JFK Assassination Forum
JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => Topic started by: Ross Lidell on May 26, 2019, 04:19:02 AM
-
In June 1967 the CBS Television Network broadcast "A CBS News Inquiry - The Warren Report".
The 4-night series was hosted by Walter Cronkite. It investigated issues raised by the critics of the Warren Report.
CBS News correspondent Dan Rather went to Dallas and participated in several reconstructions of Lee Harvey Oswald's actions on 22 November 1963. One considered the claim that the package carried by Oswald on the day of the assassination was too short to contain his Carcano rifle.
Linnie May Randle and Buell Frazier both estimated (from memory) the length of the package that Lee Oswald carried on the morning of the assassination-day was a maximum of approximately 27 inches. This was about 8 inches shorter than the package would be if it contained Oswald's Carcano rifle disassembled. The longest component part of the Carcano was the wooden stock which measured 34.8 inches.
Buell Frazier testified that Oswald carried the package with the lower part "cupped" in his hand and the upper part under his armpit.
Dan Rather asked viewers to consider: Was his demonstration of carrying 35-inch long paper-bag—containing a disassembled Carcano rifle—consistent with how Buell Frazier described Lee Oswald taking the supposed package of curtain rods towards the Texas School Book Depository?
Dan Rather's demonstration is fascinating whether you agree with its premise or not.
-
In June 1967 the CBS Television Network broadcast "A CBS News Inquiry - The Warren Report".
The 4-night series was hosted by Walter Cronkite. It investigated issues raised by the critics of the Warren Report.
CBS News correspondent Dan Rather went to Dallas and participated in several reconstructions of Lee Harvey Oswald's actions on 22 November 1963. One considered the claim that the package carried by Oswald on the day of the assassination was too short to contain his Carcano rifle.
Linnie May Randle and Buell Frazier both estimated (from memory) the length of the package that Lee Oswald carried on the morning of the assassination-day was a maximum of approximately 27 inches. This was about 8 inches shorter than the package would be if it contained Oswald's Carcano rifle disassembled. The longest component part of the Carcano was the wooden stock which measured 34.8 inches.
Buell Frazier testified that Oswald carried the package with the lower part "cupped" in his hand and the upper part under his armpit.
Dan Rather asked viewers to consider: Was his demonstration of carrying 35-inch long paper-bag—containing a disassembled Carcano rifle—consistent with how Buell Frazier described Lee Oswald taking the supposed package of curtain rods towards the Texas School Book Depository?
Dan Rather's demonstration is fascinating whether you agree with its premise or not.
Perhaps Oswald used his other hand to balance/hold the package (with the rifle) in front of him? Then the bag/rifle could be slanted a little, so the tip was closer to the center of Oswald's body. The tip of the package would then not be visible from behind. It is a bulky package for Oswald to carry with only one arm with the top apparently not sealed (credit to Colin Crowe there). Dan Rather's bag is sealed at both ends making it much easier to carry with one arm.
-
Perhaps Oswald used his other hand to balance/hold the package (with the rifle) in front of him? Then the bag/rifle could be slanted a little, so the tip was closer to the center of Oswald's body. The tip of the package would then not be visible from behind. It is a bulky package for Oswald to carry with only one arm with the top apparently not sealed (credit to Colin Crowe there). Dan Rather's bag is sealed at both ends making it much easier to carry with one arm.
Ever considered the possibility that Dan Rather's bag does not actually resemble the bag Oswald carried?
-
Perhaps Oswald used his other hand to balance/hold the package (with the rifle) in front of him? Then the bag/rifle could be slanted a little, so the tip was closer to the center of Oswald's body. The tip of the package would then not be visible from behind. It is a bulky package for Oswald to carry with only one arm with the top apparently not sealed (credit to Colin Crowe there). Dan Rather's bag is sealed at both ends making it much easier to carry with one arm.
Yes... it's entirely plausible that Oswald angled the paper-bag forward of his body. That would require using his left hand to steady the heavy package.
It would not have been possible for Frazier to know if Oswald's package fitted neatly under his armpit or protruded forward of his body. Only by viewing the front of Oswald's body could he discern that. Frazier only saw Oswald as he walked behind him.
Conspiracy theorists never consider possible alternatives... why not?
-
Yes... it's entirely plausible that Oswald angled the paper-bag forward of his body. That would require using his left hand to steady the heavy package.
It would not have been possible for Frazier to know if Oswald's package fitted neatly under his armpit or protruded forward of his body. Only by viewing the front of Oswlad's body could he discern that. Frazier only saw Oswald as he walked behind him.
Conspiracy theorists never consider possible alternatives... why not?
Frazier only saw Oswald as he walked behind him.
In order to reach this conclusion you need to cherry-pick the evidence.
Conspiracy theorists never consider possible alternatives... why not?
And LNs always desperately look for alternatives rather than simply accept what Frazier said... Why is that?
-
Ever considered the possibility that Dan Rather's bag does not actually resemble the bag Oswald carried?
Yep
-
Frazier only saw Oswald as he walked behind him.
In order to reach this conclusion you need to cherry-pick the evidence.
Conspiracy theorists never consider possible alternatives... why not?
And LNs always desperately look for alternatives rather than simply accept what Frazier said... Why is that?
In order to reach this conclusion you need to cherry-pick the evidence.
No. Definitely no. Cherry-pick in what way?
You need to provide evidence that Buell Frazier saw Lee Oswald carry the paper-bag looking at the front of his (Oswald's) body.
And LNs always desperately look for alternatives rather than simply accept what Frazier said... Why is that?
-- Because Oswald's rifle was discovered in the TSBD about 45 minutes after the assassination of President Kennedy.
-- Because a paper-bag that was long enough to contain Oswald's "disassembled" Carcano rifle (C2766) was found near the source of the shots fired at President Kennedy. Subsequent forensic examination (by the FBI) found that the paper-bag contained Oswald's right palm-print and left index fingerprint.
This is enough to be curious about the way Oswald carried the paper-bag as viewed by Buell Frazier... and consider alternatives.
Incidentally, I'm not an "LN". On the old version of this forum, I originated the acronym "ODIA".
My conclusion: Oswald did it alone.
-
Frazier only saw Oswald as he walked behind him.
In order to reach this conclusion you need to cherry-pick the evidence.
Conspiracy theorists never consider possible alternatives... why not?
And LNs always desperately look for alternatives rather than simply accept what Frazier said... Why is that?
So the guy who drove the eventual prime suspect to the eventual scene of the crime, and (by his own statement) didn't want to be remembered as the guy who drove the eventual prime suspect to the eventual scene of the crime is beyond reproach.
Got it.
-
Frazier only saw Oswald as he walked behind him.
In order to reach this conclusion you need to cherry-pick the evidence.
Conspiracy theorists never consider possible alternatives... why not?
And LNs always desperately look for alternatives rather than simply accept what Frazier said... Why is that?
MR. BALL -- "What about the width?"
MR. FRAZIER -- "Well, I say, like I say now, now I couldn't see much
of the bag from him walking in front of me. Now he could have had some
of it sticking out in front of his hands because I didn't see it from
the front. The only time I did see it was from the back, just a little
strip running down from your arm and so therefore...I know that the
bag wouldn't be that long. So far as being that wide...I couldn't be
sure."
No cherry picking needed. Why can’t you just accept what Frazier said?
-
In order to reach this conclusion you need to cherry-pick the evidence.
No. Definitely no. Cherry-pick in what way?
You need to provide evidence that Buell Frazier saw Lee Oswald carry the paper-bag looking at the front of his (Oswald's) body.
The best evidence for that is the undisputed fact that Buell Frazier has been saying so for all of his life since the murders. Thumb1:
And LNs always desperately look for alternatives rather than simply accept what Frazier said... Why is that?
-- Because Oswald's rifle was discovered in the TSBD about 45 minutes after the assassination of President Kennedy.
-- Because a paper-bag that was long enough to contain Oswald's Carcano rifle (C2766) was found near the source of the shots fired at President Kennedy. Subsequent forensic examination (by the FBI) found that the paper-bag contained Oswald's right palm-print and left index fingerprint.
This is enough to be curious about the way Oswald carried the paper-bag as viewed by Buell Frazier... and consider alternatives.
Incidentally, I'm not an "LN". On the old version of this forum, I originated the acronym "ODIA".
My conclusion: Oswald did it alone.
This is enough to be curious about the way Oswald carried the paper-bag as viewed by Buell Frazier…
Agreed. It's enough to be curious but it is not enough to dismiss Frazier's version out of hand, yet that's what you seem to be doing.
-
So the guy who drove the eventual prime suspect to the eventual scene of the crime, and (by his own statement) didn't want to be remembered as the guy who drove the eventual prime suspect to the eventual scene of the crime is beyond reproach.
Got it.
No. You don't get it.
-
MR. BALL -- "What about the width?"
MR. FRAZIER -- "Well, I say, like I say now, now I couldn't see much
of the bag from him walking in front of me. Now he could have had some
of it sticking out in front of his hands because I didn't see it from
the front. The only time I did see it was from the back, just a little
strip running down from your arm and so therefore...I know that the
bag wouldn't be that long. So far as being that wide...I couldn't be
sure."
No cherry picking needed. Why can’t you just accept what Frazier said?
Why can’t you just accept what Frazier said?
Oh but I do... I take all his statements over the past decades in consideration and not just what he said once in what must have been a highly stressfull situation for him.
You on the other hand seem to pick one statement and ignore the rest..... some might call that cherry picking.
-
No. You don't get it.
Wow! Clever comeback Marty. Thumb1:
-
Why can’t you just accept what Frazier said?
Oh but I do... I take all his statements over the past decades in consideration and not just what he said once in what must have been a highly stressfull situation for him.
You on the other hand seem to pick one statement and ignore the rest..... so might call that cherry picking.
He was under oath to tell the truth to the WC.
-
Why can’t you just accept what Frazier said?
Oh but I do... I take all his statements over the past decades in consideration and not just what he said once in what must have been a highly stressfull situation for him.
You on the other hand seem to pick one statement and ignore the rest..... so might call that cherry picking.
Do you have anything specific that Buell Frazier said in later years that would invalidate his contemporaneous statements about how Oswald carried the paper-bag--towards the TSBD--on 22 November 1963?
-
Wow! Clever comeback Marty. Thumb1:
It was all that was needed.
-
He was under oath to tell the truth to the WC.
So, all testimony given under oath is always complete and 100% correct.... Is that your position?
-
MR. BALL -- "What about the width?"
MR. FRAZIER -- "Well, I say, like I say now, now I couldn't see much
of the bag from him walking in front of me. Now he could have had some
of it sticking out in front of his hands because I didn't see it from
the front. The only time I did see it was from the back, just a little
strip running down from your arm and so therefore...I know that the
bag wouldn't be that long. So far as being that wide...I couldn't be
sure."
No cherry picking needed. Why can’t you just accept what Frazier said?
Actually he also saw the package on the back seat.
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?"
I understand that the back seat of Frazier's car was measured at 62" and would provide some points of reference . Obviously a 35" bag takes up more than half of the seat (56%) where as a 24" estimate occupies less than half (39%).
Mr. FRAZIER - He got out of the car and he was wearing the jacket that has the big sleeves in them and he put the package that he had, you know, that he told me was curtain rods up under his arm, you know, and so he walked down behind the car and standing over there at the end of the cyclone fence waiting for me to get out of the car, and so quick as I cut the engine off and started out of the car, shut the door just as I was starting out just like getting out of the car, he started walking off and so I followed him in.
So, eventually there he kept getting a little further ahead of me and I noticed we had plenty of time to get there because it is not too far from the Depository and usually I walk around and watch them switching the trains because you have to watch where you are going if you have to cross the tracks.
One day you go across one track and maybe there would be some cars sitting there and there would be another diesel coming there, so you have to watch when you cross the tracks, I just walked along and I just like to watch them switch the cars, so eventually he kept getting a little further ahead of me and by that time we got down there pretty close to the Depository Building there, I say, he would be as much as, I would say, roughly 50 feet in front of me but I didn't try to catch up with him because I knew I had plenty of time so I just took my time walking up there.
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.
It seems that Oswald picked up the package and then waited for Frazier. It had been raining that morning and it could be that it was Frazier who dawdled behind Oswald for the first time.
-
Do you have anything specific that Buell Frazier said in later years that would invalidate his contemporaneous statements about how Oswald carried the paper-bag--towards the TSBD--on 22 November 1963?
You mean; "in the cup of his hand and under his armpit"?
No, because that's what he has been saying all along.
-
You mean; "in the cup of his hand and under his armpit"?
No, because that's what he has been saying all along.
That does not preclude a longer package that would not fit between the cupped hand and armpit BUT would protrude:
1.) A few inches above Oswald's shoulder.
2.) On an angle forward of Oswald's body.
That's been possible "all along" according to Buell Frazier's testimonies.
Consider this: What an incredible fluke that the Oswald's "curtain rod / lunch" package was exactly the length of the distance between his cupped hand and his armpit.
Aren't you (Martin) a believer that Oswald's paper-sack contained his lunch? The 2 feet give or take a few inches paper-sack!!!
How many people (in the history of the world) have ever carried their lunch under their arm... between a cupped hand and armpit??
-
No. You don't get it.
Thanks for confirming that you are the one not willing to consider alternatives.
-
Thanks for confirming that you are the one not willing to consider alternatives.
Where and when did I do that?
And what alternative was there to consider?
-
That does not preclude a longer package that would not fit between the cupped hand and armpit BUT would protrude:
1.) A few inches above Oswald's shoulder.
2.) On an angle forward of Oswald's body.
That's been possible "all along" according to Buell Frazier's testimonies.
All sorts of things are possible in a case so badly investigated as this. It's possible that Frazier saw indeed only a flimsy bag, rather than the heavy duty one allegedly found at the TSBD. It's even possible that Frazier made up the curtain rods story and Oswald was indeed carrying only a lunch bag. The trouble with all those possibilities is that you don't get to pick one as the only true one. Something being possible doesn't mean it's true or that something else is not true.
All we do know for sure is that Frazier has denied the WC narrative all his life, and he was the one who was actually there. Why not deal with that rather than trying to discredit the man?
Consider this: What an incredible fluke that the Oswald's "curtain rod / lunch" package was exactly the length of the distance between his cupped hand and his armpit.
Why would that be an "incredible fluke" considering that curtain rods do actually have roughly that same length?
Aren't you (Martin) a believer that Oswald's paper-sack contained his lunch? The 2 feet give or take a few inches paper-sack!!!
Did I ever say I believed that? I don't think so, but feel free to prove me wrong. I know Oswald apparently told his interrogators that he only brought a lunch but I don't recall him ever saying that the bag was "2 feet give or take a few inches" long. It seems you are mixing up statements from different people
How many people (in the history of the world) have ever carried their lunch under their arm... between a cupped hand and armpit??
I have no idea. Do you? I was in Paris not all that long ago and those baguettes are just about the size of an arm :D
-
Where and when did I do that?
And what alternative was there to consider?
Stop playing games. The alternative, indeed the overarching alternative, is abundantly clear.
-
Why can’t you just accept what Frazier said?
Oh but I do... I take all his statements over the past decades in consideration and not just what he said once in what must have been a highly stressfull situation for him.
You on the other hand seem to pick one statement and ignore the rest..... some might call that cherry picking.
Yep, Frazier sticks with his story all right; making sure to keep his stated estimation of the package Oswald brought to work shorter than even a broken-down rifle. Do I have to spell this out?
-
So, all testimony given under oath is always complete and 100% correct.... Is that your position?
No, not at all. My point is that you appear to be discounting his WC testimony and suggesting that he has said something contrary in the years since then. All I am saying is that he isn't under oath to tell the truth in the typical interviews, etc he has done since the WC testimony.
-
(https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/carcano/oswald-carry-towards-depository.png)
The circumference of the paper bag is about 16" (folded bag laid flat was about 8" across). The paper bag in the 3D depiction is well within the circumference.
This is some dispute as to which jacket Oswald wore to work, so a generic jacket-collar was used (the default white color doesn't mean I think he was wearing that color of jacket).
The area visible between the right armpit and right hand would have been totally filled with the paper bag color. According to the WCR, 34.8" is the length of the wooden stock.
(https://www.libertytreecollectors.com/productcart/pc/catalog/CarcanoM38FrontBandScrews(1).JPG)
I was able to get the end of the barrel through the detached front band, which rests at the bottom of the bag.
(https://www.libertytreecollectors.com/productcart/pc/catalog/DSC08105.JPG)
I have allowed room for the trigger assembly but have not drawn it yet on my Carcano model.
The oversized numerals are as they appear in SketchUp.
-
Well done.
-
(https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/carcano/oswald-carry-towards-depository.png)
The circumference of the paper bag is about 16" (folded bag laid flat was about 8" across). The paper bag in the 3D depiction is well within the circumference.
This is some dispute as to which jacket Oswald wore to work, so a generic jacket-collar was used (the default white color doesn't mean I think he was wearing that color of jacket).
The area visible between the right armpit and right hand would have been totally filled with the paper bag color. According to the WCR, 34.8" is the length of the wooden stock.
(https://www.apexgunparts.com/pub/media/catalog/product/cache/c0c0d8fd913b540e06077a15de22ad66/0/5/05mar15_carcano_frt_band_mid.jpg)
I was able to get the end of the barrel through the detached front band, which rests at the bottom of the bag. I have allowed room for the trigger assembly but have not drawn it yet on my Carcano model.
The oversized numerals are as they appear in SketchUp.
Nice work. The only thing that I think you might want to consider is the testimony of Frazier that concerns what he calls the big sleeves of the jacket. I think that he made the point (a couple of times) that the oversized (baggy?) sleeves blocked the view (from behind) of most of the package.
-
(https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/carcano/oswald-carry-towards-depository.png)
The circumference of the paper bag is about 16" (folded bag laid flat was about 8" across). The paper bag in the 3D depiction is well within the circumference.
This is some dispute as to which jacket Oswald wore to work, so a generic jacket-collar was used (the default white color doesn't mean I think he was wearing that color of jacket).
The area visible between the right armpit and right hand would have been totally filled with the paper bag color. According to the WCR, 34.8" is the length of the wooden stock.
(https://www.libertytreecollectors.com/productcart/pc/catalog/CarcanoM38FrontBandScrews(1).JPG)
I was able to get the end of the barrel through the detached front band, which rests at the bottom of the bag.
(https://www.libertytreecollectors.com/productcart/pc/catalog/DSC08105.JPG)
I have allowed room for the trigger assembly but have not drawn it yet on my Carcano model.
The oversized numerals are as they appear in SketchUp.
Well done Jerry. How was the top of the bag sealed? Square fold over or taped like Dan Rather's example?
-
Square fold over or taped like Dan Rather's example?
Ruth Paine testified that the blanket was secured by a number of parallel strings and it follows that Oswald after inserting his rifle into his open ended sack would use his same methodology to secure the top, why change an established winning formula?
As Jerry's graphic shows, only the top few inches needs to be tightly secured and it appears that in the following photo taken outside the Depository just a couple of hours later that the amount of scrunching on the end of Oswald's actual bag fits the bill perfectly. Case Closed. Time to get a life!
(https://i.postimg.cc/X7jwDQDx/oswald-bag-scrunched.jpg)
(https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/carcano/oswald-carry-towards-depository.png)
Mr. BALL. I have one question, Mr. Chief Justice. You used an expression there, that the bag appeared heavy.
Mrs. RANDLE. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. You meant that there was some weight appeared to--
Mrs. RANDLE. To the bottom.
Mr. BALL. To the bottom?
Mrs. RANDLE. Yes. It tapered like this as he hugged it in his hand. It was more bulky toward the bottom than it was this way.
Mr. BELIN. Toward the top? More bulky toward the bottom than toward the top?
Mrs. RANDLE. That is right.
(https://i.postimg.cc/zfvzXJCb/Oswalds-package-Randle.jpg)
JohnM
-
Ruth Paine testified that the blanket was secured by a number of parallel strings and it follows that Oswald after inserting his rifle into his open ended sack would use his same methodology to secure the top, why change an established winning formula?
As Jerry's graphic shows, only the top few inches needs to be tightly secured and it appears that in the following photo taken outside the Depository just a couple of hours later that the amount of scrunching on the end of Oswald's actual bag fits the bill perfectly. Case Closed. Time to get a life!
(https://i.postimg.cc/X7jwDQDx/oswald-bag-scrunched.jpg)
(https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/carcano/oswald-carry-towards-depository.png)
Mr. BALL. I have one question, Mr. Chief Justice. You used an expression there, that the bag appeared heavy.
Mrs. RANDLE. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. You meant that there was some weight appeared to--
Mrs. RANDLE. To the bottom.
Mr. BALL. To the bottom?
Mrs. RANDLE. Yes. It tapered like this as he hugged it in his hand. It was more bulky toward the bottom than it was this way.
Mr. BELIN. Toward the top? More bulky toward the bottom than toward the top?
Mrs. RANDLE. That is right.
(https://i.postimg.cc/zfvzXJCb/Oswalds-package-Randle.jpg)
JohnM
So secured in some fashion. No need to cut with scissors as you previously speculated? Are you now going with disassembled? String or tape or just gravity? You don’t have a life John?
-
Stop playing games. The alternative, indeed the overarching alternative, is abundantly clear.
No it isn't. It's something Bugs concoted based on no evidence whatsoever in an attempt to discredit a witness.
Considering alternatives for which there is at least some evidence is one thing. Considering a wacky theory with no evidence to support is something else entirely.
-
So secured in some fashion. No need to cut with scissors as you previously speculated? Are you now going with disassembled? String or tape or just gravity? You don’t have a life John?
Yawn, again with the 20 questions and even though every LNer answer I see here is practical and possible you just want to poo-poo everything and then ask the same 20 questions all over again ad nauseum, I don't know if you're insane or I'm more insane because I stick around?
So secured in some fashion.
Well the only place the rifle could be exposed when in a folded bag would be when the rifle was laying down on the back seat and unless Frazier drove like a maniac then the chances of exposure with the most open solution is fairly small.
No need to cut with scissors as you previously speculated?
Again, none of us are Oswald but I reckon if Oswald wanted to transport the assembled rifle in a taped off bag then he would have just cut off the top. And if the bag wasn't made long enough then it's perfectly feasible that he just tied the bag off. See I can't lose, all roads lead to Rome.
Are you now going with disassembled?
See above.
String or tape or just gravity?
Of course, any of the 3 could work.
String on a disassembled rifle wouldn't necessarily show any marks.
Tape on an assembled rifle could simply be cut off.
And since Oswald wasn't wielding the long bag like Excalibur and based on the evidence of Oswald holding the bag upright then a fold would be more than adequate.
You don’t have a life John?
Not lately, I'm recovering.
JohnM
-
No it isn't. It's something Bugs concoted based on no evidence whatsoever in an attempt to discredit a witness.
Considering alternatives for which there is at least some evidence is one thing. Considering a wacky theory with no evidence to support is something else entirely.
What 'something' are you referring to, exactly? That Buell might have indeed decided to not take the chance of frying along with Dirty Harvey, or at least possibly facing a lifetime of genpop suspicion?
>>>@Newbies: Buell himself showed concern about a possible general outcry. He did in fact suffer somewhat for being the guy who drove the eventual prime suspect to the eventual scene of the crime. And it's not beyond the realm of possibility (unless you're a CTard) that Buell's sister would be somewhat reluctant to be known as the sister of the guy who drove the eventual prime suspect to the eventual scene of the crime.<<<
Tell us what's 'wacky' about self-preservation.
-
(@Martin)
Yawn, again with the 20 questions and even though every LNer answer I see here is practical and possible you just want to poo-poo everything and then ask the same 20 questions all over again ad nauseum, I don't know if you're insane or I'm more insane because I stick around?
>>> Your lengthy absence led me to believe you were either ill, or had finally had enough of these lunatics. In any case, at least one CTard took credit for your absence.
Well the only place the rifle could be exposed when in a folded bag would be when the rifle was laying down on the back seat and unless Frazier drove like a maniac then the chances of exposure with the most open solution is fairly small.
>>> Close. Buell wasn't driving like a maniac, he was driving a maniac.
-
What 'something' are you referring to, exactly? That Buell might have indeed decided to not take the chance of frying along with Dirty Harvey, or at least possibly facing a lifetime of genpop suspicion?
(@Newbies: Buell himself stated as much about the latter possible 'genpop' thing. He did in fact suffer somewhat for him being the guy who drove the eventual prime suspect to the eventual scene of the crime. And it's not beyond the realm of possibility that Buell's sister would be somewhat reluctant to be known as the sister of the guy who drove the eventual prime suspect to the eventual scene of the crime.
Tell us what's 'wacky' about self-preservation.
What 'something' are you referring to, exactly?
Your so-called "overarching alternative"
(@Newbies: Buell himself stated as much about the latter possible 'genpop' thing.
@ Newbies: No he didn't state that.
Tell us what's 'wacky' about self-preservation.
I never said self-preservation is 'wacky', so your question is invalid and irrelevant
-
(@Martin)
Yawn, again with the 20 questions and even though every LNer answer I see here is practical and possible you just want to poo-poo everything and then ask the same 20 questions all over again ad nauseum, I don't know if you're insane or I'm more insane because I stick around?
>>> Your lengthy absence led me to believe you were either ill, or had finally had enough of these lunatics. In any case, at least one CTard took credit for your absence.
Well the only place the rifle could be exposed when in a folded bag would be when the rifle was laying down on the back seat and unless Frazier drove like a maniac then the chances of exposure with the most open solution is fairly small.
>>> Close. Buell wasn't driving like a maniac, he was driving a maniac.
I don't really want to know what goes on in your head, but you seem extremely confused
-
Yawn, again with the 20 questions and even though every LNer answer I see here is practical and possible you just want to poo-poo everything and then ask the same 20 questions all over again ad nauseum, I don't know if you're insane or I'm more insane because I stick around?
JohnM
Actually just 4 questions John, and only 3 relating to the evidence. If I've told you once I've told you a million times it doesn't help to exaggerate!
Jack Nessan is supporting the 42" sack, maybe you missed his contribution. Or is that claim not worth a response from you?
As for your sanity John......are you doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result?
-
How many people (in the history of the world) have ever carried their lunch under their arm... between a cupped hand and armpit??
...And in a 2 foot long bag. ;)
-
How many people (in the history of the world) have ever carried their lunch under their arm... between a cupped hand and armpit??
...And in a 2 foot long bag. ;)
Is this supposed to somehow demonstrate that there was a rifle in that bag?
-
...And in a 2 foot long bag. ;)
Is this supposed to somehow demonstrate that there was a rifle in that bag?
Pretty sure Oswald didn't try to demonstrate that there was a rifle in that bag.
-
Pretty sure Oswald didn't try to demonstrate that there was a rifle in that bag.
::)
-
::)
;)
-
...And in a 2 foot long bag. ;)
Is this supposed to somehow demonstrate that there was a rifle in that bag?
It's intended to highlight the absurdity of the speculative theory that Oswald's long bag contained lunch.
-
It's intended to highlight the absurdity of the speculative theory that Oswald's long bag contained lunch.
It's not a "speculative theory". Oswald (allegedly) told Fritz that he brought a sack with his lunch.
But whether that's true or not, how do you get from "not a lunch" to "rifle"?
-
It's not a "speculative theory". Oswald (allegedly) told Fritz that he brought a sack with his lunch.
But whether that's true or not, how do you get from "not a lunch" to "rifle"?
So Lee Harvey Oswald told Captain Will Fritz that the bag he carried contained his lunch!!! Why would you accept an accused assassin's statement compared to two (2) witnesses who are not concerned about execution in the electric chair?
Oswald's alleged statement should be compared to those of witnesses who saw the long paper-sack he carried at Irving and Dallas.
Frazier asked Oswald (at Irving) what was in the sack. Oswald said it was "the" curtain rods.
Frazier said that Oswald carried the paper-sack (at Dallas) with the lower part in the palm of his hand and the upper part under his armpit. That's too long for a lunch "sack" unless it contained french bread and celery stalks. :D
Aren't you one of the "researchers" who accepts Randle's and Frazier's "estimates" that the paper-sack (that Oswald carried) was 2 feet long give or take a few inches? Can that possibly be a sack that contained "lunch"?
John: Less polite members of the forum (than me) might call you a contrarian.
-
So Lee Harvey Oswald told Captain Will Fritz that the bag he carried contained his lunch!!! Why would you accept an accused assassin's statement compared to two (2) witnesses who are not concerned about execution in the electric chair?
Why do you selectively accept what those two witnesses said?
Frazier said that Oswald carried the paper-sack (at Dallas) with the lower part in the palm of his hand and the upper part under his armpit. That's too long for a lunch "sack" unless it contained french bread and celery stalks. :D
And too short for the alleged murder weapon. Who says it didn't contain french bread?
John: Less polite members of the forum (than me) might call you a contrarian.
I'm still trying to figure out how you make the leap from "too long for a lunch" to "rifle".
-
Why do you selectively accept what those two witnesses said?
And too short for the alleged murder weapon. Who says it didn't contain french bread?
I'm still trying to figure out how you make the leap from "too long for a lunch" to "rifle".
You're making silly statements John... "the contrarian".
Example: You're implying that Ruth Paine (or Marina) had "french bread" at the house at Irving. That's a big amount of bread for one man to eat for lunch.
-
Why do you selectively accept what those two witnesses said?
And too short for the alleged murder weapon. Who says it didn't contain french bread?
I'm still trying to figure out how you make the leap from "too long for a lunch" to "rifle".
Why do you selectively accept what those two witnesses said?
Because Buell Frazier and Linnie May Randle saw Oswald's long bag on 22 November 2019. They testified about the "paper-sack" under oath to the Warren Commission.
Why don't YOU accept the statements of these two (2) witnesses?
Stop this silliness John (the devil's advocate) and make a proper contribution to the Forum.
-
Why do you selectively accept what those two witnesses said?
Because Buell Frazier and Linnie May Randle saw Oswald's long bag on 22 November 2019. They testified about the "paper-sack" under oath to the Warren Commission.
Why don't YOU accept the statements of these two (2) witnesses?
Who says I don't? You're the one who selectively accepts "long bag", but rejects "2 feet long" and "flimsy paper".
-
"Curtain rods"...what happened to the curtain rods. If Oswald claimed he had curtain rods in the bag, where they ever found. Obviously not. Because it was a lie to cover up the fact that the bag contained the MC. And he carried it cupped low in his hand in close contact with his body. Entirely consistent with carrying a rifle.
Obviously taking the MC into the TSBD does not prove Oswald was the shooter but Oswald owned an MC, he carried a long paper bag containing an item that could have feasible been an MC. The MC Oswald owned was later found on the 6th floor of the TSBD.
This is not Sherlock Holmes territory. Obviously not every single statement in any murder case can be 100% verified. This is one of those that are 95% factual. Way beyond reasonable doubt.
-
"Curtain rods"...what happened to the curtain rods. If Oswald claimed he had curtain rods in the bag, where they ever found. Obviously not. Because it was a lie to cover up the fact that the bag contained the MC. And he carried it cupped low in his hand in close contact with his body. Entirely consistent with carrying a rifle.
Obviously taking the MC into the TSBD does not prove Oswald was the shooter but Oswald owned an MC, he carried a long paper bag containing an item that could have feasible been an MC. The MC Oswald owned was later found on the 6th floor of the TSBD.
This is not Sherlock Holmes territory. Obviously not every single statement in any murder case can be 100% verified. This is one of those that are 95% factual. Way beyond reasonable doubt.
Keep posting those kind of sensible, logical conclusions Alan: Your gonna get a lot of nonsensical replies from "contrarians".
-
Who says I don't? You're the one who selectively accepts "long bag", but rejects "2 feet long" and "flimsy paper".
Stop beating around the bush and get to the point. Do you accept Buell Frazier's testimony about the paper-sack that Oswald claimed contained curtain rods?
-
Keep posting those kind of sensible, logical conclusions Alan: Your gonna get a lot of nonsensical replies from "contrarians".
Nothing sensible about it. It's actually Salem like "logic".
-
Nothing sensible about it. It's actually Salem like "logic".
Dear Marty,
Do you mean "Salem-like"?
-- MWT ;)
-
Stop beating around the bush and get to the point. Do you accept Buell Frazier's testimony about the paper-sack that Oswald claimed contained curtain rods?
Silly question.
I think there isn't a single CT who doesn't accept the fact that Frazier and Randle saw Oswald carry a bag.
The difference of opinion with the LNs is about the size and quality of the bag as well as it's content. That's where LNs start jumping to conclusions they can not support by evidence as well as dismissing some of what Frazier actually said based on the pathetic "he was not paying attention" argument.
-
Salem-like?
Yep
-
and "flimsy paper".
Mr. BALL. Looking at this part of the bag which has not been discolored does that appear similar to the color of the bag you saw Lee carrying that morning?
Mrs. RANDLE. Yes; it is a heavy type of wrapping paper.
During Frazier's testimony Frazier tells us that he "didn't pay any attention to it" and "I didn't pay too much attention" and "I didn't pay that much attention to it" and "I didn't look at the package very much, paying much attention" and "I said I didn't pay much attention--"
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
-
Why do you selectively accept what those two witnesses said?
Because Buell Frazier and Linnie May Randle saw Oswald's long bag on 22 November 2019. They testified about the "paper-sack" under oath to the Warren Commission.
Why don't YOU accept the statements of these two (2) witnesses?
Stop this silliness John (the devil's advocate) and make a proper contribution to the Forum.
Buell Wesley Frazier was indirectly responsible for the employment of LHO at the TSBD. He was known to other employees to have provided a regular lift to and from work to LHO. He was stated to be Oswald's closest associate at the TSBD by other employees.
At about 1.20pm, just before the discovery of the rifle, Will Fritz told Detective Stenkel on the 6th floor of the TSBD to collect all those employees who had worked there that day and take them to City Hall to make statements. Subsequently Williams, Arce and Shelley were taken in one car and Lovelady and Dougherty in another. All were part of the "floor laying" crew except Dougherty who was preforming order filling duties that day (as was Oswald), but had been on the 6th floor. Charles Givens was also part of the crew but was outside the building and therefore not taken at that time. Frazier had also been on the 6th floor that day but did not go to City Hall with the others. Instead he exited the building, possibly around 2pm or so. At this time he obviously knew the 6th floor of the TSBD was suspected as the place the assassin fired from.
Lt Day leaves the building with the rifle at 2pm.
Detectives Rose, Stovall and Adamcek accompanied by Deputy Sheriffs Walthers, Weatherford and Oxford met with Ruth and Marina at the Paine's home before 2.42pm.
I believe Oswald was first named on radio or TV about 2.42pm. Oswald's boarding house phone number is conveyed to Fritz from the Paine's for cross checking .
A long bag was removed from the TSBD by Detective Montgomery at 3pm and taken to HQ. I believe it had been in police presence since some time between 1.30 and 2pm.
Linnie May visited the Paine's to inform the detectives that she had seen Oswald that morning. She spoke with Det Adamcek. This occurred after the Paine children were taken to neighbours and the police car had been used to store evidence from the garage. Likely well after 3pm and possibly as late as 5pm.
Irving police sent to detain Frazier at the Irving hospital by Det Rose after he is finally tracked down. McCabe detains Frazier, visiting his step-father about 5.15pm. Rose and Stovall arrest Frazier about 5.30pm.
-
Buell Wesley Frazier was indirectly responsible for the employment of LHO at the TSBD. He was known to other employees to have provided a regular lift to and from work to LHO. He was stated to be Oswald's closest associate at the TSBD by other employees.
At about 1.20pm, just before the discovery of the rifle, Will Fritz told Detective Stenkel on the 6th floor of the TSBD to collect all those employees who had worked there that day and take them to City Hall to make statements. Subsequently Williams, Arce and Shelley were taken in one car and Lovelady and Dougherty in another. All were part of the "floor laying" crew except Dougherty who was preforming order filling duties that day (as was Oswald), but had been on the 6th floor. Charles Givens was also part of the crew but was outside the building and therefore not taken at that time. Frazier had also been on the 6th floor that day but did not go to City Hall with the others. Instead he exited the building, possibly around 2pm or so. At this time he obviously knew the 6th floor of the TSBD was suspected as the place the assassin fired from.
Lt Day leaves the building with the rifle at 2pm.
Detectives Rose, Stovall and Adamcek accompanied by Deputy Sheriffs Walthers, Weatherford and Oxford met with Ruth and Marina at the Paine's home before 2.42pm.
I believe Oswald was first named on radio or TV about 2.42pm. Oswald's boarding house phone number is conveyed to Fritz from the Paine's for cross checking .
A long bag was removed from the TSBD by Detective Montgomery at 3pm and taken to HQ. I believe it had been in police presence since some time between 1.30 and 2pm.
Linnie May visited the Paine's to inform the detectives that she had seen Oswald that morning. She spoke with Det Adamcek. This occurred after the Paine children were taken to neighbours and the police car had been used to store evidence from the garage. Likely well after 3pm and possibly as late as 5pm.
Irving police sent to detain Frazier at the Irving hospital by Det Rose after he is finally tracked down. McCabe detains Frazier, visiting his step-father about 5.15pm. Rose and Stovall arrest Frazier about 5.30pm.
That's a thoughtful narrative constructed from events which have been carefully researched. It adds clarity to when, how and why Buell Frazier was arrested by the Dallas PD and subsequently given a "deluxe" interrogation. That's what it was according to what Buell has said in interviews in recent years. Undoubtedly the harsh treatment by Fritz and his subordinates has left emotional scars that have never healed. Despite that: Buell has not recanted his testimony before the Warren Commission and statements made for the 1964 Television documentary "CBS News Extra - November 22nd and the Warren Report".
Colin: You did post a reply to my original SUBJECT before it was lost when the Forum was hacked. Could you repeat that comment even if it's not word-for-word?
-
That's a thoughtful narrative constructed from events which have been carefully researched. It adds clarity to when, how and why Buell Frazier was arrested by the Dallas PD and subsequently given a "deluxe" interrogation. That's what it was according to what Buell has said in interviews in recent years. Undoubtedly the harsh treatment by Fritz and his subordinates has left emotional scars that have never healed. Despite that: Buell has not recanted his testimony before the Warren Commission and statements made for the 1964 Television documentary "CBS News Extra - November 22nd and the Warren Report".
Colin: You did post a reply to my original SUBJECT before it was lost when the Forum was hacked. Could you repeat that comment even if it's not word-for-word?
Thanks Ross, I would love to repost but I have no idea what it was......any clues and my failing memory might recover enough to comply.
-
"Curtain rods"...what happened to the curtain rods. If Oswald claimed he had curtain rods in the bag, where they ever found.
Possibly.
https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,1753.msg46762.html#msg46762 (https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,1753.msg46762.html#msg46762)
Obviously not. Because it was a lie to cover up the fact that the bag contained the MC.
Easy to claim. A lot harder to prove with evidence.
Obviously taking the MC into the TSBD does not prove Oswald was the shooter but Oswald owned an MC,
Also easy to claim.
-
Buell Wesley Frazier was indirectly responsible for the employment of LHO at the TSBD. He was known to other employees to have provided a regular lift to and from work to LHO. He was stated to be Oswald's closest associate at the TSBD by other employees.
At about 1.20pm, just before the discovery of the rifle, Will Fritz told Detective Stenkel on the 6th floor of the TSBD to collect all those employees who had worked there that day and take them to City Hall to make statements. Subsequently Williams, Arce and Shelley were taken in one car and Lovelady and Dougherty in another. All were part of the "floor laying" crew except Dougherty who was preforming order filling duties that day (as was Oswald), but had been on the 6th floor. Charles Givens was also part of the crew but was outside the building and therefore not taken at that time. Frazier had also been on the 6th floor that day but did not go to City Hall with the others. Instead he exited the building, possibly around 2pm or so. At this time he obviously knew the 6th floor of the TSBD was suspected as the place the assassin fired from.
Lt Day leaves the building with the rifle at 2pm.
Detectives Rose, Stovall and Adamcek accompanied by Deputy Sheriffs Walthers, Weatherford and Oxford met with Ruth and Marina at the Paine's home before 2.42pm.
I believe Oswald was first named on radio or TV about 2.42pm. Oswald's boarding house phone number is conveyed to Fritz from the Paine's for cross checking .
A long bag was removed from the TSBD by Detective Montgomery at 3pm and taken to HQ. I believe it had been in police presence since some time between 1.30 and 2pm.
Linnie May visited the Paine's to inform the detectives that she had seen Oswald that morning. She spoke with Det Adamcek. This occurred after the Paine children were taken to neighbours and the police car had been used to store evidence from the garage. Likely well after 3pm and possibly as late as 5pm.
Irving police sent to detain Frazier at the Irving hospital by Det Rose after he is finally tracked down. McCabe detains Frazier, visiting his step-father about 5.15pm. Rose and Stovall arrest Frazier about 5.30pm.
It would be helpful to add when Frazier called his sister. I don't recall the exact time or if that has ever been determined. Frazier's story, as I recall from his later interviews, was that he heard something about a Lee Oswald, who had spent time in Russia, being arrested as a suspect on the radio while he is driving to the hospital. He claims that he didn't know the last name of the "Lee" that worked at the TSBD but had some knowledge that his Lee had spent time in Russia. So at that point he has an idea it might be his Lee but claims uncertainty. That might be the source of his surprise when the police arrive to take him in. Something that most people would expect to happen if they drove the suspected assassin that morning to the TSBD. It would be interesting, however, to know if Buell talked to his sister before or after she had any conversation with the police or came to know that Lee was the suspect. I assume that is the case since the information about his whereabouts would have come from his sister. My speculation is that she gave him some advice on this call based on her understanding that the suspected assassin was the guy he had driven that morning. And that advice was to downplay any suspicion or observation of Oswald's behavior that morning. Thus, the bag becomes shorter, no discussion with Oswald of the president's visit, and hardly a glace at the bag in the shape of a rifle. Just a couple of good old boys quietly riding to work in the rain. Not implying that Frazier had anything to do with the assassination. Just that he wanted to deflect any later claims that perhaps a more reasonably observant person might have been a bit more suspicious of a guy carrying a strange, rifle shaped object into the building on a day when the president was supposed to drive by.
-
Frazier said in his 2002 Gary Mack interview that he didn't bring a camera that day because he didn't own one, but also noted that he didn't know that the motorcade was going to pass by the building. There's no reason to assume that Oswald did either.
-
LOL. Yes, just a couple of good old boys who didn't have access to a radio, TV or newspaper reporting the most important news event of that week. Had no clue the president was coming. And I suppose no one at work discussed the fact all week that the president's motorcade was coming right by their building. Ruth Paine even confirms that she mentioned the president's visit to Oswald. I'm sure that is a lie to frame Oswald. Old Lee was just Mr. Magoo that day. Frazier even says in one of these interviews that he is the person who approaches Truly with a request that the employees be allowed to watch the motorcade after lunch. He is suddenly ablaze with interest at that point! But maybe, perhaps, possibly, it can't be proved otherwise he lived in a cave that week and didn't have a clue. He just stepped out front to get a tan and the motorcade happened to drive by at that moment. Imagine his Gomer Pyle-like surprise. Shazam!
-
LOL. Yes, just a couple of good old boys who didn't have access to a radio, TV or newspaper reporting the most important news event of that week. Had no clue the president was coming. And I suppose no one at work discussed the fact all week that the president's motorcade was coming right by their building. Ruth Paine even confirms that she mentioned the president's visit to Oswald. I'm sure that is a lie to frame Oswald. Old Lee was just Mr. Magoo that day. Frazier even says in one of these interviews that he is the person who approaches Truly with a request that the employees be allowed to watch the motorcade after lunch. He is suddenly ablaze with interest at that point! But maybe, perhaps, possibly, it can't be proved otherwise he lived in a cave that week and didn't have a clue. He just stepped out front to get a tan and the motorcade happened to drive by at that moment. Imagine his Gomer Pyle-like surprise. Shazam!
Brilliant!
(https://media.giphy.com/media/srg19CG0cKMuI/giphy.gif)
JohnM
-
"Curtain rods"...what happened to the curtain rods. If Oswald claimed he had curtain rods in the bag, where they ever found. Obviously not. Because it was a lie to cover up the fact that the bag contained the MC. And he carried it cupped low in his hand in close contact with his body. Entirely consistent with carrying a rifle.
Obviously taking the MC into the TSBD does not prove Oswald was the shooter but Oswald owned an MC, he carried a long paper bag containing an item that could have feasible been an MC. The MC Oswald owned was later found on the 6th floor of the TSBD.
This is not Sherlock Holmes territory. Obviously not every single statement in any murder case can be 100% verified. This is one of those that are 95% factual. Way beyond reasonable doubt.
No one can prove Oswald owned the Carcano unless one can produce a Bill of Sale from Alec Hidell* (rhymes with 'Fidel')
*He, O.H. Lee, and Oswald (AKA 'Dirty Harvey' thanks to yours truly) formed a 3-entity conspiracy:
1) Hidell was in charge of weapon procurement
2) O.H. Lee was in charge of safe-house procurement
3) Oswald was in charge becoming a somebody
-
Frazier said in his 2002 Gary Mack interview that he didn't bring a camera that day because he didn't own one, but also noted that he didn't know that the motorcade was going to pass by the building. There's no reason to assume that Oswald did either.
Yeah, there is.
-
Yeah, there is.
Only in your world of circular arguments.
-
LOL. Yes, just a couple of good old boys who didn't have access to a radio, TV or newspaper reporting the most important news event of that week. Had no clue the president was coming. And I suppose no one at work discussed the fact all week that the president's motorcade was coming right by their building.
Your appeal to personal incredulity is yet another logical fallacy.
Ruth Paine even confirms that she mentioned the president's visit to Oswald.
Mrs. PAINE - I was turned part way toward the door. He was coming in, having just entered the door and in front of this loud speaker to which I refer.
Mr. JENNER - What was the loud speaker?
Mrs. PAINE - The loud speaker is part of the Hi-Fi set. It stands--it is a big thing.
Mr. JENNER - Did something occur at that moment?
Mrs. PAINE - And it was at that time that I said to him "Our President is coming to town. "I believe I said it in Russian, our President is coming to town in Russian.
Mr. JENNER - And you gave us his response yesterday but. you might do it again.
Mrs. PAINE - He said "Uh, yeah" and brushed on by me, walked on past.
I guess the part about "driving right by your building" got lost in the translation from Russian. ::)
Frazier even says in one of these interviews that he is the person who approaches Truly with a request that the employees be allowed to watch the motorcade after lunch.
Really? Which one? And this somehow tells you that he knew the motorcade would go down Elm Street prior to arriving at work? And that he and Lee discussed it?
He is suddenly ablaze with interest at that point! But maybe, perhaps, possibly, it can't be proved otherwise he lived in a cave that week and didn't have a clue.
So, your assumption is automatically correct until somebody proves you wrong. How typical.
-
No one can prove Oswald owned the Carcano unless one can produce a Bill of Sale from Alec Hidell* (rhymes with 'Fidel')
Never heard of him. Or of any "bill of sale" in that name.
-
Only in your world of circular arguments.
So far, Oswald seems to be the only one qualified to be surrounded, closed in, shut in, fenced in, walled in, hemmed in, locked in, cut off, confined.
Or otherwise encircled (if you will).
-
Never heard of him. Or of any "bill of sale" in that name.
Hint: Rhymes with 'Fidel'
Not that you're anal about Alec/Alex/Alek minutia. Or editing posts so as to hide the fact that someone would dare mock you.
-
Not that you're anal about Alec/Alex/Alek minutia.
Sure, it's just "anal minutia" when you screw something up.
Or editing posts so as to hide the fact that someone would dare mock you.
Huh? Once again, no clue what you're talking about.