
The evidence shows that Oswald did smuggle a rifle into work that day. Or pretended to. So that means that the details of the testimony that Mr. Frazier and Mrs. Randle gave testimony to are false. But there are insufficient reasons to conclude that either was lying.
If Buell Frazier was going to lie about the bag's existence, wouldn't he at least state that the bag was long enough to contain the rifle? Why introduce a bag into the folklore but state that it was not long enough?
Silly conspirators.
That's a great question. CTers deal in multiple and often mutually exclusive realities. One in which Frazier's estimate of the bag must be 100% accurate and others in which he is an outright liar trying to frame Oswald for some unspecified reason. It seems pretty obvious from the totality of facts what happened. Oswald carried a long bag that morning. Frazier honestly but ERRONEOUSLY estimated its length. We know he was incorrect on its length because the actual bag was found and measured. It had Oswald's prints on it, was found next to the SN (also with Oswald's prints and fired bullet casings from his rifle), the bag had no apparent work related purpose for being there, was never explained or claimed by anyone else who worked in the TSBD, and no bag matching Frazier's size estimate was ever found. If there were any doubt, Oswald himself denied carrying any bag the length estimated by Frazier. In effect, CTers are claiming Oswald is lying about the bag. This would be inexplicable if it contained some innocuous item like curtain rods. Oswald only has cause to deny carrying such a bag if it is in his self-interest to do so because it contained the rifle. This is all so simple and obvious to any person with a functioning brain that it humorous to see the lengths CTers will go to spin a contrarian fable.
One in which Frazier's estimate of the bag must be 100% accurate and others in which he is an outright liar trying to frame Oswald for some unspecified reason.
Why are you jumping in with mindless comments without actually having read the thread?
Had you read the thread, you would have known that we are not talking about size estimates at all. And the only one who so far implied that Frazier (and Randle) could have been lying is Joe Elliott.
So all your hand waving is completely beside the point. It only reveals your inability to think beyond the borders of your own faith driven bias.
Several CTers including the original OP in this thread have implied or questioned whether Frazier was lying about the bag (Walt: "The key question becomes ...Was Buell Frazier telling the truth? Can we rely on Frazier's veracity?"). So you might pay more attention before lecturing others on the topic under discussion and embarrassing yourself. If you are conceding the absurdity of that position, then congratulations. It is a rare, perhaps singular example that you have a functional brain. But don't blame me for the claims of your nutty kindred CTers. Also this may highlight an important distinction. I believe Frazier was telling the truth to the best of his ability about the bag. He honestly but erroneously thought that the bag was shorter than it was. He was wrong but not lying. CTers seem to believe that witnesses must either be absolutely correct in their testimony or intentionally lying. There is no room for honest but incorrect statements.
Several CTers including the original OP in this thread have implied or questioned whether Frazier was lying about the bag (Walt: "The key question becomes ...Was Buell Frazier telling the truth? Can we rely on Frazier's veracity?"). So you might pay more attention before lecturing others on the topic under discussion and embarrassing yourself.
Had you read the entire thread you would have known that the question Walt asked in the opening post was not the topic of discussion in the remainder of the thread.
Also this may highlight an important distinction. I believe Frazier was telling the truth to the best of his ability about the bag. He honestly but erroneously thought that the bag was shorter than it was. He was wrong but not lying.
Ah.. the classic LN default position.... Frazier and Randle were simply mistaken about the size of the bag....
But what of the fact that Frazier was being polygraphed when he was shown the TSBD bag In it's original state) for the first time. The polygraph didn't register a lie, because we would have heard about if it did. Yet Frazier instantly dismissed the TSBD bag as the one he had seen Oswald carry that same morning. And not only that, but (according to James Anderson's memo to SAC Dallas) he also described Oswald's bag as "definitely a thin, flimsy sack like the one purchased in a dime store"..... and guess what Lt Day believed him!
None of this has anything to do whatsoever with size estimates... so how do you explain that, Richard?
If Buell Frazier was going to lie about the bag's existence, wouldn't he at least state that the bag was long enough to contain the rifle? Why introduce a bag into the folklore but state that it was not long enough?
Silly conspirators.
Several CTers including the original OP in this thread have implied or questioned whether Frazier was lying about the bag (Walt: "The key question becomes ...Was Buell Frazier telling the truth? Can we rely on Frazier's veracity?"). So you might pay more attention before lecturing others on the topic under discussion and embarrassing yourself.
Had you read the entire thread you would have known that the question Walt asked in the opening post was not the topic of discussion in the remainder of the thread.
Also this may highlight an important distinction. I believe Frazier was telling the truth to the best of his ability about the bag. He honestly but erroneously thought that the bag was shorter than it was. He was wrong but not lying.
Ah.. the classic LN default position.... Frazier and Randle were simply mistaken about the size of the bag....
But what of the fact that Frazier was being polygraphed when he was shown the TSBD bag In it's original state) for the first time. The polygraph didn't register a lie, because we would have heard about if it did. Yet Frazier instantly dismissed the TSBD bag as the one he had seen Oswald carry that same morning. And not only that, but (according to James Anderson's memo to SAC Dallas) he also described Oswald's bag as "definitely a thin, flimsy sack like the one purchased in a dime store"..... and guess what Lt Day believed him!
None of this has anything to do whatsoever with size estimates... so how do you explain that, Richard?
The totality of evidence confirms that Frazier described the bag to the best of his ability but got it wrong. What is so difficult to understand about that? The bag was found. We therefore know exactly how long it was without estimates or speculation. You appear to suggest that it was somehow impossible for Frazier to get it wrong but imagine the counter narrative that you are implying in accepting that premise. You have a planted bag, Oswald denying for some inexplicable reason carrying a bag the size estimated by Frazier, the complete disappearance of the two foot long bag, the bizarre notion that the conspirators forgot to plant the bag found, the coincidence of Oswald making an unexpected trip to the Paine home on Thursday and then carrying a long bag to work on Friday (how did the fantasy conspirators depend upon that?), somehow getting Oswald's prints on the bag. It's very clear what happened from the facts and evidence. No serious historian disputes that the bag found on the 6th floor was used by Oswald to carry the rifle. Only in fantasy-land does this type of discussion happen. But if you disagree, please send your evidence of a conspiracy to the NY Times and ask for their opinion. Let us know how that works out.
So, you can not answer my questions.... I figured as much!
The totality of evidence confirms that Frazier described the bag to the best of his ability but got it wrong.
No.. The totality of the available evidence is partly based on the assumption that Oswald brought a rifle into the TSBD. Without that a large part of the case would instantly collapse. And so Frazier and Randle had to be "mistaken" as a matter of necessity.
Have you ever wondered why Frazier is today still saying the same thing as he was saying on day 1? He has nothing to gain or lose by saying that he could have been mistaken, but he never did. He always maintained that he did not see Oswald carry the bag that is now in evidence! The reason for that IMO is that he knows beyond any doubt that he is right!
The bag was found. We therefore know exactly how long it was without estimates or speculation.
No... A bag was found.... and as far as estimates go, you seem to have a reading problem because nobody is talking about that, except you of course.
You appear to suggest that it was somehow impossible for Frazier to get it wrong but imagine the counter narrative that you are implying in accepting that premise. You have a planted bag, Oswald denying for some inexplicable reason carrying a bag the size estimated by Frazier, the complete disappearance of the two foot long bag, the bizarre notion that the conspirators forgot to plant the bag found, the coincidence of Oswald making an unexpected trip to the Paine home on Thursday and then carrying a long bag to work on Friday (how did the fantasy conspirators depend upon that?), somehow getting Oswald's prints on the bag.
More hand waving! I don't suggest anything of the kind. That's just you looking for an argument you think you can crush with pathetic rhetoric.
I am saying that the record shows that Frazier was being polygraphed when he was shown the TSBD bag and he instantly denied that it was the bag he had seen Oswald carry. The polygraph did not prove him wrong! Frazier also told investigators, that the bag he had seen Oswald carry in the morning of the same day was "definitely a thin, flimsy sack like the one purchased in a dime store".
You seem to be unable or unwilling to deal with these facts... Why is that?
No serious historian disputes that the bag found on the 6th floor was used by Oswald to carry the rifle.
Pathetic argument to make. ... Let me guess; any historian who disagrees with you is not serious, right?
Only in fantasy-land does this type of discussion happen.
As you are taking part in the discussion, do you like being in fantasy-land by choice?
Painful. Doesn't it bother you that no bag matching Frazier's size estimate was ever found or accounted for in any way? And that your hero Oswald himself denied carrying such a bag? That's a rhetorical question since I know the answer. Why would a polygraph matter if Frazier was honestly answering the question but got it wrong? LOL Good grief. You can't possibly be that dense. I was trying to have some mercy on you but you are too stupid to understand. Frazier was being honest but got it wrong. He did not lie. Whew. This goes back to the CTer inability to distinguish a lie from an honest mistake. Very humorous. Of course if the polygraph had suggested that Frazier was lying then you would be lecturing us on how they are unreliable. Like handwriting analysis or any evidence that links Oswald to this crime.
The bag that Buell Wesley Frazier and Linnie May Randle saw the bag Oswald had is a classic example of, when life hands you a lemon, make lemonade.
Buell and Linnie saw Oswald carrying a long bag to work on the morning of November 22. That is bad. This only makes Oswald look guilty. Why is he carrying a long package into work on that day, of all days?
But, the solution is the focus on some minutiae. Both witnesses remember the bag being a bit too short. If taken as the absolute truth, it means Oswald did not bring his rifle in to work that day.
But can we take this as the absolute truth? Couldn?t the witnesses have been off on the exact length of the bag. Particularly since neither had any reason at the time to carefully note the exact length of the bag?
Also, CTers ignore that both witnesses had reasons for underestimating the length of the bag. Buell was accused of being an accessory to a murder. Because he had driver the accused assassin and his rifle to the plaza. Neither Buell nor Linnie, his sister, wanted this to happen. So naturally, they both have an incentive to underestimate the length of the bag. If the bag is too short to hold the rifle, then Buell cannot be charged.
So, this argument by CTers ignores three points.
1. The witnesses could be off a bit on the exact length of the bag.
2. Both witnesses have an incentive to underestimate the length of the bag.
3. CTers see no need to explain what Oswald was carrying in his long bag, if not his rifle.
I mentioned this before but it looks like a case of people ignoring it or they didn't see it.
Harold Weisburg, who is held in high esteem in the CT community, gave this presentation below on the Church Committee.
At around the 1 hour and 20 second mark Weisburg makes a statement that the reason that the DPD gave Frazier a polygraph
test was to see if Frazier was, as Weisburg puts it, laying Marina Oswald. Weisburg goes on to state that Frazier said yes and
the polygraph proved him as telling the truth. Any comments?
Which rifle was in the bag though? The 7.62 Mauser several police officers saw or the MC held up barehanded for the cameras?
Doesn't it bother you that no bag matching Frazier's size estimate was ever found or accounted for in any way?
No... because there is no record of anybody ever looking for such a bag or that Oswald was even asked where he left the bag he had brought his lunch in. And absence of evidence is no evidence of absence! All there is, is a comment by R.D. Lewis, who took Frazier's polygraph, that Oswald could simply have thrown away such a flimsy bag and he was right.
Doesn't it bother you that Fritz told Detective Montgomery to guard the sniper's nest until the Crime Scene officers (Day and Studebaker) arrived, yet when these men got there the bag was not in the position it allegedly was found in? It was never photographed in situ and according to Montgomery the paper bag was actually sitting on a box in folded up condition?
And that your hero Oswald himself denied carrying such a bag?
Oswald is not my hero, so cut the pathetic dramatics. And we don't know what Oswald really said, do we now?
Why would a polygraph matter if Frazier was honestly answering the question but got it wrong?
What did Frazier get wrong? That the heavy bag shown to him was not the "thin, flimsy sack like the one purchased in a dime store" he had seen Oswald carry?
Good grief. You can't possibly be that dense. I was trying to have some mercy on you but you are too stupid to understand.Frazier was being honest but got it wrong. He did not lie. Whew. This goes back to the CTer inability to distinguish a lie from an honest mistake. Very humorous. Of course if the polygraph had suggested that Frazier was lying then you would be lecturing us on how they are unreliable. Like handwriting analysis or any evidence that links Oswald to this crime.
.
Ah... here come the usual insults and more hand waving.... Always a sign of weakness!
What exactly did Frazier get wrong?
Frazier saw Oswald carry a thin, flimsy dime store bag and when he was shown a heavy bag made from wrapping materials he denied that this was Oswald's bag.
Can you imagine how this would play out in a court with Frazier on the stand as a witness?
Prosecutor: Mr. Frazier I show you a paper bag found at the TSBD. Do you recognize this bag?
Frazier: No, I had never seen it before until DPD officers showed it to me on 11/22/63
Prosecutor: Are you absolutely sure you have never seen this bag before?
Frazier: Yes
Prosecutor: Let me ask you in a different way; Did you see Lee Harvey Oswald carry this bag at any time?
Frazier: No
Prosecutor: How can you be so sure?
Frazier: Well, for one, this bag is too large to be the bag I saw Oswald carry. His bag was much smaller. It was so small that he could carry it in the palm of his hand and tucked under his armpit. But that's not all. The bag I saw Oswald carry was definitely a thin, flimsy sack like the one purchased in a dime store. The bag you show me is made of heavy duty wrapping paper. There is no way this is the bag I saw Oswald carry....
Prosecutor: No further questions....
Ugh. So many wasted words. You have suggested that Frazier must be correct in his estimate of the bag's length citing the polygraph that he did not indicate lie. As though the polygraph is the hand of God determining the truth. This is simple. Pay attention for once. If Frazier truly believed the bag he was shown was not the bag, then the polygraph would indicate he was not lying EVEN if he was wrong. It determines - when accurate - whether a person is lying not whether what they are saying is accurate. Thus, if Frazier believed it, then it would not register as a "lie" in the polygraph even if he was wrong. A person can testify honestly but erroneously. So if you believe that little green men are visiting you and take a polygraph test to that effect it will show that you are not lying. That does not mean that little green mean are visiting you though. Can you comprehend that obvious distinction? I have never disputed that Frazier believed it was a shorter bag. That is his testimony. But the totality of evidence proves he is wrong.
Frazier that being threatened with being charged with being an accessory to the murder. By transporting the assassin and the rifle contained within a bag. This went on for many hours and was still going on at 11:30 pm.
Given this pressure, it is natural that Frazier would:
1. State the bag he saw with Oswald was too short to hold the rifle.
I don't need to prove anything. He took it in and he used it.
We know he was incorrect on its length because the actual bag was found and measured.
If he was worried about being pegged as an accomplice, why would he mention the bag at all?
Well duh, if somebody else saw Oswald carrying an excessively large bag and Buell failed to mention the obviously excessive large bag then even Frazier would realize that would be suspicious.
Like his sister for example.
3 feet by 6 inches.
FBI Report, 11/23/63
by Special Agent James Bookhout
"RANDLE stated that about 7:15 a.m., November 22, 1963, she looked out of a window of her residence and observed LEE HARVEY OSWALD walking up her driveway and saw him put a long brown package, approximately 3 feet by 6 inches, in the back seat area of WESLEY FRAZIER's 1954 black Chevrolet four door automobile."
Can anyone provide any sort of proof that Bookhout lied about what Randle told him?
"Can anyone provide any sort of proof that Bookhout lied about what Randle told him?"
(http://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/rifle2713.jpg)
(http://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/rifle27.jpg)
This relies on the assumption (with absolutely no evidence whatsoever to support it) that the bag allegedly found near the 6th floor SE window was the same bag that Frazier and Randle saw.
FBI Report, 11/23/63
by Special Agent James Bookhout
"RANDLE stated that about 7:15 a.m., November 22, 1963, she looked out of a window of her residence and observed LEE HARVEY OSWALD walking up her driveway and saw him put a long brown package, approximately 3 feet by 6 inches, in the back seat area of WESLEY FRAZIER's 1954 black Chevrolet four door automobile."
Can anyone provide any sort of proof that Bookhout lied about what Randle told him?
Again with wildly overstating your nutty claims - "no evidence whatsover"! LOL Well, except for Oswald's prints being found on that bag. The location of the bag next to bullet casings fired from his rifle. No accounting for this bag except as the bag Oswald carried the rifle in that morning. No other bag matching the size estimate of Frazier ever being found or accounted for in any way. And Oswald himself denying he carried any bag as described by Frazier. It's amusing that you dismiss all evidence against Oswald as the product of "assumptions" which implies outlandish baseless counter-possibilities like this bag being planted and all the implications that entails none of which are supported by any evidence at all. Very humorous.
"Can anyone provide any sort of proof that Bookhout lied about what Randle told him?"
(http://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/rifle2713.jpg)
(http://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/rifle27.jpg)
Can anyone provide any sort of proof that Bookhout lied about what Randle told him?
Again with wildly overstating your nutty claims - "no evidence whatsover"! LOL Well, except for Oswald's prints being found on that bag.
The location of the bag next to bullet casings fired from his rifle.
No accounting for this bag except as the bag Oswald carried the rifle in that morning.
No other bag matching the size estimate of Frazier ever being found or accounted for in any way.
And Oswald himself denying he carried any bag as described by Frazier.
It's amusing that you dismiss all evidence against Oswald as the product of "assumptions"
Recently a poster mentioned a book entitled The Assassination Tapes by George O'Toole ....I had read that book several years ago but after i was reminded of the book I read it again. The book is based on subjecting taped conversation to a machine that can detect when a speaker voice is stressed due to lying....
O'Toole used tape recordings from radio and TV broadcasts and presented the sound of the speaker's voice to stress analysis.... It probably sounds like witch craft to some .....but I believe that PSE is a real way to detect stress in the voice of a speaker.
O'Toole subjected a TV interview of Buell Frazier telling a newsman about the morning of 11/22/63 and what Frazier had seen and heard that morning.
When Frazier talked about going to the car and starting it .....O'Toole reported that Frazier's voice revealed little stress as would be expected....But when Frazier told the newsman about seeing a paper sack on the rear seat of the car....The stress in Frazier's voice went to maximum..... Which indicates that Frazier probably was lying about some aspect of that paper sack.
(http://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/rifle27.jpg)
"He stated that he only glanced at this package, at the time, over his shoulder, and said something to Oswald about the package, and Oswald explained that it was curtain rods"
In some reports Frazier says that when he saw the paper sack he simply asked..."What's that?"
But in other versions Frazier says he asked "What's in the sack, Lee?" ...
But no matter which version was subjected to PSE evaluation Frazier's voice indicated severe stress .....
At one point O'Toole wanted to get a second opinion about Frazier's recorded casual conversation with newsmen ao he sent the tape recording to an expert for his opinion .....
After evaluating the tape the expert reported that Frazier's chart was a text book example of a person lying...He said that on a scale of one to ten.... Frazier was at eleven.....
O'Toole used tape recordings from radio and TV broadcasts and presented the sound of the speaker's voice to stress analysis.... It probably sounds like witch craft to some .....but I believe that PSE is a real way to detect stress in the voice of a speaker.
At around the 1 hour and 20 second mark Weisburg makes a statement that the reason that the DPD gave Frazier a polygraph test was to see if Frazier was, as Weisburg puts it, laying Marina Oswald.
Oswald's prints being on a bag somehow equates to it being the same bag in your mind? Not suprising, given your usual process of "logic".
"his rifle". LOL. What evidence do you have that CE142 was "next to bullet casings"?
What evidence do you have that there was a rifle in the bag that Oswald carried. Or in CE142 for that matter?
You're like a broken record. For the umpteenth time, when was there ever a search done for a bag matching the size estimate of Frazier?
Please cite.
It's amusing that you consider assumptions to be evidence.
Frazier was given the choice of being charged as an accomplice of LHO or conveying a
recollection that tended to put a Carcano in a sack in a dead man's hands on 11/22/63.
His story was full of holes. Once Ozzie was murdered by Ruby it didn't matter. Frazier's story
gave LE and the WC what they needed at the time. IMO of course
Frazier was given the choice of being charged as an accomplice of LHO or conveying a
recollection that tended to put a Carcano in a sack in a dead man's hands on 11/22/63.
His story was full of holes. Once Ozzie was murdered by Ruby it didn't matter. Frazier's story
gave LE and the WC what they needed at the time. IMO of course
Good grief. Do you not see the enormous flaw in that absurd narrative which has been pointed out several times? If Frazier were somehow coerced to lie about the long bag, then he would obviously be told to estimate its size as long enough to carry the rifle. That being the entire objective of such a lie to put the rifle in Oswald's hands that morning. It would make absolutely no sense for the fantasy conspirators to coerce Frazier into lying about a bag that he would claim is too short to contain the rifle. Whew.
They tried!
FBI Report, 11/23/63
by Special Agent James Bookhout
"RANDLE stated that about 7:15 a.m., November 22, 1963, she looked out of a window of her residence and observed LEE HARVEY OSWALD walking up her driveway and saw him put a long brown package, approximately 3 feet by 6 inches, in the back seat area of WESLEY FRAZIER's 1954 black Chevrolet four door automobile."
Once Ozzie was murdered by Ruby, since there would be no trial, the details weren't important.
2 witnesses saw the perp with a bag that the cops said he used to carry the rifle to work on
11/22/63. And we all know cops don't lie or fudge evidence.
It amuses me no end that you claim Oswald carried a bag the size estimated by Frazier into the TSBD but then dismiss as unimportant that no such bag was ever found or accounted for in any manner as though that is not important.
Dismissing this on the basis that there is no evidence that anyone search for it. LOL. Don't you believe the DPD searched that building?
The most logical explanation for such a bag never being found is that it wasn't there
because - as Oswald himself confirmed - he never carried a bag the size estimated by Frazier.
Why would Oswald lie if he carried some shorter bag that contained a non-incriminatory item like curtain rods? He would seemingly have every incentive not only to admit that but direct the DPD to it to exonerate himself. But here we are supposed to believe he lied against his own self interest.
There is further confirmation in Fritz's notes
Good grief. Do you not see the enormous flaw in that absurd narrative which has been pointed out several times? If Frazier were somehow coerced to lie about the long bag, then he would obviously be told to estimate its size as long enough to carry the rifle.
Try to follow along. If the fantasy conspirators had some power over Frazier to coerce him to lie about the long bag, then they would force him to say it was long enough to carry the rifle. That would be the entire point of such a lie. Having him claim the bag was too short to carry the rifle would actually be counter-productive to that objective as shown by decades of CTers who cite this as evidence that Oswald did not carry the rifle that morning. Frazier's testimony, therefore, makes absolutely no sense as the product of a lie to frame Oswald as you imply. Oswald carried a long bag that morning and it was either the size estimated by Frazier or he was honestly but erroneously off in his estimate and it was the bag found on the 6th floor.
Good grief. Do you not see the enormous flaw in that absurd narrative which has been pointed out several times? If Frazier were somehow coerced to lie about the long bag, then he would obviously be told to estimate its size as long enough to carry the rifle. That being the entire objective of such a lie to put the rifle in Oswald's hands that morning. It would make absolutely no sense for the fantasy conspirators to coerce Frazier into lying about a bag that he would claim is too short to contain the rifle. Whew.
It amuses me no end that you claim Oswald carried a bag the size estimated by Frazier into the TSBD but then dismiss as unimportant that no such bag was ever found or accounted for in any manner as though that is not important. Dismissing this on the basis that there is no evidence that anyone search for it. LOL. Don't you believe the DPD searched that building? The most logical explanation for such a bag never being found is that it wasn't there because - as Oswald himself confirmed - he never carried a bag the size estimated by Frazier. Why would Oswald lie if he carried some shorter bag that contained a non-incriminatory item like curtain rods? He would seemingly have every incentive not only to admit that but direct the DPD to it to exonerate himself. But here we are supposed to believe he lied against his own self interest.
Mr. BALL. Now, did you tell him what Frazier had told you?
Mr. FRITZ. I don't know that I told him what Frazier had told me but I told him someone had told me.
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.
I asked him, I said, "Did you go toward the building carrying a long package?"
He said, "No. I didn't carry anything but my lunch."
There is further confirmation in Fritz's notes (which I assume you believe are the product of lies and fakery like all evidence against Oswald).
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=29103#relPageId=7&tab=page
When did Gary ever say anything about Frazier being "coerced to lie about the long bag", Mr. Strawman?
Notice that Frazier's affidavit is almost entirely about the paper bag.....( Strange!) I believe that someone wrote this affidavit for Frazier..... He was not this articulate...
BEFORE ME, Mary Rattan, a Notary Public in and for said County, State of Texas, on this day personally appeared Buell Wesley Frazier, Age 19, 2439 West 5th Street, Irving, Texas WE 3-8965 who, after being by me duly sworn, on oath deposes and says:
I work at Texas School Book Depository, Corner Elm and Houston. I have worked there since September 13, 1963. I fill orders. About a month ago, I met Lee Harvey Oswald at work. I saw that he was a new man, and I walked up to him and asked him if he was Lee. I figured he must be Lee as my sister had told me about him. I asked him if he would like to ride back and forth with me as I knew his wife lived with Ruth Paine near my house, and he said he would, but only on week ends as he had an apartment of his own in Oak Cliff. After that every Friday evening Lee would ride home with me and then ride back to work with me on Monday morning. He has only rode home from work with me on Fridays, but yesterday morning, Thursday, November 21, 1963, Lee told me that he wanted to ride home with me that evening. I was surprised, and I asked him if he was going with me Friday also, and he said, "No". He told me that he was going home to get some curtain rods. Thursday afternoon Lee rode to Irving with me to Ruth Paine's house, where his wife is staying. I let him out of my car in front of Ruth's house, then I went on. This morning, Friday, November 22, 1963, I got up between 6:00 - 6:30 AM, and got ready to go to work, and then sit down to eat breakfast, about 7:15 AM, me, my mother, and my two little neices [sic] were at the table, and my sister was at the sink. My mother looked up and said, "Who is that looking in the window?" I looked up and said, "That's Lee." I got up and finished getting ready and got my lunch and went to the door and met Lee on the car port. We then walked to my car, it was parked backed up at the side of the car port. Before I got in the car, I glanced in the back seat, and saw a big sack. It must have been about 2' long, and the top of the sack was sort of folded up, and the rest of the sack had been kind of folded under. I asked Lee what was in the sack, and he said "curtain rods", and I remembered that he had told me the day before that he was going to bring some curtain rods. We drove to work the same way that I usually go. We came into town on Stemmons Freeway to Main and Main to Record, and then on across the McKinney and by the warehouse to the parking lot. I parked the car and sit there awhile and run the motor to charge the battery, and while I was doing that, Lee got out and opened the back door and got the package out of the back seat and walked behind the car, then I got out of the car and started walking toward the building where I work. 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. When we started walking, Lee was just a few feet ahead of me, but he kept waking faster than me, and finally got way ahead of me. I saw him go in the back door at the Loading Dock of the building that we work in, and he still had the package under his arm. I did not see him anymore for about 30 minutes, and then we were both working. Lee did not carry his lunch today. He told me this morning he was going to buy his lunch today. I was standing on the front steps of the building when the Parade came by, and I watched the Parade go by. After President Kennedy had got out of my sight, I heard three shots. I stood there, then people started running by, and I turned, and went back in the building and got my lunch and eat it. I did not see Lee anymore after about 11:00 AM today, and at that time, we were both working, and we were on the first floor.
Wesley Frazier
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN BEFORE ME THIS 22 DAY OF November A.D. 1963
/s/Mary Rattan
Notary Public, Dallas County, Texas
Can anyone provide any sort of proof that Randle actually said that?
Translation: I cannot prove that Bookhout was lying when he wrote in his report that Randle stated that the bag was three feet long.
I never claimed that Bookhout was lying. What is it with Nutters and their strawman arguments?
You can either prove that Randle told Bookhout that the bag she saw was "approximately 3 feet by 6 inches" or you cannot. Bookhout's account is in direct conflict with Randle's testimony.
I've not stated that you claimed Bookhout was lying. I have not made a straw man argument; you simply misunderstood what you read.
I wonder why you always feel the need to point out the very obvious. I asked if anyone can show that Bookhout was lying when he stated (in his report) that Randle told him the bag was three feet long.
It amuses me no end that you think that it's significant that a bag that was never looked for was never found.
They searched the upper floors for a rifle. Do you have some reason to believe that they searched anywhere for a bag?
Only in Richard-land where handwaving is called "logic".
You still haven't substantiated this. Nowhere in your excerpt of Fritz's testimony does he say that Oswald denied carrying a bag the size estimated by Frazier.
On what basis do you assume he lied?
You're a hoot. If Oswald really "denied bringing a package to work" then that would include a lunch package. So what did Oswald actually say? The notes don't say "size estimated by Frazier". Maybe writing one's interrogation notes several days later isn't the best way to ensure accuracy...
You truly can't be for real. How do I know that they searched the TSBD and would have found any such bag? Wait for it...keep waiting...because they found such a bag.
Nowhere in Fritz's testimony does he say that Oswald denied carrying a bag the size estimated by Frazier? Huh. He very clearly says that Oswald denied carrying a long bag and that he only carried his lunch. Are you claiming Oswald carried a two-foot plus sized lunch bag?
I asked him, I said, "Did you go toward the building carrying a long package?"
He said, "No. I didn't carry anything but my lunch."
It's truly sad and scary what you think passes for logic. You assume that "they" didn't find any other bag than CE142 (even though there's no evidence that they ever looked for one and even though there is no crime scene photo showing such a bag on the 6th floor in the SE corner and even though the first 5 or 6 officers on the scene didn't see such a bag there), so therefore CE142 must have been the bag that Oswald carried, even though the only two people to see the bag that Oswald carried said that it was not.
Thank you for demonstrating that when you said "Oswald denied carrying a bag the size estimated by Frazier", you just made that part up. You don't know what was in the bag that Frazier saw. You don't even know what if anything was ever in CE142. You just pretend like you do.
How exactly am I making that up? You are either dishonest or a complete loon. According to Fritz, Oswald said he did not carry a long package but only his lunch sack.
There is no way to interpret that in any way to be consist with Frazier's two-foot long package
Oswald lied Frazier about what was in the sack and Oswald lied about where is package was in Fraziers car.
So you claim. Proving that is another matter.
Not my claim and if Frazier's word isn't good enough for you then yeah sure throw him under the bus too, that seems to be your modus operandi!
Why are you asking for "anyone" to prove a claim that nobody made? That's exactly what a strawman is, whether you understand it or not.
It's truly sad and scary what you think passes for logic.
Why are you asking for "anyone" to prove a claim that nobody made? That's exactly what a strawman is, whether you understand it or not.
Precisely, because if nobody can prove that Bookhout was lying (the only person who actually could have done that was the late Linnie Mae Randle) the silly argument would be that Bookhout must have been telling the truth because nobody can prove he didn't.
That is the only plausible reason for asking such a pathetic question in the first place.
I asked if anyone can show that Bookhout was lying when he stated (in his report) that Randle told him the bag was three feet long. That is a question and is far from a straw man argument.
Logic, as in... your claim that the "click" that was heard by many during the theater scuffle... could have been a theater seat?
it must be taken into consideration that his report stated that Randle estimated that the bag was three feet long.
I thought the bold type would clue you in, but apparently not.
"Oswald denied carrying a bag THE SIZE ESTIMATED BY FRAZIER"
The part you made up was "THE SIZE ESTIMATED BY FRAZIER". Fritz never said that.
Once again:
The part you made up was "THE SIZE ESTIMATED BY FRAZIER"
I hope that clears it up for you.
You're a hoot. It's somehow impossible to carry a lunch in a two-foot long package, so therefore it was a rifle? The twisted logic never ends.
What dishonest, kooky nonsense. Oswald denied carrying a long package but only his lunch sack. Frazier testified that Oswald was carrying a long package and not his lunch. So Oswald denied carrying a bag the size estimated by Frazier. Whew:
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.
I asked him, I said, "Did you go toward the building carrying a long package?"
He said, "No. I didn't carry anything but my lunch."
Mr. BALL - Do you remember whether or not when Oswald came back with you on any Monday morning or any weekend did he pack his lunch?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir; he did.
Mr. BALL - He did?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir. When he rode with me, I say he always brought lunch except that one day on November 22 he didn't bring his lunch that day.
I asked him, I said, "Did you go toward the building carrying a long package?"
He said, "No. I didn't carry anything but my lunch."
This statement by lee Oswald does not deny the fact that he was carrying a paper sack..... He said the sack held his lunch.....
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir. When he rode with me, I say he always brought lunch except that one day on November 22 he didn't bring his lunch that day.
Frazier acknowledges that Lee always carried his lunch ..but then acts as if he's Superman with X-ray vision and can see that the paper sack doesn't hold Lee's lunch....incredible!!
Even if Lee had told Frazier that the sack contained curtain rods ( doubtful) it also could have contained his sandwich and fruit....So there is no way that Frazier could know that Lee wasn't carrying a lunch as Fazier himself acknowledged he routinely did .
Wrong:
Mr. BALL - Did you notice whether or not Lee had a package that looked like a lunch package that morning?
Mr. FRAZIER - You know like I told you earlier, I say, he didn't take his lunch because I remember right when I got in the car I asked him where was his lunch and he said he was going to buy his lunch that day.
Mr. BALL - He told you that that day, did he?
Mr. FRAZIER - Right. That is right. So, I assumed he was going to buy it, you know, from that catering service man like a lot of the boys do. They don't bring their lunch but they go out and buy their lunch there.
What dishonest, kooky nonsense. Oswald denied carrying a long package but only his lunch sack. Frazier testified that Oswald was carrying a long package and not his lunch. So Oswald denied carrying a bag the size estimated by Frazier. Whew:
But in the next breath Frazier says that he ASSUMED that lee was going to buy his lunch....
Frazier...I assumed he was going to buy it,
"I assumed he was going to buy it, you know, from that catering service man like a lot of the boys do."
He didn't assume that Lee was going to buy his lunch. He assumed that Lee was going to buy his lunch from that catering service man.
How so you know that is what Frazier ASSUMED??
He didn't assume that Lee was going to buy his lunch. He assumed that Lee was going to buy his lunch from that catering service man.
Well, Buell is a friend and I know him very well. That being said, friends can lie. Friends can "conveniently" forget. I don't think he's a liar nor has he forgotten anything. He had no reason to lie about anything at all. He was 19. He was threatened with a Decker Hold. He stood up for himself and he told the truth. He has never believed Oswald took a shot.
I believe that Wes Frazier is human..... He was a frighten kid manipulated by unscrupulous ruthless men when this mess was thrust upon him.
He lied....It's as simple as that. Lee never told him that the flimsy paper sack contained curtain rods.....But the cops DID tell him that Lee had denied carrying a rifle in that paper sack, and Lee had claimed that the bag contained curtain rods. Buell being a scared kid saw no harm in supporting Lee so he said that Yes lee had told him that there were curtain rods in that 28 inch long sack. Then the wily conspirators pretended to administer polygraph in which they said that the lie detector showed that he was telling the truth about the curtain rod story....
Walt, I really don't understand why you present this as if it is fact, when it is clearly only what you think happened.
You know it's plausible and that bothers you.... If you think your going to find the truth stamped and certified, you're delusional.... A person has have the ability to sort out the plausible from the implausible....
Most of the Warren Report is implausible and yet many cite the information as if it is the gospel.....
Well, Buell is a friend and I know him very well. That being said, friends can lie. Friends can "conveniently" forget. I don't think he's a liar nor has he forgotten anything. He had no reason to lie about anything at all. He was 19. He was threatened with a Decker Hold. He stood up for himself and he told the truth. He has never believed Oswald took a shot.
I asked him, I said, "Did you go toward the building carrying a long package?"
He said, "No. I didn't carry anything but my lunch."
This statement by lee Oswald does not deny the fact that he was carrying a paper sack..... He said the sack held his lunch.....
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir. When he rode with me, I say he always brought lunch except that one day on November 22 he didn't bring his lunch that day.
Frazier acknowledges that Lee always carried his lunch ..but then acts as if he's Superman with X-ray vision and can see that the paper sack doesn't hold Lee's lunch....incredible!!
Even if Lee had told Frazier that the sack contained curtain rods ( doubtful) it also could have contained his sandwich and fruit....So there is no way that Frazier could know that Lee wasn't carrying a lunch as Fazier himself acknowledged he routinely did .
Frazier acknowledges that Lee always carried his lunch ..but then acts as if he's Superman with X-ray vision and can see that the paper sack doesn't hold Lee's lunch....incredible!!
Buell Frazier estimated the package--that Oswald carried into the TSBD--was 2 feet give or take a few inches. That means a package 21 to 27 inches long. That's a long package to contain lunch.
Tell me: What was the lunch? Celery sticks or french bread?
Maybe it contained his lunch and laundry. After all he regularly collected his laundry after visiting Marina. Yet Buell only remembered Oswald carrying his lunch.....a dual purpose bag....there's an option.
Maybe it contained his lunch and laundry. After all he regularly collected his laundry after visiting Marina.
Marina mentioned nothing about Lee's laundry (on 21/22 November 1963) in her testimony before the Warren Commission. Same goes for the House Select Committee on Assassinations.
Yet Buell only remembered Oswald carrying his lunch.....a dual purpose bag....there's an option.
Maybes are not evidence. Options are not evidence.
Maybe it contained his lunch and laundry. After all he regularly collected his laundry after visiting Marina.
Marina mentioned nothing about Lee's laundry (on 21/22 November 1963) in her testimony before the Warren Commission. Same goes for the House Select Committee on Assassinations.
Yet Buell only remembered Oswald carrying his lunch.....a dual purpose bag....there's an option.
Maybes are not evidence. Options are not evidence.
Frazier acknowledges that Lee always carried his lunch ..but then acts as if he's Superman with X-ray vision and can see that the paper sack doesn't hold Lee's lunch....incredible!!
Buell Frazier estimated the package--that Oswald carried into the TSBD--was 2 feet give or take a few inches. That means a package 21 to 27 inches long. That's a long package to contain lunch.
Tell me: What was the lunch? Celery sticks or french bread?
Frazier acknowledges that Lee always carried his lunch ..but then acts as if he's Superman with X-ray vision and can see that the paper sack doesn't hold Lee's lunch....incredible!!
Buell Frazier estimated the package--that Oswald carried into the TSBD--was 2 feet give or take a few inches. That means a package 21 to 27 inches long. That's a long package to contain lunch.
Tell me: What was the lunch? Celery sticks or french bread?
Tell me: What was the lunch? Celery sticks or french bread?
Nobody could apprise you about anything Mr Lidell..... Clearly you believe that an object in a paper sack must fill the dimensions of the sack. Clearly you are too obtuse to understand that a two foot long sack can be used to carry a sandwich and an orange or apple.....
Or a broken down rifle. Oh wait.........
Buell Frasier suffers a similar guilt complex as Marina Oswald.
Marina refused Lee Oswald's plea (the evening of 21 November 1963) for her and the children to live with him in an apartment near Dallas. Marina intended to agree eventually, but was making Lee suffer a little for the argument (by telephone) they had earlier in the week. She knows that an agreement to reconcile with Lee might have prevented the assassination of President Kennedy.
Buell unknowingly drove the alleged assassin of President Kennedy to work on 22 November 1963. Although Frasier claims the package Oswald carried into the TSBD was too short to contain the Carcano rifle disassembled: This can be seen to be an opinion developed to avoid accepting that he inadvertently and innocently assisted the assassin of JFK. Hence ... Buell Frazier declares that he "believes" that Oswald "never took a shot". He bases that opinion on his perception of Lee Harvey Oswald's personality which he has stated as "nice".
I saw Frazier speak at the TSBD a couple years ago. He said something along the lines that Oswald couldn't have done it because he often played with the neighborhood kids and they liked him. He said kids have a special sense about people and apparently wouldn't have liked Oswald if he had been capable of murder. I sort of felt sorry for him because he clearly does not want to be remembered as the guy who drove the assassin and his rifle on that day.
Maybe it contained his lunch and laundry. After all he regularly collected his laundry after visiting Marina. Yet Buell only remembered Oswald carrying his lunch.....a dual purpose bag....there's an option.
I simply used the available facts to provide you with an option that you requested.
Oswald regularly took his laundry. Oswald regularly took his lunch. Frazier only remembers Oswald carrying his lunch......ergo the bag regularly contained his laundry and lunch.
Buell Frasier suffers a similar guilt complex as Marina Oswald.
Marina refused Lee Oswald's plea (the evening of 21 November 1963) for her and the children to live with him in an apartment near Dallas. Marina intended to agree eventually, but was making Lee suffer a little for the argument (by telephone) they had earlier in the week. She knows that an agreement to reconcile with Lee might have prevented the assassination of President Kennedy.
Buell unknowingly drove the alleged assassin of President Kennedy to work on 22 November 1963. Although Frasier claims the package Oswald carried into the TSBD was too short to contain the Carcano rifle disassembled: This can be seen to be an opinion developed to avoid accepting that he inadvertently and innocently assisted the assassin of JFK. Hence ... Buell Frazier declares that he "believes" that Oswald "never took a shot". He bases that opinion on his perception of Lee Harvey Oswald's personality which he has stated as "nice".
I saw Frazier speak at the TSBD a couple years ago. He said something along the lines that Oswald couldn't have done it because he often played with the neighborhood kids and they liked him. He said kids have a special sense about people and apparently wouldn't have liked Oswald if he had been capable of murder. I sort of felt sorry for him because he clearly does not want to be remembered as the guy who drove the assassin and his rifle on that day.
Fritz said that Oswald stated that he carried only his lunch.
Frazier said that Oswald stated that he didn't have his lunch, that he was just going to buy lunch that day.
Who's lying? Fritz? Frazier? Oswald?
Fritz said that Oswald stated that he carried only his lunch.
Frazier said that Oswald stated that he didn't have his lunch, that he was just going to buy lunch that day.
Who's lying? Fritz? Frazier? Oswald?
I simply used the available facts to provide you with an option that you requested.
Oswald regularly took his laundry. Oswald regularly took his lunch. Frazier only remembers Oswald carrying his lunch......ergo the bag regularly contained his laundry and lunch.
Fritz said that Oswald stated that he carried only his lunch.
Frazier said that Oswald stated that he didn't have his lunch, that he was just going to buy lunch that day.
Who's lying? Fritz? Frazier? Oswald?
Ruth said Oswald took his laundry after visiting on weekends. Frazier said Oswald only ever took his lunch except for the 22nd.
Who?s lying Ruth or Buell? Your call.
Your point is completely invalid. This Thursday night visit was not on a weekend; it was out of the norm. Therefore, Lee could have visited without taking his laundry afterwards.
I ask again, who's lying? Fritz? Frazier? Oswald?
I am talking about any of the previous visits. Lee took laundry......Ruth. Lee only took his lunch.....Buell.
Who is right?
I am talking about any of the previous visits. Lee took laundry......Ruth. Lee only took his lunch.....Buell.
Who is right?
I am talking about any of the previous visits. Lee took laundry......Ruth. Lee only took his lunch.....Buell.
Who is right?
Your (plural) inability to answer the question raised is obvious. I feel your pain in trying to twist the argument. The issue here is simple.
Ruth testified that Ruth took his fresh laundry when leaving the house after the weekend. This is a fact.
Buell testified that Oswald only ever took a package that contained his lunch. This is a fact.
Please reconcile.
Your (plural) inability to answer the question raised is obvious. I feel your pain in trying to twist the argument. The issue here is simple.
Ruth testified that Ruth took his fresh laundry when leaving the house after the weekend. This is a fact.
Buell testified that Oswald only ever took a package that contained his lunch. This is a fact.
Please reconcile.
Ruth testified that Ruth took his fresh laundry when leaving the house after the weekend. This is a fact.
Who's twisting anything, it seems you have no proof that Ruth Paine saw Oswald carry any laundry on any Monday? Who knows, Oswald may have only washed the clothes he was wearing and this is what Ruth saw being washed?
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.
Btw wasn't there a laundromat close to the Beckley Street Rooming house and wasn't Oswald reported to be there at least on one occasion?
JohnM
What don't you understand about this? Lee's Thursday night visit was not on a weekend. This does not qualify for Ruth's statement that Lee left with his laundry after weekend visits. This is a fact.
So we have established that the "low-life" Oswald would bring his underwear and shirts for the week to be washed and ironed by Marina. He took them with him on Mondays and presumably on the one Tuesday when he stayed an extra day for the holiday weekend.
There certainly was a washateria across the street from his roominghouse. He was seen there until closing on Wed 20th. Probably as he had not been able to go to the Paine?s to get his washing done for the 10 days or so since he had been there. From memory Bertha Cheek also thought he went on a SaPersonay. Likely the weekend he did not visit the Paine?s.
So it would appear that he liked his clothes laundered and not to be in a state of uncleanliness.
Perhaps he wore all his weekly freshly laundered clothing on the trip to the TSBD. Wore it all day and then took it off until he got home. Maybe he put it in some package or bag and Frazier just didn?t ever notice it.
Perhaps he wore all his weekly freshly laundered clothing on the trip to the TSBD
I am talking about any of the previous visits. Lee took laundry......Ruth. Lee only took his lunch.....Buell.
Who is right?
Who is right?
Ruth testified that Ruth took his fresh laundry when leaving the house after the weekend. This is a fact.
Cite?
JohnM
Of course the second Ruth above should be Oswald.
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
Ruth who seemed to be very careful with her words with regards to accuracy when testifying tells us that "Lee brought his underwear and shirts". To me that implies his weekly requirements, not just the clothes for the Friday. Seems that Marina ironed more than one shirt.
"He would take things with him on Monday" indicates exactly that. A bit pointless otherwise. If it was just the clothing he arrived in I think Ruth would have specified that. Ie .....Marina washed his work clothes that he came in on Friday and he left with them on the Monday...
Seems that Marina ironed more than one shirt.
Yes you're right, Ruth was very specific and if she saw Oswald carrying laundry surely she would provide some sort of description of how it was carried? I can't find any words from Ruth where she ever saw Oswald carry anything on any of the respective Monday mornings. Ruth simply saw Marina do a small wash for Oswald which must have been his current work clothes, which leads to Frazier having nothing to see, so your original premise that one of them must be lying is a provable unjust accusation.
Yeah, his singlet, his t shirt, his button up shirt and maybe even his jacket.
Oswald's work shirt shows heavy signs of wear and was worn a lot perhaps multiple times a week.
(https://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/The-Oswald-shirt.jpg)
Btw Ruth said that Oswald took his clean clothes with him on a Monday and she was right.
JohnM
There is nothing that would make us believe the was was "small". As I said Ruth was clear with her words and if Marina merely washed the clothes he was wearing when he arrived I believe she would have said that.
Packages were a matter of interest to the commission and Ruth and Marina should have been quizzed further.
My original premise was that neither were lying.....but provided an answer that accommodated both for those days excluding the 22nd.
There is nothing that would make us believe the was was "small".
Packages were a matter of interest to the commission and Ruth and Marina should have been quizzed further.
"Underwear and shirts" sounds like what Oswald would be wearing, a possible singlet, a t shirt, a button shirt, a jacket, pants, undies and socks.
No, packages are a disproportionate matter of interest to CTs. ;D
JohnM
As I said Ruth was clear with her words and if Marina merely washed only the clothes he was wearing when he arrived I believe she would have said that. She would not likely have used "shirts".
Packages were certainly of interest to the WC.....Frazier was quizzed regarding Oswald's habits when leaving and going to the Paine's. Unfortunately we can add that question to the many that were unasked.
As I said Ruth was clear with her words
and if Marina merely washed only the clothes he was wearing when he arrived I believe she would have said that.
She would not likely have used "shirts".
Walt, I really don't understand why you present this as if it is fact, when it is clearly only what you think happened.
Maybes are not evidence. Options are not evidence.
Wesley said that the bag he saw Oswald carry was not CE 142.
CE 142 was touched by Oswald.
CE 142 was found in the sniper's nest.
Oswald denied carrying a long package, Frazier and Linnie confirm Oswald carried a long package.
Oswald denied carrying curtain rods, Frazier says Oswald told him the bag contained curtain rods.
Since the tale of the paper bag rests on Buell Frazier's statement that Lee Oswald carried a paper bag on the back seat of the car when he drove them to work on the morning of the murder of President Kennedy. And since the Warren Commission ignored both Frazier and his sister when they testified that the bag they saw Lee Oswald carry was not long enough to have contained the Mannlicher Carcano rifle that was found where it had been carefully hidden beneath boxes of books. The key question becomes ...Was Buell Frazier telling the truth? Can we rely on Frazier's veracity?
Wesley said that the bag he saw Oswald carry was not CE 142. Do you see a reason for him (then or now) to lie about that?Yes. To avoid being prosecuted as an accessory to murder.
Walt, I really don't understand why you present this as if it is fact, when it is clearly only what you think happened.
Interesting to reread this thread. The beatdown of the strawman brothers was merciless. There are a couple of options here:
1) Buell and his sister made up the long bag story. Oswald told the truth that he carried only his lunch sack.
Problems: no logical explanation for Buell and his sister to intentionally lie about Oswald carrying a long bag and the curtain rod story. If anything, this makes Buell look like he might have some reason to be suspicious of a guy making an unexpected trip and carrying a long, rifle shaped bag to his workplace on the morning that the president was going to drive by his building. A bag would also have to be planted and Oswald's prints somehow added to it. Odds of this scenario = zero.
2) Oswald carried a long bag along the size estimated by Buell.
Problems: Oswald denied this. If this long bag had contained something exculpatory, then Oswald would have had every incentive to direct the DPD to his bag. He didn't. No bag matching Buell's estimate was ever found or otherwise accounted for in the TSBD. The longer bag would have to be planted etc. Odds of this = near zero.
3) Oswald carried the long bag found on the 6th floor. His prints are on that bag, it is found next to the SN where Oswald's prints were found along with fired bullet casings from his rifle. There is no other accounting for that bag being on the 6th floor except in association with the assassination.
Problems: Oswald denied carrying such a bag. But he has every reason to lie if it contained the rifle. Buell and his sister indicated the bag was too short to contain the rifle. But they didn't have a great look or any reason to take much notice. They made an honest but erroneous estimate. The bag itself is the best evidence of its length. Odds = 99.99 percent that the bag found on the 6th floor is the one Oswald carried to work that morning.
Richard,
1) LHO's lunch sack may have been the sack described by Buell and his sister. Oswald was poor, staying at some else house. He would have grabbed anything available to reuse. As I have previously pointed out, the sack may have been one that orignally contained curtain rods, which Oswald reused for his lunch. When asked about the lunch sack, he may have responded to Buell with an answer as to its origins (explaining the unusual length) not its current contents.
Frazier's testimony is clear. He asked Oswald about his lunch. Oswald indicated to him that he was going to buy it that day. Oswald did not carry his lunch that morning. He certainly did not carry his lunch that morning in a two-foot plus long bag.
Mr. BALL - Did you notice whether or not Lee had a package that looked like a lunch package that morning?
Mr. FRAZIER - You know like I told you earlier, I say, he didn't take his lunch because I remember right when I got in the car I asked him where was his lunch and he said he was going to buy his lunch that day.
Mr. BALL - He told you that that day, did he?
Mr. FRAZIER - Right. That is right. So, I assumed he was going to buy it, you know, from that catering service man like a lot of the boys do. They don't bring their lunch but they go out and buy their lunch there.
Strange you believe Frazier when he talks about his lunch but not when he describes the length of the bag.
That's because there is an obvious distinction between estimating the size of an object with specificity and a general matter like whether he asked Oswald about his lunch. I think Frazier was telling the truth to the best of his abilities in both instances but simply got his estimate off. But if you find something odd in this, then how would you reconcile believing Frazier about the size of the bag but not his discussion of Oswald's lunch? Or do you not apply the same "logic" to conspiracy theories?
When Frazier said the bag he saw fitted between the cup of Oswald?s hand and his armpit, there is no estimate. It?s merely a statement of fact about what he observed. So, Richard... tell us, did he tell the truth?
His estimate was honest but erroneous. I think he believes his estimate is correct, but we have the bag.
Frazier's testimony is clear. He asked Oswald about his lunch. Oswald indicated to him that he was going to buy it that day. Oswald did not carry his lunch that morning. He certainly did not carry his lunch that morning in a two-foot plus long bag.
Mr. BALL - Did you notice whether or not Lee had a package that looked like a lunch package that morning?
Mr. FRAZIER - You know like I told you earlier, I say, he didn't take his lunch because I remember right when I got in the car I asked him where was his lunch and he said he was going to buy his lunch that day.
Mr. BALL - He told you that that day, did he?
Mr. FRAZIER - Right. That is right. So, I assumed he was going to buy it, you know, from that catering service man like a lot of the boys do. They don't bring their lunch but they go out and buy their lunch there.
Richard,
Maybe Oswald only bought some things in the bag and was going to buy the rest of his lunch (we know he purchased at least 1 coke),
So he didn't even have his full lunch in a two-foot plus long bag? You can't really believe that. Oswald denied carrying any long bag that morning.
Oswald denied carrying any long bag that morning.
Perhaps you should review the interrogation reports.... Lee DID NOT deny carrying a long bag that morning. Because...
He wasn't asked about the LENGTH ...He was told that he'd been seen carrying a large bag, and Lee replied that He didn't remember the size of his lunch sack...He said that it might have been larger than necessary to hold his lunch and he elaborated..." ya know you can't always find a sack that is just the right size for your lunch." ( paraphrased)
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.
I asked him, I said, "Did you go toward the building carrying a long package?"
He said, "No. I didn't carry anything but my lunch."
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.
I asked him, I said, "Did you go toward the building carrying a long package?"
He said, "No. I didn't carry anything but my lunch."
His estimate was honest but erroneous. I think he believes his estimate is correct, but we have the bag. So there is no need to speculate on its size. It can be measured. If Oswald carried a long bag along the size estimated by Frazier, then why would he deny that? He would have every incentive to not only acknowledge it, but direct the police to it to show that it contained something other than a rifle. Instead he lies about it and says he carried only his lunch in direct contradiction of Frazier's testimony. That tells us all we need to know. Oswald's prints are found on such a long bag. No bag matching Frazier's estimate was ever found or otherwise accounted for because no such bag existed. End of story.
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.
I asked him, I said, "Did you go toward the building carrying a long package?"
He said, "No. I didn't carry anything but my lunch."
Mr Smith, You seem to be unable to understand a simple point that an elementary school kid can understand...
The Warren Commission was nothing but a white wash, cover up committee.....
Your citing of the testimony that the shyster lawyers drew from the witnesses is worthless. Often the testimony is completely contradictory to the witnesses sworn affidavit.
Richard,
Firstly these answers are not from recordings or accurate at the time transcriptions but the memories of officers, who were keen to defend the built case.
He answered that he carried his lunch, but his lunch was in something, he may have had the lunch in a large sack not when asked about package thought they meant something more substantive.
As to what he brought, he may have put a piece of fruit or cake for morning tea or as part of his lunch but planned get something more. You always assume that Wesley and Linnie under estimated the length, they may have over estimated it.
Let's revisit. You stated: "Lee DID NOT deny carrying a long bag that morning." Here is the testimony:
I asked him, I said, "Did you go toward the building carrying a long package?"
He said, "No. I didn't carry anything but my lunch."
Instead of doing the honest thing and acknowledging your error, we get this silly nonsense.
Mr Smith....On page 626 of the WR there is a copy of FBI agent James Bookhout report of the 10:30 am 11/23/63.interrogation of Lee Oswald. This is the first time a package was mentioned to Lee Oswald. Bookhout wrote:...
"He denied that he had brought a package to work on that day and he denied that he ever had any conversation about curtain rods with this boy named Wesley who drove him to his employment."
On December 17th Postal Inspector ( And FBI informant) Harry Holmes wrote a memo ( page 636) in which he mentions the paper sack....
Holmes wrote:......Quote... "When asked if he didn't bring a sack with him the next morning to work, he stated that he did , and when asked as to the contents of the sack, he stated that it contained his lunch. Then, when asked on the size or shape of the sack, he said "Oh I don't recall it may have been a small sack or a large sack, you don't always find one that just fits your sandwiches" ...unquote
Referring to the paper sack .....Do you see the word LONG in either of the reports , Mr Smith.....??
I asked him, I said, "Did you go toward the building carrying a long package?"
He said, "No. I didn't carry anything but my lunch."
I asked him, I said, "Did you go toward the building carrying a long package?"
He said, "No. I didn't carry anything but my lunch."
If Oswald was telling the truth, then Frazier was lying.
If Oswald was telling the truth, then Frazier was lying.
So he didn't even have his full lunch in a two-foot plus long bag? You can't really believe that.
Oswald denied carrying any long bag that morning.
LOL, concluding that 2+2=4 because 4 equals 2+2 is a circular argument. So I guess we can discount it and conclude that 2+2 could be equal to anything. Of course the bag found in the TSBD is relevant to the issue. It has Oswald's prints on it. It is found in a location that associates it with the assassination.
It is a long, brown paper bag of the type described by Frazier.
It exists.
Conversely, no bag matching Frazier's size estimate is ever found.
It can't be accounted for in any way. Oswald denied carrying it.
I asked him, I said, "Did you go toward the building carrying a long package?"
He said, "No. I didn't carry anything but my lunch."
Oswald denied carrying ANY long package that morning. He claimed that he did carry his lunch. Therefore, Oswald distinguished between the LONG package and his lunch. If there were any doubt about this, Frazier asked Oswald about his LUNCH. Oswald told him he was going to buy it. Good grief. There is zero doubt that the 6th floor bag is the one Oswald carried that morning. It is simply playing the contrarian to suggest there is any doubt about this. Not even most fringe kooks deny this. Comparing a long, narrow rifle shaped bag with Oswald's prints on it and no work-related purpose for being left next to the SN when Oswald is reported to have carried such a bag that morning to a coke bottle is the height of absurdity and a great example of how a dishonest contrarian attempts to discredit the evidence like a disbarred attorney defending a client that he knows is guilty.
If Oswald was telling the truth, then Frazier was lying.
"If there were any doubt about this, Frazier asked Oswald about his LUNCH. Oswald told him he was going to buy it."
There's your problem, Richard. Good grief, you believe Frazier.
I thought CTers believed Frazier? Are you saying his estimate of the bag's length can't be trusted?
I asked him, I said, "Did you go toward the building carrying a long package?"
He said, "No. I didn't carry anything but my lunch."
There is zero doubt that the 6th floor bag is the one Oswald carried that morning.
Comparing a long, narrow rifle shaped bag with Oswald's prints on it and no work-related purpose for being left next to the SN when Oswald is reported to have carried such a bag that morning to a coke bottle is the height of absurdity and a great example of how a dishonest contrarian attempts to discredit the evidence like a disbarred attorney defending a client that he knows is guilty.
And there is no reason to think a rifle was ever inside it.
No, Frazier described a shorter bag made out of flimsier paper.
So does the soda bottle. Just because something was found on the 6th floor doesn't mean that it's automatically connected to the assassination.
Was one ever looked for? Was Harold Norman's lunch bag ever found?
False again. Oswald (according to Fritz and Holmes) said he carried some kind of package.
When Frazier said the bag he saw fitted between the cup of Oswald?s hand and his armpit, there is no estimate. It?s merely a statement of fact about what he observed. So, Richard... tell us, did he tell the truth?
At what angle did Buell view Oswald with the bag (aside from the back, where he started out before Buell caught up with him and marched along at speed, I might add, with Buell lollygagging along, well to the rear)... front, side. or both?
Not to forget sis stating, first-day, that the bag was about 3 feet long*
At what angle did Buell view Oswald with the bag (aside from the back, where he started out before Buell caught up with him and marched along at speed, I might add, with Buell lollygagging along, well to the rear)... front, side. or both?
Not to forget sis stating, first-day, that the bag was about 3 feet long*
(Sure shrunk real quick after the implications sunk in, huh)
*Thought I'd bring that up, given the CTroll penchant for grasping onto first-day evidence. Except when it's inconvenient to do so, of course.
Addendum:
Michael Shermer has pointed out that the side that argues against the truth focuses on minutiae, whether it is 9/11 truthers, Scientific Creationists or Holocaust deniers. And don?t look at the overall picture.
Holocaust deniers claim presence of ?Prussian Blue? in the in the delousing stations but not in the gas chambers prove that the gas chambers were not used to kill people. Ignoring that insects require a much higher presence of cyanide is needed to kill insects (16,000 parts per million) than people (300 parts per million).
Scientific Creationists claiming human footprints besides dinosaur footprints disprove the Theory of Evolution. Ignoring the possibility of the ?human footprints? being chiseled into the rock by fakers.
9/11 Truthers pointing out that the fires could not have been hot enough to melt steel, and not considering that the steel doesn?t have to be melted, just heated to a high enough temperature long enough, to fail to support the tremendous weight of the building.
And just this weekend we see CTers doing the same thing.
1. The southwest corner of the sixth floor of the TSBD looks like a sniper?s nest, but it is claimed that it is just a bit too cramped to be used to shoot from.
2. The bag Oswald carried with him into work looked like it could have been used to carry his rifle into work that day, but it is claimed that it was just a bit too short to hold the rifle.
Only in John's Alice-in-Wonderland world could two people both be telling the truth when one says that the other was carrying a long package and the other says he was not. LOL.
That one is a keeper. It highlights John's dishonest approach to the evidence. You can't have it both ways simply because there is no other way to reconcile the facts to his desired outcome. Either Oswald or Frazier is lying about the long package.
The choice then becomes whether to accept the obvious, common sense interpretation as supported by the evidence (i.e. the long bag found with Oswald's prints on it is the long bag he carried that morning) or entertain baseless alternative fantasies that make no narrative sense (the bag found was planted, no one "looked" for Frazier's bag even though they searched the building and found a similar long bag, and Frazier acted contrary to his own self interest etc). This is just a devil's advocate game to see how long a contrarian can extend a discussion with his intellectual superiors to feel relevant.
In addition, John, yet again, dishonestly cites the evidence. Per Dishonest John: "Frazier saw a package. Fritz reported that Oswald said he had a package." John is implying that the long package Frazier saw is the same one Oswald acknowledged carrying (i.e his lunch). But that is not what the evidence suggests.
In fact, it is completely to the contrary and excludes this possibility. What Frazier "reported" was a long package over two feet long which he specifically indicated was not Oswald's lunch.
Thus, there is no possibility whatsoever, as John dishonestly suggests with his selective omissions, that Frazier's package and Oswald's lunch could be one and the same package.
Both Frazier and Oswald confirmed they were two distinct items being discussed - a long package and Oswald's lunch. Common sense also lends itself to the conclusion that no one other than perhaps Fred Flintstone has ever carried his lunch in such a large package.
If your goal is to demonstrate that the bags are the same, then it's not sufficient to just postulate that he could have been mistaken. That doesn't actually demonstrate that they were the same.
Correction: Bookhout recorded (after the fact) a second hand account of her saying that the bag was about 3 feet long.
Is her affidavit a second-hand account, John?
I didn't say anything here about Buell being mistaken. I asked if Buell had seen Oswald from the front while carrying the bag at any point.
Is her affidavit a second-hand account, John?
I didn't say anything here about Buell being mistaken. I asked if Buell had seen Oswald from the front while carrying the bag at any point.
Not forgetting Buell is quite a bit taller than LO.
Interesting. Have you seen an affidavit that mentions the length of the bag she saw?
>>> As it turns out, no.
This will do:
FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION
Date 11/23/63
LINNIE MAE RANDLE, 2439 West Fifth Street, Irving, Texas, phone Blackburn 3-8965, was interviewed at the Dallas Police Department.
RANDLE advised that she is the sister of BUELL WESLEY FRAZIER, who is employed by the Texas School Book Depository and resides at her residence, stated that she met LEE HARVEY OSWALD through her brother, and has known OSWALD and his wife for about six weeks. RANDLE advised that OSWALD's wife is MARINA OSWALD, who resides at 2515 W. Fifth, Irving, Texas, and that OSWALD spends the weekends with his wife at the above mentioned address. Her brother, WESLEY FRAZIER, customarily drives LEE HARVEY OSWALD to 2515 West Fifth, Irving, Texas, on Friday night, and takes him back to work on Monday morning. He stated that OSWALD is also employed at the Texas School Book Depository.
On the night of November 21, 1963, she observed FRAZIER letting LEE HARVEY OSWALD out of FRAZIER's car at 2515 West Fifth. Subsequently, she asked FRAZIER why OSWALD was visiting his wife on Thursday evening, as he usually did not visit her until Friday evening each week. FRAZIER told her that OSWALD claimed he was visiting his wife the night of November 21, 1963, because he is fixing up his apartment and RUTH PAINE, with whom his wife resides at 2515 West Fifth, Irving, was going to give him some curtain rods.
RANDLE stated that about 7:15 a.m., November 22, 1963, she looked out of a window of her residence and observed LEE HARVEY OSWALD walking up her driveway and saw him put a long brown package, approximately 3 feet by 6 inches, in the back seat area of WESLEY FRAZIER's 1954 black Chevrolet four door automobile. Thereafter, she observed OSWALD walk to the front, or entrance area, of her residence where he waited for FRAZIER to come out of the house and give him a ride to work.
RANDLE stated while at the Dallas Police Department on the evening of November 22, 1963, officers of the Dallas Police Department had exhibited to her some brown package paper, however she had not been able to positively identify it as being identical with the above-mentioned brown package, due to the fact she had only observed the brown package from her residence window at a distance.
on 11/22/63 at Dallas, Texas File # DL 89-43
by Special Agent JAMES W. BOOKHOUT/cah/tjd
Date dictated 11/23/63
------------------------------------------------
Difficult to say for sure, but possibly when he first got the package out of the car or while he was waiting over by the cyclone fence. Relevance?
Buell seemed more concerned about his car battery at that point
The relevance of a Buell frontal/non-frontal view of the package being carried is abundantly clear
Or he might have used the left hand to angle the bag over in front of his head
Interesting. Have you seen an affidavit that mentions the length of the bag she saw?
>>> As it turns out, no.
This will do:
RANDLE stated that about 7:15 a.m., November 22, 1963, she looked out of a window of her residence and observed LEE HARVEY OSWALD walking up her driveway and saw him put a long brown package, approximately 3 feet by 6 inches, in the back seat area of WESLEY FRAZIER's 1954 black Chevrolet four door automobile.
What a silly thing to post..... It's obviously totally inaccurate.... A THREE FOOT LONG paper sack??
I would hasten to point out that Mrs Randle DESCRIBED the manner in which Lee carried the paper sack.... She said that Lee had the sack down beside his right leg and his right arm was extended down at his side as he walked along with the sack it nearly touched the ground. ( What was the distance from the sack to the ground.....6 inches? A subjective distance) At any rate Lee was 5'9" and his hand would have been about 26 inches from the ground with his arm down at his side. So the sack could not have been anywhere near 3 foot long.... It was probably about 2 feet long, but it might have been less than 2 feet If "Randle's idea of "nearly touched the ground" was 8 to 10 inches.
::)
Only in WallyWorld is 10 inches 'nearly touching' the ground.
No, I don't think it will. Linnie Mae always maintained that the bag he saw was shorter. During her testimony they measured how long she estimated it to be with a mockup and came up with 27 inches one time and 28 1/2 inches the other time. FBI agents would conduct their interviews and not take contemporaneous notes. They would finish the interview and then go off and transcribe what they heard. The WC should have asked her about this discrepancy because it very possible that Bookhout misunderstood her or didn't transcribe what she said properly. We also don't know if she gave Bookhout a length herself or if Bookhout estimated it himself from her holding her hands apart or whatever.
No, I don't think it will. Linnie Mae always maintained that the bag he saw was shorter. During her testimony they measured how long she estimated it to be with a mockup and came up with 27 inches one time and 28 1/2 inches the other time. FBI agents would conduct their interviews and not take contemporaneous notes. They would finish the interview and then go off and transcribe what they heard. The WC should have asked her about this discrepancy because it very possible that Bookhout misunderstood her or didn't transcribe what she said properly. We also don't know if she gave Bookhout a length herself or if Bookhout estimated it himself from her holding her hands apart or whatever.
Show us where the FBI didn't have Randle read over her 11.22.63 statement to confirm her statement as being accurate.
Really, Bill?
Show us where they did.
Does the package that Danny The Rat is holding look like CE 142??
LBJ's "Special Blue Ribbon Committee " Told us that CE 142 was the sack that Lee used to carry the rifle .......( of course there wasn't a iota of physical evidence that any rifle had ever been in CE 142 , (but what hell.....They didn't need no stinkin physical evidence)
Danny obviously ignores the WC theory (twisted though it be) and presents the viewers with his idea of the paper sack...
Really, Bill?
Show us where they did.
Seems Randle stated the size was 3ft long, given that Bookout didn't say anything about her physically indicating the size of the bag.
Try to follow along. Rather is demonstrating the 34.8" size, not the exact look of the bag.
I maintain that at that size, the bag wouldn't be all that difficult to fool someone who thinks it contained curtain rods, and another who saw Oswald only out of the corner of his eye... especially wearing a baggy-sleeved jacket, allowing for extra concealment.
No, I don't think it will. Linnie Mae always maintained that the bag he saw was shorter. During her testimony they measured how long she estimated it to be with a mockup and came up with 27 inches one time and 28 1/2 inches the other time. FBI agents would conduct their interviews and not take contemporaneous notes. They would finish the interview and then go off and transcribe what they heard. The WC should have asked her about this discrepancy because it very possible that Bookhout misunderstood her or didn't transcribe what she said properly. We also don't know if she gave Bookhout a length herself or if Bookhout estimated it himself from her holding her hands apart or whatever.
Try to follow along. Rather is demonstrating the 34.8" size, not the exact look of the bag.
Yes, he knew that he was talking to suckers who wouldn't know that the sack he was showing them was NOT like the bag in evidence ( CE 142) He knew he could dupe fools...... And it looks like he succeeded. He duped at least one fool, didn't he Chappie?
What we do know is that Bookout reported that Randle stated the bag was approximately 3', no matter how many Bookout-might-have-done-this, Bookout-might-have-done-thatisms you lot can cook up.
What is also known is that Randle never stated that size whenever we heard from her directly?...
(http://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/rifle27.jpg)
(http://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/rifle2713.jpg)
I'm 6' tall. I can hold a 35" pole by my side, grasped as described by Randle. The bottom of the pole reaches to just above my ankle bone. Including my shoes, that leaves 5" to the ground. Knock 3.5" off my height and one finds a match for the Randle near-the-ground description. One is left with the possibility of the package carrying a broken-down, to a 34.8" length, Mannlicher Carcano.
I'm the same height as Oswald and I can hold a 27" stick between my armpit and my cupped hand. When holding it the bottom of the stick is about four inches above the ground.
I'm the same height as Oswald and I can hold a 27" stick between my armpit and my cupped hand.
Is 4" 'almost touching the ground' to you? Not to me.
Randle: "He was carrying a package in a sort of a heavy brown bag, heavier than a grocery bag it looked to me. It was about, if I might measure, about this long, I suppose, and he carried it in his right hand, had the top sort of folded down and had a grip like this, and the bottom, he carried it this way, you know, and it almost touched the ground as he carried it."
Are you sure Ray? I'm 6'2" and a 27" stick goes from my armpit down past my cupped hand?
JohnM
Tell you what, I'll try to post a photo tomorrow. Too busy to sort it tonight.
Just thought on, though, you probably won't think that the stick is 27", and that I'm cheating. You'll just have to take my word for it. I've actually tried this before so I'm not inventing it.
What a pity we don't have photos or drawing to show what she meant. Seems that, like me, you disbelieve what she said. Difference is I believe Linnie and Buell were lying about the bag. You seem to believe that they both saw the bag but don't believe their estimates of the size.
What a pity we don't have photos or drawing to show what she meant. Seems that, like me, you disbelieve what she said. Difference is I believe Linnie and Buell were lying about the bag. You seem to believe that they both saw the bag but don't believe their estimates of the size.
Actually it's easy to understand what Randle meant, at least with how the bag was gripped. A few months ago I thought the bag might have been carried with a choke grip, and slightly bent arm. I tested that myself at the time... but, that doesn't make sense if he was trying to reduce the package profile. Seems Randle's carry-description would keep the bag right beside him.
Based on Randle's first-day report of an approximate 36" bag length, her brother's rather aggressive handling in interrogation, and then the incredible shrinking bag popping up, one can reasonably argue that FBI/Dallas weren't the only folks taking a CYA stance. So I'm not unreservedly calling them liars in the nasty sense that Johnny666 and others here use. I'm more inclined to place them in the 'white lie' category, as there was never going to be a trial anyway, and Buell had to live down the fact that he drove the potential killer to work that day.
Alternately, as JohnM has just posted, the approximations are in the ballpark as compared to the Rather demo.
the approximations are in the ballpark as compared to the Rather demo.
The problem is;.... Rather's package not only doesn't look like CE 142 that Detective Montgomery carried from the TSBD...It doesn't fit the description of the sack that Linnie Mae Randle and BWF said they saw Lee carry that morning.
Let's just forget about Rather and focus on the WC investigation. If I remember correctly they showed both witnesses the original and the replica bag and both denied it was the bag they had seen. They asked Frazier and Randle to reproduce multiple copies of the bag that none of them came close to the size the WC needed to conceal a broken down MC rifle.
When they couldn't get Frazier and Randle on board on the size they just said they were mistaken..... What more does anybody else need to know, when investigators start making up their own truth and dismissing the only witnesses who actually saw the bag?
Huh? How about you use a tape measure and then the dimensions will be beyond dispute.
JohnM
Oswald put his long package on the back seat and lied to the DP when he said hisriflelunch was on his lap.
Oswald told the DP that his long package contained his lunch.
Buell said that Oswald told him that the package contained curtain rods.
Here's Linnie and Buell demonstrating their guesstimates for Oswald's "lunch" package.
(https://i.postimg.cc/xj7s18fK/buell_linnie_est.jpg)
JohnM
Let's just forget about Rather and focus on the WC investigation. If I remember correctly they showed both witnesses the original and the replica bag and both denied it was the bag they had seen. They asked Frazier and Randle to reproduce multiple copies of the bag that none of them came close to the size the WC needed to conceal a broken down MC rifle.
When they couldn't get Frazier and Randle on board on the size they just said they were mistaken..... What more does anybody else need to know, when investigators start making up their own truth and dismissing the only witnesses who actually saw the bag?
Randle estimates 36" package first-day
Nope.. Bookhout wrote that this was Randle's estimate. Prove she actually said it!
Futhermore, if what Bookhout wrote in his FB 302 is true, Randle committed perjury in her WC testimony. Was she ever prosecuted?
Make up your own reality as much as you like, but the only two witnesses who ever saw the bag Oswald carried say your reality is wrong, regardless of what Bookhout wrote!
All this discussion about the size of the bag when the WC failed to support their claim that a bag was ever found in the alleged SN.
What bag?
Randle estimates 36" package first-day
Nope.. Bookhout wrote that this was Randle's estimate. Prove she actually said it!
Futhermore, if what Bookhout wrote in his FB 302 is true, Randle committed perjury in her WC testimony. Was she ever prosecuted?
Make up your own reality as much as you like, but the only two witnesses who ever saw the bag Oswald carried say your reality is wrong, regardless of what Bookhout wrote!
We'll never know if Randle's estimate was a spoken one or not. Bookout did not make that distinction as far as I know. Where you there?
People say a lot of things. Especially a person who drove the eventual prime suspect to the eventual murder scene. And was the person who apparently underwent a lengthy interrogation in which he was threatened with fisticuffs unless he 'fessed up.
Under those circumstances, I contend that the smart move would have been to sling-the-bull about the bag size.
That's my reality.
We'll never know if Randle's estimate was a spoken one or not. Bookout did not make that distinction as far as I know
Exactly right. And that's why you don't get to assume that what Bookhout wrote in his FD 302 was indeed correct.
People say a lot of things. Especially a person who drove the eventual prime suspect to the eventual murder scene. And was the person who apparently underwent a lengthy interrogation in which he was threatened with fisticuffs unless he 'fessed up.
Under those circumstances, I contend that the smart move would have been to sling-the-bull about the bag size.
What kind of weird "logic" is this? When you are innocent and uninvolved there is no reason to lie about anything. Lying under such circumstances could only make you look guilty and get you into trouble.
'You don't get to assume that what Bookhout wrote in his FD 302 was indeed correct'
>>> Using that measure, you don't get to assume that what Bookout wrote in his report wasn't correct
'What kind of weird "logic" is this? When you are innocent and uninvolved there is no reason to lie about anything. Lying under such circumstances could only make you look guilty and get you into trouble'
>>> Exactly what would Randle and/or Buell be charged with? Underestimating the bag size?
People say a lot of things. Especially a person who drove the eventual prime suspect to the eventual murder scene. And was the person who apparently underwent a lengthy interrogation in which he was threatened with fisticuffs unless he 'fessed up.
Under those circumstances, I contend that the smart move would have been to sling-the-bull about the bag size.
That's my reality.
Using that measure, you don't get to assume that what Bookout wrote in his report wasn't correct
That would possibly be true if Randle had not made several other statements, including one under oath, that differ completely from what Bookhout wrote. As it stands all her known statements back up the conclusion that what Bookhout wrote was incorrect.
Exactly what would Randle and/or Buell be charged with? Underestimating the bag size?
You are not making any sense. First you suggest that Frazier and Randle may have lied about the bag to avoid Frazier being regarded as complicit in the murder.
and now you seem to suggest that Frazier could easily have told a lie because of the limited consequence that would have. So, here is my question for you;
If Frazier had nothing to fear to begin with, why would he lie in the first place?
Using that measure, you don't get to assume that what Bookout wrote in his report wasn't correct
That would possibly be true if Randle had not made several other statements, including one under oath, that differ completely from what Bookhout wrote. As it stands all her known statements back up the conclusion that what Bookhout wrote was incorrect.
Exactly what would Randle and/or Buell be charged with? Underestimating the bag size?
You are not making any sense. First you suggest that Frazier and Randle may have lied about the bag to avoid Frazier being regarded as complicit in the murder.
and now you seem to suggest that Frazier could easily have told a lie because of the limited consequence that would have. So, here is my question for you;
If Frazier had nothing to fear to begin with, why would he lie in the first place?
He had the rest of his life to be worried about. That was borne out in the problems he had with the busybodies giving him static about driving the killer to work.
How many times do you hear people say they are innocent and have nothing to fear? Ask the innocent people who Henry Wade got in his clutches how that went, first time around.
Best to hedge one's bets given that atmosphere.
Once again you are not making any sense. An innocent and uninvolved Frazier had no incentive to lie. And most certainly he did not have an incentive to lie and tell the DPD something they didn't want to hear!
The DPD found a bag that was big enough to have contained a broken down rifle. Early on, with Oswald having been arrested, they were convinced they had their man. They also knew that Frazier drove Oswald to work that morning. So, the DPD wanted to hear from Frazier that they had the correct bag and that it was indeed big enough to contain a rifle, right? Telling them exactly that would have gotten Frazier out of trouble, but that would have been a lie!
But he did not tell them that. Instead he claimed, like an innocent person would do, that they had the wrong bag and that Oswald's bag was much smaller. Now, if that was a lie, it was a pretty stupid one, because the DPD could conclude that he was lying to protect Oswald and maybe himself as a complicit.
How many times do you hear people say they are innocent and have nothing to fear? Ask the innocent people who Henry Wade got in his clutches how that went, first time around.
Could that possibly include Oswald as well?
Oswald denied carrying curtain rods. Buell said otherwise.Wow ...that was actually a Chap-post?
Oswald said he carried his lunch to work. Buell said he didn't.
Who do you believe?
Buell kept proclaiming that he wasn't really paying attention to the bag. That oft-repeated statement alone could raise investigator eyebrows; suggesting a kind of 'methinks the Bueller doth protesteth too much'
You ignore the threat of fisticuffs Buell faced in interrogation. You can sanitize his situation as much as you want, but he had to know he was in deep crap.
Oswald denied carrying curtain rods. Buell said otherwise.
Oswald said he carried his lunch to work. Buell said he didn't.
Who do you believe?
Buell kept proclaiming that he wasn't really paying attention to the bag. That oft-repeated statement alone could raise investigator eyebrows; suggesting a kind of 'methinks the Bueller doth protesteth too much'
You ignore the threat of fisticuffs Buell faced in interrogation. You can sanitize his situation as much as you want, but he had to know he was in deep crap.
I stand by my point that Randle & Buell could have decided to hedge their bets. It would have been the smart move.
Once again you are not making any sense. An innocent and uninvolved Frazier had no incentive to lie. And most certainly he did not have an incentive to lie and tell the DPD something they didn't want to hear!
The DPD found a bag that was big enough to have contained a broken down rifle. Early on, with Oswald having been arrested, they were convinced they had their man. They also knew that Frazier drove Oswald to work that morning. So, the DPD wanted to hear from Frazier that they had the correct bag and that it was indeed big enough to contain a rifle, right? Telling them exactly that would have gotten Frazier out of trouble, but that would have been a lie!
But he did not tell them that. Instead he claimed, like an innocent person would do, that they had the wrong bag and that Oswald's bag was much smaller. Now, if that was a lie, it was a pretty stupid one, because the DPD could conclude that he was lying to protect Oswald and maybe himself as a complicit.
How many times do you hear people say they are innocent and have nothing to fear? Ask the innocent people who Henry Wade got in his clutches how that went, first time around.
Could that possibly include Oswald as well?
Wow ...that was actually a Chap-post?
BWF was a 19 yr old kid at the time. His affidavit was drafted by the Dallas Police [all you have to do is read it] https://www.google.com/search?q=affidavit+buell+wesley+frazier&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiLgoX60_rdAhUqjFQKHWtJC1QQsAR6BAgFEAE&biw=1024&bih=646
As you can see from the link there seems to be different versions of the same affidavit.
How did the police appear to have keyed in on Frazier so quickly? Almost like it was in the script.
Police...Tell us about the curtain rods.
BWF.....What curtain rods?
Police...The curtain rods that Oswald brought to work.
BWF.....He did?
Nice work Jerry Freeman. Never saw that. Still reading this whole thing... I don't want to be premature.
Note that at least one of those are from Ripley's Believe it or Not
BTW, they claim to have Oswald's toe tag, along with the machine & tools used to embalm him
Oswald denied carrying curtain rods. Buell said otherwise.
Oswald said he carried his lunch to work. Buell said he didn't.
Who do you believe?
There is no verbatim record of what Oswald said!
Buell kept proclaiming that he wasn't really paying attention to the bag. That oft-repeated statement alone could raise investigator eyebrows; suggesting a kind of 'methinks the Bueller doth protesteth too much'
Why would that raise eyebrows for an investigator? It's fairly common for people not to pay much attention to most what is around them. More than anything else it sounds like a build in safety measure to me, as it gave Frazier some protection to being pinned down too solidly to a statement. And, of course, it could well be true.
You ignore the threat of fisticuffs Buell faced in interrogation. You can sanitize his situation as much as you want, but he had to know he was in deep crap.
No, I didn't ignore that at all. A 19 year old kid who knows he hasn't done anything wrong, has no reason to lie to police. An innocent indivual doesn't usually lie to try and get out of trouble. Besides, if he was going to lie, why not tell investigators what they wanted to hear; i.e. that the bag they had was indeed the bag he saw Oswald carry?
I stand by my point that Randle & Buell could have decided to hedge their bets. It would have been the smart move.
I disagree. The move would have been just as stupid as you standing by that point!
There is no verbatim record of what Oswald said!
>>>He said the bag he was carrying contained his lunch. Buell says different. You can't have it both ways. Either Buell or Oswald lied about that. Again, who do you think was lying about curtain rods: Buell or Oswald?
Why would that raise eyebrows for an investigator?
>>> Did I say would, or could? You need to stop misrepresenting what I said.
No, I didn't ignore that at all. A 19 year old kid who knows he hasn't done anything wrong, has no reason to lie to police.
>>> This particular 19yo 'kid' was sharp enough to recognize a fist being raised by an apparently irate officer who seemed intent on getting Buell's signature on a confession.
An innocent indivual doesn't usually lie to try and get out of trouble
>>> An innocent individual who is physically threatened by police?
Besides, if he was going to lie, why not tell investigators what they wanted to hear; i.e. that the bag they had was indeed the bag he saw Oswald carry?
>>> It would be folly to admit that. He would then have to explain why he never considered the package seemed big enough to carry a broken down rifle, on a day when the POTUS would be driving right past their workplace.
I disagree. The move would have been just as stupid as you standing by that point!
>>> So because you disagree with me I'm stupid, huh. You must have all the answers. Can't wait for your press conference.
Blah BlahWhy suck up a bunch of web space quoting the affidavit that the police wrote?
Mr. BALL - Did he come in with anybody?In other words, there was no package ;)
Mr. DOUGHERTY - No.
Mr. BALL - He was alone?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - Yes; he was alone.
Mr. BALL - Do you recall him having anything in his hand?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - Well, I didn't see anything, if he did.
Mr. BALL - Did you pay enough attention to him, you think, that you would remember whether he did or didn't?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - Well, I believe I can---yes, sir---I'll put it this way; I didn't see anything in his hands at the time.
Mr. BALL - In other words, your memory is definite on that is it?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL - In other words, you would say positively he had nothing in his hands?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - I would say that---yes, sir.
Why suck up a bunch of web space quoting the affidavit that the police wrote?
I provided the link and we've all read it.
Now it is/or is it? obvious that BWF was grilled before Fritz [according to his notes] asked Oswald about curtain rods...
I can't find a better photo of RATher holding the curtain rods----
(http://i1233.photobucket.com/albums/ff394/dhjosephs/Ratherbagtoobigtoo_zps7e00bda8.jpg)
Again--- In other words, there was no package ;)
Just because their alleged accounts differ, that doesn't necessarily mean that one of them is lying.
First of all, as far as I can recall, nowhere in Frazier's story is there a fist being raised, so I have no idea where you got that bit of information from.
Buell Wesley Frazier and his interrogation by Will Fritz
People say a lot of things. Especially a person who drove the eventual prime suspect to the eventual murder scene. And was the person who apparently underwent a lengthy interrogation in which he was threatened with fisticuffs unless he 'fessed up.
Hang on a minute. You claimed;
The video shows that Fritz presented Frazier with a written confession to sign early on and got angry when Frazier stood up to him and refused to sign it.
Only after Fritz left (and Frazier said he never saw him again) was Frazier being interrogated for hours!
What I don't understand and you likely can not explain is why would Frazier feel so intimidated during the later interrogation that he lied about the bag, when he had already shown no sign of being intimidated by Fritz?
Quote from: Martin Weidmann on October 11, 2018, 03:32:33 PM
First of all, as far as I can recall, nowhere in Frazier's story is there a fist being raised, so I have no idea where you got that bit of information from.
WELL?
Tell us why Rather showing that the 34.8" bag cannot be held in the palm and under the armpit is the only aspect of the Rather bag demo you seem interested in.By 'you' ...I guess you mean me?
Mr. BALL - When you saw him get out of the car, when you first saw him when he was out of the car before he started to walk, you noticed he had the package under the arm?3) So the Rat was off and so are you.
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL - One end of it was under the armpit and the other he had to hold it in his right hand. Did the package extend beyond the right hand?
Mr. FRAZIER - No, sir. Like I say if you put it under your armpits and put it down normal to the side.
Mr. BALL - But the right hand on, was it on the end or the side of the package?
Mr. FRAZIER - No; he had it cupped in his hand.
Mr. BALL - Cupped in his hand?
Mr. FRAZIER - Right.
By 'you' ...I guess you mean me?
1) I don't know how long the paper sack Rat is holding and neither do you.
2) WBF testified....3) So the Rat was off and so are you.
Well nothing, Now I recall.
How about you addressing the points I have raised?
A) You're assuming Buell was telling the truth.I say old Chap...I assumed nothing really. I only noted testimony before the Worn Commission. Because the case is 'worn' out. I care nothing about Rather...he lied too.
B) You assume that Rather was lying about the size of the demo bag. Rather was 1.78m tall. One can compare the demo bag to Rather's height to confirm the demo bag size.
How about you doing some quick 'brush up' research before crafting your answers in such a way as to cast doubt on the veracity of myself and other CTers? I'd be willing to bet that you knew all along about the Fritz physical threat re Buell, and wanted to sanitize that issue in order to minimize my suggestion that Fritz's threat might have alerted Buell to the possibility that he might be in deeper crap than he had expected.
Re the other questions in your post, how about you not misrepresenting what I said?
First of all, as far as I can recall, nowhere in Frazier's story is there a fist being raised, so I have no idea where you got that bit of information from.
How about you doing some quick 'brush up' research before crafting your answers in such a way as to cast doubt on the veracity of myself and other CTers?
Hang on, the comment I made began with "as far as I can recall"!
Asking for an explanation or a cite isn't casting doubt on anybody, but the fact that you percieve it to be is very telling. Btw, as far as you go, your contributions to this forum make it abundantly clear that nothing you say can ever be taken at face value.
myself and other CTers
You are a CTer now?
Re the other questions in your post, how about you not misrepresenting what I said?
Pray tell, what did I misrepresent this time? And, even worse, how could I even have misrepresented what you said when I actually quoted you own words in my post?
You are a CTer now?
Oh, I hope not.... He would definitely not be an asset to the CT team....Too dishonest.
Point out where I'm 'dishonest'
How about you doing some quick 'brush up' research before crafting your answers in such a way as to cast doubt on the veracity of myself and other CTers?
How about you doing some quick 'brush up' research before crafting your answers in such a way as to cast doubt on the veracity of myself and other LNers?
Just because their alleged accounts differ, that doesn't necessarily mean that one of them is lying.
Yes it does
Version 1;
Version 2;
Yes it does
No it doesn't.
LOL
You lot know darned well that I'm an LNer. You're so desperate to minimize me that you have to attack a late night slip-of-the-tongue. That speaks volumes, puts into question your true reason for posting here.
a late night slip-of-the-tongue.
I figured that it was that, but what was dishonest about it is that you did not own the mistake!
Instead you just went back and changed it from CT to LN, hoping nobody would notice. That was dishonest!
Is this all you can come up with in an attempt to show I'm somehow 'dishonest' Martin? Quite a reach...
Instead you just went back and changed it from CT to LN, hoping nobody would notice. That was dishonest!
>>> I corrected it because it was inaccurate. Is that dishonest somehow? You're trying to make it sound sneaky.
All you had to do was admit you made an error, but you probably couldn't bring yourself to say it.
Is this all you can come up with in an attempt to show I'm somehow 'dishonest' Martin? Quite a reach...
Instead you just went back and changed it from CT to LN, hoping nobody would notice. That was dishonest!
>>> I corrected it because it was inaccurate. Is that dishonest somehow? You're trying to make it sound sneaky.
Point out where I'm 'dishonest'
All you had to do was admit you made an error, but you probably couldn't bring yourself to say it.
You asked;
I did.
Deal with it!
I find it odd that you think I wouldn't want anyone to notice my correction.
On the contrary, I wanted people to notice my correction, and ASAP. Thus, my prompt action was timely. In addition, my late night slip-of-the tongue is self-explanatory, given that regulars here know full-well that I'm a WC supporter.
I find it odd that you think I wouldn't want anyone to notice my correction.
On the contrary, I wanted people to notice my correction, and ASAP. Thus, my prompt action was timely. In addition, my late night slip-of-the tongue is self-explanatory, given that regulars here know full-well that I'm a WC supporter.
Version 1;
Version 2;
LOL
You lot know darned well that I'm an LNer. You're so desperate to minimize me that you have to attack a late night slip-of-the-tongue. That speaks volumes, puts into question your true reason for posting here.
I find it odd that you think I wouldn't want anyone to notice my correction.
On the contrary, I wanted people to notice my correction, and ASAP. Thus, my prompt action was timely. In addition, my late night slip-of-the tongue is self-explanatory, given that regulars here know full-well that I'm a WC supporter.
A Freudian slip?
bla bla bla..... whatever.
Stop protesting so much!
So 'whatever' is your retreat. Got it.
No, that's not a Freudian slip, or a faux pas.... Chappie is definitely not a CT....so it can't be a Freudian slip.
We should thank God that Chappie is on the other team.... He certainly is no asset to the LNer contingent....And he certainly would not be an asset to the CT side....
Now you really show everybody that you are a true LN.... Thumb1:
Another non-answer...
to a non-question, perhaps?
But be happy, at least now there can't be any misunderstanding about you being an LN.
It might even have convinced yourself to such an extend that you will never confuse yourself with being a CT again.
On October 16 I explained the CT typo as a late night slip-of-the-tongue and you said you figured that's what it was.
Now you are foolishly attempting to save face.
myself and other CTers
You are a CTer now?
On October 16 I explained the CT typo as a late night slip-of-the-tongue and you said you figured that's what it was.
Yes, you did explain that, but only one day after I had asked you; and after you went back to your original post and changed the wording from CT to LN, and never said a word'
>>> Every veteran here knows full well that I'm an LNer. Why wait to inform newbies? And pretty sure I don't need anyone's permission on when to correct my own typos.
You only "explained" the obvious after your dishonest behavior had been caught out.
>>> How is correcting my own typo 'dishonest'?
'Btw the Original CT post can still be seen, as it was quoted in my reply (#296 on page 30 of this thread)!'
>>> Exactly, no need for me to announce anything.
You really are living in a world of your own, aren't you?
>>> Did you figure my CT typo a late night slip of the tongue or didn't you? You did... yet you said in a recent post that "It might even have convinced yourself to such an extend that you will never confuse yourself with being a CT again".
You seem the dishonest party here.
On October 16 I explained the CT typo as a late night slip-of-the-tongue and you said you figured that's what it was.
Yes, you did explain that, but only one day after I had asked you;
and after you went back to your original post and changed the wording from CT to LN, and never said a word.
You only "explained" the obvious after your dishonest behavior had been caught out.
Btw the Original CT post can still be seen, as it was quoted in my reply (#296 on page 30 of this thread)!
Now you are foolishly attempting to save face.
Looking in the mirror, are you?
You really are living in a world of your own, aren't you?
Again you show yourself to be a true LN. You just can't let go, can you now?
... my 'CT' thing was a slip-of-the-tongue ....You type with your tongue? :P
Wow, why all these attacks on the LNers, it's not a war, we are simply having a debate about the evidence in the JFK case but it seems that since you can't support your JFK arguments you're reduced to these endless and entirely worthless ad-hom attacks.
Maybe you need to take a break Weidmann and spend some time to analyse what's motivating you and then see a shrink and try and get rid of it!
JohnM
Put aside your gaslighting for a moment and answer this: Did you say you knew my 'CT' thing was a slip-of-the-tongue, or didn't you?
You're the one who can't let go
Says the guy who claims that others are thrown off other boards, claims that they have no credibility constantly and mocks their supposed job. Sure, you're Mr. Nice Guy.
Says the guy who claims that others are thrown off other boards
claims that they have no credibility
and mocks their supposed job.
Sure, you're Mr. Nice Guy.
Says the guy who claims that others are thrown off other boards, claims that they have no credibility constantly and mocks their supposed job. Sure, you're Mr. Nice Guy.
You type with your tongue? :P
You ought to stop trying to be witty... you're just not good at it.
You got no sense of humor?
No point in responding to Mytton's crap.
When he starts like that, you've already won the argument and, although he most likely will never admit it, he knows it nevertheless. That's good enough for me!
No point in responding to Mytton.....
When he starts like that, you've already won the argument
although he most likely will never admit it
he knows it nevertheless.
That's good enough for me!
Is that a promise?
What's to win? I didn't use "quotations" and you misunderstood what I was saying but since then I've cleared it up.
What, a word game about my use of grammar, ok, whatever floats your boat.
I know that to next time to use "quotations" so as to make the obvious clearer for people who are looking only to win.
OK.
JohnM
See what I mean?
No point in responding to Mytton...
Go and share your knowledge and post at these other boards.
If you want credibility then earn it.
I have no idea what you do and I don't care.
Where did I say I was "Mr Nice Guy"?
JohnM
You ought to stop trying to be witty... you're just not good at it.Sez u
No point in responding to Mytton's crap.
When he starts like that, you've already won the argument and, although he most likely will never admit it, he knows it nevertheless. That's good enough for me!
If Buell Frazier was going to lie about the bag's existence, wouldn't he at least state that the bag was long enough to contain the rifle? Why introduce a bag into the folklore but state that it was not long enough?
Silly conspirators.
So, are you saying that Frazier isn't capable of making up a false story? Frazier claimed he was standing with Sarah Stanton, but Sarah Stanton never even mentioned Frazier in her FBI testimony.
Lee Harvey Oswald himself denied that the bag contained curtain rods on two separate occasions. So, Harvey is refuting Frazier's story of the bag containing curtain rods.
Captain Will Fritz interrogated Oswald. According to Fritz's account: “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. He said, ‘No. I didn’t carry anything but my lunch."
So, Oswald said he only had his lunch when he was interrogated by Fritz.
Also, Oswald denied Frazier's story a second time when Harry Holmes a postal inspector and FBI informer questioned Oswald about Frazier's story of a long package that he claimed Oswald had in the car.
Harry 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?”
Oswald: “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.”
Holmes: “Was it a long sack?”
Oswald: “Well, it could have been.”
Holmes: “What did you do with it?”
Oswald: “Carried it in my lap.”
Holmes: “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’s all he said about it.
So, that's twice Oswald was questioned about a curtain rods and he denied it twice. If the bag did contain curtain rods, Oswald wouldn't deny it on two separate occasions when being interrogated.
If the bag had the gun in it, why did Oswald wait for Buell to finish with the car, before proceeding into the building? Surely you would want to get into the building and hide the gun ASAP?
if he did he would compromise his Russia false defector work...
Yes, and jeopardize the lives of other agents who were still "out in the cold".....
That's what I thought after reading Michael Paine's comments in his manuscript about Lee, when he stated what he felt about the assumptions people had about Lee being a government or federal agent. I read the manuscript about a month ago in Sean DeGrilla's book Malcontent. I believe it's the first publication of the manuscript, I don't know/haven't seen if Paine's writing is online, so out of respect to author's new work I wont copy it here.
Robert, Can you flesh that out a bit?.... What did Michael Paine say about Lee Oswald, with respect to Lee being a agent of the US government?
There's no doubt in my mind that Lee was sent to Russia by the US government. The Russians had recruited Lee while he was a Marine on a secret U-2 base in Japan. The CIA knew that the Russians were enticing Lee Oswald, and they contacted the Marines and encouraged Lee to play along with the Russians. They even sent Lee to foreign language school where he learned to understand and speak Russian.
Michael Paine wrote in the 2013 manuscript that if in fact Lee Oswald was associated CIA or FBI it would only be because that would be in Lee's view a way to infiltrate the Government.
Both Paine and Oswald attended left and right wing events, I just think that statement is being deceptive/protective.
The book is a great read, and has its position of course, not too many writings on the topic waver back and forth.
Walt, I've read so much on Oswald but can no longer find this reference, I've looked online: a claim that part of Oswald's intelligence training he was observed walking sidewalks backward. Not that I believe that claim, I don't know if that was in a book or online if anyone knows.
Ruth said Oswald took his laundry after visiting on weekends. Frazier said Oswald only ever took his lunch except for the 22nd.
Who's lying Ruth or Buell? Your call.
Addendum:I know that Shermer is an idiot (from my reading over the years).
Michael Shermer has pointed out that the side that argues against the truth focuses on minutiae, whether it is 9/11 truthers, Scientific Creationists or Holocaust deniers. And don?t look at the overall picture.
Holocaust deniers claim presence of ?Prussian Blue? in the in the delousing stations but not in the gas chambers prove that the gas chambers were not used to kill people. Ignoring that insects require a much higher presence of cyanide is needed to kill insects (16,000 parts per million) than people (300 parts per million).
Scientific Creationists claiming human footprints besides dinosaur footprints disprove the Theory of Evolution. Ignoring the possibility of the ?human footprints? being chiseled into the rock by fakers.
9/11 Truthers pointing out that the fires could not have been hot enough to melt steel, and not considering that the steel doesn?t have to be melted, just heated to a high enough temperature long enough, to fail to support the tremendous weight of the building.
And just this weekend we see CTers doing the same thing.
1. The southwest corner of the sixth floor of the TSBD looks like a sniper?s nest, but it is claimed that it is just a bit too cramped to be used to shoot from.
2. The bag Oswald carried with him into work looked like it could have been used to carry his rifle into work that day, but it is claimed that it was just a bit too short to hold the rifle.
If Buell Frazier was going to lie about the bag's existence, wouldn't he at least state that the bag was long enough to contain the rifle? Why introduce a bag into the folklore but state that it was not long enough?
Silly conspirators.
IMHO, Frazier realized how long the bag was and intuited that it contained a broken-down rifle, but lied about it later because he was afraid he might incriminate himself as an accessory to the murder of the President of the United States if he told the truth.
I think you're probably right, a package that was about "2 feet long, give and take a few inches" could easily be kept comfortably with you in the front seat and especially if it was Oswald's lunch like he says, but regardless, Oswald first goes beyond where he later waited and went straight to Frazier's car, opens the back door up and immediately hides the package in the car on the back seat. If indeed it was relatively light curtain rods, wouldn't anyone else just keep the package on their person till Frazier came out? instead of hiding the evidence as quickly as possible!
Also what's pretty funny is that in the first photo below it's claimed by some extreme Ct's that Linnie Mae couldn't see through the open slats to see Oswald, Hilarious!
(https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/pages/WH_Vol17_0097a.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/Dwkmmh6S/oswald-walks-to-frazier-car.gif)
Linnie Mae Randall told the FBI on the day after that the package was approximately three feet long.
RANDLE stated that about 7:15 a.m., November 22, 1963, she looked out of a window of her residence and observed LEE HARVEY OSWALD walking up her driveway and saw him put a long brown package, approximately 3 feet by 6 inches, in the back seat area of WESLEY FRAZIER's 1954 black Chevrolet four door automobile. Thereafter, she observed OSWALD walk to the front, or entrance area, of her residence where he waited for FRAZIER to come out of the house and give him a ride to work.
Frazier says the package was around "two feet, give and take a few inches."
Mr. BALL - From the side of the seat over to the center, is that the way you would measure it?
Mr. FRAZIER - If, if you were going to measure it that way from the end of the seat over toward the center, right. But I say like I said I just roughly estimate and that would be around two feet, give and take a few inches.
Mr. BALL - How wide was the package?
Mr. FRAZIER - Well, I would say the package was about that wide.
Mr. BALL - How wide would you say that would be?
Mr. FRAZIER - Oh, say, around 5 inches, something like that. 5, 6 inches or there. I don't--
And Linnie in her testimony folds a sample bag and the length was 28 and a half inches then she quickly corrects this guess by saying another sample bag was 27 when it was measured once before, she was trying her best to shrink the bag. Which was most likely after she colluded with her brother to keep Oswald's rifle sack as small as reasonably possible.
Mrs. RANDLE. There again you have the problem of all this down here. It was folded down, of course, if you would take it from the bottom--
Mr. BALL. Fold it to about the size that you think it might be.
Mrs. RANDLE. This is the bottom here, right. This is the bottom, this part down here.
Mr. BALL. I believe so, but I am not sure. But let's say it is.
Mrs. RANDLE. And this goes this way, right? Do you want me to hold it?
Mr. BALL. Yes.
Mrs. RANDLE. About this.
Mr. BALL. Is that about right? That is 28 1/2 inches.
Mrs. RANDLE. I measured 27 last time.
Mr. BALL. You measured 27 once before?
Mrs. RANDLE. Yes, sir.
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.
Also worth noting is Frazier's constant assertion that he never payed much attention to the bag, which could mean that he really didn't give a stuff about Oswald's sack which means any size guess is worthless, or he perfectly knew in hindsight that Oswald had a rifle so Frazier tried his utmost to paint himself as innocent?
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--
Isn't it just too bad that, on Friday evening, Frazier was shown the bag found at the TSBD and instantly denied it was the bag he had seen Oswald carry that morning?
Btw, isn't it just too bad that, on Friday evening, Frazier was shown the bag found at the TSBD and instantly denied it was the bag he had seen Oswald carry that morning?
What, the bag found with Oswald's prints? Hahahaha!
JohnM
This is what happens when somebody doesn't know the evidence.
Oswald's prints on the bag.
(https://i.postimg.cc/tgtbNQtS/Oswaldsprintsonthebag.jpg)
Oswald's rifle was an exact fit for Oswald's rifle bag.
(https://i.postimg.cc/CK6NtdNz/Oswalds-Rifle-Paper-Bag.jpg)
Care to try again!
JohnM
Was it ever established when Oswald actually made the bag?
I was always under the impression that the bag would have to be made at the wrapping table because the tape that was used had to be wet and this would be done through a little machine at the wrapping table. Troy West was the wrapping guy, it was basically his thing, he got help now and then when times were busy but he was the full-time mail wrapper:
Mr. Belin.
If I wanted to use any of that tape, you know that tape that you use to seal it, is there a way to make tape wet so I don't have to lick it myself with my tongue to make it wet and sticky? Or how did you get it to be sticky and stick together?
Mr. West.
Well, we have those machines with the little round ball that we fill them up with water, and so we set them up. In to other words, I got a rack that we set them in, and so we put out tape in a machine, and whenever we pull the tape through, why then the water gets, you know, it gets water on it as we pull it through.
Mr. Belin.
If I wanted to pull the tape, pull off a piece without getting water on it, would I just lift it up without going over the wet roller and get the tape without getting it wet?
Mr. West.
You would have to take it out. You would have to take it out of the machine. See, it's put on there and then run through a little clamp that holds it down, and you pull it, well, then the water, it gets water on it.
The problem with this is that West was always at his table. As soon as he walked in the building he would go straight to the wrapping table where he had everything set up:
Mr. BELIN. Did you first go to the domino room and leave your lunch or hang up your coat or anything?
Mr. WEST. No, sir. I just always go right there first. Sometime I pull my coat off and lay it over on the table and go right on.
Mr. BELIN. How long did you stay about making coffee when you got there? How long did you stay around that place when you first got there?
Mr. WEST. Well, let's see, it didn't take me too long. I mean, you know, to make the coffee. After I got it made, I went right on and went right on at my work wrapping mail.
Other than going to the toilet or washing cups, West would stay at his station through the whole day.
So, when did Oswald make the bag?
Lunch break?
The problem with that is West - it appears he never leaves his station from the moment he arrives and all through the lunch break.
I don't know how long it would take to make such a bag. I reckon it would take me ten minutes at least but I've never tried to make one so I'm guessing.
Why even make one, he had a perfectly good homemade rifle bag back at the Paine house.
Why not make it to carry a 40" assembled rifle instead of a 36" disassembled rifle. It hardly disguises the length of a rifle as Oswald actually bought a 36" rifle. It's a pity Oswald didn't get the rifle he actually bought as the bag would've been the perfect length.
Maybe there was a window of opportunity on the Thursday lunch break.
The problem with that is West - it appears he never leaves his station from the moment he arrives and all through the lunch break.
I don't know how long it would take to make such a bag. I reckon it would take me ten minutes at least but I've never tried to make one so I'm guessing.
Why even make one, he had a perfectly good homemade rifle bag back at the Paine house.
Why not make it to carry a 40" assembled rifle instead of a 36" disassembled rifle. It hardly disguises the length of a rifle as Oswald actually bought a 36" rifle. It's a pity Oswald didn't get the rifle he actually bought as the bag would've been the perfect length.
Maybe there was a window of opportunity on the Thursday lunch break.
Presumably he left at the end of the day and went home. He did not literally "never leave" his station. My recollection is that he was mostly asked about 11.22 not the days preceding the assassination. Do we even know if he went to work on those days leading up to the assassination? Regardless, Oswald could have made the bag on any day from the first day he started at the TSBD. He didn't necessarily make it that week - although I think that is most likely. His prints are on the bag. It is connected to him. It was found next to the SN boxes with his prints on the same floor as his rifle.
Roy Lewis, one of the manual workers at the TSBD: "We had order pickers and packers. Order pickers would get their assignment orders, take a clipboard, go up on the floors to pick their orders then bring them back down....The packers would then pack them, wrap them, and ship them out. Occasionally the packers would go up to the upper floors if they had a mistake or if they couldn't find us, in which case they would go up and straighten it out themselves.
Mr. BELIN - Are you the only one that wraps the books for mailing, or wraps them up for mailing?
Mr. WEST - Well, no, sir; I am not the only one, but mine is that way just every day.
So Oswald took the paper from another machine/packer? Who had left the machine to check on an order. I would suggest that sometimes West had to check an order and left. He said he never did but is that possible?
What makes you think West stayed at his station during lunch breaks?
Also, LHO could have pretended to be wrapping some books at the other end of the table (helping West) and made the bag right under his nose when West wasn’t paying close attention to exactly what LHO was actually doing. Who knows? It appears that LHO found a way to sneak while making it and sneak it out of the TSBD. Not impossible in my opinion.
Why even make one, he had a perfectly good homemade rifle bag back at the Paine house.
My guess is that LHO had noticed the curtain rods that the Paines had stored in the garage that were stored in a similar looking brown bag. The idea for the curtain rods lie and for making a bag out of TSBD wrapping paper could have developed from his having noticed the ones that the Paines already had stored in the garage.
Why not make it to carry a 40" assembled rifle instead of a 36" disassembled rifle.
My guess is that he remembered the length of the rifle that he ordered (from the advertisement). He might not have actually measured the length of the rifle he received. And I am not convinced that he disassembled the rifle to get it all the way inside the bag. He could have left a short section of the muzzle end of the barrel sticking out and just positioned it so it would not be easily seen. Who knows? It really doesn’t matter.
LHO could have pretended to be wrapping some books
Could have?
It appears that LHO found a way to sneak while making it and sneak it out of the TSBD.
Appears? Based on what?
Not impossible in my opinion.
Your opinion?
My guess is that LHO had noticed the curtain rods that the Paines had stored in the garage
Your guess?
The idea for the curtain rods lie and for making a bag out of TSBD wrapping paper could have developed from his having noticed the ones that the Paines already had stored in the garage.
Could have developed?
My guess is that he remembered the length of the rifle that he ordered
Your guess?
He could have left a short section of the muzzle end of the barrel sticking out and just positioned it so it would not be easily seen.
Could have?
You haven't thought this through. Oswals leaves the muzzle end of the barrel sticking out, puts the package on Frazier's backseat and when Frazier looks at the package and asks him about it, he just says "curtain rods".
Really?
Yes really. These are only my opinions on possibilities. You are not required to agree.
Set the package on the back seat so that the end of the barrel is away from Frazier and towards the seat back and not obvious from Frazier’s point of view. Then hurry in to the TSBD with it (well ahead of Frazier) with the end of the barrel in front of him so that Frazier cannot see the end of the barrel. Or perhaps he had something else to cover that small section. It really doesn’t matter how he did it. Taking the gun apart is one possibility, I am just not convinced that he actually did that. That’s all. You are free to disagree.
Isn't it nice that you can make up your own story?
All I am saying is there are other possibilities. Anyone who thinks that LHO had to have taken the rifle apart just hasn’t thought about the other possibilities. I am not saying that I know exactly how he did these things. I am only pointing out some other possibilities.
Yes really. These are only my opinions on possibilities. You are not required to agree.
Set the package on the back seat so that the end of the barrel is away from Frazier and towards the seat back and not obvious from Frazier’s point of view. Then hurry in to the TSBD with it (well ahead of Frazier) with the end of the barrel in front of him so that Frazier cannot see the end of the barrel. Or perhaps he had something else to cover that small section. It really doesn’t matter how he did it. Taking the gun apart is one possibility, I am just not convinced that he actually did that. That’s all. You are free to disagree.
Proof comes from corroboration of conclusive evidence. The rifle on the floor is not proof that he brought it in.
No matter how much the nutters would like that to be true, it is only proof of a rifle on the floor. By itself, that's it.
There are only about 4-6 things that can be conclusive evidence of the bag belonging to Oswald. Yet, no two corroborate.
Forget about proof
There is absolutely NO EVIDENCE, Lee went anywhere near the shipping room for paper or tape.
There is absolutely NO EVIDENCE, he took a break from his work to make the bag.
There is absolutely NO EVIDENCE, he carried the bag home on his person Thursday afternoon.
Witness observations
Frazier saw a package carried in, from the palm of his hand to his armpit. Unless Lee was carrying in the smallest
portion of the rifle (trigger housing) he otherwise was NOT carrying the gun. This cannot be assumed.
His sister Linne Mae described a package, that was not consistent with what was found, and was not carried in a
manner that would support the 8 pounds of rifle, as well has having left no fingerprints by the way he carried it.
Both witnesses were retained at FBI and told to make the bag they saw. Frazier said he and Linne spent 2 1/2 hours
making bags for the FBI - All were rejected. Why? Too small.
Other witnesses are the cops that were supposed to have found the bag. The first 11 officers never saw it.
And the first four told the Commission there was no bag when they arrive 20 MINUTES after the shooting.
The only known picture of the bag are dotted lines near a box in the snipers nest.
Evidence appears to conclude, what Frazier and Linne Mae saw, was not the same bag allegedly found upstairs.
Fingerprints on the bag
Prints on the bag are garbage. The pictures Mytton keeps trolling out don't mean anything if you can't see the print.
A mosh of indistinguishable marks on a gray or black background having been left for the record, can only be intentional.
One officer said, they are two portions of the right hand a partial palm and thumb. They are not together. The other
officer (Studebaker) said they were nothing more than a smudge. Cherry picking is not conclusive evidence.
The bag didn't go to Washington that weekend, and was probably brought into interrogations and Lee touched it.
Prints are scant. Push something away from you on a table, what portion of your right hand did you use?
If he made the bag he could have had work gloves, cardboard all day can dry out your hands. But there were no gloves when
he carried the bag that morning. Where are all the prints from all the handling of the bag until he allegedly discarded it in the nest?
Markings on the bag
Mr. EISENBERG. Now, was there an absence of markings which would be inconsistent with the rifle having been carried in the bag?
Mr. CADIGAN. (FBI) "No; I don't see actually, I don't know the condition of the rifle. If it were in fact contained in this bag,
it could have been wrapped in cloth or just the metal parts wrapped in a thick layer of cloth, or if the gun was in the bag,
perhaps it wasn't moved too much. I did observe some scratch marks and abrasions but was unable to associate them with this gun.
The scratch marks in the paper could come from any place. They could have come from many places. There were no marks on this bag that
I could say were caused by that rifle or any other rifle or any other given instrument."
Not only that a well oiled rifle with exposed oil parts would leave a residue in the bag that would not evaporate or dissipate.
Fibers in the bag
Although fibers were found in the mouth of the bag they were possible but not consistent as a match with fibers on the blanket.
An officer is seen with his hand and and suit jacket up into the bag as he shows it to photographers. A picture of the bag in evidence
shows the mouth unfolded down against the blanket. Therefore, any fibers are not conclusive evidence that the rifle was ever in the container.
Building the rifle
At some point on Friday morning, Lee is supposed to have taken a break to assemble the rifle. There was no tool left and no evidence of
any instrument having been packed to do this. The Commission had a witness do it with a dime, but I don't believe he hit all the screws
One in particular, right at the trigger would be extremely difficult if not impossible. Anybody would bring the screwdriver knowing he'd have
to re assemble the gun. Regardless, there is NO EVIDENCE of any tool that was used.
There is no reason to believe that rife was ever broken down and put into that bag. What else is there?
All I am saying is there are other possibilities. Anyone who thinks that LHO had to have taken the rifle apart just hasn’t thought about the other possibilities. I am not saying that I know exactly how he did these things. I am only pointing out some other possibilities.
You are being taken down the contrarian rabbit hole by our resident CTers. The bag exists. It has Oswald's prints on it. It was left next to the SN (where Oswald also left his prints). It had no apparent work-related purpose for being there. No other employee in the TSBD ever indicated that the bag belonged to them or otherwise explained its presence. Oswald carried a long bag that morning that no one ever accounted for in any way other than the bag left on the 6th floor. Based on those facts, no one has to confirm beyond all doubt how and when Oswald constructed the bag to conclude that the bag found on the 6th floor was the same one he carried that morning and that it contained his rifle.
Yeah, that was obvious. Let me give you another possibility.
Oswald went to Irving on Thursday to make up with his wife and there was no rifle in Ruth Paine's garage.
That's all I need to eliminate all your assumptions
Isn’t it nice that you can make up your own story?
Of course, but, unlike you, I would never claim that my story (= assumptions) are "Reasonable inferences from the totality of the evidence" that "tell us what happened".
I agree with everything you said. Reasonable inferences from the totality of the evidence tell us what happened. Discussing the possibilities for all the little details (that will never be known with any certainty) is about all there is left.
The prints match with Linnie May’s description of how LHO carried the bag...
...the rifle did not have to be broken down to be carried in the bag without being seen.
CTers try to frame the evidence in this case as to have a similar effect as looking into the wrong end of telescope. Just because we do not have a time machine that allows us to witness Oswald obtaining the materials and constructing the bag, that does not negate the bags existence, its connection to Oswald, its presence on the 6th floor next to the SN, and the obvious conclusions that can be drawn from this evidence.
CTers try to frame the evidence in this case as to have a similar effect as looking into the wrong end of telescope. Just because we do not have a time machine that allows us to witness Oswald obtaining the materials and constructing the bag, that does not negate the bags existence, its connection to Oswald, its presence on the 6th floor next to the SN, and the obvious conclusions that can be drawn from this evidence.I can't think of any event, any other constroversial incident where we try and reconstruct what happened, where these types of demands are made. At least in good faith. We don't have these standards in a court of law. Historians don't use them. If we did then we'd have to empty our prisons and our libraries.
The little details that will never be known with any certainty are not a part of what the inferences from the totality of the evidence tell us. I was just making a point that there are some alternate possibilities to taking the rifle apart and re-assembling it. That’s all.
It's a shame you can't put two things together to prove that.
It had Oswald's prints on it.
It was found next to the SN which also had Oswald's prints.
It was found next to the SN which also had Oswald's prints.
No other person in the TSBD ever explained a work-related purpose for that homemade bag to be left next to the SN or otherwise claimed ownership of it.
No such bag other than the one found with his prints on it was ever found in the TSBD.
Oswald's rifle was left on the same floor.
Oswald lied about carrying any long bag and instead said he had his lunch.
Why lie if it contained curtain rods or anything other than the rifle?
The totality of facts and circumstances lends itself to the conclusion that Oswald carried this bag that morning and that it contained his rifle.
How do u prove that?
Really? Rifle is 40 inches long - how long is 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
38" bag and 4" flap. Left open at the bottom. The rifle does not need to be disassembled.
Oswald's rifle was an exact fit for Oswald's rifle bag.
(https://i.postimg.cc/CK6NtdNz/Oswalds-Rifle-Paper-Bag.jpg)
Too bad it's just an assumption that it is "Oswald's rifle bag" or for that matter "Oswald's rifle".
Btw, how would that broken down rifle fit between the cup of Oswald's hand and underneath his armpit?
Let me guess, Frazier never actually saw him carry the package that way, right? HAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Btw, how would that broken down rifle fit between the cup of Oswald's hand and underneath his armpit?
Let me guess, Frazier never actually saw him carry the package that way, right? HAHAHAHAHAHAHA
How do u prove that?
Linnie's description of how LHO was held the bag and location of prints on the bag.
Mr. BALL.. What was he carrying?
Mrs. RANDLE. He was carrying a package in a sort of a heavy brown bag, heavier than a grocery bag it looked to me. It was about, if I might measure, about this long, I suppose, and he carried it in his right hand, had the top sort of folded down and had a grip like this, and the bottom, he carried it this way, you know, and it almost touched the ground as he carried it.
Mr. BALL. Let me see. He carried it in his right hand, did he?
Mrs. RANDLE. That is right.
Mr. BALL. And where was his hand gripping the middle of the package?
Mrs. RANDLE. No, sir; the top with just a little bit sticking up. You know just like you grab something like that.
Mr. BALL. And he was grabbing it with his right hand at the top of the package and the package almost touched the ground?
Mrs. RANDLE. Yes, sir.
Let me get this straight, are you trying to say that the rifle bag which was found in the sniper's nest with Oswald's prints and was an exact fit for Oswald's rifle is somehow not connected with this crime? Really?
This is yet another example of what any sane person would consider to be "Conclusive Evidence" being waved away without even the flimsiest of excuses.
I keep presenting powerfully incriminating evidence and surely even you must realize that at some point, trying to explain this MOUNTAIN of individual pieces of evidence with an alleged unseen unknown conspiratorial source can only lead to a MASSIVE conspiracy that is not only untenable but laughable!
• For a start who carries their lunch under their armpit? Because you know, Ewwwww!
• And secondly, there was no curtain rods ever reportedly found within the Depository.
• And thirdly, for the first time ever on that particular morning Oswald walked ahead up to 50 feet away, I wonder why?
Mr. BALL - Did you usually walk up there together.
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir; we did.
Mr. BALL - Is this the first time that he had ever walked ahead of you?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir; he did.
• And finally Frazier says repeatedly that he never payed attention to the bag.
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
He never said he was mistaken.
Presumably he left at the end of the day and went home. He did not literally "never leave" his station. My recollection is that he was mostly asked about 11.22 not the days preceding the assassination. Do we even know if he went to work on those days leading up to the assassination? Regardless, Oswald could have made the bag on any day from the first day he started at the TSBD. He didn't necessarily make it that week - although I think that is most likely. His prints are on the bag. It is connected to him. It was found next to the SN boxes with his prints on the same floor as his rifle.
The prints are on two different long sides of the bag. Here's Tony again;
(https://preview.ibb.co/mmL2Gw/Slide58.gif)
How do you know that was where he carried it? - 41 inches would drag on the ground - and are not near the same edge.
What makes you think the bag could hold an 8lb rifle with no bottom support?
We were discussing what West did during his lunch break
Right palm print on one side, the left index finger on the other.
He was not holding it by the sack.
The prints would not be on the same side. He had a hold of the rifle barrel on the top. Held the stock with the other hand with the sack somewhat angling across his body.
LHO was 5 feet 9 inches tall. The rifle was 2 inches off the ground.
How wide was his hand? - They are not at the same level :D
I don't know what this means.
When did she say other hand?
You're just making it up as you go.
We were discussing what West did during his lunch break you utter moron.
(https://i.postimg.cc/fyX6J4tY/buell-linnie-bag-est.jpg)
To reiterate, I think Buell intuited that morning that the package contained a rifle, and he lied about having that intuition later in order to keep from being charged as an accomplice in the murder of the President of the United States.
I suspect you are right, Linnie on the second day did say that Oswald's package was 3 feet long and as time went on her estimates of the package size got smaller, because most likely Linnie and Frazier got together and Frazier realizing that he drove the Assassin to work did his best to deny knowledge. Frazier was a simple man who had no reason to doubt Oswald because what are the chances that Oswald who he barely knew, would go full on psycho?
I think more workers than only Frazier saw Oswald with a long package but they didn't dare say anything. But one clue reinforcing this suspicion came in Dougherty's testimony;
Mr. BALL - Did you ever see Lee Oswald carry any sort of large package?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - Well, I didn't, but some of the fellows said they did.
Mr. BALL - Who said that?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - Well, Bill Shelley, he told me that he thought he saw him carrying a fairly good-sized package.
JohnM
I doubt that Buell was so bad at estimating short measurements that he was trying to show us in the photo his concept of 25 or 26 inches ("two feet plus-or-minus an inch or two," iirc).
To reiterate, I think Buell intuited that morning that the package contained a rifle, and he lied about having that intuition later in order to keep from being charged as an accomplice in the murder of the President of the United States.
Wow. A profound insight for once that doesn't involve the KGB or Putin. I agree. BWF called his much smarter sister from the hospital after the assassination. She must have told him he was in deep xxxx having driven the assassin and his weapon to the TSBD. Better to play Gomer Pyle dumb than acknowledge any suspicion that his passenger had a rifle shape package. So, he was just a good old boy doing a good deed. He didn't notice much or suspect anything. He and Oswald didn't even discuss the JFK motorcade going by their workplace that day or hear anything on the radio despite it being the top news story that day. Just driving in the rain in silence.
The KGB* and "former" KGB officer Vladimir Putin took advantage of the anomaly-replete JFKA (can you say Joachim Joesten, Thomas G. Buchanan, Mark Lane, Jim Garrison and Oliver Stone?) and the AIDS epidemic, and the crack cocaine epidemic, etc, to install The Traitorous Orange Xxxx (rhymes with bird) as our "President" in 2017.
*Today's SVR and FSB
The AIDS epidemic [and the JFKA, and the crack cocaine epidemic, etc] has something to do with Trump and Putin?
I think Buell intuited that morning that the package contained a rifle, and he lied about having that intuition later in order to keep from being charged as an accomplice in the murder of the President of the United States.
Bill Chapman !!! - Of course ! - I'd know those lines anywhere !!!
Why the disguise?
Both are right - How wide was his hand? - They are not even at the same level :DBoth are right - How wide was his hand? - They are not even at the same level
I don't know what this means.
When did she say other hand?
You're just making it up as you go.
Both are right - How wide was his hand? - They are not even at the same level
No there is a right palm print and a left fingerprint.
"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."
When did she say other hand?
Mrs. RANDLE. He was carrying a package in a sort of a heavy brown bag, heavier than a grocery bag it looked to me. It was about, if I might measure, about this long, I suppose, and he carried it in his right hand, had the top sort of folded down and had a grip like this, [b]and the bottom, he carried it this way, you know[/b], and it almost touched the ground as he carried it.
I don't know what this means.
LHO was holding the rifle while still in the bag, not just by the paper bag with the rifle inside.
Thanks for the correction of both hands...but unfortunately,
"The rifle was sent to the FBI laboratory, where Sebastian Latona found that “there was nothing visible in the way of any latent prints on there” (Warren Commission Hearings, vol.4, p.3). Latona applied silver nitrate to the bag, and discovered two partial prints that were matched to records of Oswald’s prints (ibid., p.6):
a part of a right palm print (Warren Commission Hearings, vol.17, p.286 [Commission Exhibit 632]);
and a part of a left index fingerprint (ibid., p.287 [Commission Exhibit 633]).
Although the bag, or at least the paper that was used to make the bag, appears to have come into contact with Oswald’s hands at some point, the fingerprint and palm print evidence was insufficient to prove that Oswald had carried the bag in the manner described by Randle and Frazier, or that he had assembled the bag by hand."
http://22november1963.org.uk/tsbd-sixth-floor-paper-bag-genuine
The bag is being held in the fashion described by Linnie Mae. The right hand grasping the barrel of the rifle. The person who wrote the article seems to think the bag was being held vertical with one hand alone. That is not what she describes and who would carry anything in that manner. The Warren Commission could have done a better job of getting her to describe how it was exactly being held. Buell having it cupped in his hand and jammed into his armpit, no matter what anyone could be carrying does not even remotely seem plausible.
Linnie Mae even gets the length right with 3 feet 6 inches.
It is like Buell is talking about a whole other bag or simply “I never paid attention” is correct.
Mr. LATONA. The palm lay in this fashion here.
Mr. EISENBERG. You are putting your right hand on the paper so that the fingers are pointing in the same direction as the arrow A?
Mr. LATONA. That's right.
Mr. EISENBERG. And it is at approximately right angles to the paper bag?
Mr. LATONA. That's right.
Let me get this straight, are you trying to say that the rifle bag which was found in the sniper's nest with Oswald's prints and was an exact fit for Oswald's rifle is somehow not connected with this crime? Really?
"rifle bag". LOL
"found in the sniper's nest". LOL
"exact fit". LOL
"Oswald's rifle". LOL
How many bad guys do you figure were involved altogether in the planning, the "patsy-ing," the shooting, and the all-important cover up, Iacoletti?
Couple hundred?
Thousands?
Stuff like this makes me wonder where the Nutters shop for bait -- smells at least 15 years old.
Smells at least 15 years old.
She also said 28 inches.
Cherry picking conflicting statements isn't conclusive proof of anything.
At least!
And yet STILL no one can say!
How about you, Tom?
Oodles and gobs, right?
Say what?
Is English your second language?
Correct. You needed something from me?
Yes -- I could use a good laugh!
Regarding the assassination of President John Fitzgerald Kennedy in Dallas, Texas, on November 22nd, 1963, how many bad guys do you think were involved in the planning, the "patsy-ing," the shooting, and the cover up?
Lots and lots?
The Warren report itself, consisting of 888 pages of lies and deception, is the best evidence of a cover-up pinning the murder on Oswald. If Oswald acted alone all along, there would be no need for a cover-up, so we know a conspiracy at some level was real. This is basic stuff.
Seven WC members signed off on the report, plus assistant counsel to the commissions, who were instrumental in putting together the report. LBJ formed the commission to block out any other investigation (he saw Hoover was in panic mode), so I'd say easily 20 in the government cover-up department.
I don't know about the planning and patsy part of the deal. What I can say is that both Frazier and Oswald were planted at the TSBD, as Truly didn't need staff at the time they were hired. I couldn't say if Truly was simply told by management to hire them or if he was part of the setup; Shelley would evidently have known that hiring the two rookies was nuts. At least somebody at this level connected to the TSBD was pulling strings to place Frazier and Oswald there.
It sounds as though you've been fully indoctrinated.
Here's a graphic from Dr. Tony Fratini - I consider this proof of Oswald not having carried in the rifle that morning.
It is Frazier - the one and only guy in the whole world that saw Lee carry the package from the palm of his hand to his armpit.
Yes, he claimed he wasn't paying much attention to the bag. But he was sure of how Lee carried it. He never said he was mistaken.
(https://preview.ibb.co/cqGmgw/Slide18.gif)
So what is Frazier's mistake? The rifle is 34.8" long - it can be no shorter. About the length of a lady's nine iron (golf club).
Are we expected to believe that? At the point that Lee was 50 ft. ahead, Frazier mistakenly did not see the package rise above the shoulder.
And if that was all there was wrong with any connection he might have to the bag, then there should be other evidence to build upon.
Witnesses are questionable. - the first 11 officers never saw the bag. Fingerprints and fiber evidence in the bag are garbage.
All that is left are Nutter excuses of "where are the curtain rods?" "where is the lunch?" as some sort of proof.
But evidence after evidence breaks down and fails. LN makes excuses of, we know he must've because of everything else.
"must-a-done-its", the entire case is filled with them, and every one them is based on nothing, but to fill in the broken evidence.
There is no need for any conspiracy theory. Just look at the completely failed case against the accused time after time.
And look for the Nutters excuses when I say, "...there is no reason to believe that rifle was ever broken down or put into that bag...."
https://jfk.boards.net/post/7400/thread
To hold the rifle as Linnie Mae described, LHO would have had to have been bent over at the waist as he walked to the vehicle. The same would be true for Buell’s description of the package being held under the armpit. The bag as estimated is simply not long enough to fit Linnie Mae’s description.
A 27- or 28-inch-long bag will not work to match Linnie Mae’s description of how LHO carried the rifle
How is that true for Frazier, when he is the one demonstrating exactly what he saw?
Now, you're just making stuff up.
How is that true for Frazier, when he is the one demonstrating exactly what he saw?
Maybe they should let BWF try again. This time with new information. There are fingerprints confirming Linnie Mae’s description of how it was held. BWF said he was not paying any attention.
Now, you're just making stuff up.
Making it up? I guess you would have to say that to make up for the fact you have no explanation. Unless this post about BWF holding the bag somehow is being used as an explanation for Linnie Mae’s description of LHO carrying the package.
Frazier showed you the bag as he saw it. - What try again? - He has no reason to lie.
A shorter length has no restriction as to how LR saw the bag.
The only one without a proper explanation is YOU
He has no reason to lie? Really
You have to be kidding. The amazing thing the conspiracy clown show does not have BWF as part of the conspiracy. The same bag he describes as being tucked under his arm, Linnie Mae describes as being carried barely clearing the ground with an approximate 42 inch length. She gets the length dead on. It would have been smarter if he would have changed his estimate to be more like what she stated instead of the other way around.
It has a huge impact. Do you think Oswald walked bent over at the waist? Or better yet his left hand naturally dangled 1 foot off the ground? You are claiming just that.
BS: What resaon does he have to lie?
Frazier is showing you exactly what he saw. - a package too short to be the rifle.
Such a mystery. BWF drove the assassin and his rifle to the scene of the assassination. I am sure you do not know why he would want to distance himself from it.
...you can’t explain how LHO could have carried a 27 inch bag in the manner described by Linnie Mae...
We know BWF's description does not match Linnie's. We know her new bag length estimation does not match her description of how LHO was carrying the bag. We know her description matches the prints of LHO on the bag.
No one has to engage in an endless, pedantic exercise to tortuously interpret the generic words of witnesses to reconstruct the bag. That is rabbit hole nonsense with no exit ramp. This is simple. The bag exists. It was found. It has Oswald's prints on it. It was measured to determine its exact size. There is no reason to speculate.
No one has to engage in an endless, pedantic exercise to tortuously interpret the generic words of witnesses to reconstruct the bag. That is rabbit hole nonsense with no exit ramp. This is simple. The bag exists. It was found. It has Oswald's prints on it. It was measured to determine its exact size. There is no reason to speculate.
Garbage. Unless BWF has something to do with the assassination, he had absolutely nothing to worry about.
Fritz came in with a confession, Frazier put his fist down with no intention of signing it. Fritz left the room. End of story.
That's a Lame Nutters excuse to make up for the length LMR thought she saw very briefly from a distance.
Why do I need to do that? - Frazier showed me exactly what he saw. - and he is definite with the WC as well.
Mr. BALL - You say he had the package under his arm when you saw him?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL - You mean one end of it under the armpit?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir; he had it up just like you stick it right under your arm like that.
Mr. BALL - And he had the lower part--
Mr. FRAZIER - The other part with his right hand.
Mr. BALL - Right hand?
Mr. FRAZIER - Right.
Mr. BALL - He carried it then parallel to his body?
Mr. FRAZIER - Right, straight up and down.
Representative FORD - Under his right arm?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes.
and the bottom:
Mr. FRAZIER - I didn't pay much attention, but when I did, I say, he had this part down here,
like the bottom would be short he had cupped in his hand like that...".
I forgot you have your own theory. He carried in a fully assembled 40 in. rifle? No one else says that.
I guess you need to accommodate Linne Mae, but then you fail at Frazier. - and beyond that the first 11 officers.
Then again, he wouldn't have to re assemble the rifle. The pinch on that is, no evidence of any tool. A real must-a-done-it !
That's how it is throughout this entire case. LNs have to make excuses for what is broken, to fill in the story. (some rewrite the tale where necessary)
That's your dilemma.
The only reason BWF is not part of some conspiracy theory is because of his denial about the bag length. Your view of events is from the present looking back to the assassination. BWF had no idea what the police were thinking.
Your quoting Linnie’s second recounting not her first. Her first is a 42 inch bag, that was being held in a manner that would have LHO bent at the hip to be holding a 27 inch bag in the same manner.
No dilema at all. You might want to check in with Colin Crow about a fully assembled carcano in the bag. His theory made sense to me.
The only reason BWF is not part of some conspiracy theory is because of his denial about the bag length. Your view of events is from the present looking back to the assassination. BWF had no idea what the police were thinking.
Your quoting Linnie’s second recounting not her first. Her first is a 42 inch bag, that was being held in a manner that would have LHO bent at the hip to be holding a 27 inch bag in the same manner.
You might want to check in with Colin Crow about a fully assembled carcano in the bag. His theory made sense to me.
The only reason BWF is not part of some conspiracy theory is because of his denial about the bag length. Your view of events is from the present looking back to the assassination. BWF had no idea what the police were thinking.
Your quoting Linnie’s second recounting not her first. Her first is a 42 inch bag, that was being held in a manner that would have LHO bent at the hip to be holding a 27 inch bag in the same manner.
No dilema at all. You might want to check in with Colin Crow about a fully assembled carcano in the bag. His theory made sense to me.
That makes no sense. He was not involved and that becomes apparent very quickly. This picture is he himself showing what he saw. It was not the rifle.
(https://preview.ibb.co/cqGmgw/Slide18.gif)
You lost all credibility on LMR. A shorter bag does not refute the way she saw the bag held. But it was the glimpse from a distance, and she miss-judged the length. Funny, nutters accept a fleeting glimpse only in their favor.
Good for you.
1) In the following video @3:33 Buell Wesley Frazier Under Oath, admits that he hardly paid any attention to the bag and the bag could have been protruding out the front of his body, so in other words Frazier who had had no other choice but to tell the truth, and simply all this time has made a self serving assumption for how he perceived Oswald was holding the bag.
2) In his WC testimony Frazier powerfully reinforces that he "didn't pay too much attention" to the bag!
3) Frazier was a little over 6 foot, so wouldn't that make his underarm to cupped hand a different measurement to the much shorter Oswald, and Linnie Mae originally told the FBI that the bag was about 3 feet long, then while testifying she folded a similar bag to be 28 and a half inches, then aggressively blurts out that the bag was 27 inches the last time she estimated, it obvious that this pair was desperately attempting to decrease the size of the bag.
Mr. BALL - How tall are you?
Mr. FRAZIER - I am 6-foot, a little bit over 6-foot.
4) Oswald made a special mid-week trip to retrieve his "curtain rods" yet leaves the building without the "curtain rods", why would he do this? In fact the only object that closely resembles the brown paper package was the brown paper package found in the sniper's nest with Oswald's prints! Which BTW was a perfect fit for Oswald's rifle found on the same floor.
5) Why would Oswald lie to multiple interrogators that he had his lunch in the package?
6) Why would Oswald lie to multiple interrogators that he carried the package with him on his lap on the front seat?
7) Why did Oswald upon arriving at Frazier's house immediately hide the rifle on the back seat of Frazier's car?
Michael I know you are a devoted Anybody but Oswald freak and you will have a bunch of zany irrational answers to my questions but do you really think that your implausible answers would be enough to sway a sane impartial Jury? I'll give you a hint, your weak attempts at refutation would be met with howls of laughter!
I know that VB misrepresents the size of the rifle when he gets BWF to say the package could have ended before rising above the shoulder
That is impossible - look at the 2nd picture BWF shows the smallest the rifle can be hidden. What BWF saw was different than allegedly found.
*yawn*
Not as powerful as he demonstrates how sure he was of the size, as well as the end - top and bottom.
Mr. BALL - You say he had the package under his arm when you saw him?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL - You mean one end of it under the armpit?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir; he had it up just like you stick it right under your arm like that.
Mr. BALL - And he had the lower part--
Mr. FRAZIER - The other part with his right hand.
Mr. BALL - Right hand?
Mr. FRAZIER - Right.
Mr. BALL - He carried it then parallel to his body?
Mr. FRAZIER - Right, straight up and down.
Representative FORD - Under his right arm?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes.
and the bottom:
Mr. FRAZIER - I didn't pay much attention, but when I did, I say, he had this part down here,
like the bottom would be short he had cupped in his hand like that...".
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.
Has no bearing on what Frazier saw Oswald carry.
Interrogations are incomplete. Context is lost on much of what he said.
Interrogations are incomplete. Context is lost on much of what he said.
Only you say it was hidden. It was laid on the backseat. DPD measured as Frazier remembered it - at about 28 inches across.
DPD measured as Frazier remembered it - at about 28 inches across.
I know that VB misrepresents the size of the rifle when he gets BWF to say the package could have ended before rising above the shoulder
That is impossible - look at the 2nd picture BWF shows the smallest the rifle can be hidden. What BWF saw was different than allegedly found.
*yawn*
Not as powerful as demonstrating how sure he was of the size, as well as the end - top and bottom.
Mr. BALL - You say he had the package under his arm when you saw him?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL - You mean one end of it under the armpit?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir; he had it up just like you stick it right under your arm like that.
Mr. BALL - And he had the lower part--
Mr. FRAZIER - The other part with his right hand.
Mr. BALL - Right hand?
Mr. FRAZIER - Right.
Mr. BALL - He carried it then parallel to his body?
Mr. FRAZIER - Right, straight up and down.
Representative FORD - Under his right arm?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes.
and the bottom:
Mr. FRAZIER - I didn't pay much attention, but when I did, I say, he had this part down here,
like the bottom would be short he had cupped in his hand like that...".
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.
Has no bearing on what Frazier saw Oswald carry.
The first 11 officers never saw the bag on the floor. Here are the first 4 testimony:
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?
https://jfk.boards.net/post/5176
Interrogations are incomplete. Context is lost on much of what he said.
Interrogations are incomplete. Context is lost on much of what he said.
Only you say it was hidden. It was laid on the backseat. DPD measured as Frazier remembered it - at about 28 inches across.
Most of what you posted here, is not even evidence.
That makes no sense. He was not involved and that becomes apparent very quickly. This picture is he himself showing what he saw. It was not the rifle.
(https://preview.ibb.co/cqGmgw/Slide18.gif)
You lost all credibility on LMR. A shorter bag does not refute the way she saw the bag held. But it was the glimpse from a distance, and she miss-judged the length. Funny, nutters accept a fleeting glimpse only in their favor.
Good for you.
BWF had no idea what the police were thinking.
For once I agree.
But if he didn't know what the police were thinking, why would he lie about the way he saw Oswald carry the bag and why would he deny that the bag they showed them on Friday evening was the bag he saw Oswald carry?
If he was indeed lying, wouldn't that incriminate him?
If the rifle stayed fully assembled, a small lunch sized bag could simply and easily be placed over the exposed muzzle end of the barrel to hide it. That solution would have been much simpler and quicker than disassembling and reassembling the rifle. The small lunch sized bag could have been disposed of anywhere in the TSBD and would not have appeared out of place.
Linnie Mae’s description of LHO carrying the package is backed up by the palmprint and finger print on the bag. Her description is a long way from fleeting.
MC “Garbage. Unless BWF has something to do with the assassination, he had absolutely nothing to worry about.”
MC “Fritz came in with a confession, Frazier put his fist down with no intention of signing it. Fritz left the room. End of story.”
Ask Michael. This whole storyline is all his invention. Apparently, BWF thought Fritz wanted to implicate him.
It became very clear, very quickly, Frazier had nothing to do with it and he had no reason to lie about anything.
If you doubt the confession story? - You need to learn the evidence.
Buell Wesley Frazier: A commute with Oswald, then a harsh interrogation
“I was interrogated and questioned for many, many hours,” Frazier said. “Interrogators would rotate.”
Dallas police Capt. Will Fritz, who was in charge of the homicide department, came into the room with a typed statement. He handed Frazier a pen and demanded he sign it. It was a confession. Frazier refused.
“This was ridiculous,” he said. “Captain Fritz got very red-faced, and he put up his hand to hit me and I put my arm up to block. I told him we’d have a hell of a fight and I would get some good licks in on him. Then he stormed out the door.”
Frazier never saw him again. At around 3 a.m. the next day, police let Frazier go.
https://richmond.com/buell-wesley-frazier-a-commute-with-oswald-then-a-harsh-interrogation/article_a9be7f2e-fb7f-5357-91c9-605df00641f7.html
It became very clear, very quickly, Frazier had nothing to do with it and he had no reason to lie about anything.
“I was interrogated and questioned for many, many hours,” Frazier said. “Interrogators would rotate.”
Dallas police Capt. Will Fritz, who was in charge of the homicide department, came into the room with a typed statement. He handed Frazier a pen and demanded he sign it. It was a confession. Frazier refused.
“This was ridiculous,” he said. “Captain Fritz got very red-faced, and he put up his hand to hit me and I put my arm up to block. I told him we’d have a hell of a fight and I would get some good licks in on him. Then he stormed out the door.”
Frazier never saw him again. At around 3 a.m. the next day, police let Frazier go.
You can't possibly be serious? Frazier was a 19 year old kid who drove the President's assassin to work and watched the President's assassin carry the murder weapon into the building where the President's assassin shot John F Kennedy. Throughout this whole process leading up to the Warren Commission's questioning, Frazier would have no possible way of knowing what was going to happen to him but he did know that his initial story of how Oswald carried the murder weapon, which frankly no one believed, had to be continued. And we know that Frazier was lying because Oswald's rifle sized bag does exist and was found to have Oswald's prints on it.
I don't doubt that Frazier was interrogated at length because that was the reason that Frazier felt compelled to repeat his ludicrous story about how Oswald carried the rifle bag, a bag that supposedly contained "curtain rods" that were never found and these oh so important "curtain rods" that Oswald made a unique mid week trip to Irving for, were just left behind by Oswald??, yeah sure!
But the evidence is that Oswald's rifle bag was left behind on the 6th floor along with Oswald's rifle because Oswald in flight and in a real hurry to leave the scene of his crime.
And as for meek, mild mannered threatening Fritz is a load of old cobblers. Fritz by all accounts iirc was successful because of his calm demeanour and friendly grandfather type approach, so I seriously doubt that he would raise his hand, because if anything he would play good cop and have someone else play bad cop and threaten Frazier.
JohnM
- from her FBI Statement-
"....she had only observed the brown package from her residence window at a distance."
@ Tom Sorensen - thanx for pointing out the 3 foot length was added by FBI Bookout.
"....she had only observed the brown package from her residence window at a distance."
He had nothing to be afraid of. He has no reason to lie.
So Frazier was interrogated for hours and was threatened with violence and he has no reason to be afraid? WOW!
JohnM
backed up by what? - therefore it was the rifle ?
U think the way she saw the bag carried is proof it was a rifle? -wow leaps and bounds - but total BS:!!
Any size within arms length can be carried as she saw it - a shorter length is just as accessible - what she saw does not CONFIRM rifle size.
--You make up stuff a lot.
- from her FBI Statement-
"....she had only observed the brown package from her residence window at a distance."
@ Tom Sorensen - thanx for pointing out the 3 foot length was added by FBI Bookout.
It became very clear, very quickly, Frazier had nothing to do with it and he had no reason to lie about anything.
If you doubt the confession story? - You need to learn the evidence.
Buell Wesley Frazier: A commute with Oswald, then a harsh interrogation
“I was interrogated and questioned for many, many hours,” Frazier said. “Interrogators would rotate.”
Dallas police Capt. Will Fritz, who was in charge of the homicide department, came into the room with a typed statement. He handed Frazier a pen and demanded he sign it. It was a confession. Frazier refused.
“This was ridiculous,” he said. “Captain Fritz got very red-faced, and he put up his hand to hit me and I put my arm up to block. I told him we’d have a hell of a fight and I would get some good licks in on him. Then he stormed out the door.”
Frazier never saw him again. At around 3 a.m. the next day, police let Frazier go.
https://richmond.com/buell-wesley-frazier-a-commute-with-oswald-then-a-harsh-interrogation/article_a9be7f2e-fb7f-5357-91c9-605df00641f7.html
He has done nothing wrong. He has no reason to lie.
Be Frazier. "Why do I have to make up a story? I didn't do nothin'."
He has done nothing wrong.
He has no reason to lie.
Be Frazier. "Why do I have to make up a story? I didn't do nothin'."
The bag exists. It was measured. That's it.
Studebaker knew where it was.
(https://i.postimg.cc/NMJDYNWX/outline-bag.jpg)
Mr. BALL. Now, did you at any time see any paper sack around there?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. Yes sir.
Mr. BALL. Where?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. Storage room there - in, the southeast corner of the building folded.
Mr. BALL. In the southeast corner of the building?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. It was a paper - I don't know what it was.
Mr. BALL. And it was folded, you say?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. Yes.
Mr. BALL. Where was it with respect to the three boxes of which the top two were Rolling Readers?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. Directly east.
Mr. BALL. There is a corner there, isn't it?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. Yes, sir; in the southeast corner.
Mr. BALL. It was in the southeast corner?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. I drew that box in for somebody over at the FBI that said you wanted it. It is in one of those pictures - one of the shots after the duplicate shot.
Mr. BALL. Let's mark this picture "Exhibit F."
(Instrument marked by the reporter as "Studebaker Exhibit F," for identification.)
Mr. BALL. Do you know who took that picture?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. No; I don't.
Mr. BALL. Do you recognize the diagram?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. Did you draw the diagram?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. I drew a diagram in there for the FBI, somebody from the FBI called me down - I can't think of his name, and he wanted an approximate location of where the paper was found.
Mr. BALL. Does that show the approximate location?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. Yes.
Mr. BALL. Where you have the dotted lines?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. Yes.
....
Mr. BALL. Now, how big was this paper.that you saw - you saw the wrapper - tell me about how big that paper bag was - how long was it?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. It was about, I would say, 3 1/2 to 4 feet long.
Mr. BALL. The paper bag?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. Yes.
Mr. BALL. And how wide was it? Approximately 8 inches.
The bag was photographed leaving the building, the same bag as described by 6 Police Officers.
(https://i.postimg.cc/FH6F00P5/Empty-Paper-Bag-Removed-From-TSBD.jpg)
JohnM
Tom Sorenson provided an opinion and nothing else, just background noise. Noticeably, Tom failed, the same as you, to provide any information at all as to how a 27 inch bag could be carried by LHO as described by Linnie Mae.
At least you understand a 27 inch package does not match the description of what Linnie Mae saw LHO carrying. It could only be the 42 inches length she originally estimated.Sorry I don't - a shorter length does not refute what she saw. I think I said that at least 3 times now.
Sorry I don't - a shorter length does not refute what she saw. I think I said that at least 3 times now.
Actually, I don't know what you are arguing anymore.
The information I provided is factual. It's on record. You fell flat on your face again.
Well here let me refresh it for you. We weren’t arguing, at least four times I have explained a 27-inch bag cannot be carried in the manner Linnie Mae Randle described. It is simply true. You side stepped, changed the subject, and evaded the whole issue without ever explaining how LHO could have carried it in the manner she described without having been bent over at the waist. In turn it called into question BWF’s recounting of the length of the package which led you down a dark path about BWF with Fritz being at the center of the story of a conspiracy.
Does that help? If you want to ignore it then ignore it, but it will not make the issue go away. Funny how such a simple little detail, the bag being carried barely above the ground and the left hand supporting it down low, can define the whole event.
Why does Lee have to carry the package in the same manner as seen by LMR?
You are kidding me, right? Was someone else carrying a package that morning?
Thanks for the update. I did not know you had provided any worthwhile information at all.
ROFL, the photo shows it's not there. Either Studebaker or Day took the photo. They both took multiple shots of the same scene; only the best was entered into evidence. You need to deal with the facts.
You need to deal with the facts.
How is he bent over? - if the package is shorter - he holds in the manner she had seen.
How does a shorter package restrict the way he held it, if he can reach both portions
One hand near the top - the other for support at the bottom. I seriously don't understand your point.
It is certainly is NO proof the package is longer than about 2 feet.
It is certainly is NO proof the package is longer than about 2 feet.
It looks like I'm the only one dealing with the facts!
1) Oswald makes a trip to Irving for the first time ever mid-week on Thursday.
2) Just by chance?, President Kennedy is passing by Oswald's work place the very next day.
3) Oswald for the first time ever brings a long package to work, he tells Frazier it contains "curtain rods"
4) Oswald immediately upon arrival at Frazier's hides the package in the back seat of Frazier's car then goes back to wait for Frazier.
5) Oswald for the first time ever, walks ahead of Frazier increasing the gap as they walk to the Depository.
6) Oswald's rifle is found on the 6th floor.
7) A long bag is found with Oswald's prints.
8} No "curtain rods" are ever found.
9) Oswald's fresh prints are found in the sniper's nest and Oswald's fresh prints are found on the rifle rest boxes, which were moved half way across the 6th floor. And even though he does indeed work there, it's not his job to touch every box every few days.
10) Oswald for some reason known only to him, decides to leave within 3 minutes of the President being shot.
11) No one who sees Oswald thereafter says that Oswald was carrying a long brown package, odd considering that Oswald specifically made the unscheduled trip to Irving for "curtain rods".
12) "Curtain rods" were not found in Oswald's room and as a matter of fact his room didn't even need "curtain rods"
12) Oswald lies to interrogators about what was in the brown paper package.
13) Oswald lies to interrogators about where in Frazier's car he stored the package.
These Tom my good friend are just some of the facts in this case, and so far not one CT is willing to deal with these facts, why is that?
JohnM
So Michael, you acknowledge that Oswald carried a long package to work, why didn't anyone who saw Oswald in the immediate aftermath see Oswald with the long package?
Because the package was important enough for Oswald to make a special trip to Irving to collect it, so where is it, what happened to it and why would Oswald leave it behind?
I propose a theory that explains it all, hear me out.
Oswald made a special trip to Irving on a Thursday so he could retrieve his rifle, a rifle that was missing form the Paine garage on the Friday afternoon.
Oswald wrapped the rifle in brown paper that came from the Depository so the rifle sack could be easily smuggled into his work and wouldn't be so conspicuous.
Oswald left the paper sack and the rifle on the 6th floor and got the heck out of there as quickly as possible.
See Michael, no mental gymnastics required, a straight forward assassination explains ALL the evidence and also explains ALL of Oswald's actions.
JohnM
It's amazing to see what you actually consider to be "facts".
Oswald made a special trip to Irving on a Thursday so he could retrieve his rifle,
Speculation not supported by actual evidence. Marina and Ruth Paine both said he came to Irving to make up with Marina and persuade her to live together with him again.
a rifle that was missing form the Paine garage on the Friday afternoon.
More speculation! There is not a shred of evidence that there actually was a rifle in Ruth Paine's garage on 11/21/63
Oswald wrapped the rifle in brown paper that came from the Depository so the rifle sack could be easily smuggled into his work and wouldn't be so conspicuous.
Again, pure speculation. There is no evidence that the paper bag made from TSBD materials ever left the building. Frazier denied, on Friday evening, that the TSBD bag wasn't the one he saw Oswald carry. That's first day evidence!
Oswald left the paper sack and the rifle on the 6th floor and got the heck out of there as quickly as possible.
You just can't help yourself, can you? There is no evidence that Oswald left anything on the 6th floor or that he was even there when the shots were fired. It's all speculation!
See Michael, no mental gymnastics required, a straight forward assassination explains ALL the evidence and also explains ALL of Oswald's actions.
Having a theory is fine as long as it supported by actual evidence. Your theory is nothing more than a made up fairytale.
Speculation not supported by actual evidence. Marina and Ruth Paine both said he came to Irving to make up with Marina and persuade her to live together with him again.
Having a theory is fine as long as it supported by actual evidence. Your theory is nothing more than a made up fairytale.
Sorry old chum the evidence is that Oswald told Frazier that he was going to get "curtain rods" and he accomplished the mission by having "curtain rods" with him the very next day and since "curtain rods" were never found and/or needed then we can know for a certainty that the mission was to retrieve his rifle, you know Oswald's rifle that was found on the 6th floor!
Mr. FRAZIER - Well, I say, we were standing like I said at the four-headed table about half as large as this, not, quite half as large, but anyway I was standing there getting the orders in and he said, "Could I ride home with you this afternoon?"
And I said, "Sure. You know, like I told you, you can go home with me any time you want to, like I say anytime you want to go see your wife that is all right with me."
So automatically I knew it wasn't Friday, I come to think it wasn't Friday and I said, "Why are you going home today?"
And he says, "I am going home to get some curtain rods." He said, "You know, put in an apartment."
He wanted to hang up some curtains and I said, "Very well." And I never thought more about it and I had some invoices in my hands for some orders and I walked on off and started filling the orders.
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.
And here we are 60+ years later and my "fairytale" has withstood the test of time and is firmly entrenched in the History Books.
Whereas the CT's have spent virtually their entire lives looking for a viable alternative and so far all we have is empty denials, poor critical thinking and endless unproven allegations. Go figure!
JohnM
Sorry old chum the evidence is that Oswald told Frazier that he was going to get "curtain rods" and he accomplished the mission by having "curtain rods" with him the very next day
Hilarious! Oswald was going to Irving to make up with his wife and he is supposed to tell a 19 year old co-worker about his marital troubles? Really? Obviously he needed an excuse when Frazier asked him, so he told a white lie. No big deal!
One would think that his wife and the lady she's living with would know exactly why he came to Irving, but only in your alternate reality his wife and Ruth Paine are lying about that. Go figure.
Btw, what exactly was the mission Oswald was on? Do you have a shred of evidence that there was even a rifle in Ruth Paine's garage on 11/21/63? I seriously doubt it!
and since "curtain rods" were never found and/or needed then we can know for a certainty that the mission was to retrieve his rifle,
Wow! No curtain rods being found provides you "certainty" that Oswald collected a rifle you can't even prove was there. Talk about being delusional!
you know Oswald's rifle that was found on the 6th floor!
LOL
That's all very nice but irrelevant, why didn't you address the Elephant in the room, why on Earth would Oswald take "curtain rods" in a long package to work and then simply leave them behind? And don't forget that his rooming house's room had curtain rods, so think hard and try to explain this massive dilemma, Good Luck!
JohnM
why didn't you address the Elephant in the room
What Elephant would that be?
why on Earth would Oswald take "curtain rods" in a long package to work and then simply leave them behind?
He probably didn't. I don't know what was in the bag and neither do you. Frazier said that he carried the bag between the cup of his hand and under his armpit. That's not an estimate. It's an observation!
You can speculate all you want, but a dismanteld MC rifle could not fit between the cup of Oswald's hand and under his armpit.
And don't forget that his rooming house's room had curtain rods, so think hard and try to explain this massive dilemma, Good Luck!
There is no dilemma. All there is, is you speculating based on the mere fact that Frazier said Oswald told him about collecting curtain rods.
...based on the mere fact that Frazier said Oswald told him about collecting curtain rods.
That's all very nice but irrelevant, why didn't you address the Elephant in the room, why on Earth would Oswald take "curtain rods" in a long package to work and then simply leave them behind? And don't forget that his rooming house's room had curtain rods, so think hard and try to explain this massive dilemma, Good Luck!
JohnM
I propose a theory that explains it all, hear me out.
Oswald made a special trip to Irving on a Thursday so he could retrieve his rifle, a rifle that was missing form the Paine garage on the Friday afternoon.
Oswald wrapped the rifle in brown paper that came from the Depository so the rifle sack could be easily smuggled into his work and wouldn't be so conspicuous.
Oswald left the paper sack and the rifle on the 6th floor and got the heck out of there as quickly as possible.
See Michael, no mental gymnastics required, a straight forward assassination explains ALL the evidence and also explains ALL of Oswald's actions.
Again, in the real world, there is no dilemma. It only exists in your imagination.
What makes you think that there actually were curtain rods in that bag?
Just because Oswald used it as an excuse to explain his trip to Irving instead of telling a 19 year old co-worker about his marital problems?
Your self serving speculation is pathetic.
All this BS;
is more than likely based on a white lie Oswald told Frazier to explain why he went to Irving.
Why don't you provide actual evidence that there was indeed a rifle, belonging to Oswald, in Ruth Paine's garage on 11/21/63?
If you do that, we may have something to talk about....... so, where is that evidence?
:D It has been corrected.
How is he bent over? - if the package is shorter - he holds in the manner she had seen.
How does a shorter package restrict the way he held it, if he can reach both portions
One hand near the top - the other for support at the bottom. I seriously don't understand your point.
It is certainly is NO proof the package is longer than about 2 feet.
I'm aware that facts don't worry you too much, so how would you have noticed? Carry on. ROFL.
The bag is 27 inches.
John Myton is working overtime to educate you on the facts but it does not appear to be taking. If you decide to actually contribute something to the discussion instead of this nonsense that would be great.
MC--"One hand near the top - the other for support at the bottom. I seriously don't understand your point."
This is also obvious. If the almost touches the ground and his left hand is near the bottom, LHO has to be bent over to be holding.
Oswald is 5 feet 9 inches----69 inches tall, LHO waist would be approximately 29 inches
The bag is 27 inches.
Oswald right hand is several inches below the top. Left hand near the bottom.
Linnie Mae stated the bag almost touched the ground. That would make LHO’s right hand below 6 inches + below his waist and his left hand near the ground. He would have to be bent at the waist to carry the package with the bottom close the ground along with his left hand.
Mrs. RANDLE. He was carrying a package in a sort of a heavy brown bag, heavier than a grocery bag it looked to me. It was about, if I might measure, about this long, I suppose, and he carried it in his right hand, had the top sort of folded down and had a grip like this, and the bottom, he carried it this way, you know, and it almost touched the ground as he carried it.
Mr. BALL. And he was grabbing it with his right hand at the top of the package and the package almost touched the ground?
Mrs. RANDLE. Yes, sir.
Mytton is in the same dilemma as you. He just has more pictures.
...they provide no further proof but appear right on cue.
Sometimes they flash and blink with yellow squigglys.
Mytton is in the same dilemma as you. He just has more pictures.
...they provide no further proof but appear right on cue.
Sometimes they flash and blink with yellow squigglys.
I made this graphic a few years ago illustrating how Linnie Mae was describing how Oswald was holding the bag, and if the bag was only 2 feet long then it wouldn't be almost touching the ground because Oswald isn't a gorilla!
(https://i.postimg.cc/SNNRzNgb/Randle-bag-near-touch-ground-b.jpg)
Also another fun fact, is if you look at Oswald's bag being taken from the depository the bottom which is the open side is excessively crumpled as if someone was holding it like Linnie Mae described!
(https://i.postimg.cc/1tsshJT1/oswald-bag-at-depository.jpg)
JohnM
The rifle broken down is 34.8 inches long, About 40 inches assembled.
So, whatever Frazier saw was obviously not the rifle.
How does this prove what LMR saw was any longer?
MC "One hand near the top - the other for support at the bottom. I seriously don't understand your point"
You never incorporated your statement about how LHO was holding the bag in your reply. Tuere is no doubt as to why. Obviously, you understand its importance. Linnie Mae exposed BWF estimate of the bag as being false.
Put two things together that prove Lee Oswald owns that bag. Just two.
60 pages and Mytton & Nissan have failed with half truth and assumptions.
Whoa ! Randle makes no mention of the left hand or holding the bottom.
Mrs. RANDLE. He was carrying a package in a sort of a heavy brown bag, heavier than a grocery bag it looked to me. It was about, if I might measure, about this long, I suppose, and he carried it in his right hand, had the top sort of folded down and had a grip like this, and the bottom, he carried it this way, you know, and it almost touched the ground as he carried it.
Mr. BALL. Let me see. He carried it in his right hand, did he?
Mrs. RANDLE. That is right.
Mr. BALL. And where was his hand gripping the middle of the package?
Mrs. RANDLE. No, sir; the top with just a little bit sticking up. You know just like you grab something like that.
Mr. BALL. And he was grabbing it with his right hand at the top of the package and the package almost touched the ground?
Mrs. RANDLE. Yes, sir.
He's holding it like a grip with one hand - She only see him from the wast up.
This gives absolutely no indication of a package longer than what Frazier said.
The 36" estimate was added by FBI Bookout. AND she has no reason to lie.
You put far too much weight in this witness against Frazier - who is - absolutely sure - palm to armpit.
Looking at this now, her description does NOT match the placement of the fingerprints.
Thumb1: 2x Lee carried an 8 lb. rifle with one hand.
The 36" estimate was added by FBI Bookout.
...the fact that she later colluded with Wesley to drastically shrink the package came about because of Wesley's fear....
JohnM
WHY? please tell me. - I'm talking to a brick - I'll say it again...
A shorter package does not refute what LMR saw. I just don't know what else to say.
Frazier saw a bag from his palm to his armpit. How is that the rifle?
Ridiculous claim without any proof.
You are a brick. You have no idea what you post.
You wrote this “"One hand near the top - the other for support at the bottom. I seriously don't understand your point"
You cut and pasted this:
Mrs. RANDLE. He was carrying a package in a sort of a heavy brown bag, heavier than a grocery bag it looked to me. It was about, if I might measure, about this long, I suppose, and he carried it in his right hand, had the top sort of folded down and had a grip like this, and the bottom, he carried it this way, you know, and it almost touched the ground as he carried it.
You all by yourself completely have made the case that there is no way the bag was 27 inches. Nobody else needs to post another word. These denying posts make no sense in light of what you have posted about Linnie’s testimony. Her testimony was plain enough to understand that you made the claim the bag was held on the bottom and she stated repeatedly the bottom was nearly on the ground. There is no other explanation than LHO would have to have been bent over to accomplish that if the bag was 27 inches. For god’s sake do the math.
It is really simple you can either believe the bag was 27 inches and LHO was walking bent over or you can believe the bag was 42 inches and LHO was walking erect. Pick one.
Whoa ! Randle makes no mention of the left hand or holding the bottom.
Mrs. RANDLE. He was carrying a package in a sort of a heavy brown bag, heavier than a grocery bag it looked to me. It was about, if I might measure, about this long, I suppose, and he carried it in his right hand, had the top sort of folded down and had a grip like this, and the bottom, he carried it this way, you know, and it almost touched the ground as he carried it.
Mr. BALL. Let me see. He carried it in his right hand, did he?
Mrs. RANDLE. That is right.
Mr. BALL. And where was his hand gripping the middle of the package?
Mrs. RANDLE. No, sir; the top with just a little bit sticking up. You know just like you grab something like that.
Mr. BALL. And he was grabbing it with his right hand at the top of the package and the package almost touched the ground?
Mrs. RANDLE. Yes, sir.
He's holding it like a grip bag with one hand - but she only saw him from the waist up. (and white t shirt?)
"He had on a white T-shirt, I just saw him from the waist up,..."
it also gives absolutely no indication of a package longer than what Frazier said.
The 36" estimate was added by FBI Bookout by mistake - perhaps even fed to her. She has no reason to lie.
You put far too much weight in this unreliable witness at a glance - against Frazier - who is absolutely sure - palm to armpit.
Looking at this now, NO, her description does NOT match the placement of the fingerprints. Her description makes the bag no longer than what BWF saw
Thumb1: 2x Lee carried an 8 lb. rifle with one hand.
He's holding it like a grip bag with one hand - but she only saw him from the waist up. (and white t shirt?)
"He had on a white T-shirt, I just saw him from the waist up,..."
it also gives absolutely no indication of a package longer than what Frazier said.
The 36" estimate was added by FBI Bookout by mistake - perhaps even fed to her. She has no reason to lie.
John Myton is working overtime to educate you on the facts but it does not appear to be taking. If you decide to actually contribute something to the discussion instead of this nonsense that would be great.
It looks like I'm the only one dealing with the facts!
1) Oswald makes a trip to Irving for the first time ever mid-week on Thursday.
2) Just by chance?, President Kennedy is passing by Oswald's work place the very next day.
3) Oswald for the first time ever brings a long package to work, he tells Frazier it contains "curtain rods"
4) Oswald immediately upon arrival at Frazier's hides the package in the back seat of Frazier's car then goes back to wait for Frazier.
5) Oswald for the first time ever, walks ahead of Frazier increasing the gap as they walk to the Depository.
6) Oswald's rifle is found on the 6th floor.
7) A long bag is found with Oswald's prints.
8} No "curtain rods" are ever found.
9) Oswald's fresh prints are found in the sniper's nest and Oswald's fresh prints are found on the rifle rest boxes, which were moved half way across the 6th floor. And even though he does indeed work there, it's not his job to touch every box every few days.
10) Oswald for some reason known only to him, decides to leave within 3 minutes of the President being shot.
11) No one who sees Oswald thereafter says that Oswald was carrying a long brown package, odd considering that Oswald specifically made the unscheduled trip to Irving for "curtain rods".
12) "Curtain rods" were not found in Oswald's room and as a matter of fact his room didn't even need "curtain rods"
12) Oswald lies to interrogators about what was in the brown paper package.
13) Oswald lies to interrogators about where in Frazier's car he stored the package.
These Tom my good friend are just some of the facts in this case, and so far not one CT is willing to deal with these facts, why is that?
JohnM
C'mon Martin, this is weak sauce, it's well established that Oswald was having marital problems because for a start he wasn't living with Marina, DUH!
And their latest tiff happened on the previous Monday, so Oswald had Tuesday and Wednesday to rectify their marriage but instead of waiting till the weekend where he would have 2 full days to fully explain himself, he chose Thursday, the precise night before the President arrived. Some coincidence?
But anyway, you keep running from the fact that Oswald took a large package to work and instead of answering my simple questions, you keep deflecting because let's face it, you're stumped!
JohnM
C'mon Martin, this is weak sauce, it's well established that Oswald was having marital problems because for a start he wasn't living with Marina, DUH!
And their latest tiff happened on the previous Monday, so Oswald had Tuesday and Wednesday to rectify their marriage but instead of waiting till the weekend where he would have 2 full days to fully explain himself, he chose Thursday, the precise night before the President arrived. Some coincidence?
But anyway, you keep running from the fact that Oswald took a large package to work and instead of answering my simple questions, you keep deflecting because let's face it, you're stumped!
JohnM
Oswald had other plans for the weekend. That's why he chose to get it done with on Thursday. Who said weak sauce?
Dear John, I'm not participating in your copy-paste show, so thanks to Martin for taking care of your "facts." Here comes an actual fact: The Warren Commission was so scared of Frazier's curtain rod story that they had to stage a curtain rod discovery show at the Paine residence, in the garage, starring Ruth Paine and their boy John Howlett. Unfortunately, Howlett had handed them in for printing BEFORE they were "found" in the garage, as seen on a CSSS form signed by both Howlett and DP Carl Day. Bummer!
And then we have the dates/times, and the fact that there are two different versions of the form:
The Warren Gullibles' solution is that Lt. Day got BOTH dates on the original form wrong, which is of course just laughable. To make us break into further hysterics, they cannot, when asked, come up with a single viable alternative submission date to take the place of 15 March!
Here, by contrast, is a grown-up starting point for solving the conundrum presented by these forms:
A Depository employee found the rods and alerted the authorities. Word must not leak out that a pair of curtain rods had been found in the building. A priority therefore was to contain this person by making them think the matter had been scrupulously looked into.
So what does Lt. Day do? He makes a copy of the submission/release form as it looked BEFORE "& 276" and the RELEASE sign-out details have been added. The TSBD person is therefore given a copy looking like this:
Oswald had other plans for the weekend. That's why he chose to get it done with on Thursday. Who said weak sauce?
Oswald had other plans for the weekend.
That's why he chose to get it done with on Thursday.
Hilarious, now you're responding for Martin and a couple of posts ago, even used his clown insult?
Is this some type of Twisted Tag Team Wrestling? You joined up on the 22nd and even though Martin was posting virtually every waking hour he suddenly stopped on virtually the same day that you started posting? Then Martin started posting 10 days later and you started drastically slowing down? Hahahaaha!
JohnM
I don't understand how the WC would be scared 5 months after the assassination? Scared of what?
And how are the dates a problem, is there another form that you are referring to?
Anyway here's the document, BTW Martin also had trouble posting evidence. LOL!
EDIT I remember Alan Ford had a bug up his ass about this and here's his images and his off the wall conclusion.
JohnM
You're right, Oswald's plans were to either flee the country, die battling the cops or the start of a long jail sentence.
Again you're right, he got it done and started the ball rolling on Thursday.
JohnM
Hilarious!
So you can't provide a shred of evidence that shows there actually was a rifle in Ruth Paine's garage on 11/21/63? Got it!
A Depository employee found the rods and alerted the authorities. Word must not leak out that a pair of curtain rods had been found in the building. A priority therefore was to contain this person by making them think the matter had been scrupulously looked into.
Dear John, I'm not participating in your copy-paste show, so thanks to Martin for taking care of your "facts." Here comes an actual fact: The Warren Commission was so scared of Frazier's curtain rod story that they had to stage a curtain rod discovery show at the Paine residence, in the garage, starring Ruth Paine and their boy John Howlett. Unfortunately, Howlett had handed them in for printing BEFORE they were "found" in the garage, as seen on a CSSS form signed by both Howlett and DP Carl Day. Bummer!
A classic example of how John will talk about anything, except maybe the weather, instead of answering a vital question!
He's been doing it for 60+ pages
He's been doing it for 60+ pages
The bag was a perfect fit for Oswald's rifle. JohnM
The bag was recovered in the sniper's nest and Oswald's rifle was discovered on the very same floor.
JohnM
Why do CT's always make themselves the ultimate arbiter and for no reasonable reason, deny each and every piece of presented evidence? Lucky we have impartial Jury's, who make decisions based on the evidence and not their overpowering bias!
Oswald's prints were on the bag, and again, Oswald's prints were on the bag.
JohnM
I'll ask again. 3rd time:
He didn't pay attention to the bag, but what exactly was Frazier's mistake?
I present fact after fact after fact, whereas ALL the CT's just keep running from my basic fundamental question!
All I ask is what happened to Oswald's "curtain rods" and clearly they were very important to him, especially after making a unique mid-week trip to Irving, so why Michael, why didn't Oswald take his "curtain rods" back to his room on Beckley?
And all I hear is crickets! Chirp chirp chirp!
JohnM
Your question doesn't make sense because you make a statement confirming Frazier's mistake, then ask a question that you yourself just answered!?
JohnM
Frazier saw a bag from the palm to his armpit - Too short to be the rifle
The first 11 officers never saw the bag on the floor when they arrived - The first 4 testified as such:
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.
The fingerprints are not consistent with how Lee or LMR held the bag. One detective called them nothing more than a smudge.
Thumb1: Try again.
It's really very simple, John.
YOU insisted Frazier is mistaken - what exactly is that mistake?
2) Multiple officers saw Oswald's rifle bag in the corner of the TSBD. “If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound” JohnM
1) You yourself confirmed repeatedly that Frazier didn't pay attention to the bag and he admitted under oath that the bag may have been out in front, sorry but them's the facts.
3) The time that Linnie or Wesley saw the bag, is a fraction of time Oswald spent making, carrying and unpacking his rifle bag, so your statement is just plain stupid.
1) You yourself confirmed repeatedly that Frazier didn't pay attention to the bag and he admitted under oath that the bag may have been out in front, sorry but them's the facts.
2) Multiple officers saw Oswald's rifle bag in the corner of the TSBD. “If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound”
3) The time that Linnie or Wesley saw the bag, is a fraction of time Oswald spent making, carrying and unpacking his rifle bag, so your statement is just plain stupid.
This is fun, keep at it though and maybe just maybe you might be able to come up with a worthwhile response!
JohnM
Instead of constantly arguing about a paper bag, why don't you shut us up completely by providing evidence that shows there actually was a rifle in Ruth Paine's garage on 11/21/63?
No rifle = no need for a trip to Irving to collect it
No rifle = no need to make a paper bag
Your constant ramblings about a paper bag only demonstrate how weak your arguments really are!
No rifle = no need for a trip to Irving to collect it
You better refresh my memory, show me the post where I say Frazier was mistaken?
JohnM
Show me where LMR said he held the bag with 2 hands.
I made an assumption based on what you said about the prints. - I wont do that again
and how does LMR prove the bag is longer? - it must be the 7th time I asked that one
John has taken care of this in spades. The conspiracy individuals do not seem to be able to get out of their own way. Same endless story, all pointless questions and never any answers.
You posted this MC: "One hand near the top - the other for support at the bottom. I seriously don't understand your point"
You cut and pasted this:
Mrs. RANDLE. He was carrying a package in a sort of a heavy brown bag, heavier than a grocery bag it looked to me. It was about, if I might measure, about this long, I suppose, and he carried it in his right hand, had the top sort of folded down and had a grip like this, and the bottom, he carried it this way, you know, and it almost touched the ground as he carried it.
So you say things and do things and then you deny it all.
There is only one way Linnie can claim the bag almost touched the ground, is if she saw it.
Mrs. RANDLE. He was carrying a package in a sort of a heavy brown bag, heavier than a grocery bag it looked to me. It was about, if I might measure, about this long, I suppose, and he carried it in his right hand, had the top sort of folded down and had a grip like this, and the bottom, he carried it this way, you know, and it almost touched the ground as he carried it.
Mr. BALL. And he was grabbing it with his right hand at the top of the package and the package almost touched the ground?
Mrs. RANDLE. Yes, sir.
You are mistaking her not seeing his pants with the package obscuring them.
Once again, the fingerprints on the bag discovered in the SN match her description.
it must be the 7th time I asked that one
It has been answered to death. You just don't like the answer. If you can't do the math, get someone to help you.
"Facts", there you go. Always a fresh episode of The Nessan Clown Show. Carry on!
Hahahaha! Talk about shooting yourself in the foot, Oswald knew he had a rifle wrapped in a blanket on the floor of the Paine garage, therefore he made the trip to Irving to collect it, so;
Yes rifle = need for a trip to Irving to collect it.
JohnM
Hilarious, now you're responding for Martin and a couple of posts ago, even used his clown insult?
Is this some type of Twisted Tag Team Wrestling? You joined up on the 22nd and even though Martin was posting virtually every waking hour he suddenly stopped on virtually the same day that you started posting? Then Martin started posting 10 days later and you started drastically slowing down? Hahahaaha!
JohnM
All garbage ! - All you need now is to show where LMR said Lee even used his left hand.
You obviously felt she did
MC "One hand near the top - the other for support at the bottom."
After spending way too much time on this, while trying to watch the footy, I can't possibly see how anyone can get conspiracy from this, human error perhaps, but that's as far as it goes.
The Paines were in Washington giving evidence on the 18th of March.
On the 23rd of March, Ruth Paine was back in Irving at the Paine residence, with Howlett and Jenner measuring stuff.
Lt. Day was not there, but is probably overworked and under payed and by this stage is having an absolute gutful of this entire endless investigation.
On the 23rd the curtain rod exhibits 275 and 276 are numbered and taken by Howlett to Lt. Day.
Lt. Day who was not there, either misheard or misinterpreted the date Howlett collected the curtain rods, as being the 15th. A Sunday?
Howlett takes the curtain rods to Day on the 24th, hence why 24th as the pick-up is written on the form because Day anticipates having to set aside his workload and do the work immediately.
Howlett realizing an immediate turnaround is unfeasible and says he will be back in a couple of days, so take your time.
Lt. Day does the fingerprint check on the 25th.
Day corrects the Howlett pick up date to the 26th.
No problems, easy peasy!
(https://i.postimg.cc/Sxg3S9r3/25-3-64-curtain-prints-Day.jpg)
BTW, considering ALL of this is easily accessible, makes the very thought that it's somehow conspiratorial, absurd but Tom if you can convince me that it's something beyond innocent human error, I'm all ears!
JohnM
Wake me up when the bag no longer exists. The one that was found next to the SN with Oswald's prints that can be measured to avoid the necessity of pedantically analyzing witness estimates of its length and how it was carried. Witness who had no real opportunity or cause to give the bag much notice.
Oswald knew he had a rifle wrapped in a blanket on the floor of the Paine garage
Says who? You haven't got a clue what Oswald knew or didn't know!
You wouldn't be making up things again, would you now, John?
Or do you, as per usual, mistake your highly speculative opinion again with actual evidence?
I don't post on behalf of others; anyone registered is free to reply to a post. Another LN false claim. Your paranoid theories are actually great fun to read; carry on!
You made the silly challenge not me.
Yes rifle = need for a trip to Irving to collect it.
JohnM
Happy to see the problem with the dates finally sunk in, especially since it should be preschool stuff checking with a calendar.
Lt. Day who was not there, either misheard or misinterpreted the date Howlett collected the curtain rods, as being the 15th. A Sunday?
Apart from the 15th possibly being a Sunday (it actually was), can anyone make sense of this?
Happy to see the problem with the dates finally sunk in, especially since it should be preschool stuff checking with a calendar.
Lt. Day who was not there, either misheard or misinterpreted the date Howlett collected the curtain rods, as being the 15th. A Sunday?
Apart from the 15th possibly being a Sunday (it actually was), can anyone make sense of this?
So weak, but thanks for making it abundantly clear that you indeed do not have a shred of evidence to show that a rifle was stored in Ruth Paine's garage on 11/21/63! Thumb1:
And you still haven't got a clue what Oswald knew or not! Just keep the fairytales coming....
So weak, but thanks for making it abundantly clear that you indeed do not have a shred of evidence to show that a rifle was stored in Ruth Paine's garage on 11/21/63! Thumb1:
How bizarre, I don't need a shred of evidence to know that the sun will rise in the morning or will set in the evening, it's a given. Just like Oswald knew that his rifle was in the wrapped blanket which was safely stored in the Paine garage. And don't forget the very same blanket with the cord still tied to it, was empty on the afternoon of the assassination. And guess where the rifle was found on the afternoon of the very same day! ROFL! LOL! HAHAHAHA!
Mr. BALL. What part did you take?
Mr. ROSE. Well, I was the senior detective that was there, and so I was sort of the spokesman for the group, I suppose, and Stovall wen into the bedroom of Marina Oswald--Marina Oswald's bedroom, and I don't remember where Adamcik went first, but I talked with Ruth Paine a few minutes and she told me that Marina was there and that she was Lee Oswald's wife and that she was a citizen of Russia, and so I called Captain Fritz on the phone and told him what I had found out there and asked him if there was any special instructions, and he said, "Well, ask her about her husband, ask her if her husband has a rifle." I turned and asked Marina, but she didn't seem to understand. She said she couldn't understand, so Ruth Paine spoke in Russian to her and Ruth Paine also interpreted for me, and she said that Marina said--first she said Marina said "No," and then a minute Marina said, "Yes, he does have." So, then I talked to Captain Fritz for a moment and hung up the phone and I asked Marina if she would show me where his rifle was and Ruth Paine interpreted and Marina pointed to the garage and she took me to the garage and she pointed to a blanket that was rolled up and laying on the floor near the wall of the garage and Ruth Paine said, "Says that that's where his rifle is." Well, at the time I couldn't tell whether there was one in there or not. It appeared to be--it was in sort of an outline of a rifle.
Mr. BALL. You mean the blanket had the outline of a rifle?
Mr. ROSE. Yes; it did.
Mr. BALL. Was it tied at one end?
Mr. ROSE. Yes, sir; it was sort of rolled up, but it was flattened out from laying down and tied near the middle, I would say, with a cord and so I went on and picked the blanket up, but it was empty--it didn't have the rifle in it.
Mr. STOVALL. Shortly after that, Rose came back in carrying this blanket, as well as I remember, it was tied at one end and the other end was open.
Mr. BALL. It was tied with what kind of material?
Mr. STOVALL. It was tied with a white cord, as well as I remember.
Mr. BALL. A white what?
Mr. STOVALL. A white twine--it was thicker than a kite twine that you see or use on kites--more like this they use for wrapping large packages and tying them and he showed me that end, of course, he told me----
Mr. BALL. What did he tell you?
Mr. STOVALL. He told me that when he went to the garage, Marina had pointed to the blanket there and she said something to Ruth Paine and Ruth Paine told him that that was where Lee kept his rifle.
Mr. BELIN. All right, then what happened?
Mr. ADAMCIK. Well, we went through the house, if I remember correctly, and I believe the other detectives found some property. I know they found this blanket that was rolled up in the garage.
Mr. BELIN. Were you there when they saw the blanket?
Mr. ADAMCIK. No; I wasn't there. I saw the blanket later.
Mr. BELIN. Where was it when you first saw it?
Mr. ADAMCIK. I believe they took it in the house. I am pretty sure.
Mr. BELIN. Had they unrolled the blanket when they took it in the house?
Mr. ADAMCIK. No; they had a string still tied around it. Apparently had two strings, and just one of the strings were cut.
Mr. BELIN. One of the strings was cut?
Mr. ADAMCIK. Yes.
BTW for someone who is vigorously defending Oswald, you haven't been doing a very good job, the mountain of evidence still stands just as tall today as it has for every day for over 60 years. Try harder!
JohnM
How bizarre, I don't need a shred of evidence to know that the sun will rise in the morning or will set in the evening, it's a given.
Just how pathetic can you get? A rifle being in Ruth Paine's garage on 11/21/63 is not a given, so, yes, you need to present at least a shred of actual evidence that it was there, instead of trying to weasel out of it!
Just like Oswald knew that his rifle was in the wrapped blanket which was safely stored in the Paine garage.
Strike two: you haven't got a clue what Oswald knew or not!
And don't forget the very same blanket with the cord still tied to it, was empty on the afternoon of the assassination.
Wow... that's powerful evidence of just how ignorant you really are. An empty blanket that, according to Micheal Paine, could easily have contained camping equipment was found empty by people who were clueless about how long the blanket had been empty. In the real world, an empty blanket found in a garage is evidence of an empty blanket being in that garage and nothing more
And guess where the rifle was found on the afternoon of the very same day!
What rifle would that be? Once again you are making silly claims that you can not support by actual evidence!
I'm not even going to bother with what Rose, Stovall and Adamcik said, because not one of them actually saw a rifle in Ruth Paine's garage!
When all you have is an empty blanket that, in the opinion of Gus Rose, "had the outline of a rifle", you really haven't got anything at all.
BTW for someone who is vigorously defending Oswald, you haven't been doing a very good job, the mountain of evidence still stands just as tall today as it has for every day for over 60 years.
Thank you for sharing your biased opinion.
Now, let's try to go back to evidence that actually would be accepted in court. What is your evidence that there was a rifle in Ruth Paine's garage on 11/21/63.
And please try not to display you utter ignorance and duplicity this time around!
Yawn! This is getting tiresome.
Let's put the combined knowledge of CT's 60+ years defence of Oswald to the test.
Q. Is it Oswald's rifle and was it used in the assassination?
Prosecution: Yes. Oswald wrote an order, Oswald paid for the order, Kleins processed the order and Kleins sent the order to Oswald's PO box, Oswald was proven to have been holding the same weapon as sent, the rifle was stored in a blanket, the same blanket was empty the afternoon of the assassination, Oswald was seen carrying a long brown package to work, the long brown package was discovered in the sniper's nest with Oswald's prints, the eyewitness to this bag repeatedly says he "never payed attention to the bag", the rifle was found at Oswald's place of employment, 3 expended shells matching the rifle was found in the sniper's nest, the only recovered bullet fragments belonged to Oswald's rifle and Oswald's prints were on the rifle.
CT's: No. Oswald's order was forged, Kleins forged their microfilm records, the money order was forged and planted in the Federal reserve(yes really LOL!), the backyard photos are fake, Oswald's rifle was never at the Paine residence, de Mohrenschildt lied about the rifle at Neely street, Oswald's rifle was planted in the TSBD, the bag was manufactured by the Dallas Police, the prints on the bag were planted, the shells were planted, the bullet fragments were planted, Oswald's dead hand supplied the palm print. Need I go on?
Analysis: the prosecution has a powerful indisputable case whereas the CT's are relying on an unprovable mountain of lies, manipulation and deception from multiple unconnected actors, geez what a bunch of desperate losers!
JohnM
Q. Is it Oswald's rifle and was it used in the assassination?`
Prosecution: Yes. Oswald wrote an order, Oswald paid for the order, Kleins processed the order and Kleins sent the order to Oswald's PO box, Oswald was proven to have been holding the same weapon as sent, the rifle was stored in a blanket, the same blanket was empty the afternoon of the assassination, Oswald was seen carrying a long brown package to work, the long brown package was discovered in the sniper's nest with Oswald's prints, the eyewitness to this bag repeatedly says he "never payed attention to the bag", the rifle was found at Oswald's place of employment, 3 expended shells matching the rifle was found in the sniper's nest, the only recovered bullet fragments belonged to Oswald's rifle and Oswald's prints were on the rifle.
CT's: No. Oswald's order was forged, Kleins forged their microfilm records, the money order was forged and planted in the Federal reserve(yes really LOL!), the backyard photos are fake, Oswald's rifle was never at the Paine residence, de Mohrenschildt lied about the rifle at Neely street, Oswald's rifle was planted in the TSBD, the bag was manufactured by the Dallas Police, the prints on the bag were planted, the shells were planted, the bullet fragments were planted, Oswald's dead hand supplied the palm print. Need I go on?
Analysis: the prosecution has a powerful indisputable case whereas the CT's are relying on an unprovable mountain of lies, manipulation and deception from multiple unconnected actors, geez what a bunch of desperate losers!
Perhaps you should do the same as Charles Collins and consult an actual lawyer to find out what real evidence is!
Your concept of evidence is flawed. The threshold question is relevancy. Under Rule 401 of the Federal Rules of Evidence, for example, "Evidence is relevant if: (a) it has any tendency to make a fact more or less probable than it would be without the evidence; and (b) the fact is of consequence in determining the action."
Every item you label as NE, PW and TQ would be deemed relevant evidence.
I think you mean Mitch Todd? But that is neither here or there.
In response to John Iacoletti inane criticisms of Bugliosi's 53 pieces of evidence, a very real lawyer set Iacoletti straight about what evidence actually is, because what people learn through TV and gossip isn't necessarily correct.
Rule 401. Test for Relevant Evidence
Evidence is relevant if:
(a) it has any tendency to make a fact more or less probable than it would be without the evidence; and
(b) the fact is of consequence in determining the action.
Notes
(Pub. L. 93–595, §1, Jan. 2, 1975, 88 Stat. 1931; Apr. 26, 2011, eff. Dec. 1, 2011.)
Notes of Advisory Committee on Proposed Rules
Problems of relevancy call for an answer to the question whether an item of evidence, when tested by the processes of legal reasoning, possesses sufficient probative value to justify receiving it in evidence. Thus, assessment of the probative value of evidence that a person purchased a revolver shortly prior to a fatal shooting with which he is charged is a matter of analysis and reasoning.
The variety of relevancy problems is coextensive with the ingenuity of counsel in using circumstantial evidence as a means of proof. An enormous number of cases fall in no set pattern, and this rule is designed as a guide for handling them. On the other hand, some situations recur with sufficient frequency to create patterns susceptible of treatment by specific rules. Rule 404 and those following it are of that variety; they also serve as illustrations of the application of the present rule as limited by the exclusionary principles of Rule 403.
Passing mention should be made of so-called “conditional” relevancy. Morgan, Basic Problems of Evidence 45–46 (1962). In this situation, probative value depends not only upon satisfying the basic requirement of relevancy as described above but also upon the existence of some matter of fact. For example, if evidence of a spoken statement is relied upon to prove notice, probative value is lacking unless the person sought to be charged heard the statement. The problem is one of fact, and the only rules needed are for the purpose of determining the respective functions of judge and jury. See Rules 104(b) and 901. The discussion which follows in the present note is concerned with relevancy generally, not with any particular problem of conditional relevancy.
Relevancy is not an inherent characteristic of any item of evidence but exists only as a relation between an item of evidence and a matter properly provable in the case. Does the item of evidence tend to prove the matter sought to be proved? Whether the relationship exists depends upon principles evolved by experience or science, applied logically to the situation at hand. James, Relevancy, Probability and the Law, 29 Calif.L.Rev. 689, 696, n. 15 (1941), in Selected Writings on Evidence and Trial 610, 615, n. 15 (Fryer ed. 1957). The rule summarizes this relationship as a “tendency to make the existence” of the fact to be proved “more probable or less probable.” Compare Uniform Rule 1(2) which states the crux of relevancy as “a tendency in reason,” thus perhaps emphasizing unduly the logical process and ignoring the need to draw upon experience or science to validate the general principle upon which relevancy in a particular situation depends.
The standard of probability under the rule is “more * * * probable than it would be without the evidence.” Any more stringent requirement is unworkable and unrealistic. As McCormick §152, p. 317, says, “A brick is not a wall,” or, as Falknor, Extrinsic Policies Affecting Admissibility, 10 Rutgers L.Rev. 574, 576 (1956), quotes Professor McBaine, “* * * t is not to be supposed that every witness can make a home run.” Dealing with probability in the language of the rule has the added virtue of avoiding confusion between questions of admissibility and questions of the sufficiency of the evidence.
The rule uses the phrase “fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action” to describe the kind of fact to which proof may properly be directed. The language is that of California Evidence Code §210; it has the advantage of avoiding the loosely used and ambiguous word “material.” Tentative Recommendation and a Study Relating to the Uniform Rules of Evidence (Art. I. General Provisions), Cal. Law Revision Comm'n, Rep., Rec. & Studies, 10–11 (1964). The fact to be proved may be ultimate, intermediate, or evidentiary; it matters not, so long as it is of consequence in the determination of the action. Cf. Uniform Rule 1(2) which requires that the evidence relate to a “material” fact.
The fact to which the evidence is directed need not be in dispute. While situations will arise which call for the exclusion of evidence offered to prove a point conceded by the opponent, the ruling should be made on the basis of such considerations as waste of time and undue prejudice (see Rule 403), rather than under any general requirement that evidence is admissible only if directed to matters in dispute. Evidence which is essentially background in nature can scarcely be said to involve disputed matter, yet it is universally offered and admitted as an aid to understanding. Charts, photographs, views of real estate, murder weapons, and many other items of evidence fall in this category. A rule limiting admissibility to evidence directed to a controversial point would invite the exclusion of this helpful evidence, or at least the raising of endless questions over its admission. Cf. California Evidence Code §210, defining relevant evidence in terms of tendency to prove a disputed fact.
Committee Notes on Rules—2011 Amendment
The language of Rule 401 has been amended as part of the restyling of the Evidence Rules to make them more easily understood and to make style and terminology consistent throughout the rules. These changes are intended to be stylistic only. There is no intent to change any result in any ruling on evidence admissibility.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_401
JohnM
BS:based on what a nutter (that is you) told me.
Incorrectly based on what a nutter (that is you) told me. - I wont do that again.
You kicked yourself back to square one. Where did LMR say Lee used his left hand?
Just like Oswald knew that his rifle was in the wrapped blanket which was safely stored in the Paine garage.
How does dumped on the garage floor become "safely stored"?
ROFL
Just like Oswald knew that his rifle was in the wrapped blanket which was safely stored in the Paine garage.
How does dumped on the garage floor become "safely stored"?
ROFL
It was safely stored in the confines of a crowded garage as part of a house which was virtually occupied 24/7, that's a safe environment.
It wasn't stored outside behind a tree or leaning against a house.
The rifle itself was stored inconspicuously in a blanket, even Michael who interacted with the blanket numerous times thought that it contained pipes or a shovel.
Is a thief going to back up a truck and empty the entire contents of the tightly stuffed garage and even if they did, a blanket on the floor wouldn't have a high priority.
BTW, out of the post you replied to, you edit out every other fact and then decide to fall on your sword with a misjudged, misguided easily refuted, assertion! Really?
(https://i.postimg.cc/nrxR48tj/ruth-paine-garage.jpg)
Mr. LIEBELER - Did you think there was more than one tent pole in the package or just one tent pole?
Mr. PAINE - As I say, I moved it several times, and I think I thought progressively each time. I moved it twice. It had three occasions. And the first one was an iron, thought of an iron pipe and then I have drawn, I drew yesterday, a picture of the thing I had in mind. Then in order to fill out the package I had to add another object to it and there I added again I was thinking of camping equipment, and I added a folding shovel such as I had seen in the Army, a little spade where the blade folds back over the handle. This has the trouble that this blade was too symmetrical I disposed to the handle and to fit the package the blade had to be off center, eccentric to the handle. Also, I had my vision of the pipe. It had an iron pipe about 30 inches long with a short section of pipe going off 45 degrees. No words here, it just happened that I did have this image in my mind of trying to fill up that package in the back burner of my mind.
https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/testimony/paine_m1.htm
(https://i.postimg.cc/X7kMD8H6/michael-paine-exhibit-1-drawing-shovel.jpg)
For someone who is constantly "rolling on the floor laughing", you don't seem like a very funny guy, in fact you give the impression of an overly paranoid dude, with a permanent scowl on your face!
JohnM
Your history here is an open book and there was nothing false about my observation, the fact that you are here freaking out, is very telling.
JohnM
Yeah sure, combing through testimony and cross referencing archives is pre-school stuff? Did you discover this or did you rip off other researchers?
See the problem here Tom, is that you appear to have no experience in the real World, human error out here is so prevalent that it's away of life.
Newspaper articles get locations, facts, times and etc, wrong all the time. Just witness the initial reports in this case alone, different rifles, agents killed, mistaken and/or misrepresented evidence and the list goes on and on.
What I conclude in this Paine curtain rod saga is the WC date of the curtain rod collection is in line with Day's fingerprint analysis and the subsequent Howlett collection, nuff said!
As I said at the start, this is months after the assassination and is a simple exercise in satisfying the public with every potential possibility.
BTW I asked you to "convince me if this is something beyond innocent human error" and where could this possibly be construed as something evil? But as usual you have no answers.
JohnM
Wow, that took a lot of words attempting to back up your claim! By now you should know that I enjoy taking potshots at the weak Nutters. BTW, had you been one of the elite LNs, you would simply have argued that the bundle didn't include the ammo; hence, it was perfectly safe for even the children to slip into the garage. In fact, not even an empty ammunition box was anywhere to be found in the Paine residence. Not safe for the scope, though, to end up on the floor and being kicked around, ROFL.
Wow, that took a lot of words attempting to back up your claim!
By now you should know that I enjoy taking potshots at the weak Nutters.
BTW, had you been one of the elite LNs, you would simply have argued that the bundle didn't include the ammo; hence, it was perfectly safe for even the children to slip into the garage.
In fact, not even an empty ammunition box was anywhere to be found in the Paine residence.
Not safe for the scope, though, to end up on the floor and being kicked around, ROFL.
I referred to the dates, like looking them up in a 1963 calendar, but maybe I was too harsh saying preschool. Should have said 3rd grade; did you even make it past 3rd grade? Ripping off researchers sounds interesting; what was that all about?
I'm not here to convince you of anything. Day not being present and signing the form is pretty far out, even for a Nutter. Adding the 24th to your fantasy makes even less sense if the rods are dusted on the 25th. You've stopped making any sense, so I'll wait around for the more elite Nutters to chime in.
I referred to the dates, like looking them up in a 1963 calendar, but maybe I was too harsh saying preschool. Should have said 3rd grade; did you even make it past 3rd grade? Ripping off researchers sounds interesting; what was that all about?
Ripping off researchers sounds interesting; what was that all about?
I'm not here to convince you of anything.
Day not being present and signing the form is pretty far out, even for a Nutter. Adding the 24th to your fantasy makes even less sense if the rods are dusted on the 25th. You've stopped making any sense, so I'll wait around for the more elite Nutters to chime in.
based on what a nutter (that is you) told me.
Sure, why would anyone doubt that you did. Actually, that has to be one of the stranger things you have posted.
You are denying LHO walked bent over, good choice LHO was walking erect with a 3 foot 6 inch bag. We all know, nobody would walk bent over with the 27 inch bag. You had the right answer and here you are now you are denying it. I don't know why you would want to do that. You personally have posted all of these. Did you not ever read them? Maybe subconsciously you just did not want to know what she said. She destroys the short bag nonsense and the whole conspiracy tripe that goes along with it.
Where did LMR say Lee used his left hand?
Let us review, Linnie gives two different descriptions of how each hand held the package. “Gripping or grabbing or grab” the top with the right hand and “hugging” the bottom with the other.
Right hand:
Mr. BALL. Let me see. He carried it in his right hand, did he?
Mrs. RANDLE. That is right.
Mr. BALL. And where was his hand gripping the middle of the package?
Mrs. RANDLE. No, sir; the top with just a little bit sticking up. You know just like you grab something like that.
Mrs. RANDLE. No, sir; the top with just a little bit sticking up. You know just like you grab something like that.
Mr. BALL. And he was grabbing it with his right hand at the top of the package and the package almost touched the ground?
Mrs. RANDLE. Yes, sir.
Left Hand:
Mr. BALL. I have one question, Mr. Chief Justice.
You used an expression there, that the bag appeared heavy.
Mrs. RANDLE. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. You meant that there was some weight appeared to--
Mrs. RANDLE. To the bottom.
Mr. BALL. To the bottom?
Mrs. RANDLE. Yes. It tapered like this as he [i]hugged [/i]it in his hand. It was more bulky toward the bottom than it was this way.
Mr. BELIN. Toward the top? More bulky toward the bottom than toward the top?
Mrs. RANDLE. That is right.
Both Hands:
I suppose, and he carried it in his right hand, had the top sort of folded down and had a grip like this, and the bottom, he carried it this way, you know, and it almost touched the ground as he carried it.
Linnie shreds BWF testimony. It leaves you with two choices, one he deliberately misleads investigators or two as he said he just did not pay any attention. You should be happy. Your posting made a significant contribution to understanding how Linnie's bag recollections shed light on the question of LHO transporting the rifle to the TSBD.
All garbage.
She never saw him touch the bag with his left hand.
The prints on the bag are not consistent with how it was carried.
All garbage.
You asked for proof and now that it has been presented you do not like the results.
But don't be so hard on yourself. It all comes from your posts. Apparently, you just never read them.
She never saw him touch the bag with his left hand
No, according to her statements and your own assessment she did.
The prints on the bag are not consistent with how it was carried.
Oh, but they are. I am sure you would like them not to be but no they are there.
I don't debate cartoon theories.
Later, dude.
No evidence of the rifle in the Paine garage on 11/21
The prints on the bag are not consistent with how it was carried.
Although Frazier did not pay attention to the bag, he was sure it was carried from the palm to the armpit. (too small for the rifle)
Both Frazier & Linnie Mae had no reason to lie about what they saw.
(https://preview.ibb.co/cqGmgw/Slide18.gif)
Thumb1:There is no reason to believe the rifle was ever put in that bag and carried in that morning by Lee Oswald.
And considering you couldn't refute a single point, makes my facts the only possible answers. Thanks for playing.
And this is the best you got, after I just humiliated you? Get real.
What idiot stores his rifle with the ammo, you're not very good at this are you, Tom!
Oswald didn't even have enough bullets to fill his clip, any ammo box was long gone.
What proof have you got that the scope was attached or even in the Blanket, because at Neely street, Oswald's rifle didn't have the scope attached, Oops, so it's not a given that it was permanently attached. And considering the rifle was war surplus, you know designed to be used in a war, I don't think Oswald was too concerned about a few toddlers rummaging about around his blanket wrapped rifle. Hahahaha!
Mr. RANKIN. Was it out in the room at that time, as distinguished from in a closet in the room?
Mrs. OSWALD. Yes, it was open, out in the open. At first I think---I saw some package up on the top shelf, and I think that that was the rifle. But I didn't know. And apparently later he assembled it and had it in the room.
Mr. RANKIN. When you saw the rifle assembled in the room, did it have the scope on it?
Mrs. OSWALD. No, it did not have a scope on it.
(https://i.postimg.cc/zG4scGm4/blanket-rifle-bag-sack.jpg)
BTW I love smashing silly overconfident bully CT's, it makes each and every win extremely satisfying.
Next time bring your "A" game because so far making you look the fool is just way too easy. Now run along and do a little research so you can at least appear barely competent.
JohnM
There are fingerprints confirming Linnie Mae’s description of how it was held.
Besides the Mountain of physical evidence
1) Oswald asks Frazier to take him to Irving to get "curtain rods".
2) Oswald breaks his usual routine and goes to Irving on a Thursday which just happens to be the day before the Presidential visit, what a coincidence!
3) Oswald goes against standard protocol and doesn't get permission from Ruth Paine for his unexpected visit.
4) Oswald leaves most of his money.
5) Oswald leaves his wedding ring.
6) Oswald never tells Marina he's going to leave with "curtain rods".
7) Oswald never tells Ruth that he's going to leave with "curtain rods".
8} Oswald upon reaching Frazier's house immediately hides the "curtain rods" in Frazier's car.
9) Oswald's package is seen by Frazier on the back seat of Frazier's car and Oswald confirms that it contains "curtain rods", whereas the interrogators recall that Oswald said he carried the package on his lap in the front seat.
10) Oswald is 50 feet ahead of Frazier when entering the Texas School Book Depository, another first.
11) Oswald leaves the Depository not at the start or end of lunch but after about 3 minutes from when the President is assassinated, roughly the time it takes to walk from the 6th floor, be confronted, buy a coke and then exit on the ground floor.
12) Oswald never asks permission to leave work by his immediate superior Shelley, in fact Shelley testifies that he never sees Oswald after 12PM.
13) Oswald made a great effort to get "curtain rods" yet isn't seen by Bledsoe on the bus carrying "curtain rods"
14) Oswald isn't seen in Whaley's cab carrying "curtain rods"
15) Oswald isn't seen by Roberts carrying "curtain rods" into his room at the rooming house.
16) Oswald's room doesn't contain any additional "curtain rods".
17) Oswald's room doesn't even need additional "curtain rods".
18) Oswald was not described by any eyewitnesses at the Tippit crime scene carrying "curtain rods"
19) Oswald was not described by Johnny Brewer as carrying "curtain rods"
20) Oswald didn't hit Officer McDonald over the head in the Texas Theatre with "curtain rods"
21) Oswald told his interrogators a different story that he never had "curtain rods" and only carried his lunch to work.
22) Oswald's prints were found on a brown paper bag recovered in the sniper's nest.
23) Oswald's rifle was a neat fit for the brown paper bag.
24) Oswald's "curtain rods" were never found in the Depository.
Your quoting Linnie’s second recounting not her first. Her first is a 42 inch bag, that was being held in a manner that would have LHO bent at the hip to be holding a 27 inch bag in the same manner.
If the rifle stayed fully assembled, a small lunch sized bag could simply and easily be placed over the exposed muzzle end of the barrel to hide it. That solution would have been much simpler and quicker than disassembling and reassembling the rifle. The small lunch sized bag could have been disposed of anywhere in the TSBD and would not have appeared out of place.
1) In the following video @3:33 Buell Wesley Frazier Under Oath, admits that he hardly paid any attention to the bag and the bag could have been protruding out the front of his body,
Tom Sorenson provided an opinion and nothing else, just background noise.
Another interesting factoid is another simpleton Dougherty testified that some of the fellows and specifically Shelley saw the bag, but obviously Shelley knew better than to admit that he saw Oswald carry the murder weapon. But poor old Frazier had no choice but to slightly twist and admit what he saw, but the best excuse Frazier could come up with, was to introduce a little white lie.
So Michael, you acknowledge that Oswald carried a long package to work, why didn't anyone who saw Oswald in the immediate aftermath see Oswald with the long package?
Because the package was important enough for Oswald to make a special trip to Irving to collect it, so where is it, what happened to it and why would Oswald leave it behind?
I propose a theory that explains it all, hear me out.
Oswald made a special trip to Irving on a Thursday so he could retrieve his rifle, a rifle that was missing form the Paine garage on the Friday afternoon.
Oswald wrapped the rifle in brown paper that came from the Depository so the rifle sack could be easily smuggled into his work and wouldn't be so conspicuous.
Oswald left the paper sack and the rifle on the 6th floor and got the heck out of there as quickly as possible.
See Michael, no mental gymnastics required, a straight forward assassination explains ALL the evidence and also explains ALL of Oswald's actions.
Sorry old chum the evidence is that Oswald told Frazier that he was going to get "curtain rods" and he accomplished the mission by having "curtain rods" with him the very next day and since "curtain rods" were never found and/or needed then we can know for a certainty that the mission was to retrieve his rifle
That's all very nice but irrelevant, why didn't you address the Elephant in the room, why on Earth would Oswald take "curtain rods" in a long package to work and then simply leave them behind? And don't forget that his rooming house's room had curtain rods, so think hard and try to explain this massive dilemma, Good Luck!
Sorry Martin you've got it all wrong, not only did Oswald tell Frazier that he was going to Irving to collect "curtain rods" but Oswald told Frazier very specifically that on the back seat of Frazier's car were those very same "curtain rods". So I'll ask again what happened to the curtain rods and why didn't Oswald take them with him?
Why do CT's always make themselves the ultimate arbiter and for no reasonable reason, deny each and every piece of presented evidence? Lucky we have impartial Jury's, who make decisions based on the evidence and not their overpowering bias!
Like I said, I checked all the primary sources, that's what a reputable researcher does. In my early days I've trusted many CT's that I assumed did the legwork and let's just say, their research skills left a lot to be desired.
Alan Ford was spewing this nonsense years ago and you've just jumped on his coat-tails. But maybe you can do a better job of fitting this months old evidence into a plausible narrative, but somehow I doubt it!
Well Tom, you're doing a good job of that.
I told you it's simple human error. Lt. Day made some assumptions which didn't pan out.
Then I asked politely for you to create a narrative explaining what you believe happened and so far you have failed because you apparently lack the deductive reasoning skills to add one and one. But I guess after reading Alan Ford's absurd hole filled alternate reality, I can understand why you won't.
• So in conclusion, what are we left with is plain and simple human error, or will a yet to found super CT make the necessary connections because here in this CT cesspool we have a lot of nobodies and insane theories but no answers!
It sure looks like being a keen CT isn't what it's cracked up to be!
JohnM
• Randle initial estimate of the length of the long brown package was done out of honesty and all your denials won't change this solid evidence, the fact that she later colluded with Wesley to drastically shrink the package came about because of Wesley's fear, especially after Fritz threatened a poor innocent 19 year old with physical violence.
Alan Ford's and presumably Tom's assertion that a depository employee found these infamous missing curtain rods has a little problem, according to CT lore Frazier saw the curtain rods neatly tucked under Oswald's arm, from armpit to cupped hand, but as the much taller Wesley demonstrated, he could barely fit a 24 inch package under his arm, so obviously a 27.5 inch package for Oswald's puny arms is totally out of the question! So any chance of a gotcha moment is out the window( no pun intended)! Sorry chappies
After spending way too much time on this, while trying to watch the footy, I can't possibly see how anyone can get conspiracy from this, human error perhaps, but that's as far as it goes.
Hahahaha! Talk about shooting yourself in the foot, Oswald knew he had a rifle wrapped in a blanket on the floor of the Paine garage, therefore he made the trip to Irving to collect it, so;
Wake me up when the bag no longer exists. The one that was found next to the SN with Oswald's prints that can be measured to avoid the necessity of pedantically analyzing witness estimates of its length and how it was carried. Witness who had no real opportunity or cause to give the bag much notice.
Prosecution: Yes. Oswald wrote an order, Oswald paid for the order, Kleins processed the order and Kleins sent the order to Oswald's PO box, Oswald was proven to have been holding the same weapon as sent, the rifle was stored in a blanket, the same blanket was empty the afternoon of the assassination, Oswald was seen carrying a long brown package to work, the long brown package was discovered in the sniper's nest with Oswald's prints, the eyewitness to this bag repeatedly says he "never payed attention to the bag", the rifle was found at Oswald's place of employment, 3 expended shells matching the rifle was found in the sniper's nest, the only recovered bullet fragments belonged to Oswald's rifle and Oswald's prints were on the rifle.
Evidence is relevant if:
(a) it has any tendency to make a fact more or less probable than it would be without the evidence; and
(b) the fact is of consequence in determining the action.
You are denying LHO walked bent over, good choice LHO was walking erect with a 3 foot 6 inch bag. We all know, nobody would walk bent over with the 27 inch bag.
I told you it's simple human error. Lt. Day made some assumptions which didn't pan out.
Linnie Mae did not lie about what she saw.
The CTer/contrarian struggle with logic is painful to behold. Here is an example. If Oswald is placed beyond doubt at point A and then sometime later at point B there is no reason to engage in endless pedantic nitpicking to claim he couldn't have made it to point B within the known timeframe. CTer/contrarians refuse to accept this simple concept. They cling to pedantic, subjective interpretations of any witness testimony or circumstance that casts any doubt on this conclusion. Again, the best proof that a thing could happen is that it DID happen. There is no better proof. If person X is proven beyond doubt to be in Paris on one day and in NYC on the next, there is no need to know which plane he took, who he sat next to on the plane, or his manner of dress to reach the conclusion that he made it to NYC from Paris in that timeframe. Just because a witness might describe this person as wearing a different colored jacket than the person in NYC is rabbit hole nonsense if the totality of evidence places him there beyond all doubt.
No. As Pat Speer brilliantly illustrated, the palmprint was near the middle of the bag, and the fingerprint was near the bottom of the bag.
https://www.patspeer.com/jahs-chapter-18 (https://www.patspeer.com/jahs-chapter-18)
The CTer/contrarian struggle with logic is painful to behold. Here is an example. If Oswald is placed beyond doubt at point A and then sometime later at point B there is no reason to engage in endless pedantic nitpicking to claim he couldn't have made it to point B within the known timeframe. CTer/contrarians refuse to accept this simple concept. They cling to pedantic, subjective interpretations of any witness testimony or circumstance that casts any doubt on this conclusion. Again, the best proof that a thing could happen is that it DID happen. There is no better proof. If person X is proven beyond doubt to be in Paris on one day and in NYC on the next, there is no need to know which plane he took, who he sat next to on the plane, or his manner of dress to reach the conclusion that he made it to NYC from Paris in that timeframe. Just because a witness might describe this person as wearing a different colored jacket than the person in NYC is rabbit hole nonsense if the totality of evidence places him there beyond all doubt.
:D I'm trying to follow along on this one.
Does that mean LMR saw a rifle?
Too funny.
The CTer/contrarian struggle with logic is painful to behold. Here is an example. If Oswald is placed beyond doubt at point A and then sometime later at point B there is no reason to engage in endless pedantic nitpicking to claim he couldn't have made it to point B within the known timeframe. CTer/contrarians refuse to accept this simple concept. They cling to pedantic, subjective interpretations of any witness testimony or circumstance that casts any doubt on this conclusion. Again, the best proof that a thing could happen is that it DID happen. There is no better proof. If person X is proven beyond doubt to be in Paris on one day and in NYC on the next, there is no need to know which plane he took, who he sat next to on the plane, or his manner of dress to reach the conclusion that he made it to NYC from Paris in that timeframe. Just because a witness might describe this person as wearing a different colored jacket than the person in NYC is rabbit hole nonsense if the totality of evidence places him there beyond all doubt.
It's when the airline timetable shows that X couldn't have made it to NYC in time to be seen the LN tosspot evidence falls apart and their hissy fits begin. Like when Oswald "escaped" from the Plaza by bus, by cab or whatever... ROFL.
Again, the best proof that a thing could happen is that it DID happen.
:D :D :D
Tricky Dicky's Patented Nutter Logic.
Example #1
1] The best proof that a thing could happen is that it DID happen.
2] Oswald shot JFK.
3] That is proof that it DID happen.
Example#2
1] The best proof that a thing could happen is that it DID happen.
2] Oswald made it down from the 6th floor to the 2nd floor in time to be confronted by Baker.
3] That is proof that it DID happen.
Try this. If the evidence places Oswald at the Tippit murder scene, do you agree that is conclusive of whether he had the time to get there? And as a result, we don't need to prove his every movement with a stopwatch to accept that conclusion. I'm not asking you for an endless pedantic subjective rant on whether the evidence places him there. I realize that some CTers may not agree that it did because they apply an impossible standard of proof, but hypothetically IF the evidence places him at the scene don't you agree that moots all the discussion about timelines and routes that would have got him there at that moment? I don't think that is a very complex concept to understand even for you.
If the evidence places Oswald at the Tippit murder scene, do you agree that is conclusive of whether he had the time to get there?
Yes
And as a result, we don't need to prove his every movement with a stopwatch to accept that conclusion.
Agreed
IF the evidence places him at the scene don't you agree that moots all the discussion about timelines and routes that would have got him there at that moment?
Agreed
Wasn't the subject matter; Oswald being on the 6th floor and getting down the stairs within 75 seconds after the shots?
So, why is "Richard" now talking about Tippit? :D
Wasn't the subject matter; Oswald being on the 6th floor and getting down the stairs within 75 seconds after the shots?
So, why is "Richard" now talking about Tippit? :D
Try this. If the evidence places Oswald at the Tippit murder scene, do you agree that is conclusive of whether he had the time to get there? And as a result, we don't need to prove his every movement with a stopwatch to accept that conclusion. I'm not asking you for an endless pedantic subjective rant on whether the evidence places him there. I realize that some CTers may not agree that it did because they apply an impossible standard of proof, but hypothetically IF the evidence places him at the scene don't you agree that moots all the discussion about timelines and routes that would have got him there at that moment? I don't think that is a very complex concept to understand even for you.
Likely because he held a similar lecture in the Tippit thread last year.
https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,4116.msg158279.html#msg158279
The WC definitely didn't get it because they came up with a nutty bus ride going nowhere and Whaley the cab driver; neither were needed according to your principle. Is "an impossible standard of proof" explained in part two of your lecture?
Likely because he held a similar lecture in the Tippit thread last year.
https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,4116.msg158279.html#msg158279
So much learning going on today. Remarkable progress. The thing speaks for itself. If the evidence is deemed conclusive that Oswald was on the 6th floor at 12:30 as the evidence, history books, and law enforcement indicate and that he was on the 2nd floor a couple of minutes later, then that is conclusive that he moved from the 6th to 2nd floor unnoticed in that timeframe. The evidence supports both conclusions even if his exact movements can't be recreated with certainty or even deemed improbable by those who apply an impossible standard of proof to the topic.
All the subjective nitpicking of witness testimony and pedantic attempts to analyze events down to the second are not necessary to reach this conclusion. The inability to do so creates no doubt of the fact.
How can be unknowable, even contrary to some interpretations, and still raise no doubt that it could be done because the evidence confirms that it was done. It is not necessary for me or anyone to prove how it was done to the satisfaction of anyone else. Once a thing has occurred, the odds against it occurring are no longer relevant in determining whether it did in fact occur. Even if the odds were a billion to one against it happening, and there is nothing like that in this context. This is called discovering the simplicity that lies on the far side of complexity (i.e. not going down the rabbit hole). Res ipsa loquitur.
So much learning going on today. Remarkable progress. The thing speaks for itself. If the evidence is deemed conclusive that Oswald was on the 6th floor at 12:30 as the evidence, history books, and law enforcement indicate and that he was on the 2nd floor a couple of minutes later, then that is conclusive that he moved from the 6th to 2nd floor unnoticed in that timeframe. The evidence supports both conclusions even if his exact movements can't be recreated with certainty or even deemed improbable by those who apply an impossible standard of proof to the topic.
All the subjective nitpicking of witness testimony and pedantic attempts to analyze events down to the second are not necessary to reach this conclusion. The inability to do so creates no doubt of the fact.
How can be unknowable, even contrary to some interpretations, and still raise no doubt that it could be done because the evidence confirms that it was done. It is not necessary for me or anyone to prove how it was done to the satisfaction of anyone else. Once a thing has occurred, the odds against it occurring are no longer relevant in determining whether it did in fact occur. Even if the odds were a billion to one against it happening, and there is nothing like that in this context. This is called discovering the simplicity that lies on the far side of complexity (i.e. not going down the rabbit hole). Res ipsa loquitur.
Just for fun - name a single piece of credible evidence that puts Oswald on the 6th floor at 12:30 pm.
This challenge goes out to all Nutters.
PS: Before you even dare think about it, the presence of the rifle does not place Oswald on the 6th floor at 12:30 pm.
Name a single piece of credible evidence that puts Oswald on the 6th floor at 12:30 pm. Except for the rifle. That one doesn't count. Neither do the shells. ::)
CT logic, triple distilled.
Hi Tim, it's been a long time...
Ok, let's play this game.
Let's say, for argument's sake, the rifle found at the 6th floor did in fact belong to Oswald and the shells matched the rifle, how exactly does that prove that Oswald himself was on the 6th floor at 12:30, when the shots were fired?
Name a single piece of credible evidence that puts Oswald on the 6th floor at 12:30 pm. Except for the rifle. That one doesn't count. Neither do the shells. ::)
CT logic, triple distilled.
How would the jury view it when presented with additional evidence and facts? Where was Oswald when the shooting was taking place? His prints were on the long paper sack found in the sniper's nest. A defense counsel could try to raise doubt about it to the jury but it would still be there for their consideration. They would have the FBI conclusion about the fibres found in the sack presented to them as well. Why did Oswald flee the building so soon after the assassination? Could the Tippit murder be used against him in any way when being tried for the Kennedy murder?
Beyond reasonable doubt in the standard, not beyond any doubt.
I'm not really interested in what a jury would think about a circumstantial case like this one. It would be up to the defense to discredit the circumstantial arguments by the prosecution, and here we don't have the case of the defense!
But that's not the question I asked. How does the presence of a rifle belonging to Oswald prove that Oswald was on the 6th floor at 12:30?
Logically, the rifle being his proves beyond a reasonable doubt that Oswald was on the 6th floor at 12:30.
How would the jury view it when presented with additional evidence and facts? Where was Oswald when the shooting was taking place? His prints were on the long paper sack found in the sniper's nest. A defense counsel could try to raise doubt about it to the jury but it would still be there for their consideration. They would have the FBI conclusion about the fibres found in the sack presented to them as well. Why did Oswald flee the building so soon after the assassination? Could the Tippit murder be used against him in any way when being tried for the Kennedy murder?
Beyond reasonable doubt in the standard, not beyond any doubt.
Name a single piece of credible evidence that puts Oswald on the 6th floor at 12:30 pm. Except for the rifle. That one doesn't count. Neither do the shells. ::)
CT logic, triple distilled.
I'm not sure exactly what you are claiming here. That someone conjured up a fake bus ride for Oswald that took him nowhere and is entirely pointless in the context of a conspiracy narrative? Why would anyone make that up as part of a plan? Are you familiar with "Chekhov's gun"? At the risk of exciting the other Tom with a Russia reference, it's a principle that if a writer references a gun in a story, there must be a reason for it, such as it being fired sometime later in the plot. It would be pointless and stupid for your fantasy conspirators to put Oswald on a bus if that doesn't move the plot. Pointless events like getting on a bus that gets stuck in traffic and then getting off to get into a cab are things that happen in real life. Not a narrative.
Logically, the rifle being his proves beyond a reasonable doubt that Oswald was on the 6th floor at 12:30.
Exactly Tim, these CK's keep asking for proof that Oswald was on the 6th floor @12:30 but it seems that the only evidence that will be accepted is if they had seen Oswald with their very own eyes, because even at the Tippit crime scene almost a dozen people saw Oswald in the immediate vicinity or moving away fiddling with his revolver, yet this indisputable evidence is waved away.
It's just a game to these deeply paranoid CK's who have an irrational hatred of authority and this "Anybody but Oswald" mantra is just a manifestation of this psychosis.
I can't imagine every murder being committed in front of eyewitnesses but the Police do a good job of solving a fair percentage of these heinous crimes.
•In this case specifically the murder weapon is the most important piece of evidence, hence the search for who owns the weapon is a logical starting point for investigation, to suggest otherwise is absolutely bonkers.
•Then after establishing ownership of the murder weapon you investigate the owner and a possible alibi, Oswald has none.
•And again in this case you search the weapon for prints and other forms of contact and here we have Oswald's palmprint and shirt fibers which aren't 100% conclusive but the prohibitive possibility that they are someone else's shirt is extremely remote.
• Next you analyse Oswald's actions before and after the assassination;
A) Oswald makes an unexpected trip to Irving the night before then assassination
B) Either Oswald or Frazier is lying about a package containing "curtain rods", who is more likely to lie?
C) Either Oswald or Frazier/ Linnie Mae is lying about where in Frazier's car that Oswald placed the "curtain rods", who is more likely to lie.
D) No curtain rods are found.
E) The package wrapping found in the sniper's nest has Oswald's prints.
F) The prints in the sniper's nest are relatively fresh, the FBI determined the prints are no older than a few days, and yes Oswald worked there but it wasn't his responsibility to touch every one of the hundreds/thousands of boxes every few days.
G) Oswald doesn't leave at 12PM or at the end of lunch but he leaves in the time it takes a person to travel from the 6th floor, be confronted, buy a coke then get to the ground floor and leave the building, about three minutes after the assassination, this fleeing the scene of the crime alone is highly incriminating.
H) Oswald boards a bus then gets off a bus, why the hurry?
I) Oswald gets a cab and gets out way past his Rooming house, why?
J) Tippit was the first Police Officer to be shot on the job for years, why would Oswald feel compelled to kill a cop?
K) Oswald while hiding in a dark theatre punches an approaching Policeman the tries to use the same revolver that killed Tippit and attempts to kill more.
• Oswald lies while being interrogated, especially when the rifle comes up;
1) Oswald lies about the backyard photos, saying they pasted his head on someone else's body. The backyard photos have been authenticated and besides a negative exists.
2) Oswald conveniently leaves out Neely street as a previous house he rented, funnily enough Neely street is where the backyard photos were taken! Oops!
3) Oswald lies about the "curtain rods" and says he only had his lunch
4) Oswald lies about where he placed the "curtain rods"
5) Oswald lies about owning the rifle.
6) Oswald lies about purchasing the revolver in Fort Worth, likely distancing himself from his preferred method of buying through mail-order the way he bought the rifle.
Now this is a quick summation off the top of my head but does any one in the real World really truly believe that Oswald was innocent?
What could the defence possibly present to refute this evidence, because saying that it was ALL faked and/or a product of lies from multiple unconnected sources would be laughed out of court.
JohnM
Exactly Tim, these CK's keep asking for proof that Oswald was on the 6th floor @12:30 but it seems that the only evidence that will be accepted is if they had seen Oswald with their very own eyes, because even at the Tippit crime scene almost a dozen people saw Oswald in the immediate vicinity or moving away fiddling with his revolver, yet this indisputable evidence is waved away.
It's just a game to these deeply paranoid CK's who have an irrational hatred of authority and this "Anybody but Oswald" mantra is just a manifestation of this psychosis.
I can't imagine every murder being committed in front of eyewitnesses but the Police do a good job of solving a fair percentage of these heinous crimes.
•In this case specifically the murder weapon is the most important piece of evidence, hence the search for who owns the weapon is a logical starting point for investigation, to suggest otherwise is absolutely bonkers.
•Then after establishing ownership of the murder weapon you investigate the owner and a possible alibi, Oswald has none.
•And again in this case you search the weapon for prints and other forms of contact and here we have Oswald's palmprint and shirt fibers which aren't 100% conclusive but the prohibitive possibility that they are someone else's shirt is extremely remote.
• Next you analyse Oswald's actions before and after the assassination;
A) Oswald makes an unexpected trip to Irving the night before then assassination
B) Either Oswald or Frazier is lying about a package containing "curtain rods", who is more likely to lie?
C) Either Oswald or Frazier/ Linnie Mae is lying about where in Frazier's car that Oswald placed the "curtain rods", who is more likely to lie.
D) No curtain rods are found.
E) The package wrapping found in the sniper's nest has Oswald's prints.
F) The prints in the sniper's nest are relatively fresh, the FBI determined the prints are no older than a few days, and yes Oswald worked there but it wasn't his responsibility to touch every one of the hundreds/thousands of boxes every few days.
G) Oswald doesn't leave at 12PM or at the end of lunch but he leaves in the time it takes a person to travel from the 6th floor, be confronted, buy a coke then get to the ground floor and leave the building, about three minutes after the assassination, this fleeing the scene of the crime alone is highly incriminating.
H) Oswald boards a bus then gets off a bus, why the hurry?
I) Oswald gets a cab and gets out way past his Rooming house, why?
J) Tippit was the first Police Officer to be shot on the job for years, why would Oswald feel compelled to kill a cop?
K) Oswald while hiding in a dark theatre punches an approaching Policeman the tries to use the same revolver that killed Tippit and attempts to kill more.
• Oswald lies while being interrogated, especially when the rifle comes up;
1) Oswald lies about the backyard photos, saying they pasted his head on someone else's body. The backyard photos have been authenticated and besides a negative exists.
2) Oswald conveniently leaves out Neely street as a previous house he rented, funnily enough Neely street is where the backyard photos were taken! Oops!
3) Oswald lies about the "curtain rods" and says he only had his lunch
4) Oswald lies about where he placed the "curtain rods"
5) Oswald lies about owning the rifle.
6) Oswald lies about purchasing the revolver in Fort Worth, likely distancing himself from his preferred method of buying through mail-order the way he bought the rifle.
Now this is a quick summation off the top of my head but does any one in the real World really truly believe that Oswald was innocent?
What could the defence possibly present to refute this evidence, because saying that it was ALL faked and/or a product of lies from multiple unconnected sources would be laughed out of court.
JohnM
We would likely hear the 5th quoted endlessly! Didn't work well for the prosecution in the OJ case. All the defense needs to do is create doubt, lots of doubt, and they would have a field day in this case. As Martin mentions, they would bring in witnesses not previously questioned along with their own expert witnesses to challenge the technical and medical aspects of the case.
these CK's keep asking for proof that Oswald was on the 6th floor @12:30
Nutters keep insisting that the evidence proves Oswald was on the 6th floor at 12:30 pm.
This is a falsehood that must be challenged so you are asked to provide evidence to support this falsehood.
Obviously you can't...because it's a falsehood.
So, instead of admitting you can't provide the evidence you start crying about being asked to provide it!!
The problem is that Nutters don't know the difference between an assumption and a fact when it comes to Oswald's guilt.
When Nutters perpetuate the falsehood that the evidence proves Oswald was on the 6th floor at 12:30 pm, that falsehood must be challenged.
It is a lie that can't be allowed to stand.
Nutters keep insisting that the evidence proves Oswald was on the 6th floor at 12:30 pm.
This is a falsehood that must be challenged so you are asked to provide evidence to support this falsehood.
Obviously you can't...because it's a falsehood.
So, instead of admitting you can't provide the evidence you start crying about being asked to provide it!!
The problem is that Nutters don't know the difference between an assumption and a fact when it comes to Oswald's guilt.
When Nutters perpetuate the falsehood that the evidence proves Oswald was on the 6th floor at 12:30 pm, that falsehood must be challenged.
It is a lie that can't be allowed to stand.
I phrased my question so honest CT's, if they exist, will question themselves and and actually think about exactly what evidence beyond the Mountain already provided, that they require to place Oswald on the 6th floor and as I clearly said, the keen yet deluded CT needs to see Oswald with his/her own two eyes otherwise this crime is essentially unsolvable, in their opinion that is!
See Dan, in the past I've asked some of the best CT's, what evidence they need to place Oswald on the 6th floor and invariably I get the usual answers, like "evidence that convinces me" or "evidence that proves he was there" or we get answers like Tom's above, and I'm paraphrasing here "we can throw out all the evidence if we can create doubt", so Tom wants to rely on some human error and/or a technicality to clear his client, very sad!
What assumptions? This case is surrounded by facts from physical evidence, forensic confirmation, the actions of a man clearly fleeing from the scene of the crime and through to a man who lies in custody whenever anything surrounding the rifle is questioned! As Bugliosi says, he could throw away half of this evidence and he'd still have enough to convict!
JohnM
I phrased my question so honest CT's, if they exist, will question themselves and and actually think about exactly what evidence beyond the Mountain already provided, that they require to place Oswald on the 6th floor and as I clearly said, the keen yet deluded CT needs to see Oswald with his/her own two eyes otherwise this crime is essentially unsolvable, in their opinion that is!
See Dan, in the past I've asked some of the best CT's, what evidence they need to place Oswald on the 6th floor and invariably I get the usual answers, like "evidence that convinces me" or "evidence that proves he was there" or we get answers like Tom's above, and I'm paraphrasing here "we can throw out all the evidence if we can create doubt", so Tom wants to rely on some human error and/or a technicality to clear his client, very sad!
What assumptions? This case is surrounded by facts from physical evidence, forensic confirmation, the actions of a man clearly fleeing from the scene of the crime and through to a man who lies in custody whenever anything surrounding the rifle is questioned! As Bugliosi says, he could throw away half of this evidence and he'd still have enough to convict!
JohnM
Exactly Tim, these CK's keep asking for proof that Oswald was on the 6th floor @12:30 but it seems that the only evidence that will be accepted is if they had seen Oswald with their very own eyes, because even at the Tippit crime scene almost a dozen people saw Oswald in the immediate vicinity or moving away fiddling with his revolver, yet this indisputable evidence is waved away.
It's just a game to these deeply paranoid CK's who have an irrational hatred of authority and this "Anybody but Oswald" mantra is just a manifestation of this psychosis.
I can't imagine every murder being committed in front of eyewitnesses but the Police do a good job of solving a fair percentage of these heinous crimes.
•In this case specifically the murder weapon is the most important piece of evidence, hence the search for who owns the weapon is a logical starting point for investigation, to suggest otherwise is absolutely bonkers.
•Then after establishing ownership of the murder weapon you investigate the owner and a possible alibi, Oswald has none.
•And again in this case you search the weapon for prints and other forms of contact and here we have Oswald's palmprint and shirt fibers which aren't 100% conclusive but the prohibitive possibility that they are someone else's shirt is extremely remote.
• Next you analyse Oswald's actions before and after the assassination;
A) Oswald makes an unexpected trip to Irving the night before then assassination
B) Either Oswald or Frazier is lying about a package containing "curtain rods", who is more likely to lie?
C) Either Oswald or Frazier/ Linnie Mae is lying about where in Frazier's car that Oswald placed the "curtain rods", who is more likely to lie.
D) No curtain rods are found.
E) The package wrapping found in the sniper's nest has Oswald's prints.
F) The prints in the sniper's nest are relatively fresh, the FBI determined the prints are no older than a few days, and yes Oswald worked there but it wasn't his responsibility to touch every one of the hundreds/thousands of boxes every few days.
G) Oswald doesn't leave at 12PM or at the end of lunch but he leaves in the time it takes a person to travel from the 6th floor, be confronted, buy a coke then get to the ground floor and leave the building, about three minutes after the assassination, this fleeing the scene of the crime alone is highly incriminating.
H) Oswald boards a bus then gets off a bus, why the hurry?
I) Oswald gets a cab and gets out way past his Rooming house, why?
J) Tippit was the first Police Officer to be shot on the job for years, why would Oswald feel compelled to kill a cop?
K) Oswald while hiding in a dark theatre punches an approaching Policeman the tries to use the same revolver that killed Tippit and attempts to kill more.
• Oswald lies while being interrogated, especially when the rifle comes up;
1) Oswald lies about the backyard photos, saying they pasted his head on someone else's body. The backyard photos have been authenticated and besides a negative exists.
2) Oswald conveniently leaves out Neely street as a previous house he rented, funnily enough Neely street is where the backyard photos were taken! Oops!
3) Oswald lies about the "curtain rods" and says he only had his lunch
4) Oswald lies about where he placed the "curtain rods"
5) Oswald lies about owning the rifle.
6) Oswald lies about purchasing the revolver in Fort Worth, likely distancing himself from his preferred method of buying through mail-order the way he bought the rifle.
Now this is a quick summation off the top of my head but does any one in the real World really truly believe that Oswald was innocent?
What could the defence possibly present to refute this evidence, because saying that it was ALL faked and/or a product of lies from multiple unconnected sources would be laughed out of court.
JohnM
We would likely hear the 5th quoted endlessly! Didn't work well for the prosecution in the OJ case. All the defense needs to do is create doubt, lots of doubt, and they would have a field day in this case. As Martin mentions, they would bring in witnesses not previously questioned along with their own expert witnesses to challenge the technical and medical aspects of the case.
As Martin mentions, they would bring in witnesses not previously questioned along with their own expert witnesses to challenge the technical and medical aspects of the case.
You cannot help but laugh at them. The conspiracy crowd have yet to come up with LHO’s alibi or even something close and put it all to bed. Why keep everyone in suspense? Is there anyone else who can’t verify their whereabouts at 12:30 and subsequently have a pistol stuck in their stomach by a cop on the 2nd floor?
Only in the mind of a conspiracy theorist could Oswald ever have lived long enough to see 1965 had he not been killed by Ruby. Of course, that's assuming that he was killed by Ruby. :)
Oswald's alibi is that he was in the second floor lunch room, the first floor lunchroom, and out on the front entrance steps at the time of the shooting. :)
The OJ case? LOL!
What a dumb comparison, I haven't looked into the OJ case for a while but how about this for starters;
DNA evidence was a new concept barely understood by this Jury and the prosecution did an awful job in their presentation.
The glove and the subsequent try on, leading to the catchy "If it don't fit you must acquit"
Eight black members on this jury in the immediate wake of Rodney King!
Fuhrman and the "N" word.
The peculiar removal of key pieces of evidence from the prosecutions case?
Judge Ito's decisions, like the visit to OJ's house and the substituted photos and paintings.
All very good observations. The mishandling of fungible evidence by the LAPD was also a major factor in OJ's acquittal.
Logically, the rifle being his proves beyond a reasonable doubt that Oswald was on the 6th floor at 12:30.
Do you have any credible record that shows he actually said any of these things?
See Dan, in the past I've asked some of the best CT's, what evidence they need to place Oswald on the 6th floor and invariably I get the usual answers, like "evidence that convinces me" or "evidence that proves he was there"
What's wrong with asking for "evidence that proves he was there"?
Just like the mishandling of evidence by the DPD could have been a major factor in Oswald's acquittal? Or is there a difference?
Btw, you never answered my question, which is disappointing as I am eager to learn. So, here is my question again;
How exactly is it "logical"to say that Oswald's rifle (if that's what it was) being found on the 6th floor is proof beyond a reasonable doubt that Oswald himself was on the 6th floor at 12:30?
In my opinion it isn't logical at all to confuse an assumption with actual evidence, but I'm more than happy to learn from you why my opinion is wrong!
You've isolated my question without context but never the less, beyond the evidence we have, like the relatively fresh prints on the rifle rest moved halfway across the 6th floor, the murder weapon, no alibi, Brennan's first day extremely close description, Oswald's immediate fleeing from the crime scene and Oswald's lies in custody, what more evidence in your opinion is required for proof?
In any other case, a suspects fresh prints at the specific place where the crime took place, the ownership and the suspects prints on the murder weapon, no alibi, fleeing the crime scene which is a clear consciousness of guilt and along with lying to the authorities about your connection to the murder weapon would be alone enough evidence to prove to a jury that the defendant is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. And in this case the evidence goes so much deeper!
JohnM
I haven't taken them from what he said. Although, he did actually say that he was eating his lunch in the first floor lunchroom. On Nov 22, 1997, Carolyn Arnold told John Young that she was 100% positive that Lee Oswald was in the first floor lunchroom at 12.25 that day. He was sitting there calmly eating his lunch.
You've isolated my question without context but never the less, beyond the evidence we have, like the relatively fresh prints on the rifle rest moved halfway across the 6th floor, the murder weapon, no alibi, Brennan's first day extremely close description, Oswald's immediate fleeing from the crime scene and Oswald's lies in custody, what more evidence in your opinion is required for proof?
In any other case, a suspects fresh prints at the specific place where the crime took place, the ownership and the suspects prints on the murder weapon, no alibi, fleeing the crime scene which is a clear consciousness of guilt and along with lying to the authorities about your connection to the murder weapon would be alone enough evidence to prove to a jury that the defendant is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. And in this case the evidence goes so much deeper!
JohnM
On Nov 22, 1997, Carolyn Arnold told John Young that she was 100% positive that Lee Oswald was in the first floor lunchroom at 12.25 that day. He was sitting there calmly eating his lunch.
I didn't know that she told John Young this, but it would fit with the Norman/Jarman sighting which also took place around 12.25. So, perhaps he did have an alibi after all.
No other employees of the TSBD left their fingerprints or palm prints on the boxes in the sniper's nest. Oswald was the only one.
On Nov 22, 1997, Carolyn Arnold told John Young that she was 100% positive that Lee Oswald was in the first floor lunchroom at 12.25 that day. He was sitting there calmly eating his lunch.
I didn't know that she told John Young this, but it would fit with the Norman/Jarman sighting which also took place around 12.25. So, perhaps he did have an alibi after all.
In 1963, Carolyn Arnold told FBI Agent Richard Harrison that she thought that she caught a fleeting glimpse of Oswald standing in the hallway between the front door and the double doors leading to the warehouse. She wasn't sure that it was Oswald and that it was a few minutes before 12:15. In 1978, she told Earl Golz that she saw Oswald in the second floor lunchroom as she was on her way out of the building. She said that she left the building at 12:25. That same year she was interviewed by Anthony Summers. She told him that she saw Oswald in the second floor lunch room at "about 12:15. It may have been slightly later".
I'm not aware of any mishandling of fungible evidence by the DPD.
I can't make you understand it. If you can't see it for yourself, nothing that I can say will help.
Which only tells us that Carolyn Arnold was a human being who doesn't get everything right all the time. People misremember. I don't remember exactly what I saw or said 15 years ago. How about you, Tim?
The one consistent is of course that she says every time that she saw Oswald shortly before the assassination. Regardless if it was 12:15 or 12:25, it was a time when Oswald was supposed to have been in the sniper's nest, right?
You do realize that Carolyn Arnold said she saw Oswald in the "first floor" lunchroom and the Domino room was on the ground floor!? DOH!
BTW have you worked out what a "room" is? Hahahahaha!
JohnM
I'm not aware of any mishandling of fungible evidence by the DPD.
Of course you are not aware... that's part of the problem
What it tells us is that Carolyn Arnold was not reliable.
Well then, why not educate me here? What were the fungible items of evidence and how were they mishandled by the DPD?
You do realize that Carolyn Arnold said she saw Oswald in the "first floor" lunchroom and the Domino room was on the ground floor!? DOH!
Oh boy.... Baker saw Oswald in in the 2nd floor lunchroom, right?
The Domino room was one floor below that... so what floor is that?
On Nov 22, 1997, Carolyn Arnold told John Young that she was 100% positive that Lee Oswald was in the first floor lunchroom at 12.25 that day. He was sitting there calmly eating his lunch.
I didn't know that she told John Young this, but it would fit with the Norman/Jarman sighting which also took place around 12.25. So, perhaps he did have an alibi after all.
But a guy like Brennan was?
Focus Martin, my response was your incorrect assumption that Arnold's sighting of Oswald in the first floor lunchroom somehow erroneously "fit with the Norman/Jarman sighting" on the first floor. :D
(https://s3.amazonaws.com/pix.iemoji.com/images/emoji/apple/ios-12/256/backhand-index-pointing-down.png)
JohnM
I haven't taken them from what he said. Although, he did actually say that he was eating his lunch in the first floor lunchroom. On Nov 22, 1997, Carolyn Arnold told John Young that she was 100% positive that Lee Oswald was in the first floor lunchroom at 12.25 that day. He was sitting there calmly eating his lunch.
Brennan was much more reliable than her. He identified Oswald in a lineup but declined to say positively that he was the one who he saw firing a rifle from the Southeast window of the sixth floot of the depository. When testifying under oath he explained why he chose not to. Carolyn Arnold told four different stories.
Ok, I'll give you two simple examples.
The jacket that was found in a parking lot (described on DPD radio as being white) was handled, according to Captain Westbrook by himself and two unidentified officers. So, how come there are markings of seven officers on the grey jacket now in evidence?
Another example is the paper bag and the blanket. The claim is that fibers of the blanket were found in the paper bag, but there is photographic evidence that shows the blanket and the bag lying next to eachother. One is a DPD photo showing the items before they were sent to Washington and the other was taken in the FBI lab showing the two items lying next to eachother.
He identified Oswald in a lineup but declined to say positively that he was the one who he saw firing a rifle from the Southeast window of the sixth floot of the depository.
Exactly. And later he changed his story....
And not only that, he also misrepresented where he was sitting on the wall and he made a false statement about seeing the shooter firing his rifle, when video evidence shows that he was actually looking at the motorcade at that time.
If you call that reliable, there isn't much I can tell you, except that I would have loved to see him testify under oath at a trial and being destroyed by the defense.
Carolyn Arnold told four different stories.
And was never given the opportunity to testify under oath. Go figure!
The jacket and paper bag are non-fungible items. They were readily identifiable or had been made readily identifiable. Those items, along with the blanket were of little importance to the case against Oswald. The jacket itself would not have had much value to a prosecutor in a court of law because Marina would not be allowed to testify against Lee. No one else would have positively identified it as belonging to Oswald. Sam Guinyard's positive identification would be heard by a jury but it wouldn't have the value that Marina's identification of it would. The seven markings on the jacket were not needed but most of those who handled it marked on it anyway. The jacket is seen to be white under certain lighting conditions. Of course, you know that already.
Oh boy,
If Carolyn Arnold said she saw Oswald in the first floor lunchroom (which is the Domino room) it does fit with the Norman/Jarman sighting" on the first floor, because that's where the shipping department and elevators were.
It was Tim who claimed she said she saw Oswald in the first floor lunchroom.
I, on the other hand, was very much aware that she had said she had seen him in the second floor lunchroom, just prior to the shooting. And that would fit nicely with Baker seeing him there just after the shooting.
It's so easy to get you rattled! :D
It was Tim who claimed she said she saw Oswald in the first floor lunchroom.
I, on the other hand, was very much aware that she had said she had seen him in the second floor lunchroom, just prior to the shooting. And that would fit nicely with Baker seeing him there just after the shooting.
Brennan cannot be seen in film footage at the times of the second and third shots. He would not have been destroyed by a defence lawyer when testifying under oath.
How exactly do you think Carolyn Arnold's testimony would go, in light of her Nov 26 statement to the FBI?
Brennan cannot be seen in film footage at the times of the second and third shots. He would not have been destroyed by a defence lawyer when testifying under oath.
How exactly do you think Carolyn Arnold's testimony would go, in light of her Nov 26 statement to the FBI?
I admit earlier I was using the Australian/British meaning of ground floor and the first floor instead of the American first floor and second floor but it doesn't change the fact that Carolyn Arnold saw Oswald in her lunchroom on the second floor and your claim that it was an alibi for Oswald's sighting by Jnr and Norman on the first floor was seriously flawed. Sorry bout that.
Arnold told author Anthony Summers that “Arnold told author Anthony Summers that “she went into the lunchroom on the second floor for a moment” (she was pregnant at the time and had a craving for a glass of water) and saw Oswald there, alone and having lunch.”
If so, then I think Tim is Canadian and probably did the same thing as me, but there is no doubt Arnold was referring to her 2nd floor lunchroom.
Too bad that Baker saw Oswald leaving the hallway and therefore was entering the 2nd floor lunchroom. Oops!
JohnM
Who said anything about how a jury would weigh the evidence.
You asked for examples of items of evidence that were mishandled by the DPD. And the list of items is massive!
The seven markings on the jacket were not needed but most of those who handled it marked on it anyway.
That's actually not true. The two unidentified officers who actually handled the jacket did not mark it. Only Captain Westbrook did.
The other six people who marked it never handled it.
The jacket is seen to be white under certain lighting conditions. Of course, you know that already.
Sure, but the radio traffic came from the officers who actually saw it at the parking lot. Were they so color blind that they couldn't determine the actual color of the jacket?
Too bad that Baker saw Oswald leaving the hallway and therefore was entering the 2nd floor lunchroom. Oops!
Yeah, I know what Baker said, but having been in the TSBD I am 100% sure that there is no way that Baker could have seen Oswald in the way he described it.
Brennan's first day description of Oswald was very close and considering that the majority of the people at the TSBD windows were either black or women then Brennan most certainly saw Oswald, you know the guy who left his prints covering the Sniper's nest and the guy who owned the rifle on the very same floor.
JohnM
Brennan testified under oath that he saw Oswald firing a rifle from the sniper's nest that Oswald had left his prints in, that's true. I do believe him. That being said, I avoid using him in the case against Oswald. CTs love to bash him, as they do others who implicate Oswald's guilt in murder.
I asked you for examples of fungible items of evidence and for you to describe how were they mishandled by the DPD?
The only item you named was the blanket, and you never described how it was mishandled by the DPD.
If they never handled it, how could they have marked it?
The officer who reported that it was white never handled the jacket. He saw it at a distance. it appeared to be white.
Brennan's first day description of Oswald was very close and considering that the majority of the people at the TSBD windows were either black or women then Brennan most certainly saw Oswald, you know the guy who left his prints covering the Sniper's nest and the guy who owned the rifle on the very same floor.
JohnM
Brennan's first day description of Oswald was very close
This is Brennan's first day description of the man he saw:
"He was a white man in his early 30s, slender, nice-looking, and would weigh about 165 to 175 pounds"
He was white (that sounds like Oswald)
He was a man (two for two, this really could be Oswald)
In his early 30s (D'oh. Only about tens years off! When he actually saw Oswald he was struck by how much older the guy in the TSBD building appeared to be)
Slender (we're back on track, Oswald was definitely slender)
Nice looking (nice looking?? Oswald?? I don't think there's going to be many takers for that one)
About 165 to 175 pounds (Hmmm...not really. Even the lower estimate is a good 15 pounds off)
Three out of six ain't bad but is there a universe where this description can be considered a "very close" description of Oswald?
No.
No, there isn't.
That's quite a standard to apply under the circumstances. Of course, "nice looking" is a subjective description. It could just mean he was dressed neatly. Not necessarily that he looked like a movie star. Oswald was balding and certainly looked older than 24. In his 30s is not a bad estimate of his age given that he was seen from the ground through a 6th floor window. Weight is an estimate. Overall, pretty close to Oswald and reported in the minutes following the assassination. At the very least, Brennan confirms that a slender, white male was the person firing shots from the 6th floor window. That alone debunks many CT theories that involve no shots being fired from that window. And whose prints are found on the boxes behind that window? Whose rifle is found on that floor? Whose shell casing are found by the window? All the evidence points to a slender white male named LHO. It's difficult to even understand how there could be much more evidence than exists to support that conclusion.
All the evidence points to a slender white male named LHO.
:D :D :D
I didn't realise that Brennan could tell his initials just by looking at him!!
That's quite a standard to apply under the circumstances.
The circumstances are that Brennan was using his eyes to look at someone, then describe that person.
His unbelievably basic description of the man he saw was still way off.
Because you're so blinded by your bias you don't see how ridiculous your point is about Brennan's estimation of the age of the man in the window.
You argue that Oswald looked older than he really was and that's why Brennan got his estimation so wrong, but what you fail to appreciate is that Brennan was comparing the age of the man in the window to Oswald himself!
When he actually saw Oswald, Brennan was struck by how much younger he looked compared to the man in the window.
Next you'll be arguing that Oswald looked almost a decade older in the TSBD building than he did elsewhere.
Brennan's description is certainly not "way off." At worst he added a few years to balding Oswald's actual age (not a decade) and pounds to his weight while looking at him through a 6th floor window. I would say it is remarkably accurate under the circumstances. The fact that it was provided within a few minutes of the event means he was not influenced by the press coverage or some conspiracy to frame Oswald. You really think that because Brennan was a few years off on estimating Oswald's age that that somehow raise doubt about all the evidence left behind that window including Oswald's prints and shell casings from his rifle? Honestly, that is not very compelling.
You really think that because Brennan was a few years off on estimating Oswald's age that that somehow raise doubt about all the evidence left behind that window including Oswald's prints and shell casings from his rifle?
Strawman Smith strikes again ;D
I would say it is remarkably accurate under the circumstances.
:D :D :D
I'm not exactly sure what you are taking issue with since you didn't articulate a single point while acting like a petulant child upset to learn that there is no Santa Claus. Oswald was balding and looked much older than 24. I would have guessed his age as late 20s or early 30s. Estimating his age as in his 30s is reasonable. Particularly for someone who saw him through a 6th floor window. The description is not "way off." That is an absurd characterization. It highlights the incredible bias that you bring to this case. You would have us believe that it could only be Oswald if Brennan had performed like a circus worker and precisely guessed his age and weight. In your fantasy world, any discrepancy in his estimate negates the real evidence such as Oswald's prints on the SN, the presence of his rifle, and fired shell casings on behind the window. That's breathtaking and the only truly unresolved issue is not whether Oswald was the shooter but why anyone would go to such tortured lengths to try to exonerate him.
It doesn't matter whether Brennan was "remarkably accurate" or "way off", he failed to recognize Oswald at the lineup. Game over. It's remarkable that Richard insists on stumping his small feet to evade this brutal fact.
Game over? Game over?
Sorry Tom but but neither you or I are in a position to make that assertion, it would come down to an unbiased Jury to balance the evidence and then they could draw their own conclusion.
1) As already stated, Brennan's first day affidavit and the subsequent Police radio broadcast closely matched Oswald's description and would be powerful evidence.
2) Oswald's fresh prints in the sniper's nest, the same window Brennan identified.
3) Oswald's rifle.
4) Oswald's flight from the scene of the crime.
5) Special agent Sorrels who testified at the line-up that Brennan told him that man 2, "Oswald" was the closest man.
6) Brennan's testimony under oath that he was afraid for his family because of a possible Communist connection. A very real worry.
7) Brennan stating categorially in his testimony under oath that he could have identified Oswald.
And there you have it, personally I believe it's a slam dunk.
JohnM
Game over? Game over?
Sorry Tom but but neither you or I are in a position to make that assertion, it would come down to an unbiased Jury to balance the evidence and then they could draw their own conclusion.
1) As already stated, Brennan's first day affidavit and the subsequent Police radio broadcast closely matched Oswald's description and would be powerful evidence.
2) Oswald's fresh prints in the sniper's nest, the same window Brennan identified.
3) Oswald's rifle.
4) Oswald's flight from the scene of the crime.
5) Special agent Sorrels who testified at the line-up that Brennan told him that man 2, "Oswald" was the closest man.
6) Brennan's testimony under oath that he was afraid for his family because of a possible Communist connection. A very real worry.
7) Brennan stating categorially in his testimony under oath that he could have identified Oswald.
And there you have it, personally I believe it's a slam dunk.
JohnM
To my knowledge, no other witness pulled the commie card, certainly not those who pointed their finger at Oswald. Brennan's commie paranoia BS would be a hard sell in court, especially since it cured itself so quickly. "Under oath" only means you can get in trouble if you're caught lying. Your list would obviously not have stood unchallenged, so your jury argument is essentially moot; the defense would have destroyed it, especially "Oswald's rifle." —ROFL.
To my knowledge, no other witness pulled the commie card, certainly not those who pointed their finger at Oswald.
Brennan's commie paranoia BS would be a hard sell in court, especially since it cured itself so quickly.
"Under oath" only means you can get in trouble if you're caught lying.
Your list would obviously not have stood unchallenged, so your jury argument is essentially moot; the defense would have destroyed it, especially "Oswald's rifle." —ROFL.
Destroyed it? Destroyed it?
Talk about delusional
How many eyewitnesses were there that went to a line-up who saw the President of the United States being shot? Brennan had every right to fear for his family
After Oswald was killed and his lone nutter status quickly became clear, Brennan had little reason to fear any reprisals. And what did Brennan get out of this, not much!
Yeah, and lying about any evidence in connection with the murder of the President of the United States could mean a long stay behind bars, so Brennan's best interest was to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth and since he swore on the bible, lying could mean eternal damnation in the pits of Hell!
Sure a good defence would challenge everything, let's see how far that gets you in connection with my list.
1) No debate Brennan's extremely close description was broadcast on the Police radio at 12:45
2) Oswald's relatively fresh prints were in the sniper's nest, these prints on multiple boxes according to the FBI Experts were no more than 3 days old, and in addition the Rolling reader boxes which were moved half way across the 6th floor were a unique size perfectly suitable to create a rifle rest and to top it off Oswald's prints were on top of the closer Rolling Reader box orientated as if Oswald was looking down Elm street, the Defence could argue that Oswald worked there but the prosecution would counter with, every employee was not paid to touch every box in the building every three days making the prohibitive probability that Oswald touched these boxes as a matter of his job extremely low.
3) Oswald's rifle was ordered, paid for, sent to his PO Box, was photographed with and was found at his work! The defence could argue that each of these were faked by persons unknown and the rifle was planted but you'd be laughed put of court, pathetic!
4) Again this is a no brainer Oswald decided to leave not at the start of lunch, not at the end of lunch but within 3 minutes of the President being shot. Then Oswald in a blind panic bashes on the door of a bus stuck in Traffic then after a short time jumps off and gets a cab which then stops way past his rooming house. Every step shows a consciousness of guilt, the defence would have no hope justifying any of this. Their best bet would be to say Oswald knew something and fled, but that could only mean Oswald was involved and the Death Penalty would equally apply to him.
5+6+7) Explained above. The defence could say that it was "Game Over" because of the initial apprehension but when weighed with his first description along with a very real fear of his family being slaughtered, His testimony would sway any jury.
See Tom, you've been smashed! Next time, Try Harder!
JohnM
2) Oswald's fresh prints in the sniper's nest, the same window Brennan identified.
3) Oswald's rifle.
4) Oswald's flight from the scene of the crime.
5) Special agent Sorrels who testified at the line-up that Brennan told him that man 2, "Oswald" was the closest man.
6) Brennan's testimony under oath that he was afraid for his family because of a possible Communist connection. A very real worry.
7) Brennan stating categorically in his testimony under oath that he could have identified Oswald.
5+6+7) Explained above. The defence could say that it was "Game Over" because of the initial apprehension but when weighed with his first description along with a very real fear of his family being slaughtered, His testimony would sway any jury.
See Tom, you've been smashed! Next time, Try Harder!
JohnM
Game over? Game over?
Sorry Tom but [sic] but neither you or I are in a position to make that assertion, it would come down to an unbiased Jury to balance the evidence and then they could draw their own conclusion.
Oswald works there, his prints are expected to be anywhere.
"Oswald's Rifle" LOL
He left the building. Others did too, there was no flight.
Sorrels wrote in his notebook: "FAILED TO IDENTIFY"
https://jfk.boards.net/post/3579
He gave 3 different reason not to choose Oswald. He also gave his name, age, and occupation on television.
Could have, but didn't.
->> "Mr. H.L. Brennan witnessed this showing with Mr. Sorrells of the Secret Service. Failed to identify."
Laughable. A lot of people "worked there" but Oswald was the only employee to leave his prints on the boxes. So unlucky. A multitude of different sources link Oswald to the rifle including his prints. No other person has ever been linked to that rifle by ANY evidence. No other employee left the building and never reported again, got a gun, killed a police officer, and resisted arrest. At the very least Brennan confirms that a slender, white male fired the shots from the 6th floor window. That alone debunks many conspiracy theories. Even the most deranged CTer must admit that Brennan's description at least is consistent with Oswald and certainly does not exclude him as the shooter."Others left the building"? Yes, after they were questioned by the police and told they could leave. Oswald was *the only* person in the building at the time of the shooting who left right afterwards. Without permission. Again, he comes out of the building and shows no interest at all in this chaos going on right outside. Yelling and screaming, police officers with their guns drawn. He has no curiosity about all of this? In fact, he shows no interest at all at anytime *after* the shooting. Not a bit.
A lot of people "worked there" but Oswald was the only employee to leave his prints on the boxes.
A multitude of different sources link Oswald to the rifle including his prints.
No other person has ever been linked to that rifle by ANY evidence.
No other employee left the building and never reported again.
... got a gun, killed a police officer, and resisted arrest.
At the very least Brennan confirms that a slender, white male fired the shots from the 6th floor window.
"Others left the building"? Yes, after they were questioned by the police and told they could leave. Oswald was *the only* person in the building at the time of the shooting who left right afterwards. Without permission.
Laughable. A lot of people "worked there" but Oswald was the only employee to leave his prints on the boxes. So unlucky. A multitude of different sources link Oswald to the rifle including his prints. No other person has ever been linked to that rifle by ANY evidence. No other employee left the building and never reported again, got a gun, killed a police officer, and resisted arrest. At the very least Brennan confirms that a slender, white male fired the shots from the 6th floor window. That alone debunks many conspiracy theories. Even the most deranged CTer must admit that Brennan's description at least is consistent with Oswald and certainly does not exclude him as the shooter.If only we had something to distinguish Oswald from these "other people"? Something that made him different? Something like, I dunno, this?
If only we had something to distinguish Oswald from these "other people"? Something that made him different? Something like, I dunno, this?
I guess lots of people have their wives take photos of them like this? So this is nothing. It's not evidence of anything that happened that day. Besides, it's fake anyway. It's both nothing and obviously something made to incriminate him. See, in conspiracy world you have to argue both "A" and "not A" at the same time.
(https://georgerede.files.wordpress.com/2022/04/oswald-with-rifle.jpg?w=633)
If only we had something to distinguish Oswald from these "other people"? Something that made him different? Something like, I dunno, this?
I guess lots of people have their wives take photos of them like this? So this is nothing. It's not evidence of anything that happened that day. Besides, it's fake anyway. It's both nothing and obviously something made to incriminate him. See, in conspiracy world you have to argue both "A" and "not A" at the same time.
(https://georgerede.files.wordpress.com/2022/04/oswald-with-rifle.jpg?w=633)
Means nothing. Lee picks books out of boxes. There are also unidentified prints on those boxes.
Oswald's prints on the rifle are garbage. Found only after Oswald was dead.
Conclusively true, and that includes Oswald.
BS: Here is a list.
Lee was NOT the only employee to leave the building and not return.
The following employees also did not return to work after the assassination.
(https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7851/45788925915_a87daa6321_z.jpg)
Jack Charles Cason – President of School Book Depository – left building at 12:10 p.m. and went home (22H 640)
Gloria Jean Holt clerk at TSBD – does not return after shooting. (19H 526 | 22H 652)
Sharon Simmons Nelson, Secretary, does not return after shooting. (Ibid)
Bonnie Richey, Secretary, does not return after the shooting. (22H 671)
Carolyn Arnold does not return after shooting. (22H 635)
Mrs. Donald Baker, Clerk, does not return after shooting. (22H 635)
Judy Marie Johnson does not return after shooting. (22H 256)
Ms. Stella Mae Jacob does not return after shooting. (22H 665)
Virginia H. Brnum – McGraw-Hill employee, does not return after shooting. (22H 636)
Vida Lee Whately – Clerk, does not return after shooting. (22H 680)
Warren Caster, ate lunch in Denton. (22H 641 | 26H 738)
Spaudlin “Pud” Jones, eating lunch at Blue Front with Herbert. (22H 658)
Herbert L. Junker – McMillian employee, (22H 659)
Mrs. Helen Palmer, Clerk, not present as she was at Love Field. (22H 659)
Franklin Kaiser – absent from work on 11/22/63. (6H 342 | 23H 751)
Charles Givens does not return after the shooting; an APB was issued for him.
The following were absent that day
Vickie Davis, employee, was absent.
Dottie Lovelady, employee, was absent.
Mrs. Rudell Parsons, employee, was absent.
Joe Bergen, Scott Foreman, was absent.
Maury Brown, McGraw-Hill, was absent.
John Langston, was absent.
https://jfk.boards.net/post/587
All subject to further proof.
Did I mention that 3 other people corroborate: more than one person in the window before the president arrived.
Spanish looking men in light colored clothing - a rifle and a man in a brown suit.
That's brutal stupidity. Your list includes numerous people who were not even in the TSBD that day. Bueller, Bueller, Bueller.... HA HA HA. They didn't leave the building because they were apparently never there. Do you think that is analogous to Oswald's situation who was PRESENT in the TSBD at the moment of the assassination and left within minutes not even pausing to ask what was happening. Wow.
"Others left the building"? Yes, after they were questioned by the police and told they could leave. Oswald was *the only* person in the building at the time of the shooting who left right afterwards. Without permission. Again, he comes out of the building and shows no interest in all at this chaos going on right outside. In fact, he shows no interest at all at anytime *after* the shooting. Not a bit.
This is another example of "lots of people did that" when it comes to Oswald. As if nothing distinguishes Oswald from these "lots of people." See, Oswald was just like everyone else.
A conspiracy involving Oswald as a participant is plausible. One that has him completely innocent requires absurd arguments and explanations.
"Others left the building"? Yes, after they were questioned by the police and told they could leave. Oswald was *the only* person in the building at the time of the shooting who left right afterwards. Without permission. Again, he comes out of the building and shows no interest in all at this chaos going on right outside. In fact, he shows no interest at all at anytime *after* the shooting. Not a bit.
This is another example of "lots of people did that" when it comes to Oswald. As if nothing distinguishes Oswald from these "lots of people." See, Oswald was just like everyone else.
A conspiracy involving Oswald as a participant is plausible. One that has him completely innocent requires absurd arguments and explanations.
That's brutal stupidity. Your list includes numerous people who were not even in the TSBD that day. Bueller, Bueller, Bueller.... HA HA HA. They didn't leave the building because they were apparently never there. Do you think that is analogous to Oswald's situation who was PRESENT in the TSBD at the moment of the assassination and left within minutes not even pausing to ask what was happening. Wow.
6 people not there. Wow. 15 people that were.
...and no formal lineup at work:
Mr. BALL. Did you make a check of your employees afterwards?
Mr. TRULY. No, no; not complete. No, I just saw the group of the employees over there on the floor and I noticed this boy wasn’t with them.
Tosspot Time with Galbraith:
Again, he comes out of the building and shows no interest in all at this chaos going on right outside. In fact, he shows no interest at all at anytime *after* the shooting. Not a bit. So why on earth would Galbraith expect Oswald to act normal when he just lectured us about him being an anti-social, commie-defecting nutjob?
https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,4188.msg160833.html#msg160833
So why on earth would Galbraith expect Oswald to act normal when he just lectured us about him being an anti-social, commie-defecting nutjob?
As usual Capasse exposes his inability to analyse any event. What a shocker!
The building was closed down pretty quickly and even Givens who the CK's like to use as an example of someone who left the building, tried to get back in.
What the CK's do in their never ending quest to prove Oswald was just a normal guy who became an unwitting "Patsy", is never give any of Oswald's actions the true weight they deserve, no employee left immediately after the crime and as they say in the classics, that's unquestionably consciousness of guilt.
Mr. BELIN. What did you do when you heard them?
Mr. GIVENS. Well, we broke and ran down that way, and by the time we got to the corner down there of Houston and Elm, everybody was running, going toward the underpass over there by the railroad tracks. And we asked--I asked someone some white fellow there, 'What happened ?" And he said, "Somebody shot the President." Like that. So I stood there for a while, and I went over to try to get to the building after they found out the shots came from there, and when I went over to try to get back in the officer at the door wouldn't let me in.
Mr. BELIN. Did you tell him you worked there?
Mr. GIVENS. Yes; but he still wouldn't let me in. He told me he wouldn't let no one in.
JohnM
Oswald was *the only* person in the building at the time of the shooting who left right afterwards. Without permission. Again, he comes out of the building and shows no interest in all at this chaos going on right outside. In fact, he shows no interest at all at anytime *after* the shooting. Not a bit.
What kind of interest do you expect him to show? Not everybody wants to stand front row. Some people just do not want to get involved and walk away after seeing a shooting or an accident.
Besides, Mrs Reid had already told him the President had been shot at and could have been injured. And you don't know if he talked to anybody else who could given him additional information.
Huh? You're making Steve's point for him and reinforcing his conclusion, Oswald didn't act normal because he was in fact an "anti-social, commie-defecting nutjob", who after the assassination immediately left the building.
Pure logic has never been your forte, has it, Tom!
JohnM
The fact that Oswald didn't even leave the building to watch the motorcade pass makes him stand out. He was interested in history and politics. Much better read and politically astute than any of his co-workers. He had read JFK's book. But he is not even interested enough to take a moment to go outside and watch the motorcade pass? Instead we are supposed to believe he sat quietly by himself eating lunch. Good grief. I honestly don't know if these CTers believe their own nonsense or if this is just a game to avoid ever admitting checkmate. They just conjure up defense attorney explanations to create false doubt. My guess is that some are true believers in a conspiracy but most know that Oswald likely did it.
Another one that went over your head, the second one. You're becoming an embarrassment to the Nutter Brigade. Now run along.
According to CK's Oswald liked the President and even though, arguably, the most important man in the World was passing by the building Oswald was in, he never bothered having a look, Oswald didn't even go to a window to see the man he liked and after Kennedy was shot and possibly injured, all Oswald wanted to do was get to the cinema as quickly as possible and ironically see two movies "War Is Hell" and "Cry of Battle" with even more death and senseless violence? You can't make this up!
JohnM
According to CK's
According to who?
even though, arguably, the most important man in the World was passing by the building Oswald was in, he never bothered having a look, Oswald didn't even go to a window to see the man he liked
Three times in my life I was in an area where a POTUS motorcade was passing by. Once in Washington, once in Paris and once in Berlin, and I couldn't be bothered to go and look at any of them.
By your flawed (as per usual) reasoning, that makes me a potential POTUS assassin, right? :D
all Oswald wanted to do was get to the cinema as quickly as possible and ironically see two movies
Now let me say in advance, that Oswald must have been involved, at some level, in what happened in Dallas. Having said that, there is an alternate explanation why he went to the Texas Theater. Ever considered it?
Three times in my life I was in an area where a POTUS motorcade was passing by. Once in Washington, once in Paris and once in Berlin, and I couldn't be bothered to go and look at any of them.
By your flawed (as per usual) reasoning, that makes me a potential POTUS assassin, right? :D
Now let me say in advance, that Oswald must have been involved, at some level, in what happened in Dallas.
Having said that, there is an alternate explanation why he went to the Texas Theater. Ever considered it?
Great minds think alike, I just made the same point! And even if Oswald didn't like crowds, there were a bunch of windows where Oswald the Loner all by himself could have safely watched the President go by, and Oswald could have easily had his lunch while watching.
Now before the CK's pipe up, I'm well aware that other employees didn't care and didn't watch the parade but as you say, Oswald was very politically orientated and we are led to believe that Oswald would give up this once in a lifetime opportunity? Really?
But let's get serious, as history has shown, Oswald did watch the Parade, through the 4xscope on his rifle!
JohnM
Huh? You're making Steve's point for him and reinforcing his conclusion, Oswald didn't act normal because he was in fact an "anti-social, commie-defecting nutjob", who after the assassination immediately left the building.The Oswald defenders have to explain this behavior, this lack of interest in what happened, not me. I gave my answer: he shot JFK and was in flight. Nothing about being a "nutjob." What is theirs?
Pure logic has never been your forte, has it, Tom!
JohnM
Gee Willikers, what are the chances? You are some type of really cool guy!
No kidding Sherlock!
And here come the mental gymnastics! Yawn!
JohnM
Great minds think alike
Oh boy, the insecurity...... if you have to beat your own drum :D
But let's get serious, as history has shown, Oswald did watch the Parade, through the 4xscope on his rifle!
History "showed" for centuries that The Donation of Constantine was considered to be authentic (since the 8th century) until the Vatican declared it to be a forgery in the 1450's.
So much for "History has shown"
History "showed" for centuries that The Donation of Constantine was considered to be authentic (since the 8th century) until the Vatican declared it to be a forgery in the 1450's.
So much for "History has shown"
The Oswald defenders have to explain this behavior, this lack of interest in what happened, not me.
Second: Oswald was a political person. He read political journals, newspapers, biographies of political people like Mao and JFK. He attended an ACLU meeting three weeks before the assassination where the Birchers and politics were discussed. He discussed politics with the Paines. DeMohrenshchildt said they discussed politics. Marina said he would she her news stories about JFK and translate it to her. He had radical views, was angry and erratic; but he wasn't apolitical.
So he's not interested AT ALL in what happened? He comes out of the building (so why did he come outside?) and doesn't ask anyone what was going on? There is chaos going on; he doesn't ask what is this all about? Again, he's an erratic angry man; he's not an idiot.
Oswald defenders can't explain this lack of interest; so they want to wave their hands and turn the question around. We know why.
Hilarious! Exactly Martin, since the 1450s, history has shown it to be not authentic! You can't make this up!
JohnM
Hilarious! Exactly Martin, since the 1450s, history has shown it to be not authentic! You can't make this up!
JohnM
What are you saying?
That in perhaps 300 years from now people will find out that your "Oswald did it" fairytale was indeed a lie?
This isn't the dark ages, we live in a World in which practically all information is disseminated and can be accessed by virtually anybody across the entire planet, and thousands of conspiracy Buffs with undying devotion have looked into this case for over 60 years and have explored each and every aspect and in their desperation have split the split hair in their unwavering commitment to discovering the "truth" and where are we now, well Martin I'll tell you, there is no consensus only numerous assumptions based on insignificant unconnected anomalies.
There is nothing more than can be learned, we have more than enough information than we will ever need.
And after the last files are released which have reportedly nothing of significance, there will be nothing else, so in 300 years or even 3000 years there will be no alternatives, it only happened one way.
The WC and HSCA findings that Oswald did it, is and will always be the accepted truth.
JohnM
The WC and HSCA findings that Oswald did it, is and will always be the accepted truth.
Except they already aren't, because the majority of people don't believe it. In over 60 years the "Oswald did it alone" crowd has been unable to persuade a majority of the people. Why is that?
There will always people who believe in conspiracies, some people just aren't that well informed and the main source of early disinformation comes from your friends, but as time goes on, and like I said today in an earlier post, information now is increasingly more easily acquired than throughout all of human history and by looking at these Gallup poll results, it looks like the tide is turning!
(https://content.gallup.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/dolzvblqn0wqheivhj1k7q.png)
JohnM
What were the parameters for this poll?
And please show me the poll that has "Oswald did it" as majority opinion
The Oswald defenders have to explain this behavior, this lack of interest in what happened, not me. I gave my answer: he shot JFK and was in flight. Nothing about being a "nutjob." What is theirs?
Second: Oswald was a political person. He read political journals, newspapers, biographies of political people like Mao and JFK. He attended an ACLU meeting three weeks before the assassination where the Birchers and politics were discussed. He discussed politics with the Paines. DeMohrenshchildt said they discussed politics. Marina said he would she her news stories about JFK and translate it to her. He had radical views, was angry and erratic; but he wasn't apolitical.
So he's not interested AT ALL in what happened? He comes out of the building (So why did he come outside? To find out what was happening? And then doesn't ask anyone what happened?) and doesn't ask anyone what was going on? There is chaos going on; he doesn't ask what is this all about? Again, he's an erratic angry man; he's not an idiot. An hour later he's in a movie theater with a loaded revolver and five extra bullets. Why? He doesn't want to watch the news?
Oswald defenders can't rationally explain this lack of interest in all of this madness going on right outside the building; so they want to wave their hands and turn the question around. We know why. If they tried to give one it would be typical Oswald defender gibberish and nonsense. Admittedly, they are good at that.
Settle petal and don't get your knickers in a knot, these polls conducted over the last 60+ years show at what point in time, what the American public believes and I think in the past that only a few percent would even know or could describe the SBF or any of the major players or even the fact that Oswald killed Tippit. Because if these polled people knew the entire facts and like I said in this information age the tide is starting to turn, then I'm sure that the "Oswald did it" numbers, will soar into the stratosphere!
JohnM
That's interesting Steve, Oswald more than anybody in that building knew what the death of a President would mean for history and it's potential for massive changes but Oswald;
After hearing Reid say "Oh, the President has been shot, but maybe they didn't hit him.", wouldn't you ask for a little more information?
After hearing in the bus when some guy came to the Bus door and said the President was shot, would only prompt Oswald to almost immediately to get off?
After hearing "the police cars, the sirens was going, running crisscrossing everywhere, just a big uproar in that end of town" while in the cab, all Oswald did was remain silent to Whaley's enquires. How many people in a similar situation who had at least some knowledge would say absolutely nothing?
After quickly moving into his room at the rooming house, the TV was broadcasting news of the President being shot and Oswald didn't ask or stay to watch but just exited as quickly as possible? A little anecdote but when 9/11 happened, people on the footpath were crowded several feet deep straining to watch the unfolding events on a wall of televisions facing the street in the TV retail store, a moment I'll never forget!
Obviously Oswald knew EXACTLY what happened and just wanted to get out of Dodge! No further analysis required!
JohnM
The Oswald defenders have to explain this behavior, this lack of interest in what happened, not me. I gave my answer: he shot JFK and was in flight. Nothing about being a "nutjob." What is theirs?
Second: Oswald was a political person. He read political journals, newspapers, biographies of political people like Mao and JFK. He attended an ACLU meeting three weeks before the assassination where the Birchers and politics were discussed. He discussed politics with the Paines. DeMohrenshchildt said they discussed politics. Marina said he would she her news stories about JFK and translate it to her. He had radical views, was angry and erratic; but he wasn't apolitical.
So he's not interested AT ALL in what happened? He comes out of the building (So why did he come outside? To find out what was happening? And then doesn't ask anyone what happened?) and doesn't ask anyone what was going on? There is chaos going on; he doesn't ask what is this all about? Again, he's an erratic angry man; he's not an idiot. An hour later he's in a movie theater with a loaded revolver and five extra bullets. Why? He doesn't want to watch the news?
Oswald defenders can't rationally explain this lack of interest in all of this madness going on right outside the building; so they want to wave their hands and turn the question around. We know why. If they tried to give one it would be typical Oswald defender gibberish and nonsense. Admittedly, they are good at that.
I cleanly and surgically dissected your flawed logic. First you rant about Oswald's anti-social behavior, then claim it's out of character for him not to chat up his coworkers as normal people (assuming you're normal) would do. Your pointless comeback attempt above is simply an extended version of your initial flawed argument. Do I need to explain this a trird time to you and Mytton?
From above:
After hearing "the police cars, the sirens was going, running crisscrossing everywhere, just a big uproar in that end of town" while in the cab, all Oswald did was remain silent to Whaley's enquires. How many people in a similar situation who had at least some knowledge would say absolutely nothing?
Oswald was not in Whaley's cab. Another false claim by the commission. Old news.
You're all over the place and writing checks that you can't afford, then claiming hollow victories based on your misunderstanding of what actually comprises an anti-social individual.
Asking someone what happened to discover facts cannot be conflated with "chatting up his co-workers", because in no way is Oswald trying to be someone's friend by asking what happened.
For instance a perfect example of why we would expect an innocent Oswald to ask his co-workers or anybody what happened, on the morning of the 22nd Jr Jarman recollects "Lee Oswald asked me what all the people were doing standing on the street. I told him that the President was supposed to come this way sometime this morning. He asked me, "Which way do you think he is coming?". I told him that the President would probably come down Main Street and turn on Houston and then go down Elm Street. He said, "Yes, I see"." But they were hardly friends. Therefore Oswald would selfishly interact as way of discovery or in this Jarman case, of deception.
So as is clear, Oswald had no need to discover what happened since he was the cause and being in flight had no time for any interactions!
This overview and symptoms from the Mayo clinic illustrates the characteristics of being anti-social. Read this and learn, and perhaps you can avoid embarrassment in the future.
"Overview
Antisocial personality disorder, sometimes called sociopathy, is a mental health condition in which a person consistently shows no regard for right and wrong and ignores the rights and feelings of others. People with antisocial personality disorder tend to purposely make others angry or upset and manipulate or treat others harshly or with cruel indifference. They lack remorse or do not regret their behavior.
People with antisocial personality disorder often violate the law, becoming criminals. They may lie, behave violently or impulsively, and have problems with drug and alcohol use. They have difficulty consistently meeting responsibilities related to family, work or school.
Symptoms
Symptoms of antisocial personality disorder include repeatedly:
Ignoring right and wrong.
Telling lies to take advantage of others.
Not being sensitive to or respectful of others.
Using charm or wit to manipulate others for personal gain or pleasure.
Having a sense of superiority and being extremely opinionated.
Having problems with the law, including criminal behavior.
Being hostile, aggressive, violent or threatening to others.
Feeling no guilt about harming others.
Doing dangerous things with no regard for the safety of self or others.
Being irresponsible and failing to fulfill work or financial responsibilities.
Adults with antisocial personality disorder usually show symptoms of conduct disorder before the age of 15. Symptoms of conduct disorder include serious, ongoing behavior problems, such as:
Aggression toward people and animals.
Destruction of property.
Lying and dishonesty.
Theft.
Serious violation of rules."
https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/antisocial-personality-disorder/symptoms-causes/syc-20353928
BTW has your shrink diagnosed you as being anti-social because with your performance here, you certainly qualify, just saying!
JohnM
Right, Oswald didn't really care about his Carcano and toddlers kicking it around the garage floor was no big deal, so what exactly did you mean by "safely stored"?
Oh, about the scope, if it wasn't permanently attached, when did it become attached?
So what's new about the rifle scope that wasn't permanently attached, but then it found itself attached? Looks like you sneaked out on that one.
How long is a piece of string, it's an impossible question to answer.
BTW I didn't see your response.
JohnM
Using the iron sight has been a LN excuse for a number of years. First time I heard it was on these boards
But why even mount the scope if he has to break down the rifle anyway? The scope sucks.
FBI had to mount 5 shims to stabilize it because, it wobbled when the bolt was worked.
These excuses for inconsistencies in the evidence are its failure to corroborate proof.
It is everywhere.
Also - where and when does find the time to rebuild the rifle?
Why would he not pack the tool he used to break it down?
One screw in particular seems very difficult if not impossible with a dime.
More importantly, how, where and when does he SIGHT the rifle? (that is, fire 10 rounds)
(https://live.staticflickr.com/4535/37729010285_a63832952f.jpg)
The rifle had been dropped on the floor and put between some boxes.
The scope was removed to check the rifle for prints.
Even if there was some misalignment with the scope, an experienced shooter who had used the rifle could make adjustments to compensate.
And, of course, Oswald only hit two out of three times.
How do you know what tools he had to "rebuild" the rifle?
Why would it even be necessary to remove the scope to disassemble the rifle to fit the bag?
Dropped? - look at the picture - how do you drop a rifle landing "on end" underneath a box?
(https://live-production.wcms.abc-cdn.net.au/6722bfb4ea759b045d1f9ce5bfef75ae?impolicy=wcms_crop_resize&cropH=441&cropW=587&xPos=0&yPos=8&width=862&height=647)
I don't believe that rifle was not dropped.
So what? - FBI knows how to put to back - and had to add 5 shims to stabilize it.
Incredible that the "gun nut", would own only one PoS rifle for 8 months and NEVER did anything to better it.
?
I know I would pack the same tool I used to break it down. Do you have any evidence of that?
I never said that Look at the picture - it's attached to barrel housing.
My point is if the scope is wobbling and he uses iron sight anyway - why pack it?
Other LNs have claimed he used the iron sights because the FBI found the scope was crap.
What do you say?
In the end - it's just a lot of he "must of done it"'s - Forget about proof because most of what you see here has no evidence.
It all comes back to the strength of the evidence that he carried a rifle in the building in the first place.
Put 2 solid things together that proves he "owns" that bag and you have something to move forward on.
Otherwise is is just broken and inconsistent throughout this case.
Some details can only be known to Oswald. You made some assertions, however, like he didn't bring any tools to assemble the rifle. How could you know what he brought or didn't bring? I don't know and neither do you. How do you know the condition of the scope at the moment it was used to assassinate JFK? You only know its condition after it was hastily dropped, slid or whatever behind some boxes while Oswald was fleeing for the door and after it had been removed to check for prints. That is all rabbit hole nonsense, however. The elephant in the room is that a rifle belonging to LHO was left at the scene of a murder committed with a rifle. Oswald provided no explanation for its presence at that location. Instead, he lied. That alone would be a slam dunk of guilt in any other case.
Put 2 solid things together that proves he "owns" that bag or was on the 6th floor at 12:30 that day, and you have something to move forward on.
Two solid things that he owned the rifle would also help.
We are moving on to something else? You know all that evidence and so do I. Do you really want to go over that again? John M. has a laundry list of evidence that link Oswald to rifle that he can post for the thousandth time. And you can spend dozens of posts claiming it aint' so. How about this? What evidence that is lacking would convince you of the fact that Oswald owned the rifle found on the 6th floor? We have pictures, serial numbers, documents that link him to that rifle and you are unconvinced. A time machine perhaps? You can sit in Oswald's lap while he fires the shots. Would that do the trick or would you close your eyes and deny it was Oswald while the shots were still ringing in your ears?
As per Richard's suggestion earlier;
Even if there was some misalignment with the scope, an experienced shooter who had used the rifle could make adjustments to compensate.
You mean on the fly or otherwise?
Otherwise. Oswald practiced with the rifle. If it misaligned, he simply adjusts his aim to compensate.
Sounds quite involved to me, when would he have done that?
Done what? Practiced with the rifle? Any time between its delivery and Nov. 22. Marina confirmed that he practiced with the rifle.
Marina confirmed that he practiced with the rifle.
Never saw the the testimony or affidavit she confirmed, would you have a reference?
Mr. RANKIN. When you testified about his practicing with the rifle, are you describing a period when you were still at Neely Street?
Mrs. OSWALD. Yes.
Mr. RANKIN. Do you know where he practiced with the rifle?
Mrs. OSWALD. I don't know where. I don't know the name of the place where this took place. But I think it was somewhere out of town. It seems to me a place called Lopfield.
Mr. RANKIN. Would that be at the airport---Love Field?
Mrs. OSWALD. Love Field.
Mr. RANKIN. So you think he was practicing out in the open and not at a rifle range?
Mrs. OSWALD. Yes.
Mr. RANKIN. When you testified about his practicing with the rifle, are you describing a period when you were still at Neely Street?
Mrs. OSWALD. Yes.
Mr. RANKIN. Do you know where he practiced with the rifle?
Mrs. OSWALD. I don't know where. I don't know the name of the place where this took place. But I think it was somewhere out of town. It seems to me a place called Lopfield.
Mr. RANKIN. Would that be at the airport---Love Field?
Mrs. OSWALD. Love Field.
Mr. RANKIN. So you think he was practicing out in the open and not at a rifle range?
Mrs. OSWALD. Yes.
I'm afraid you misunderstood my question. That's not a "confirmation", that's her own statement. Did you actually mean "claimed" and not "confirmed"?
She flubbed a line. Rankin put her right back on script.
She is Russian speaking English as a new language. She slightly mispronounced a name. LOL. Are you really claiming that Oswald would not have practiced with the rifle between March and November? He just took it out with him and then lied to his wife that he had practiced with it. Whew. That is weak sauce.
There is no evidence he practiced anywhere.
Marina is an admitted liar.
LOL. I think you misunderstood my answer. If you meant do I have a time machine for you to travel back to 1963 to see this with your own eyes, then no. However, Marina confirmed that her husband practiced with the rifle. As his wife who was present to witness the event, she was in a position to do so. And she did.
No evidence? Just his own wife confirming including it and also that Oswald told her that he did so. To the extent Marina ever lied about anything in this case, it was to protect her husband, not incriminate him. Why would she lie about him practicing with the rifle? Whether he did or not is not that important. If Marina was willing to lie to incriminate Oswald, why didn't they get her to say that she saw him put the rifle in the bag or that he hated JFK or something along those lines? Instead she is lying about him practicing with the rifle? HA HA HA. Do you think he just ordered a rifle, took pictures of himself holding it, but never used it? He just thought it looked nice. More weak sauce.
Now you're introducing an "event." Are you saying she was present when Oswald practiced with his rifle?
More broken and inconsistent evidence. If only you had something solid to build on.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Redlich to Rankin | Feb 28, 1964
"Neither you nor I have any desire to smear the reputation of any individual.
We cannot ignore however, that Marina Oswald, has repeatedly lied to the Secret Service, the FBI, and
the Commission on matters which are of vital concern to the people of this country and the world.
As you know I was not in favor of placing on the record the story of her actions in Washington because
we already have statements which provided us with all that we need to know on this matter and
formal testimony could have added very little.
But if a witness who has had close association with Marina Oswald is prepared to offer certain insights into her character,
including those of a derogatory nature, I feel that the mandate of the commission's inquiry, compels us to consider this testimony."
Down the rabbit hole. Her testimony is posted. Among other things, Oswald told her that he was going to practice. Why would Marina lie about that? It's not really that important to the case against Oswald whether he practiced with the rifle or not. If she was willing to lie to incriminate him, she would have lied about more important things that she said that she could not confirm. Again, do you think Oswald purchased a rifle with no intent to ever use it? A rifle that he was so excited to receive that he insisted that his wife take pictures of him holding it?
Mr. RANKIN. Could you give us a little help on how you knew?
Mrs. OSWALD. He told me. And he would mention that in passing---it isn't
as if he said, "Well, today I am going"---it wasn't as if he said, "Well, today I am going to take the rifle and go and practice."
But he would say, "Well, today I will take the rifle along for practice."
Ok, so this is the "event" (part of testimony) you refer to, but initially left out, correct?
Can you tell us what she lied about?
So many questions but never any answers. I posted her testimony. It says exactly what I suggested. Again, do you think Oswald purchased a rifle, posed with it, but never intended to use it? Is that what you are claiming? What evidence do have using your own standard to rebut Marina's testimony that he did practice with the rifle?
Naughty Richard, shifting the burden of proof. Just to make sure we're on the same page (see below). The problem is that the rumor originates with Marina. Do you now see the problem with your use of "confirmed"?
confirm
verb
con·firm kən-ˈfərm
confirmed; confirming; confirms
Synonyms of confirm
transitive verb
1
: to give approval to : ratify
confirm a treaty
2
: to make firm or firmer : strengthen
confirm one's resolve
3
: to administer the rite of confirmation to
4
: to give new assurance of the validity of : remove doubt about by authoritative act or indisputable fact
confirm a rumor
confirm an order
We have arrived at the rabbit hole. We have the testimony of Oswald's own wife that he practiced with the rifle and that he told her that he did so. Your rebuttal is that she could be lying despite there being apparent no reason for her to lie about him practicing with the rifle. It is not a crime to practice firing your rifle. We have the logical inference that if Oswald ordered a rifle with his limited means and was so excited to get it that he posed for pictures, that he intended to use it. There is otherwise no explanation for ordering the rifle.
"...therefore Oswald practiced at least with sixteen bullets and took his last four with him to work on the morning of the 22nd."
...Oswald originally purchased the rifle to assassinate General Walker, an assassination Oswald meticulously planned which occurred about a month after Oswald received his rifle,
Put 2 things together that prove that rifle shot Walker.
I hear some noise in the background; could that be John Mytton? Wrong bullet, according to Edwin Walker. He was there when the bullet was dug out of the wall.
We have arrived at the rabbit hole. We have the testimony of Oswald's own wife that he practiced with the rifle and that he told her that he did so. Your rebuttal is that she could be lying despite there being apparent no reason for her to lie about him practicing with the rifle. It is not a crime to practice firing your rifle. We have the logical inference that if Oswald ordered a rifle with his limited means and was so excited to get it that he posed for pictures, that he intended to use it. There is otherwise no explanation for ordering the rifle.
I hear some noise in the background; could that be John Mytton? Wrong bullet, according to Edwin Walker. He was there when the bullet was dug out of the wall.
We have arrived at the rabbit hole.
Looks like you already went over the edge.
We have the testimony of Oswald's own wife that he practiced with the rifle and that he told her that he did so.
Strange wording, "his own wife" as opposed to "his wife," which should have sufficed. Doubling down on her claim ("and") doesn't improve her credibility. She's a known liar.
Your rebuttal is that she could be lying despite there being apparent no reason for her to lie about him practicing with the rifle.
I pointed out your incorrect use of "confirm." I didn't speculate about herintendmotive. Her claim remains unconfirmed.
It is not a crime to practice firing your rifle.
Strawman, I didn't claim that.
We have the logical inference that if Oswald ordered a rifle with his limited means and was so excited to get it that he posed for pictures, he intended to use it.
Wrong, we have Richard's flawed inference. What you have at best isintentintend to pose in front of a camera with a rifle.
There is otherwise no explanation for ordering the rifle.
I just told you there is; you fail again.
In his letter to the Attorney General, General Walker saw the bullet on TV during a HSCA broadcast and describes the bullet found at his house as a "hunk of lead" and "baring no resemblance to an unfired bullet in shape of form"
The bullet fragment from the Walker residence has a fair amount of lead showing.
CE 399 would be seen on a low res 1970's television broadcast to appear to be "unfired"
Conclusion
The HSCA showed CE 399 as opposed to the Walker bullet, and from Walker's very own description in the above letter it's clear he saw CE 399.
So many words but again no responses. Again, can you tells us what Marina lied about? And it's not a logical inference that someone who buys a rifle will use it to shoot? HA HA HA HA. Can you tell us what someone would do with a rifle? It appears to have a singular purpose, but do you think Oswald intended to so something other than fire it like using it as a hockey stick to gain entry into the NHL? It's embarrassing to see the lengths that you will go to avoid admitting the obvious.
Marina was an admitted liar. Her testimony to the Commission cannot be trusted.
Her visa was up at the end of January '64. She was under "protective custody" with the threat of deportation until the day she testified.
A Statement to the Assassination Records Review Board
from Marina Oswald Porter, September 17, 1996
=====================================================
"This case has never been OPENED. The twenty-six volumes of the Warren Commission do not support its conclusions. My final conclusion
is that the man--Lee--was not on the sixth floor. We're not even sure about the rifle. According to the local police chief, we never could
put the rifle and the person (Oswald) together. Lee was charged with the crime. They showed him a picture, said this is a rifle, this is
you; he denied it. But they never showed him the weapon for identification. I'm the one who was supposed to identify the rifle,
and I did, believing in the authorities' good intentions . But I was the worst of all. I knew nothing of weapons or guns; I knew nothing."
https://jfk.boards.net/post/7364
Again, can you tell us what Marina lied about rather than making a conclusory statement that she is a liar? If she is a liar in your opinion in an effort to implicate Oswald, then surely you must have specific examples. Right? Bizarrely you have posted a statement in which Marina appears to express skepticism of Oswald's guilt. Something that you would likely agree with. Is she lying in that context? Wasn't she still subject to pressure to implicate Oswald? Can you understand how that actually conflicts with your baseless suggestion that she was lying to implicate him in the crime? Whew. You need to get your story straight. It's like a pretzel. Even self-contradictory.
CE399? - Do you actually think Walker confused any reference of source that was given by Blakeley as HIS bullet?
Do you actually think the picture in the 70's would have such a low resolution that he would confuse the shape or color/tone that he saw?
I don't, that's lame
Read the second paragraph s-l-o-w-l-y, Walker says that his bullet was "completely mutilated" and resembled a "hunk of lead" which funnily enough perfectly describes CE 573, then Walker goes on to say that the bullet he remembers bared "no resemblance to an unfired bullet in shape of form" and now think hard, what famous bullet in this case resembles an unfired bullet??
JohnM
So many words but again no responses. Again, can you tells us what Marina lied about? And it's not a logical inference that someone who buys a rifle will use it to shoot? HA HA HA HA. Can you tell us what someone would do with a rifle? It appears to have a singular purpose, but do you think Oswald intended to so something other than fire it like using it as a hockey stick to gain entry into the NHL? It's embarrassing to see the lengths that you will go to avoid admitting the obvious.
Lame.
He would know well enough Blakeley(sic) was talking about HIS bullet by any reference that was given
OK, let's assume that Blakey was talking about the Walker bullet and they showed the already well established CE 573, and Walker remembered another bullet, what would Walker complain about and how would he structure his letter to get his point across??While watching, why does Walker care about any other bullet but his own?
1) CE 573 is already mutilated so why would an angry Walker complain about that? Wouldn't he elaborate and say, my bullet was more/less mutilated?
2) If Walker remembered a steel FMJ, why wasn't this mentioned, because that is the biggest differentiator and would surely get attention.
3) Why even mention an "unfired bullet", how does that help Walker's argument?
Therefore my original analysis is the only logical explanation, Blakey showed CE 399 and narcissistic Walker thought it was his bullet.
JohnM
While watching, why does Walker care about any other bullet but his own?
I know, I would make sure they were talking about MY bullet or not.
Just answer 1 question, why would Walker compare his mutilated bullet to an "unfired bullet"?
JohnM
So many words but again no responses.
I kept it to a minimum so even you should be able to follow along; what responses are you missing?
Again, can you tells us what Marina lied about?
Unknown to me, but I doubt that Norman would come forward with that claim without something to back it up. Are you losing confidence in the WC?
And it's not a logical inference that someone who buys a rifle will use it to shoot?
It would require someone to be in possession of matching ammo.
HA HA HA HA.
Is that some kind of argument?
Can you tell us what someone would do with a rifle?
Um, not without asking. WTF are you rambling about?
It appears to have a singular purpose,
Appears. Who cares what it appears to you?
but do you think Oswald intended to so something other than fire it like using it as a hockey stick to gain entry into the NHL?
I already answered that question, which is further supported by the fact that he didn't buy ammo, although Klein's had a package deal including a clip and ammo.
It's embarrassing to see the lengths that you will go to avoid admitting the obvious.
Tsk-tsk, all your wild speculation has been taken care of.
CE 573 doesn't look like a bullet unfired or otherwise, much less the bullet that came out of my wall.
He doesn't care about any other bullet, and will make sure they are talking about his or not.
You're just making it up as you go
CE 573 doesn't look like a bullet unfired...
much less the bullet that came out of my wall.
He doesn't care about any other bullet,
and will make sure they are talking about his or not.
You're just making it up as you go
These documents from the Weisberg collection raise serious doubts that the Carcano was the rifle used in the Walker shooting.
http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg%20Subject%20Index%20Files/W%20Disk/Walker%20Shooting/Item%2005.pdf
A streel jacket bullet was recorded multiple times.
Evidence against Oswald continues to fail.
More words. Let me try again.
1) Give us an example of Marina lying. If you have none, just admit that. To my knowledge the only possible known instances of Marina "lying" involve her trying to protect Oswald rather than incriminate him. I assume that is the source of frustration being expressed in the source that you cite. You would seemingly agree with that conclusion since I assume you believe the authorities were trying to frame Oswald. In which case, they would be supportive instead of critical of any lies Marina might tell to incriminate Oswald.
2) Tell us what someone would do with a rifle other than use it to shoot at something (e.g. practice).
3) Provide your evidence to prove that Oswald never bought ammo for the rifle from any of the large number of gun stores in the Dallas area. Are you saying the only source of such ammo was from Klein's?
Found in Oswald's possessions, a photo of Walkers house. Also accompanying is written instructions for Marina which according to specific details can be correspondingly dated at the same time as the Walker assassination attempt, also of note is Oswald saying "if I'm alive and taken prisoner" means he wasn't planning on tiptoeing through the Tulips.
More words.
More filler.
Let me try again.
OK.
1) Give us an example of Marina lying. If you have none, just admit that. To my knowledge the only possible known instances of Marina "lying" involve her trying to protect Oswald rather than incriminate him. I assume that is the source of frustration being expressed in the source that you cite. You would seemingly agree with that conclusion since I assume you believe the authorities were trying to frame Oswald. In which case, they would be supportive instead of critical of any lies Marina might tell to incriminate Oswald.
I'm surprised myself, since the WC was so keen on transparency. It could be that her lies referred to by Redlich were so blatantly stupid that they threatened to undermine their credibility. Try the one where she imprisoned Lee in a bathroom. But let's do it this way: Since my arguments don't rely on Marinan lying, I'll simply dropherRedlich. The burden of proof is on you, still. So far you haven't produced a shred of evidence that supports Oswald firing the rifle on an airstrip; the WC had nothing to offer.
2) Tell us what someone would do with a rifle other than use it to shoot at something (e.g. practice).
Collectors buy rifles.
3) Provide your evidence to prove that Oswald never bought ammo for the rifle from any of the large number of gun stores in the Dallas area.
Sorry, did you really hope that shifting the burden of proof would work? BTW, there wasn't a large number of gun stores in Dallas stocking Carcano ammo. Learn the evidence.
Are you saying the only source of such ammo was from Klein's?
No.
I have to go out - I'll be back. I want to talk about the so called, "Walker Note"
The note is written in Russian. There is no date. There is no signature. There is NO MENTION of Walker at all.
How is this in anyway related to the General? Any thoughts on why he would even write this note?
In translation, the note read as follows:
1. This is the key to the mailbox which is located in the main post office in the city on Ervay Street.
This is the same street where the drugstore, in which you always waited is located. You will find the mailbox in the post office which is
located 4 blocks from the drugstore on that street. I paid for the box last month so don't worry about it.
2. Send the information as to what has happened to me to the Embassy and include newspaper clippings
(should there be anything about me in the newspapers). I believe that the Embassy will come quickly to your assistance on learning everything.
3. I paid the house rent on the 2d so don't worry about it.
4. Recently I also paid for water and gas.
5. The money from work will possibly be coming. The money will be sent to our post office box. Go to the bank and cash the check.
6. You can either throw out or give my clothing, etc. away. Do not keep these. However, I prefer that you hold on to my personal papers (military, civil, etc.).
The note is written in Russian.
There is no date.
There is no signature
There is NO MENTION of Walker at all.
How is this in anyway related to the General?
Any thoughts on why he would even write this note?
James Cadigan testified the note was written by Oswald, besides there is information contained within that Oswald was privy to, stay tuned.
Huh? Why would the note require a date, if Oswald succeeded in killing General Walker then everything contained in that note needed immediate action.
Another Huh? The note clearly came from Oswald. When you leave a note on the fridge telling your significant other that you are going for a beer with the fella's do you sign it and date it? When you leave a shopping list for the missus, do you sign it and date it?
Triple Huh? Did you expect Oswald to write something like, "I Harvey Lee Oswald of sound body and mind will on the 12th of April of the year of our lord 1963 will go forth and assassinate General Edwin Walker, So help me God!"? The name was not necessary for Marina or frankly anyone, because if Marina or anyone found the note early and rang the Police, Oswald's hopes and dreams would disappear like sands through the hourglass.
As stated above, secrecy is the secret to success!
The note was simply advice for Marina who being in a new Country, had a small circle of friends and who knew little English would be initially frightened and confused, so Oswald did his best to comfort her before he potentially shattered her World!
Translated from Russian
1) This is the key to the mailbox which is located in the main post office in the city on Ervay Street. This is the same street where the drugstore, in which you always waited is located. You will find the mailbox in the post office which is located 4 blocks from the drugstore on that street. I paid for the box last month so don't worry about it.
2) Send the information as to what has happened to me to the Embassy and include newspaper clippings (should there be anything about me in the newspapers). I believe that the Embassy will come quickly to your assistance on learning everything.
3) I paid the house rent on the 2d so don't worry about it.
4) Recently I also paid for water and gas.
5) The money from work will possibly be coming. The money will be sent to our post office box. Go to the bank and cash the check.
6) You can either throw out or give my clothing, etc. away. Do not keep these. However, I prefer that you hold on to my personal papers (military, civil, etc.).
7) Certain of my documents are in the small blue valise.
8] The address book can be found on my table in the study should need same.
9) We have friends here. The Red Cross also will help you. (Red Cross in English). [sic]
10) I left you as much money as I could, $60 on the second of the month. You and the baby [apparently] can live for another 2 months using $10 per week.
11) If I am alive and taken prisoner, the city jail is located at the end of the bridge through which we always passed on going to the city (right in the beginning of the city after crossing the bridge).705
Now we know when and where the note was written by clues, clues that obviously weren't needed by Marina because she was there living the dream!
• The Neely street apartment was leased on the 3rd of March and Oswald paid in advance on the 2nd. Oswald says he paid the rent money on the "2d" of what must be April. 8 days before the Walker assassination attempt.
• And we know that Oswald took out the Post Box at that address on the 9th of October till mid May. So this note was written in that time frame.
• The note mentions paying for rent meaning that it was written before Marina moved in with Ruth Paine.
• Oswald's directions to the Jail, even though he confused the city jail with the county jail, gave instructions to get there consistent if they were coming from Neely street.
So that along with the map marked with Walker's residence, the covert photographs with the shooting location and a decade and a half later Marina's testimony confirming Oswald's confession when any threat of deportation was a faded memory, all is evidence of Oswald's assassination attempt!
JohnM
The "Walker Note" has nothing to do with the Walker shooting. So what is it?
If the note was written by Lee around the time of the Walker shooting, he wrote because he's going to New Orleans.
He's going one month ahead of Marina, to find work and will send for her when when he is employed.
She was less then one year in the country, claimed to not speak English (although, Marguerite knew different- https://jfk.boards.net/post/2278)
He's helping her get along while he's gone. That's it. There is a BS spin put on the document about "being taken prisoner".
I still don't understand how that relates to Walker. Specifically to Walker. Anyone would be a fool to think he flipped his wig to
then go and kill Walker, "...and here is what you will need to do while I'm gone" That's ridiculous. There no evidence of that.
Be Lee. The note is written in Russian. As he wrote the note, he may have not known the Russian word for "being arrested".
He used the only wording he knew she would understand. "And if I'm arrested, you can contact local police". He may even be describing a location in N.O.
11. If I am alive and taken prisoner, the city jail is located at the end of the bridge through which we always passed on going
to the city (right in the beginning of the city after crossing the bridge).
There is no date. No mention of Walker whatsoever. If he wrote it, he left her instructions to get along while he's gone. That's it.
There is NO reason to believe that note had anything to do with the Walker shooting.
So you can't provide even a single example of Marina lying despite dismissing her testimony as the product of a liar. And now Oswald is a "gun collector." HA HA HA. How many such collectors have a total of one rifle? A cheap WWII rifle. And you can't demonstrate that Oswald could not have bought the ammo from a gun story in Dallas. Got it.
11) If I am alive and taken prisoner, the city jail is located at the end of the bridge through which we always passed on going to the city (right in the beginning of the city after crossing the bridge)
In the following paragraph is the WC describing the journey from Neely street to the county jail at the beginning of the city.
Oswald had apparently mistaken the county jail for the city jail. From Neely Street the Oswalds would have traveled downtown on the Beckley bus, across the Commerce Street viaduct and into downtown Dallas through the Triple Underpass.713 Either the viaduct or the underpass might have been the "bridge" mentioned in the last paragraph of the note. The county jail is at the corner of Houston and Main Streets "right in the beginning of the city" after one travels through the underpass.
https://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/warren-commission-report/chapter-4.html#walker
And here using Google Earth we can see in the 1st image the approximate journey from 214 Neely to the Commerce street Viaduct then in the 2nd we see the journey from the Commerce street Viaduct through to the triple underpass then onto the County Jail at the beginning of the city!
BTW for fun I have the bus going past the TSBD which I guess is unlikely because it would probably go straight down Main? I did a google maps public transport journey which is obviously more than half a century later and it took me all the way into Dallas via Commerce street? Anyway, you get the general idea. Thumb1:
JohnM
Done what? Practiced with the rifle? Any time between its delivery and Nov. 22. Marina confirmed that he practiced with the rifle.
So this thread, before being bumped, just dropped off of page two. It's safe to conclude that Richard bailed again after failing to present evidence of Oswald practicing with the rifle. Good old dependable Richard!Well, he did have that one practice shot at Walker ...
Well, he did have that one practice shot at Walker ...Adrian Alba, the owner of a New Orleans garage where Oswald would visit and read/borrow his gun magazines, testified that Oswald asked him where he, Oswald, could go to "discharge firearms." I would suggest that he did so because he, y'know, wanted to discharge firearms. Note: He didn't ask where he could sell his guns; he asked where he could fire them.
Seriously, Marina testified to the WC about practicing to a considerable extent (here she is describing both New Orleans and Dallas):
Mr. RANKIN. From what you observed about his having the rifle on the back porch, in the dark, could you tell whether or not he was trying to practice with the telescopic lens?
Mrs. OSWALD. Yes. I asked him why. But this time he was preparing to go to Cuba.
Mr. RANKIN. That was his explanation for practicing with the rifle?
Mrs. OSWALD. Yes. He said that he would, go to Cuba. I told him I was not going with him---that I would stay here.
Mr. RANKIN. On these occasions when he was practicing with the rifle, would they be three or four times a week in the evening, after the Fair Play for Cuba incident?
Mrs. OSWALD. Almost every evening. He very much wanted to go to Cuba and have the newspapers write that somebody had kidnaped an aircraft. And I asked him "For God sakes, don't do such a thing."
Mr. RANKIN. You have told us about his practicing with the rifle, the telescopic lens, on the back porch at New Orleans, and also his using the bolt action that you heard from time to time. Will you describe that a little more fully to us, as best you remember?
Mrs. OSWALD. I cannot describe that in greater detail. I can only say that Lee would sit there with the rifle and open and close the bolt and clean it. No, he didn't clean it at that time. Yes--twice he did clean it.
Mr. RANKIN. And did he seem to be practicing with the telescopic lens, too, and sighting the gun on different objects?
Mrs. OSWALD. I don't know. The rifle was always with this. I don't know exactly how he practiced, because I was in the house, I was busy. I just knew that he sits there with his rifle. I was not interested in it.
Mr. RANKIN. Was this during the light of the day or during the darkness?
Mrs. OSWALD. During darkness.
Mr. RANKIN. Was it so dark that neighbors could not see him on the porch there with the gun?
Mrs. OSWALD. Yes.
Mr. RANKIN. Did you learn at any time that he had been practicing with the rifle?
Mrs. OSWALD. I think that he went once or twice. I didn't actually see him take the rifle, but I knew that he was practicing.
Mr. RANKIN. Could you give us a little help on how you knew?
Mrs. OSWALD. He told me. And he would mention that in passing---it isn't as if he said, "Well, today I am going"---it wasn't as if he said, "Well, today I am going to take the rifle and go and practice." But he would say, "Well, today I will take the rifle along for practice."
Mr. RANKIN. Do you know where he practiced with the rifle?
Mrs. OSWALD. I don't know where. I don't know the name of the place where this took place. But I think it was somewhere out of town. It seems to me a place called Lopfield.
Mr. RANKIN. Would that be at the airport---Love Field?
Mrs. OSWALD. Love Field.
Mr. RANKIN. So you think he was practicing out in the open and not at a rifle range?
Mrs. OSWALD. Yes.
Marina likewise told Priscella Johnson McMillan that she was surprised to see him with the rifle on the porch in New Orleans and that he continued to practice dry firing for three weeks in late August and early September of 1963.
I strongly doubt he practiced live firing much at all. Not only was Carcano ammunition fairly obscure, but I know from personal experience in the 70's that practicing with a large-caliber weapon quickly becomes prohibitively expensive - and more so for Oswald than me. My guess would be that shortly after acquiring the rifle he located a standard box of 20 shells, either new or reloads, and this was the only Carcano ammunition he ever owned. He probably fired a few rounds from time to time in the practice Marina described, and the assassination rounds were probably leftovers from the original box. (No evidence for any of this, I realize.)
Dry firing, of course, costs nothing.
I think the assassination was an entirely impromptu, make-do affair. I think he simply retrieved the disassembled rifle from Ruth Paine's, brought it to the TSBD, assembled it, and trusted his limited past experience with the rifle and his considerable experience in the Marines. I'm no more of a marksman than Elmer Fudd, but this was not a difficult shot, even if he just used the iron sight. The only real mystery is the number and timing of the shots. (I'm not wedded to the two-shot theory, but it does make sense and would explain the dented "mystery shell" as being the dry-firing one that was still in the rifle at Ruth's and was ejected when he loaded the first live round.)
Adrian Alba, the owner of a New Orleans garage where Oswald would visit and read/borrow his gun magazines, testified that Oswald asked him where he, Oswald, could go to "discharge firearms." I would suggest that he did so because he, y'know, wanted to discharge firearms. Note: He didn't ask where he could sell his guns; he asked where he could fire them."Firearms," of course, could include his .38 Special. Again from personal experience, .38 Special reloads would have been extremely more common and extremely less expensive than 6.5 Carcano. I would still guess that his sole store of Carcano ammunition was one 20-round box and that his live practice consisted of a few sessions of 3-5 shots, with the assassination rounds being the leftovers. This would explain why he had only four rounds on the day of the assassination (or three rounds and a dry-firing shell) and no other ammunition was found among his possessions.
They also discussed the various advantages of the different calibre rifles and ammunition. I would suggest that too indicates he was interested in using the weapons.
Mr. LIEBELER - Did Oswald ever tell you that he had fired these rifles or this rifle that he owned?
Mr. ALBA - None other than to ask me if I knew of a place where you could discharge firearms, that is, close by, without getting in the car and riding for hours.
Mr. LIEBELER - What did you say when he asked you about that?
Mr. ALBA - My reply was that I joined the National Rifle Association, and I have been able to shoot on the rifle range. It had been some years since I had done any shooting along the River Road or the levy, or anything else like that, and that I am sure that if you attempt that today, they either would r you off or arrest you for discharging firearms.
Someone told us, Marina said, he could have done this-and-that, all weak sauce, all speculation. Richard already tried the "Lopfield" quote and got nowhere, LOL.'Shooting at Love field would be free. The rifle range would not be.
Firing just one shot at Walker makes no sense. Walker was a sitting duck at 30 yards. There's no reason Oswald wouldn't have had 6 rounds in his clip, so either the rifle jammed or he didn't have the balls to reload. Total disaster, so why would he even hold on to the rifle that might implicate him? And you don't sight in a scope by dry firing. For Richard's crazy idea of Oswald compensating for a wonky scope, he needed Oswald to properly practice his rifle. Had he actually practiced, he would quickly have let Klein's know what they sold him was junk. Richard's narrative is as insane as his replicating death squads.
BTW, note how Rankin sneaks in this little compound question to make Marina confirm Lee was not at the rifle range; nicely done!
Mr. RANKIN. So you think he was practicing out in the open and not at a rifle range?
Mrs. OSWALD. Yes.
The rigged Commission simply couldn't deal with the tips placing Oswald at the rifle range. Why don't you give it a try? They look promising!
"Firearms," of course, could include his .38 Special. Again from personal experience, .38 Special reloads would have been extremely more common and extremely less expensive than 6.5 Carcano. I would still guess that his sole store of Carcano ammunition was one 20-round box and that his live practice consisted of a few sessions of 3-5 shots, with the assassination rounds being the leftovers. This would explain why he had only four rounds on the day of the assassination (or three rounds and a dry-firing shell) and no other ammunition was found among his possessions.DeMohrsenschildt said Oswald told him that he took the rifle to do "target shooting". This was said during a visit of the DeMohrenschildts (husband and wife) shortly after the Walker attempt. Oswald showed DeMohrenschildt the rifle and he asked Oswald why he had it.
'Shooting at Love field would be free. The rifle range would not be.
The alleged sightings were at the rifle range, not "Lopfield."
The carcano was not a "junk" rifle. The military taught LHO how to familiarize himself with the rifle without actually firing it.
Someone told us, Marina said, he could have done this-and-that, all weak sauce, all speculation. Richard already tried the "Lopfield" quote and got nowhere, LOL.
There is no speculation. Oswald's wife confirmed that he took his rifle and practiced with it. There was no apparent reason for her to lie about that because practicing with a rifle is not a crime. Nor was it necessary for the WC to ever demonstrate that Oswald had ever practiced with the rifle to link him to the assassination. Why you keep mocking Marina's accent for slightly mispronouncing a word that was transcribed by someone else as though that has significance is bizarre.
:D
[/quote
So, anything to do with firearms is not really your deal?
So, anything to do with firearms is not really your deal?
Do you have evidence Marines handed out 20 year old carcanos?
where?
To ask a question like this leaves me wondering, so, anything to do with firearms is not really your deal?
Maybe try posting an emoji with a dumbfounded look. Seems to be your understanding of it.
Interesting understanding. It has to be one or the other, not both? How is practicing at Love Field different than practicing at a rifle range?
The carcano was not a "junk" rifle. The military taught LHO how to familiarize himself with the rifle without actually firing it.
You're still toast.
There is no speculation.
All you have remains speculation; but you don't have to like it because it's a fact.
Oswald's wife confirmed that he took his rifle and practiced with it.
There were no sightings of Oswald at Lovefield or "Lopfield" to confirm, if that's what you're referring to.
There was no apparent reason for her to lie about that
"Apparent." Your belief about her motives is irrelevant.
because practicing with a rifle is not a crime.
Strawman, nobody claimed it to be.
Nor was it necessary for the WC to ever demonstrate that Oswald had ever practiced with the rifle to link him to the assassination.
Strawman. It was your claim, but nice try.
Why you keep mocking Marina's accent for slightly mispronouncing a word that was transcribed by someone else as though that has significance is bizarre.
What mocking? I quoted the transcript.
How is it speculation when Marina, Oswald's wife who was present to witness the event, indicates it happened? There was "no sightings'" HA HA HA. That is comedy gold. Do you think that practicing with a rifle in 1960's Texas was so notable that someone would remember Oswald practicing months or years after the fact? Wow. What you are really suggesting is that an Elon Musk invented time machine is necessary to confirm any fact that you do not want to accept. And, again, WHY would she lie about this? Practicing with a rifle in Texas is not a crime. There was no need for the WC to prove that Oswald practiced with his rifle. You are implying that she is making this up for some inexplicable reason and mocking her accent. Putting her words in quotes suggests that there is something significant about her saying "Lopfield." English was not her first language. Someone else is transcribing her words. Mystery solved.
Interesting understanding. It has to be one or the other, not both?
I was referring you to the evidence. So you doubt Marina?
How is practicing at Love Field different than practicing at a rifle range?
The rifle range provides a safe, controlled environment to evaluate a rifle's accuracy using the open sights. A scope can be dialed in. I'm surprised this has to be explained to you.
The carcano was not a "junk" rifle.
My statement was qualified. I didn't say it was junk per se.
The military taught LHO how to familiarize himself with the rifle without actually firing it.
familiarize?
I didn't think u had anything
thanx for playing
Really, insinuating someone could not operate a carcano without Marine Corp training is priceless.
I was referring you to the evidence. So you doubt Marina?
What evidence? Both locations are based on witness testimony. Why is the rifle range the best place? What does it matter which environment he chose. He was simply trying out a new to him firearm.
The rifle range provides a safe, controlled environment to evaluate a rifle's accuracy using the open sights. A scope can be dialed in. I'm surprised this has to be explained to you.
No place is any safer than the person with the firearm. Showing up at a rifle range on foot with a gun in a blanket would have been interesting and they like to sell the ammo. Love Field would have worked better, but both have their advantages, but you pay at a rifle range. LHO did not possess a spotting scope.
My statement was qualified. I didn't say it was junk per se.
Qualified how? Junk per se?
Junk per se means what?
So now the rifle was not “junk”, as a side note, Italy at one time used them in Nato competition team shooting contests. Hardly junk in any qualification.
Familiarize?
Yes- Remember he sat on the porch working the rifle bolt and aiming it. This is the best method to teach trigger control, trigger creep, sight picture, rifle balance, etc. Firing the rifle is the final step, not a must to practicing.
Marine practice by dryfiring. Major Anderson elaborated on it.
When did I say they that?
You nutters have nothing but straw
You keep asking questions I've already answered; your reading comprehension problem is obvious. Dry firing will not reveal anything about the capabilities of the rifle and/or scope, but it would have told him the Carcano was prone to jamming.
You have not addressed a single issue. Not have answered a single question. Just endless prattling on.
TM [b"]Dry firing reveals “jamming.”[/b]
Isn’t “jamming” a live round issue? You dryfire with live rounds? There is a question you have not answered. Now translate that into safety on the rifle range while you are at it. Maybe throw in a little explanation of “junk per se” too. It would be nice if you could clear up how you qualified your statements on quality of carcano’s also.
Dry firing is irrelevant when discussing the scope. Richard's insane claim involved the scope. Next time, avoid commenting on threads you don't understand. Correct, problems related to jamming would not be revealed by dry firing. Repeatedly dry firing the Carcano would have been of no value to Oswald. Marina came up with the dry firing nonsense.
The scope? This is new. No, our discussion was about Marina, and Love Field vs rifle range. Your posts revealed what is known. You have zero knowledge about what you were posting about. Nothing more. This latest post is proof.
Dryfiring is very valuable to learning to shoot properly. Major Anderson testified as to dryfiring in the Marine Corp.
As per Richard's suggestion earlier;
Even if there was some misalignment with the scope, an experienced shooter who had used the rifle could make adjustments to compensate.
You mean on the fly or otherwise?
The scope? This is new.
No, see below.
No,
Yes, see above.
our discussion was about Marina, and Love Field vs rifle range. Your posts revealed what is known. You have zero knowledge about what you were posting about. Nothing more. This latest post is proof.
As I've already pointed out (as did Michael Capasse) Marina has zero credibility, so you can keep discussing Love Field and dry firing until the sun burns out. Good luck.
Dryfiring is very valuable to learning to shoot properly. Major Anderson testified as to dryfiring in the Marine Corp.
Oswald already knew how to shoot properly; he was an ex-marine.
Marina does not have credibility? Seriously two guys with zero credibility themselves claim someone else has no credibility. How does that work?
A KGB true defector (Major) Pyotr Deriabin (1954), wrote a day or two after the assassination that Marina had to be at least a low-level KGB informant to be allowed to marry her Handsome Prince Charming and leave The Worker's Paradise with him.
Not too devoted to her work. She was not even living with him anymore.
How credible are KGB agents?
If they are a low-level KGB informant married to her Handsome Prince Charming, I would think very credible.
Would you?
What if I had made it more obvious for you by writing, "Her Handsome Prince Charming" and "The Worker's Paradise" in scare quotes?
BTW, Deriabin said she had to be at least a low-level informant.
Maybe you missed that part.
The KGB said she was stupid, lazy, not a good Communist, and that the USSR was happy to get rid of her, yet she was a trained pharmacist, she'd recently been given a raise, and she was a dues-paying member of Komsomol.
It is interesting, isn't it, that she'd been a KGB "swallow" in Leningrad, she said she didn't know who her father was but she had a patronym ("Nikolayevna'), her uncle was an MVD colonel, and she spoke English a lot better than she let on?
You obviously have fond memories of your discussion with Richard about the scope. Good for you, but in reality, it is nothing more than trying to change course on the discussion which shows you have absolutely no idea about what you are posting.
I will make it very clear-- I had not part of your scope nonsense. Could not have cared less.
TS “As I've already pointed out (as did Michael Capasse) Marina has zero credibility”
Marina does not have credibility? Seriously two guys with zero credibility themselves claim someone else has no credibility. How does that work? How many times do you get caught piling on the BS yourself before you become an authority on when someone has no credibility?
Better yet in your mind what makes you an authority on it.
“Oswald already knew how to shoot properly; he was an ex-marine.”
Not according to you. Talk about no credibility you posted earlier the marines were supposed to supply him with a carcano and teach him so he could learn.
Now here you are presenting yourself as an authority on it on how much LHO knew and why the Marine Corp and the rest of the world is all wrong about dryfiring.
Fond indeed, and it was Richard who came up with the "scope nonsense."
Her contradictory statements are documented; it's a matter of fact. Facts don't care whether you like them or not.
Quote me on that.
There's no supporting evidence for Oswald dry firing a Carcano, only Marina's claim that he did. Why do you hope to win this argument?
Would you?
yes
What if I had made it more obvious for you by writing, "Her Handsome Prince Charming" and "The Worker's Paradise" in scare quotes?
Check to make sure but I believe these are scare quotes.
BTW, Deriabin said she had to be at least a low-level informant.
Is she or isn’t she low level?
BTW my friend met her in the hallway at the HSCA testimonies. He said she had an unbelievable beautiful flawless complexion. Does that help.
The KGB said she was stupid, lazy, not a good Communist, and that the USSR was happy to get rid of her, yet she was a trained pharmacist, she'd recently been given a raise, and she was a dues-paying member of Komsomol.
It is interesting, isn't it, that she'd been a KGB "swallow" in Leningrad, she said she didn't know who her father was but she had a patronym ("Nikolayevna'), her uncle was an MVD colonel, and she spoke English a lot better than she let on?
Possibly all part of her cover to be married to a dufus and act like a non-English speaking housewife in Dallas.
This is my OP:
"A KGB true defector (Major) Pyotr Deriabin (1954), wrote a day or two after the assassination that Marina had to be at least a low-level KGB informant to be allowed to marry her Handsome Prince Charming and leave The Worker's Paradise with him."
Where are the scare quotes you say are in it -- scare quotes which I now realize I should have used so that even you could have understood I was being sarcastic?
You weren't talking about your second post? I know you like the KGB aspect, I am surprised you were being sarcastic about it. Everyone in Russia can be characterized as a low-level KGB informant.
Are you from Russia?
Regardless, by your logic, any female Soviet citizen was able to leave "The Worker's Paradise" (not the scare quotes signifying sarcasm) back in 1962 as easily as Marina Nikolayevna Prusakova did -- just marry a "Handsome Prince Charming" (note those scare quotes, once again, once again signifying sarcasm) American who happens to be a former sharpshooting Marine U-2 radar operator.
Are you from Russia?
Given LHO's suicide attempt. The Russians wanted Oswald out of Russia
If "the Russians wanted Oswald out of Russia," why did the mother-in-law of a future false-defector (KGB Colonel Igor Kochnov, secretly to the FBI in 1965 and "overtly" to the CIA in 1966 as KITTYHAWK; look him up), Yekaterina Furtseva (the most powerful woman in Russia; look her up), override (future false defector) Yuri Nosenko (look him up) and demand that Oswald not only be allowed to stay in the USSR, but NOT be recruited by the KGB?
Before or after the suicide attempt by LHO? The Russians like the Americans soon realized he was nothing but a clown.
I did edit it a bit, so maybe you should read it again.
But to answer your question, after he "tried" to kill himself.
Obviously.
Here it is again for you:
Are you sure that Oswald really tried to kill himself?
Did he write in his "Historic Diary" that he cut one wrist, or both?
What did the records at Boskin hospital say?
If "the Russians wanted Oswald out of Russia," why, AFTER OSWALD'S SUICIDE "ATTEMPT," did the mother-in-law of a future false-defector (KGB Colonel Igor Kochnov, secretly to the FBI in 1965 and "overtly" to the CIA in 1966 as KITTYHAWK; look him up), Yekaterina Furtseva (the most powerful woman in Russia; look her up), override (future false defector) Yuri Nosenko (look him up) and demand that Oswald not only be allowed to stay in the USSR, but NOT be recruited by the KGB?*
*As related to the CIA and the FBI by false defector Yuri Nosenko and other Kremlin-loyal KGB agents
What did he possibly have to offer them? He had to be the same person there that he was here. Desperately trying to be a big deal and just wasn't. He comes back to the US and no press meets him at the airport. He was viewed as nothing but an oddity. If he had gone to Cuba or back to Russia it would have been good riddance. I honestly cannot see the Russians considering him any kind of an asset at all. Just a liability.
Who knows, given the fact that John N. Newman (author of the 1995/2008 book, "Oswald and the CIA") is probably right when he says in his 2022 book, "Uncovering Popov's Mole," that a KGB mole by the name of Bruce Leonard Solie (look him up) in the CIA's mole-hunting Office of Security sent (or duped his confidant, protégé, and mole-hunting subordinate, James Angleton, into sending) Oswald to Moscow in 1959 as an ostensible "dangle" in a (unbeknownst to Angleton and Oswald) planned-to-fail hunt for "Popov's U-2 Mole" (Solie) in the wrong part of the CIA?
Why Oswald instead of anyone else. I am a long way from well-read on Oswald but what I have garnered, is he was really an anti-social individual. How would someone like him possibly get information from any high-ranking person? It is hard to imagine someone with his nature being good at securing information. You have read a great deal more on this Russian subject than anyone I know. Does he really seem like a person who would be good at it? Granted this whole Russian defection seems strange but everything about him is strange. but that does not make him a spy, just odd.
Fond indeed, and it was Richard who came up with the "scope nonsense."
OK, it holds no interest. People should forget it was even on the rifle.
Her contradictory statements are documented; it's a matter of fact. Facts don't care whether you like them or not.
If you throw a rock, you will hit a witness who made a contradictory statement in the JFK assassination. Does that mean no one has any credibility?
There's no supporting evidence for Oswald dry firing a Carcano, only Marina's claim that he did. Why do you hope to win this argument?
Not true, CE 543 shell was dryfired in LHO's carcano.
Not true, CE 543 shell was dryfired in LHO's carcano.
Perhaps you should read Newman's 2008 version of Oswald and the CIA (in which he accuses Angleton of being the mastermind), and his 2022 book, Uncovering Popov's Mole -- which he dedicates to my hero, Tennent H. Bagley (look him up) -- in which he says he was wrong to accuse Angleton of being the mastermind. But do by all means disregard the parts where he says Sergei Papushin was a true defector, that Oswald was a Ukrainian (sic) KGB agent in Minsk, and that some evil, evil high-level American military officers killed JFK because he refused to nuke Moscow and Peking in 1963, won't you?
(Once a published tinfoil-hat JFKA conspiracy theorist, always a published tinfoil-hat JFKA conspiracy theorist, I guess . . .)
But it was. It's a fact, even if you choose to ignore it.
It was specifically concerning "Oswald's rifle."
You forgot the quote.
By whom?
But it was. It's a fact, even if you choose to ignore it.
People are fascinated by the scope. I am just not one of them.
So were the iron sights there but no one is concerned about them.
Without shooting the rifle he easily could have checked to see how far off the scope was.
It truly is a poor quality scope. Sighting scopes in is a process they are not automatically accurate when installed. The scope mount used can be easily bent. Coming installed from the factory means nothing.
It was specifically concerning "Oswald's rifle."
Her expertise in rifles consists of what? The same result would have been achieved asking her about the medical information. Marina has no experience with it either to draw on.
You forgot the quote.
Typo
By whom?
If not Oswald, who is doing the shooting. It doesn’t change the fact that CE 543 was dryfired and matched to the rifle.
How is it speculation when Marina, Oswald's wife who was present to witness the event, indicates it happened?
No place is any safer than the person with the firearm. Showing up at a rifle range on foot with a gun in a blanket would have been interesting and they like to sell the ammo. Love Field would have worked better, but both have their advantages, but you pay at a rifle range.
Yes- Remember he sat on the porch working the rifle bolt and aiming it.
Why Oswald instead of anyone else. I am a long way from well-read on Oswald but what I have garnered, is he was really an anti-social individual. How would someone like him possibly get information from any high-ranking person? It is hard to imagine someone with his nature being good at securing information. You have read a great deal more on this Russian subject than anyone I know. Does he really seem like a person who would be good at it? Granted this whole Russian defection seems strange but everything about him is strange. But that does not make him a spy, just odd.
CE-543 was a dented shell found in the SN.
Did he dry-fire at the president?
https://jfk.boards.net/post/2754/thread
The facts still don't care about your opinion.
Certainly not the WC, for obvious reasons.
That would certainly depend on the condition of the scope; what scenario are you assuming since your sudden interest in the scope?
So why bring it to the sixth floor when it wasn't to be trusted?
So not creditable across the board.
Good.
If not Oswald, why bring up CE 543? You make no sense.
You state CE 543 was dryfired by Oswald, but you then thought it best to throw the rest of the crap thinking into the post?
Not true, CE 543 shell was dryfired in LHO's carcano.
According to John M. Newman's theory in his 2022 book, "Uncovering Popov's Mole," it wasn't Oswald's task to get information in the USSR, but to stimulate interest in himself (by declaring to the KGB's microphones hidden in Richard Snyder's office that he was going to tell them "something of special interest" pertaining to his work as a Marine radar operator) so that its moles could be ostensibly uncovered in the CIA, and to unwittingly do it in such a way that would ensure that the ensuing mole hunt would be in the wrong part of the Agency -- the Soviet Russia Division -- thereby protecting the mole who had sent him, Bruce Leonard Solie in the mole-hunting Office of Security.
The only one that said that was YOU:
You also claimed that:
Randle said the bag was held with two hands.
There were two sets of chicken bones were found in the SN
US Marines handed out carcanos to familiarize solders with bolt action.
All without any evidence whatsoever.
You're not very good at this.
What is this? Just being clever?
Most importantly, fell flat on your face when it was time to man up and name who “your” shooter was after you have exonerated Oswald in your mind.
The only one that said that was YOU:
You don’t think the FBI’s analysis along with Josiah Thompson’s observations and opinion matter?
If you would put this on your website, one thing on it would be right.
You also claimed that:
Randle said the bag was held with two hands.
Your right, she did. She totally ruined your little bag expose because you can’t read.
There were two sets of chicken bones were found in the SN
How many ways are there to describe one set, with and without bottles and bags, in two locations from how many different witnesses?
Are you thinking Shelley was wrong?
US Marines handed out carcanos to familiarize solders with bolt action.
No, that was your Siamese Twin Brother’s thinking. For him it had to be the only way LHO would know how to operate a carcano. Apparently, you think that too.
Have you ever posted anything that is true?
All without any evidence whatsoever.
So now FBI reports, Thompson’s observations, and witness statements aren’t evidence.
You're not very good at this.
How would you know? I suppose for you though, just wandering around with a found less opinion is way better.
So you've been dry firing for several pages now, proving you have no actual ammo to support your nutty claims. Except for the only live round you fired into your foot when claiming Marina had as liitle experience with medical information as with rifles; she was a pharmacist. Bye Jack.
Thumb1: Actually, it's your misinterpretation of the evidence that just doesn't mean very much to me.
What is this? Just being clever?
Most importantly, fell flat on your face when it was time to man up and name who “your” shooter was after you have exonerated Oswald in your mind.
How many ways are there to describe one set, with and without bottles and bags, in two locations from how many different witnesses?
Randle said the bag was held with two hands.
Your right, she did. She totally ruined your little bag expose because you can’t read.
Perhaps you can read for us, then. Point out exactly where she says two hands.
Mr. BALL. What was he carrying?
Mrs. RANDLE. He was carrying a package in a sort of a heavy brown bag, heavier than a grocery bag it looked to me. It was about, if I might measure, about this long, I suppose, and he carried it in his right hand, had the top sort of folded down and had a grip like this, and the bottom, he carried it this way, you know, and it almost touched the ground as he carried it.
Mr. BALL. Let me see. He carried it in his right hand, did he?
Mrs. RANDLE. That is right.
Mr. BALL. And where was his hand gripping the middle of the package?
Mrs. RANDLE. No, sir; the top with just a little bit sticking up. You know just like you grab something like that.
Mr. BALL. And he was grabbing it with his right hand at the top of the package and the package almost touched the ground?
Mrs. RANDLE. Yes, sir.
Perhaps you can read for us, then. Point out exactly where she says two hands.
Mr. BALL. What was he carrying?
Mrs. RANDLE. He was carrying a package in a sort of a heavy brown bag, heavier than a grocery bag it looked to me. It was about, if I might measure, about this long, I suppose, and he carried it in his right hand, had the top sort of folded down and had a grip like this, and the bottom, he carried it this way, you know, and it almost touched the ground as he carried it.
Mr. BALL. Let me see. He carried it in his right hand, did he?
Mrs. RANDLE. That is right.
Mr. BALL. And where was his hand gripping the middle of the package?
Mrs. RANDLE. No, sir; the top with just a little bit sticking up. You know just like you grab something like that.
Mr. BALL. And he was grabbing it with his right hand at the top of the package and the package almost touched the ground?
Mrs. RANDLE. Yes, sir.
Remember (yes, stating the obvious but sometimes its needed): this was supposedly curtain rods he was carrying. Or his lunch.
Mrs. RANDLE .....“and he carried it in his right hand, had the top sort of folded down and had a grip like this, and the bottom, he carried it this way, you know, and it almost touched the ground as he carried it”
I guess it is not simple if you don’t want it to be.
Seriously John, you are stymied by this? You think he carried both the top,---- “the top....had a grip like this”
AND “ the bottom he carried this way” ---- you are stating he did this with one giant hand.
Right hand: and he carried it in his right hand, had the top sort of folded down and had a grip like this,
Left hand: and the bottom, he carried it this way
Mr. BALL. And he was grabbing it with his right hand at the top of the package and the package almost touched the ground?
Mrs. RANDLE. Yes, sir.
The math and walking erect does not work on a 27 inch package. Does it work for you? Right hand 24 inches of the ground? Left hand lower. Exactly what would he look like walking that way?
Remember (yes, stating the obvious but sometimes its needed): this was supposedly curtain rods he was carrying. Or his lunch.
Nobody can seriously believe it was curtain rods. Or his lunch. But they do. And here they are.
Then they say that "nutters" are believing absurd things?
Remember (yes, stating the obvious but sometimes its needed): this was supposedly curtain rods he was carrying. Or his lunch.
Nobody can seriously believe it was curtain rods. Or his lunch. But they do. And here they are.
Then they say that "nutters" are believing absurd things?
It is hopeless. I think there are some folks here who actually have doubts about Oswald's guilt. They can't quite articulate why and certainly can't prove anyone else did it. Instead, these folks cling to any straw or interpretation that could lend itself to doubt no matter how absurd. Frazier asked Oswald about his lunch that day, and Oswald himself confirmed that he had not brought it. Why would Oswald lie to his co-worker about not bringing his lunch that morning? Oswald tells the police that opposite, however, indicating that he had carried his lunch. What does Oswald have a greater incentive to lie about? Carrying his lunch or the bag containing a rifle that he used to kill the president? CTers are impervious to the logic and facts, however. Frazier makes an estimate of the bag's length based on his brief look. The bag exits, however. It was measured. We know exactly how long it was. There is no need to rely on a cursory estimate. CTer cling to Frazier's estimated. And on and on and on endlessly down the rabbit hole. There are others here who likely know that Oswald did it, but they like to play the contrarian like a defense attorney. An endless game to them. Only a psychiatrist could sort that one out.
It is hopeless. I think there are some folks here who actually have doubts about Oswald's guilt. They can't quite articulate why and certainly can't prove anyone else did it. Instead, these folks cling to any straw or interpretation that could lend itself to doubt no matter how absurd. Frazier asked Oswald about his lunch that day, and Oswald himself confirmed that he had not brought it. Why would Oswald lie to his co-worker about not bringing his lunch that morning? Oswald tells the police that opposite, however, indicating that he had carried his lunch. What does Oswald have a greater incentive to lie about? Carrying his lunch or the bag containing a rifle that he used to kill the president? CTers are impervious to the logic and facts, however. Frazier makes an estimate of the bag's length based on his brief look. The bag exits, however. It was measured. We know exactly how long it was. There is no need to rely on a cursory estimate. CTer cling to Frazier's estimated. And on and on and on endlessly down the rabbit hole. There are others here who likely know that Oswald did it, but they like to play the contrarian like a defense attorney. An endless game to them. Only a psychiatrist could sort that one out.
You couldn't possibly know what Frazier asked Oswald and what he answered; you've developed a habit of claiming stuff you can't back up with facts.
Huh? Do you mean that I need to be present at the event to confirm any fact from history? For example, I can't "know" that Lincoln delivered the Gettysburg address until Elon Musk invents a time machine that allows me to attend the event in person? Wow. Aren't you embarrassed to peddle such nonsense?
Mr. BALL. Did you notice whether or not Lee had a package that looked
like a lunch package that morning?
Mr. FRAZIER. You know like I told you earlier, I say, he didn’t take his
lunch because I remember right when I got in the car 1 asked him where was
his lunch and he said he was going to buy his lunch that day.
Mr. BALL. He told you that that day, did he?
Xr. FRAZIER. Right. That is right. So, I assumed he was going to buy it,
you know, from that catering service man like a lot of the boys do. They
don’t bring their lunch but they go out and buy their lunch there.
Huh? Do you mean that I need to be present at the event to confirm any fact from history? For example, I can't "know" that Lincoln delivered the Gettysburg address until Elon Musk invents a time machine that allows me to attend the event in person? Wow. Aren't you embarrassed to peddle such nonsense?
Mr. BALL. Did you notice whether or not Lee had a package that looked
like a lunch package that morning?
Mr. FRAZIER. You know like I told you earlier, I say, he didn’t take his
lunch because I remember right when I got in the car 1 asked him where was
his lunch and he said he was going to buy his lunch that day.
Mr. BALL. He told you that that day, did he?
Xr. FRAZIER. Right. That is right. So, I assumed he was going to buy it,
you know, from that catering service man like a lot of the boys do. They
don’t bring their lunch but they go out and buy their lunch there.
"Oswald gripped the bag in his right hand near the top. "It tapered like this as he hugged it in his hand." WCR page 133
"Mrs. Randle saw the bag fleetingly and her first remembrance is that it was held in Oswald's right hand "and it almost touched the ground as he carried it.'' WCR page 134
As Martin pointed out, you have blind faith in anything that supports your preferred narrative, not so much if it doesn't fit your fantasy—Nutter Trait Classic. There's no one alive to verify Frazier's story. Thanks to Cpt. Fritz, we don't even know what Oswald actually said during his interrogation. Any progress on Oswald's rifle practice?
I have "blind faith" when the person who was present at the event with no apparent reason to lie about an innocuous event (i.e. he asked Oswald whether he carried his lunch that day and Oswald said no) confirms this happened. How exactly could this be proven to your subjective satisfaction absent a time machine? The real knee slapper is that you are relying on this same witness - who you appear to be suggesting lied about asking if Oswald had his lunch - for his estimate of the length of a bag that he hardly saw. Riddle me this Batman, if Frazier was willing to lie about Oswald not carrying his lunch - again as you suggest he did - then why wouldn't he also confirm the more important fact that the bag was long enough to carry the rifle? HA HA HA. I know logic and common sense are not among your strong points but this is actually embarrassing.
I have "blind faith" when the person who was present at the event with no apparent reason to lie about an innocuous event (i.e. he asked Oswald whether he carried his lunch that day and Oswald said no) confirms this happened.
Sure, but your blind faith disappears like melting snow when that same person, who was present, says that the bag found at the TSBD wasn't the one he saw Oswald carry! Go figure...
Frazier saw Oswald carry the package underneath his armpit and in the cup of his hand. That's not an estimate. All you need to do is find out how long Oswald's arm was.
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--
"I didn't pay too much attention on how he carried the package at all."
JohnM
::) *yawn*
But he paid attention to how it was held. Under the armpit. He was sure of that.
Well that's not what Frazier said!
"I didn't pay too much attention on how he carried the package at all."
JohnM
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.
You can repeat it a thousand times but it doesn't change the fact that he testified that "I didn't pay too much attention on how he carried the package at all."
JohnM
Except it ended under his armpit, too small for the carcano. AND has said that for the last sixty + years.
The bag allegedly found upstairs was not what he saw. In fact, he demonstrated what he saw in a video.
Randle said: "Oswald gripped the bag in his right hand near the top. "It tapered like this as he hugged it in his hand." WCR page 133
"Mrs. Randle saw the bag fleetingly and her first remembrance is that it was held in Oswald's right hand "and it almost touched the ground as he carried it.'' WCR page 134
I have "blind faith" when the person who was present at the event with no apparent reason to lie about an innocuous event (i.e. he asked Oswald whether he carried his lunch that day and Oswald said no) confirms this happened. How exactly could this be proven to your subjective satisfaction absent a time machine? The real knee slapper is that you are relying on this same witness - who you appear to be suggesting lied about asking if Oswald had his lunch - for his estimate of the length of a bag that he hardly saw. Riddle me this Batman, if Frazier was willing to lie about Oswald not carrying his lunch - again as you suggest he did - then why wouldn't he also confirm the more important fact that the bag was long enough to carry the rifle? HA HA HA. I know logic and common sense are not among your strong points but this is actually embarrassing.
If Buell Frazier was going to lie about the bag's existence, wouldn't he at least state that the bag was long enough to contain the rifle? Why introduce a bag into the folklore but state that it was not long enough?
Maybe he intuited that it was a rifle and he was too embarrassed or felt culpable for not having told Mt. Truly or some other person of authority about it when they got to work.
Your right Linnie May describes holding it with two hands again:
Randle said: "Oswald gripped the bag in his right hand near the top. "It tapered like this as he hugged it in his hand." WCR page 133
Gripping the bag and then hugging the bag are two different actions.
The bag then tapers and where he then is hugging it in his other hand.
Just like “and the bottom, he carried it this way,”
Pretty hard to escape Mrs Randle’s testimony.
Mrs. RANDLE .....“and he carried it in his right hand, had the top sort of folded down and had a grip like this, and the bottom, he carried it this way, you know, and it almost touched the ground as he carried it”
Now explain how the bag could only be 27 inches long and LHO carried the bag in this manner.
...in his right hand. It makes no difference 27 in. or more.
There is nothing there about any OTHER hand
Unfortunately, you can’t ignore or dismiss this.
“and the bottom he carried it this way,” or "It tapered like this as he hugged it in his hand."
You post quotes without understanding what you are quoting? Both are references to holding the bag with the left hand.
Randle said: "Oswald gripped the bag in his right hand near the top. "It tapered like this as he hugged it in his hand." WCR page 133
"Mrs. Randle saw the bag fleetingly and her first remembrance is that it was held in Oswald's right hand "and it almost touched the ground as he carried it.'' WCR page 134
Yes I can. And I do.
There is no left hand.
The Commission found that Randle saw Oswald carrying the bag with only his right hand.
Here are 2 more quotes from the WCR that make that clear:
There was no other hand used or written into the WC findings. You're just making that up.
What she said is not going away because you want to dismiss and ignore it.
This is a post from you quoting Linnie May.
“and he carried it in his right hand, had the top sort of folded down and had a grip like this, and the bottom, he carried it this way, you know, and it almost touched the ground as he carried it”
“And the bottom, he carried it this way". The words “AND the bottom” completely defines the statement.
Powerful words, aren’t they? A direct reference to the other hand. One hand cannot hold top and bottom.
You obviously understand their importance or why would you pretend they do not exist and pretend quoting a WC summary is somehow better.?
The same as referring to “gripping the top with his right hand and it tappered ---”hugged” it in his hand. It is the same reference in both quotes.
I have no need to respond to made up BS:
What she said is not going away because you want to dismiss and ignore it.
Thumb1: Sure it will. You're the only one that says it.
I have "blind faith"
Common among MAGA xxxxxxx.
when the person who was present at the event with no apparent reason to lie about an innocuous event
Apparent.
(i.e. he asked Oswald whether he carried his lunch that day and Oswald said no) confirms this happened.
Classic Richard Smith misuse of "confirmed". There is no other account of what took place inside that car.
How exactly could this be proven to your subjective satisfaction absent a time machine?
It couldn't, even objectively, and you're still struggling to understand this. Wow!
The real knee slapper is that you are relying on this same witness
False, I'm not relying on Frazier.
- who you appear to be suggesting lied about asking if Oswald had his lunch -
False, it may appear so to you for whatever reason.
for his estimate of the length of a bag that he hardly saw.
I haven't referred to his estimate—DOH.
Riddle me this Batman, if Frazier was willing to lie about Oswald not carrying his lunch - again as you suggest he did -
Again, I haven't suggested that.
then why wouldn't he also confirm the more important fact that the bag was long enough to carry the rifle?
Because the curtain rods would fit the shorter bag, cupped in Oswald's hand, as claimed by Frazier.
HA HA HA.
Certainly, you failed again.
I know logic and common sense are not among your strong points but this is actually embarrassing.
Knowing how MAGA logic works, I wouldn't be too concerned about your opinion.
Do you accept Frazier's estimate of the length of the bag or not?
It's on record and he hasn't caved in, yet. His two independent ways of estimating it make sense, in fact, it actually matched a pair of curtain rods in the Paine's garage. I know it frustrates the heck out of you—LOL.
The curtain rods in the Paine garage were 27.5 inches or 698.5 mm and I'm 6'2" or 1870 mm and there is no way I can carry something that long in the way Frazier described. So unless Oswald had gorilla type arms which he didn't, there was no way Oswald would be able to carry 27.5 inch curtain rods between his armpit and his cupped hand!
Try it yourself!
(https://i.postimg.cc/4x7gKwSV/Howlett-Paine-curtai9n-rods.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/XYP0yBTN/Paine-exhibit-275-276-curtain-rods.jpg)
JohnM
I'm 6'2" or 1870 mm
Really? You are 1,87 meters?
I'm 6'3" and I am only 1,83 meters....
How can you be smaller than me in feet/inches and bigger in meters?
I agree. So it wasn't curtain rods. I believe the curtain rods story was just the excuse Oswald used instead of having to tell a 19 years old Buell Frazier about his martial problems.
So, the bag, which didn't contain curtain rods would have to have been smaller (actually about 10 cm) to fit between Oswald's armpit and the cup of his hand.
Which, of course, also rules out a broken down MC rifle being in that bag.
???
6'3" = 75 inches = 190.5 cm
(https://inches-to-cm.appspot.com/image/75.png)
JohnM
So, it wasn't curtain rods and it wasn't a rifle and Oswald said it was his lunch but that's a mighty long lunch and why on earth would he stick one end into his armpit? Ewww!
(https://i.postimg.cc/XvQ37D4h/Frazier-24-inch-bag.jpg)
JohnM
Hilarious...
I was measured in England in feet when I got my driving license there and I was measured in Spain when I changed my license to a Spanish one.
Those are factual measurements....
When you use "mm" (which is millimeters) it's pretty obvious that you haven't got a clue about the metric system.
Perhaps you should rely less on the BS that's available on the internet.
:D ;D :D ;D :D ;D
(https://homework.study.com/cimages/multimages/16/05fb342d-2c68-40a3-aa60-02411055653a_cm_mm_ruler_350px.png)
You are such a dildo!
JohnM
Isn't it nice to have internet you can look up things?
Fact is that anybody who is familiar with the metric system does not use millimeters.
They use meters and centimeters.
But nice try
Fact is that anybody who is familiar with the metric system does not use millimeters.
With every post you dig a deeper hole. LOLOLOLOL!
It's called the metric system for a reason.
Btw shorty, are you 6 foot 3 or 1.83m/183cm/1830mm Hahahahahaha!
Oh really?
The Carcano rifle fires 6.5mm bullets.
The size of the wound on Connally's back was 15x6mm.
Kennedy's posterior neck wound was 4x7mm
JohnM
Stop displaying your ignorance.
Of course they use millimeters for really small items, but not for the height of a person.
Your ego-driven desperation to win every argument, even when you haven't got a clue what you are talking about, is really pathetic.
Show me where exactly Oswald said it was his lunch?
Are you 6 foot 3 or 183cm? LOLOLOLO!
JohnM
There had to be something in the bag?
Just a couple of posts ago you speculated that the reason for Oswald's trip was to fix his marriage and the curtain rods were just a story?
Martin, what's in the bag?
(https://i.postimg.cc/XvQ37D4h/Frazier-24-inch-bag.jpg)
JohnM
I am 6'3 ft which is equal to 1,83 meter....
You don't use cm for anything that's higher than a meter. You can't even get that right.... so, when you laugh, you're only laughing about your own stupidity.
I haven't got a clue and neither do you.
All that can be said is that it couldn't have been a broken down MC rifle as that would never fit between Oswald's armpit and cupped hand.
The MC would have had to have been at least 10 cm shorter than it actually is to make it fit.
You've not only been caught lying, you've proven exactly how dumb you are. Congratulations!
(https://i.postimg.cc/TwCTP2vn/weidmann-dumbass.jpg)
JohnM
Too bad the bag had Oswald's prints on it! Oops!
(https://i.postimg.cc/SKQtPZFN/Oswaldsprintsonthebag.jpg)
And in addition to Frazier saying "I didn't pay too much attention on how he carried the package at all.". Frazier also testified that he only saw the package from the back so obviously made some assumptions!
In the following testimony Frazier is referring to the width of the bag but it doesn't change the fact that all of Frazier's assumptions came from a bag that he didn't pay too much attention to the way it was being carried, and also of vital importance is Oswald started his walk to the depository early and ended up 50 feet away and this is very relevant because Oswald always walked with Frazier. What was Oswald trying to hide?
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...
(https://i.postimg.cc/QMBcV5cJ/rifleunderarm.jpg)
JohnM
Too bad the bag had Oswald's prints on it! Oops!
(https://i.postimg.cc/SKQtPZFN/Oswaldsprintsonthebag.jpg)
And in addition to Frazier saying "I didn't pay too much attention on how he carried the package at all.". Frazier also testified that he only saw the package from the back so obviously made some assumptions!
In the following testimony Frazier is referring to the width of the bag but it doesn't change the fact that all of Frazier's assumptions came from a bag that he didn't pay too much attention to the way it was being carried, and also of vital importance is Oswald started his walk to the depository early and ended up 50 feet away and this is very relevant because Oswald always walked with Frazier. What was Oswald trying to hide?
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...
(https://i.postimg.cc/QMBcV5cJ/rifleunderarm.jpg)
JohnM
Too bad that I have official Government issued documents with the right measurements and do not have to rely on a pathetic internet converter.
Martin, it's just simple math and unlike you, the numbers don't lie.
JohnM
....and if he had only seen Oswald from the back, he couldn't have seen the package at all.
Oh for god's sake, stop displaying your childish ignorance.
Exactly, and Frazier testified(when Frazier made his length comparison) he saw Oswald carrying the bag from the back and that he could only see a strip, therefore Frazier made an assumption.
Thanks for making my case even stronger! Thumb1:
Frazier testified in court that Oswald could have carried the bag out in front.
JohnM
I am 6'3 ft which is equal to 1,83 meter....
JohnM
Having fun playing with on line converters?
At least now you know that the height of a person in metric is measured in meters and centimeters and not as you incorrectly did in millimeters.
See, you've learned something. Good for you Thumb1:
Having fun playing with on line converters?
At least now you know that the height of a person in metric is measured in meters and centimeters and not as you incorrectly did in millimeters.
See, you've learned something. Good for you
Yes, exposing a dirty rotten liar is always fun!
Not only do you have no knowledge of the Metric system, you don't even know how an online converter works because if you did, you could have avoided a World of hurt!
1) An online converter doesn't know that I'm measuring a person, it takes an arbitrary number and converts it.
2) The input number could be the diameter of a human hair, the length of a car, the height of the Empire State Building or the distance to the moon!
3) I could have chosen an online converter that converts Kilometres, Metres, Centimetres, Millimetres into inches, yards miles or whatever.
4) But I chose metres into inches, so you couldn't weasel your way out of your lies!
Yes, I learnt that why in the past you've been so easy to defeat, you're basically a few cans short of a six pack!
BTW you are either 6 foot 3 or 1830mm or a lot shorter, way shorter! But whatever you are, next time learn from this mistake, that when you lie it will ALWAYS, ALWAYS come back and bite you on the Bum! Ouch!
JohnM
And on and on he goes.... I really must have pissed you off, judging by your latest idiotic rant.
Not only do you have no knowledge of the Metric system
He says to a guy who was raised using the metric system..... Hilarious!
But I'll be the bigger person and let you have the last word, because I'm sure you (and your massive ego) won't be able to control yourself.... :D
And on and on he goes.... I really must have pissed you off, judging by your latest idiotic rant.
He says to a guy who was raised using the metric system..... Hilarious!
But I'll be the bigger person and let you have the last word, because I'm sure you (and your massive ego) won't be able to control yourself.... :D
Seriously John, you are stymied by this? You think he carried both the top,---- “the top....had a grip like this”
AND “ the bottom he carried this way” ---- you are stating he did this with one giant hand.
Right hand: and he carried it in his right hand, had the top sort of folded down and had a grip like this,
Left hand: and the bottom, he carried it this way
Mr. BALL. And he was grabbing it with his right hand at the top of the package and the package almost touched the ground?
Mrs. RANDLE. Yes, sir.
Just admit it Martin, you've been caught out and you are just a short ass, and there's nothing wrong with that!
BTW Oswald also had a problem with being 5 foot 9 and when he could get away with it, he would regularly add 2 inches.
(https://i.postimg.cc/VkfqpDLv/Oswald-ID-5-foot-11.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/Pqc1LHbv/oswald-passport-5-foot-11-b.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/BZ513HzK/oswald-autopsy-report.jpg)
JohnM
Yeah, that’s what I thought. She didn’t say both hands or indeed anything about the left hand at all. You made one giant assumption based on your self-serving desire for what you want “carried it this way” to mean, and then just claimed that she said it.
Normally John your posts are reasoned and logical. Not this one. It is known where his right hand is. If not his left hand, what exactly is the bottom being carried by. What is meant by “and the bottom, he carried it this way,” What did he use to carry the bottom of the package? You honestly need the word left to figure it out?
How about punctuation of the transcript and then her train of thought, back to the one hand he used to carry it.
Or how about an edit in the transcript done but not picked up and clarified in the final printing? Transcripts were edited.
“...and the bottom...he carried it this way...”
There is no mention of any other hand but his right. - The Commission disagrees with you and is clear in the Report which hand it was.
Your argument is futile and other nutters don't even back you. A LN arguing against the Report is just making it up as he/she goes.
Normally John your posts are reasoned and logical. Not this one. It is known where his right hand is. If not his left hand, what exactly is the bottom being carried by. What is meant by “and the bottom, he carried it this way,” What did he use to carry the bottom of the package? You honestly need the word left to figure it out?
Frazier testified in court that Oswald could have carried the bag out in front.
Capasse; Linnie May
“and he carried it in his right hand, had the top sort of folded down and had a grip like this, and the bottom, he carried it this way, you know, and it almost touched the ground as he carried it”
Is the problem you do not want to change it in your website.
Obviously even you can understand what she is saying because you are struggling to try and dismiss it.
Without watching her, we don’t know what “this way” means or what she was trying to convey about the bottom. She only mentioned the right hand. If “figuring out” to you means guessing, then at least admit that.
If the bottom is almost touching the ground, how are you supposed to stick your other hand there and still walk?
Simple deductive reasoning is figuring it out.
Frazier had the hand underneath the bottom. That is not what she is saying. The package is 3 and 1/2 feet long.
I have to keep reminding you that I took your word for something that I didn't check. I won't do that again.
There is no other mention of any other hand. The Warren Commission Report is disputing what you are guessing.
Point to where I posted on JFKBoards anything about LMR and a 2 handed estimate.
Thumb1: I am not struggling with anything. You are on your own on this one.
That’s just a fancy way of saying wild-ass guess.
Frazier didn’t carry a package. And no, it was 27 inches long. If you’re gripping it near the top, there is no need for the other hand to be involved.
Explain what is in her explanation that makes it is a guess.
You didn’t see her testify. You don’t know what “carried it this way” means. Joseph Ball did see what she was doing, and there’s nothing in what follows to indicate that she did anything with her left hand. Speaking of pure speculation.
Mr. BALL. Let me see. He carried it in his right hand, did he?
Mrs. RANDLE. That is right.
Mr. BALL. And where was his hand gripping the middle of the package?
Mrs. RANDLE. No, sir; the top with just a little bit sticking up. You know just like you grab something like that.
Mr. BALL. And he was grabbing it with his right hand at the top of the package and the package almost touched the ground?
Mrs. RANDLE. Yes, sir.
and there’s nothing in what follows to indicate that she did anything with her left hand. Speaking of pure speculation.
As opposed to guessing what Joseph Ball saw and subsequently interpreted from Linnie May can somehow be considered a fact. There are other questions Ball should have elaborated on but did not. He does not ask her how high off the ground was his right hand holding the package and the package subsequently almost touching the ground. Was his hand even with his chin, chest, belly, waist, or below his waist? He does not ask that question either. He does ask the length. That in itself would have put to rest any question as to bag length. So, what does that mean? He is not interested in the true length of the bag?
So, all the questions left unanswered means they were not important?
The quote from Ball looks an awful lot like cherry picking. Another pet peeve of yours. He is just asking her how he was holding the bag with his right hand. Nothing more or less.
You may not like what she said but she did say it. Just like Capasee, pretending she did not say what she said and then offer various excuses for her statement about how it was all a mistake.
It is obviously not convenient that she stated - “and the bottom, he carried it this way” but she did say it and “and the bottom, he carried it this way” does not have a lot of other meanings.
Thumb1: It's too bad she neglected one word in her description: leftYou may not like what she said but she did say it. Just like Capasee, pretending she did not say what she said and then offer various excuses for her statement about how it was all a mistake.
You may not ike what she said but she did say it. Just like Capasee, pretending she did not say what she said and then offer various excuses for her statement about how it was all a mistake.
I have no problem at all with what she said. You're the one pretending she said something that isn't there.
No mistake. Nothing was corrected by the attorney, or the written report. The witness made no correction.
Mr. BALL. Let me see. He carried it in his right hand, did he?
Mrs. RANDLE. That is right
You forgot this: “and the bottom, he carried it this way”
Mrs. RANDLE. He was carrying a package in a sort of a heavy brown bag, heavier than a grocery bag it looked to me. It was about, if I might measure, about this long, I suppose, and he carried it in his right hand, had the top sort of folded down and had a grip like this...and the bottom....he carried it this way, you know...and it almost touched the ground as he carried it.
It never got corrected....
Train of thought. No other hand is mentioned.
You may not like what she said but she did say it. Just like Capasee, pretending she did not say what she said and then offer various excuses for her statement about how it was all a mistake.
You have it exactly backwards. You are pretending that she said something she never said.
When Linnie May stated “and the bottom, he carried it this way” means what?
Your speculative guess about what she meant isn't any more correct than anybody else's, and it's certainly not something you can just declare as a fact. "It" could refer to the package, not "the bottom". You can't determine that from a transcript. She could have started to say something like "and the bottom was a few inches off the ground", but interrupted herself to say "he carried it this way", demonstrating a right-handed grip near the top of the package. Either way, she says nothing about the left hand. It's all in your mind.
Mr. BALL. Let me see. He carried it in his right hand, did he?
Mrs. RANDLE. That is right.
and he carried it in his right hand, had the top sort of folded down and had a grip like this, and the bottom, he carried it this way, you know, and it almost touched the ground as he carried it”
Point to any document, statement, or otherwise that refers, "...carried it this way.." as meaning left hand.
My fault for not posting her complete statement on how the bag was being carried as you obviously were unaware of what she had already stated about the top of the package before she focuses on the bottom of it . She had already explained how the top was being carried and then she shifted her explanation to the bottom by stating “and”--- “and the bottom”. So, you are now speculating she now explains again how the top was being held? By using the word “bottom” That actually makes sense to you? John. logic is your specialty don’t let it fail you now.
This is two completely different explanations for two different areas of the bag.
What is obvious, is you clearly understand how her statement cannot be used to explain a shorter bag than her estimate of 42 inches.
"and he carried it in his right hand, had the top sort of folded down and had a grip like this,"
His right hand was being used to "grip" the top. Were you thinking he used his middle hand? Only in conspiracy land could LHO have three hands.
I see. So your arrogantly expressed, contrived interpretation is automatically superior to any other interpretation, because . . . reasons. Believe whatever you like, but don't call it "logic". She said NOTHING about the left hand, no matter how badly you want it to mean that.
BS: There is nothing about that description that tells you a single thing about how long the package was. And her estimate was 27-28 1/2 inches.
When all else fails, trot out a ridiculous strawman.
Wow John. Such vitriol. All I did was point out your wild speculation seemingly without full knowledge of Linnie May’s statement and suddenly you become a poster child for everything you don’t like about everyone else’s posting. Maybe it would be better to post Cool Story Bro or LOL.
Here I will post it again and you can take another shot at it. It would be nice to see a better answer.
"My fault for not posting her complete statement on how the bag was being carried as you obviously were unaware of what she had already stated about the top of the package before she focuses on the bottom of it . She had already explained how the top was being carried and then she shifted her explanation to the bottom by stating “and”--- “and the bottom”. So, you are now speculating she now explains again how the top was being held? By using the word “bottom” That actually makes sense to you? John. logic is your specialty don’t let it fail you now."
| (https://i.vgy.me/0F7zpk.jpg) | (https://i.vgy.me/faUlzT.jpg) |
It's not vitriol. You think your wild speculation is somehow superior to any other wild speculation. And you thinking couching it in smug, condescending language somehow makes it something other than wild speculation.
Meanwhile, Linnie Mae said exactly ZERO about the left hand.
Some more evidence that only one hand was involved.
(https://i.vgy.me/0F7zpk.jpg) (https://i.vgy.me/faUlzT.jpg)
It's not vitriol. You think your wild speculation is somehow superior to any other wild speculation. And you thinking couching it in smug, condescending language somehow makes it something other than wild speculation.
Meanwhile, Linnie Mae said exactly ZERO about the left hand.
Are you sure?
This is something you do not see very often. The spider seems to be caught in his own web. Speculating without knowing what you were speculating about.
Your speculation is she made a mistake and meant to say what it turns out she had already stated. Only you apparently did not know she had.
Do you have any idea what a player looks like carrying his bat to home plate?
Yes, I'm sure. She says nothing about "both hands" or the left hand. Anywhere. It's all in your mind.
So in the Jack Nessan-universe, only Jack's speculation has the force of fact. Any other speculation is merely speculation.
As a matter of fact, I do.
(https://i.vgy.me/WkohEB.png)
(https://i.vgy.me/32yaW5.png)
(https://i.vgy.me/O6zssC.png)
(https://i.vgy.me/FiJYql.png)
Nice post. Four picture's that show absolutely nothing. This is becoming typical with your replies. Is there one of them that you think represents LHO? Maybe the woman or how about Babe Ruth he was left handed. Wasn’t that the point of what you posted. The players are all standing somewhere and holding a bat. How is this in way representative of your post of Linnie May’s FBI statement about a righthanded batter grabbing a bat and walking to the plate.
Just a thought maybe pay more attention to what you are doing and possibly make less pointless posts.
Shouldn't you be out convincing other nutters?
. Her statement is kind of a big deal. It reinforces Buell's repeated statement that he never really paid attention to it, because she obviously did.
Too bad the WC or anybody else in the world doesn't agree.
Too bad the WC or anybody else in the world doesn't agree.
Do all you flat earthers think like this?
It probably really hurts to have Linnie May rain on your parade like this.
I can think of two people who agree, you and John I. You may not like it, but you cannot say it is wrong.
Here is the problem. The WC did not pass judgement on these witnesses. They asked them questions and wrote down their answers. Nothing more.
You have yet to prove she was wrong or cast any doubt about what she stated.
Punctuation is your answer. That really is one of the all time great answers. They got the punctuation wrong, love it. Who could doubt you. At least John I tried.
The Warren Report said nothing about holding the bag in his left hand. - in fact specifically said RIGHT hand. nothing more
You're just making that part up.
Quote where they stated he was only holding it in his right hand. Not mentioning his left hand has no meaning.
He carried a "heavy brown bag." Oswald gripped the bag in his right hand near the top. (page 131-133)
Thumb1: ...no mention, has no meaning to you 'cause you're making the rest up.
Actually there is:
”and he carried it in his right hand, had the top sort of folded down and had a grip like this, and the bottom, he carried it this way, you know, and it almost touched the ground as he carried it
Only you can envision him carrying the top and the bottom with the same hand.
Right back where you started. All by yourself.
Pure Strawman. Violating one more of your classic posts. Completely unable to explain her statement as being anything but her describing his left hand.
Are you ever going to stop circling the obvious and admit it? His left hand is the only answer, and you and Capasse have repeatedly proven this or there would be another answer instead of this continual Mickey Mouse show.
Nice post. Four picture's that show absolutely nothing. This is becoming typical with your replies. Is there one of them that you think represents LHO? Maybe the woman or how about Babe Ruth he was left handed. Wasn’t that the point of what you posted. The players are all standing somewhere and holding a bat. How is this in way representative of your post of Linnie May’s FBI statement about a righthanded batter grabbing a bat and walking to the plate.
Linnie May--”and he carried it in his right hand, had the top sort of folded down and had a grip like this, and the bottom, he carried it this way, you know, and it almost touched the ground as he carried it”