P.S. it was Patrick Jackson who noticed this.
https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,2004.msg64638.html#msg64638 (https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,2004.msg64638.html#msg64638)
“Oswald’s sack”. LOL.
And to top it off, the sack was a perfect fit for Oswald's broken down rifle.
Is that supposed to prove that there was ever a disassembled rifle inside that bag?
You can scale anything to make it look like a “perfect fit”.
Your criticism is immaterial "JI". Stop dodging the pertinent point.
What about Oswald's right palm-print and left index fingerprint on the paper sack?
What about it? Just what is the pertinent point?
You can scale anything to make it look like a “perfect fit”.
Just what is the pertinent point?
That the FBI discovered Oswald's right palm-print and left index fingerprint are on the paper bag.
The paper bag is the right size to contain the disassembled Carcano rifle.
That renders "invalid" the critics' claim that the Oswald package was too short to smuggle the Carcano rifle into the TSBD. Buell Frazier's estimate of the length of the package that Oswald carried must be inaccurate.
The photo of the package on top of the boxes is interesting but not as important as the fingerprint evidence.
Yep, the sack which had Oswald's prints.
(https://i.postimg.cc/qMGbhCDJ/Oswaldsprintsonthebag.jpg)
And to top it off, the sack was a perfect fit for Oswald's broken down rifle.
(https://i.postimg.cc/sXWLxjN5/blanket-rifle-bag-sack.jpg)
JohnM
Just what is the pertinent point?
That the FBI discovered Oswald's right palm-print and left index fingerprint are on the paper bag.
The paper bag is the right size to contain the disassembled Carcano rifle.
That renders "invalid" the critics' claim that the Oswald package was too short to smuggle the Carcano rifle into the TSBD.
The rifle is not disassembled..... It has been disassembled and then partially reassembled to make it appear that the rifle can be disassembled into just a few pieces.
(https://i.postimg.cc/sXWLxjN5/blanket-rifle-bag-sack.jpg)
Notice that the magazine / trigger guard is in the wooden stock .... There are two screws that pass up through the magazine / trigger guard which clamp the wooden stock between the receiver and the trigger guard....When those screws are removed there is nothing to hold the trigger guard in the stock as it is seen in the photo .........And none of the five screws that need to be removed are shown.
This the "slight of hand" B S the conspirators resorted too .......
You're right, the rifle was never disassembled/reassembled most notably because there were no prints on it, except for a smeared print on the trigger, which meant Oswald did not wear gloves. So where were all the other prints on the rifle parts smuggled in the bag? Also any military marksman would have known that by disassembling the rifle he would need to re-align the scope after reassembling it. The only way to do that would be to sight in the scope on a target, otherwise, there was no way he could have used it since it was grossly misaligned, and always was. Oswald MUST have known that. So then why would he include the scope in the bag if he knew it would be worse than useless?
I think you forgot to demonstrate that CE 142 was “the Oswald package”.
You forgot: Oswald's prints demonstrate that the paper bag (CE 142) is his.
You forgot: Oswald's prints demonstrate that the paper bag (CE 142) is his.
a) How so? What do you mean by “his”?
b) What would this prove anyway?
Do the LN-ers find it even a little bit suspicious that Montgomery, Studebaker, and Johnson signed and dated the bag right next to the spot where the FBI later brought out a print using silver nitrate?
Mr Lidell.... You as sooooo naive and gullible.
a) How so? What do you mean by “his”?
b) What would this prove anyway?
Do the LN-ers find it even a little bit suspicious that Montgomery, Studebaker, and Johnson signed and dated the bag right next to the spot where the FBI later brought out a print using silver nitrate?
And to top it off, the sack was a perfect fit for Oswald's broken down rifle.
JohnM
If you lived in Kansas during the 1870's it would have been DODGE City: Possibly in CONTRARIAN Street.
a.) His means "his".
b.) Oswald's prints were on the long paper bag found on the 6th floor of the TSBD.
The bag matched the general description of the one Buell Frazier saw Oswald carry into the rear entrance to the TSBD.
The palm-print's position on the paper bag corresponds to the way Oswald carried it--according to Buell Frazier.
Was the scope removed from the barrel?
In any event, a sniper could compensate for a slightly-off scope. In Dealey Plaza, the open sights would have been enough.
Next we'll hear that the bolt couldn't be operated. That Ventura's test proved it.
Was the scope removed from the barrel?
In any event, a sniper could compensate for a slightly-off scope. In Dealey Plaza, the open sights would have been enough.
Next we'll hear that the bolt couldn't be operated. That Ventura's test proved it.
If you lived in Kansas during the 1870's it would have been DODGE City: Possibly in CONTRARIAN Street.
a.) His means "his".
b.) Oswald's prints were on the long paper bag found on the 6th floor of the TSBD.
The bag matched the general description of the one Buell Frazier saw Oswald carry into the rear entrance to the TSBD.
The palm-print's position on the paper bag corresponds to the way Oswald carried it--according to Buell Frazier.
Now, who is avoiding evidence?
Touching a bag and thus leaving a print doesn't make that bag yours! If everything I touch and left a print on would be mine, I would be a rich man in no time! And why do you ignore that fact that the bag was made of TSBD materials and was found at the TSBD, allegedly on the 6th floor, where Oswald worked. He could have simply moved the bag and left his print on it, if that is indeed what happened.
Besides there also were other prints on the bag which were never identified, which leave wide open the possibility of others having held/touched the bag as well
Frazier was shown the 6th floor bag on Friday evening by the DPD and he denied it was the one he had seen Oswald carry. And, actually, the bag did not "match" Frazier's description at all. He said Oswald carried a thin flimsy sack like the ones you can get from a dime store.
"In any event, a sniper could compensate for a slightly-off scope."
Slightly-off? The Army Sharp shooting Team the WC employed to test the TSBD Carcano was unable to zero in the scope.
"In Dealey Plaza, the open sights would have been enough."
The iron sights were fixed at 200 meters.
When that same Army Team tried to replicate a head shot, from the approximate height and distance the WC claimed, the bullet sailed over top of not only the silhouette but the board it was attached to.
"Next we'll hear that the bolt couldn't be operated."
Again, the same Army team found working the sticky bolt caused shooters to take the sights off the target.
Break this down for me. If your prints are found on something, that means you own it?
And what does this tell you about who killed Kennedy?
Bzzzt. Thanks for playing.
Really? The palm print was near the middle of the bag and the fingerprint was near the bottom of the bag. And the palmprint is oriented such that the bag would have been held with the open end down. How does this comport at all with what Frazier saw (carried vertically between armpit and closed end in the palm of the right hand)?
Physical evidence trumps "opinion".
That Oswald's prints are on the bag is indisputable.
Therefore:
-- How did Oswald put his prints on the paper bag?
-- When did Oswald put his prints on the paper bag?
-- Where did Oswald put his prints on the bag?
"In any event, a sniper could compensate for a slightly-off scope."
Only a complete ignoramus would make such a stupid statement!!
Physical evidence trumps "opinion".
That Oswald's prints are on the bag is indisputable.
"Each series of three shots landed within areas ranging in diameter from 3 to 5 inches.
Although all of the shots were a few inches high and to the right of the target, this was
because of a defect in the scope which was recognized by the FBI agents and which
they could have compensated for if they were aiming to hit a bull's-eye. They were
instead firing to determine how rapidly the weapon could be fired and the area within
which three shots could be placed. Frazier testified that while he could not tell when the
defect occurred, but that a person familiar with the weapon could compensate for it."
-- Warren Report, USGPO, p194
You're quoting the WR? :D
Two questions for you John (and anyone else).
1. When was the SN photo taken and by whom?
2. Can you provide any evidence that the cover was sealed at both ends at any time?
The CTer song and dance goes like this:
1) cast doubt on the bag being found even though multiple witnesses confirm that is what happened (i.e. everyone who saw it is a liar and potential conspirator)
2) suggest it is not the bag described by Frazier (i.e. Frazier's estimate is precise with scientific accuracy)
3) then argue that even if Oswald touched it (unlucky guy that day!), it doesn't prove he carried a rifle in it or that it was his bag (the old impossible standard of proof trick in which no fact can ever be proven because no logical inference is ever allowed from the totality of circumstances).
Back on planet Earth, we know the following:
1) Oswald made an unexpected trip on the night before the assassination to the location where he kept his rifle
2) He carried a long bag to work the following morning which he confirmed to Frazier was not his lunch
3) No long bag matching Frazier's exact description was ever found in the TSBD and Oswald himself denied carrying any such long bag instead claiming he carried only his lunch (either making him or Frazier a liar)
4) The bag was found near the SN from which bullet casings from Oswald's rifle were found (on the same floor where his rifle was found)
5) Oswald's prints were on the bag and the nearby SN boxes (unlike any other TSBD employee) and rifle
6) The bag is long enough to contain the rifle found on that floor which belonged to Oswald
7) No one who worked in the TSBD has ever come forward with any explanation as to why this strange bag was on the 6th floor or suggest that it had some work-related purpose for being there or that it belonged to them. As a result, there in no explanation for the bag's presence in that location by anyone else who worked in the building. There are no apparent examples of any such similar bags in the building to suggest a work-related purpose for such a bag despite a number of photos taken on that floor and search of the building. The bag appears to be an unexplained anomaly after 50 plus years if not the bag used by Oswald to carry the rifle.
Richard,
It's amazing how much trouble the conspirators went to to frame Marine marksman and self-avowed Marxist, Lee Harvey Oswald.
But wait. That "Marxist" persona was just something evil, evil, evil Alan Dulles and James Angleton foisted upon wannabe triple-agent Oswald so they could invade Cuba and nuke the USSR after they'd patsied him for the the murder of their hated nemesis, JFK.
(LOL)
-- MWT ;)
The CTer song and dance goes like this:
1) cast doubt on the bag being found even though multiple witnesses confirm that is what happened (i.e. everyone who saw it is a liar and potential conspirator)
2) suggest it is not the bag described by Frazier (i.e. Frazier's estimate is precise with scientific accuracy)
3) then argue that even if Oswald touched it (unlucky guy that day!), it doesn't prove he carried a rifle in it or that it was his bag (the old impossible standard of proof trick in which no fact can ever be proven because no logical inference is ever allowed from the totality of circumstances).
Back on planet Earth, we know the following:
1) Oswald made an unexpected trip on the night before the assassination to the location where he kept his rifle
2) He carried a long bag to work the following morning which he confirmed to Frazier was not his lunch
3) No long bag matching Frazier's exact description was ever found in the TSBD and Oswald himself denied carrying any such long bag instead claiming he carried only his lunch (either making him or Frazier a liar)
4) The bag was found near the SN from which bullet casings from Oswald's rifle were found (on the same floor where his rifle was found)
5) Oswald's prints were on the bag and the nearby SN boxes (unlike any other TSBD employee) and rifle
6) The bag is long enough to contain the rifle found on that floor which belonged to Oswald
7) No one who worked in the TSBD has ever come forward with any explanation as to why this strange bag was on the 6th floor or suggest that it had some work-related purpose for being there or that it belonged to them. As a result, there in no explanation for the bag's presence in that location by anyone else who worked in the building. There are no apparent examples of any such similar bags in the building to suggest a work-related purpose for such a bag despite a number of photos taken on that floor and search of the building. The bag appears to be an unexplained anomaly after 50 plus years if not the bag used by Oswald to carry the rifle.
Richard "Strawman" Smith strikes again.
When one has to misrepresent the facts as much as Richard does, it's pretty obvious that he has nothing more than a very weak circumstantial case, no matter how often he repeats his talking points.
1) cast doubt on the bag being found even though multiple witnesses confirm that is what happened (i.e. everyone who saw it is a liar and potential conspirator)
There is sufficient evidence to justify doubt about this issue. The bag not being photographed in situ and at least six officers that were in the S/N prior to Studebaker said they did not see any bag. Then there is the obvious contradiction about who actually found the bag, with - if I recall correctly - at least two, maybe even three DPD officers claiming they found it. And let's not forget that the DPD claimed the bag was found folded up in a corner, when there is a photograph of the S/N showing the unfolded bag on top of some boxes.
2) suggest it is not the bag described by Frazier (i.e. Frazier's estimate is precise with scientific accuracy)
For as long as I can remember it has always been the LN position that Frazier's estimates are not accurate. Now, here we have Richard claiming, falsely, that the bag allegedly found at the 6th floor matched "Frazier's estimate precise with scientific accuracy", whatever that may mean. Rather conveniently, Richard forgets of course that Frazier was shown the 6th floor bag on Friday evening, while he was being polygraphed, and he denied flat out that it was the bag he had seen Oswald carry. He described Oswald's bag as a thin flimsy sack like the ones you can get from a dime store.
3) then argue that even if Oswald touched it (unlucky guy that day!), it doesn't prove he carried a rifle in it or that it was his bag (the old impossible standard of proof trick in which no fact can ever be proven because no logical inference is ever allowed from the totality of circumstances).
Dear misguided Richard loves oversimplification, probably because otherwise things get too complicated for him. In Richard's echo-chamber he calls a brain, he believes that if you are photographed with a rifle, you must own that rifle. And if you touch a bag at your place of work, you must not only own that bag, but you also must have made it and used it to carry a rifle in it.
And what Richard calls "logical inference" is nothing more than self-serving overreaching speculation to ..... uh, keep it simple!
As far as his other "evidence", it is so full of assumptions and conjecture that it is not really worth discussing any further.....
But here are some examples (in bold);
1) Oswald made an unexpected trip on the night before the assassination to the location where he kept his rifle = pure speculation
3) No long bag matching Frazier's exact description was ever found in the TSBD = meaningless speculation since no search for such a bag was ever conducted
4) The bag was found near the SN from which bullet casings from Oswald's rifle were found (on the same floor where his rifle was found). - There is only conflicting evidence about where the bag was found and who found it
"Oswald's rifle" & "his rifle" LOL
5) Oswald's prints were on the bag and the nearby SN boxes (unlike any other TSBD employee) and rifle. - There were other prints on the bag that could not be identified, which means it can not be ruled out that other TSBD employees also touched the bag and the FBI found no print on the rifle. There was a print on an evidence card, produced by Lt Day, a week after the murder, which he claimed came from the rifle, which alone is cause for reasonable doubt
7) No one who worked in the TSBD has ever come forward with any explanation as to why this strange bag was on the 6th floor or suggest that it had some work-related purpose for being there or that it belonged to them. As a result, there in no explanation for the bag's presence in that location by anyone else who worked in the building. There are no apparent examples of any such similar bags in the building to suggest a work-related purpose for such a bag despite a number of photos taken on that floor and search of the building. The bag appears to be an unexplained anomaly after 50 plus years if not the bag used by Oswald to carry the rifle. = More speculation to arrive at a predetermined superficial conclusion
Keep it simple, Richard.... Thumb1:
So many words. Honestly, ask yourself if you really believe that finding this strange bag that can't be accounted for in any other way, in its location near the SN with Oswald's prints on it is not evidence of anything. At the very least, the totality of circumstances lends itself to the conclusion that this was the bag Oswald carried that morning whatever false doubt that you wish to interject as to its contents. His prints are on the bag, he carried a long bag that morning, no other bag matching Frazier's description was ever found or accounted for, no explanation for this bag ever came from any other employee or person with access to that floor, it is found at the crime scene next to the SN which also had Oswald's prints. So why was this bag there? How did it get there? Did some other TSBD employee construct and use such a bag and then just not ever mention it even after it was widely publicized to have been used to carry the rifle that assassinated the president? Whew. What happened to the shorter bag you apparently believe Oswald carried pursuant to Frazier's estimate? Let me guess. You have no idea. Why did Oswald lie to the police about carrying his lunch that day and not a bag as described by Frazier? Let me guess. You have no idea. What happened to Oswald's rifle since it is missing when the police search the Paine's garage? Let me guess. You have no idea. It's all just an inexplicable fog of events which could point in Oswald's direction because he was unlucky but from which no logical inference can ever be drawn.
I'm truly perplexed (although greatly amused) at your bizarre claim that I suggested the bag precisely matched Frazier's estimate. Notice the heading in which that was contained. It will perhaps provide a clue to assist you: "The CTer song and dance goes like this:" To be clear since you are having comprehension issues, I believe that Frazier honestly but erroneously estimated the size the of bag and thought it was shorter than the one found which was carried by Oswald. Frazier was mistaken as demonstrated by the actual evidence recovered at the scene and totality of circumstances including the absence of any evidence whatsoever to support an alternative explanation for all the known events and evidence (e.g. finding another bag that matched Frazier's description or a work-related explanation for why this bag was on the 6th floor or Oswald confirming that he carried a bag as described by Frazier and directing the police to that bag because its discovery would have been exculpatory to him if innocent).
The CTer song and dance goes like this:
1) cast doubt on the bag being found even though multiple witnesses confirm that is what happened (i.e. everyone who saw it is a liar and potential conspirator)
2) suggest it is not the bag described by Frazier (i.e. Frazier's estimate is precise with scientific accuracy)
3) then argue that even if Oswald touched it (unlucky guy that day!), it doesn't prove he carried a rifle in it or that it was his bag (the old impossible standard of proof trick in which no fact can ever be proven because no logical inference is ever allowed from the totality of circumstances).
Back on planet Earth, we know the following:
1) Oswald made an unexpected trip on the night before the assassination to the location where he kept his rifle
2) He carried a long bag to work the following morning which he confirmed to Frazier was not his lunch
3) No long bag matching Frazier's exact description was ever found in the TSBD and Oswald himself denied carrying any such long bag instead claiming he carried only his lunch (either making him or Frazier a liar)
4) The bag was found near the SN from which bullet casings from Oswald's rifle were found (on the same floor where his rifle was found)
5) Oswald's prints were on the bag and the nearby SN boxes (unlike any other TSBD employee) and rifle
6) The bag is long enough to contain the rifle found on that floor which belonged to Oswald
7) No one who worked in the TSBD has ever come forward with any explanation as to why this strange bag was on the 6th floor or suggest that it had some work-related purpose for being there or that it belonged to them. As a result, there in no explanation for the bag's presence in that location by anyone else who worked in the building. There are no apparent examples of any such similar bags in the building to suggest a work-related purpose for such a bag despite a number of photos taken on that floor and search of the building. The bag appears to be an unexplained anomaly after 50 plus years if not the bag used by Oswald to carry the rifle.
So many words.
Look who is talking..... :D
Honestly, ask yourself if you really believe that finding this strange bag that can't be accounted for in any other way, in its location near the SN with Oswald's prints on it is not evidence of anything.
First of all, there was nothing strange about that bag. You just saying that it was strange, doesn't make it so. Secondly,there is also no reason to assume that the bag can't be accounted for in any other way, as there is not a shred of evidence that anyone ever investigated that angle. Thirdly, the fact that it was found near the SN (if that's what happened) with Oswald's prints on it is, at best, evidence that it was found in a place where Oswald worked. Everything else is conjecture, even more so as there were other unidentified prints on the bag as well.
At the very least, the totality of circumstances lends itself to the conclusion that this was the bag Oswald carried that morning whatever false doubt that you wish to interject as to its contents. His prints are on the bag, he carried a long bag that morning, no other bag matching Frazier's description was ever found or accounted for, no explanation for this bag ever came from any other employee or person with access to that floor, it is found at the crime scene next to the SN which also had Oswald's prints.
There is nothing "at the very least" about it. All you've got is conjecture
So why was this bag there? How did it get there? Did some other TSBD employee construct and use such a bag and then just not ever mention it even after it was widely publicized to have been used to carry the rifle that assassinated the president? Whew.
"Just never mention it" LOL... You seem to think that everybody would jump at the opportunity to become (at best) a witness or (at worst) a suspect. Just how far removed from reality are you, when you don't even understand that most people will prefer to stay well clear of cooperation with police in a murder investigation?
What happened to the shorter bag you apparently believe Oswald carried pursuant to Frazier's estimate? Let me guess. You have no idea.
Neiter do you! All you can do is guess. If the bag indeed contained Oswald's lunch, he could have simply thrown it away. There is no record of anybody ever searching for that bag! You don't get to argue that just because that bag was never found or produced, it has to be the 6th floor bag that he carried.
Why did Oswald lie to the police about carrying his lunch that day and not a bag as described by Frazier? Let me guess. You have no idea.
Again, neither have you. What you also haven't got is any proof that Oswald did in fact lie to the police. There is no verbatim record of what he told police!
What happened to Oswald's rifle since it is missing when the police search the Paine's garage? Let me guess. You have no idea.
"Oswald's rifle" LOL... Do you have any proof that Oswald ever owned a rifle, that it was ever stored in Ruth Paine's garage and that it was still there on 11/21/63?
Let me answer that for you: No, you don't All you have is a claim by Marina that she saw what she believed to be the wooden stock of a rifle sticking out of the blanket in the garage. That's it... everything is speculation not supported by any physical evidence.
It's all just an inexplicable fog of events which could point in Oswald's direction because he was unlucky but from which no logical inference can ever be drawn.
It sure as hell isn't anything normal, that you would expect, that's for sure. Did you think this through? So, let's see.... The story is that Oswald tries to kill General Walker with that rifle. He then let's it lie around the house, so that the the Mohrenschildts see it, just before they leave the country. He then takes it on a bus to New Orleans, concealing it in such a way that nobody noticed. A few months later, he hands over a rifle used in an attempted murder, to Ruth Paine, a woman he hardly knew and poorly wrapped in nothing but a blanket, thus losing complete control over the weapon for weeks. He then returns to Dallas and acts like nothing has happened. He doesn't remove the rifle or hide it somewhere else.... no, it stays in the blanket and Marina, who knows Ruth Paine is dead against weapons, does not talk to him about it. Micheal Paine, in the meantime, moves the blanket around in the garage without seeing a rifle, instead thinking it is camping equipment. You can't make this stuff up....
However, if Oswald was being set up,.... well then you would get "evidence" pointing in his direction, wouldn't you?
I believe that Frazier honestly but erroneously estimated the size the of bag and thought it was shorter than the one found which was carried by Oswald.
So, now that we know what you believe let's try to take the next baby step. Why don't you explain to us why, on Friday evening, only hours after the murder, Frazier, while being polygraphed, denied that the bag he was shown by DPD officers (i.e. the 6th floor bag) was the bag he had seen Oswald carry and why he described that actual bag he had seen as a thin flimsy sack like the ones you can get from a dime store? And why did Lt Day subsequently, rather desperately, speculated that Oswald could have carried the 6th floor bag, with the rifle in it, in the flimsy sack?
Frazier was mistaken as demonstrated by the actual evidence recovered at the scene and totality of circumstances including the absence of any evidence whatsoever to support an alternative explanation for all the known events and evidence
And so we are back to the default position "If you can not prove otherwise, my conjecture and speculation is correct"
Why don't you contact Frazier and tell him he was mistaken. Let's see if he agrees with you... What do you think?
So many words. Honestly, ask yourself if you really believe that finding this strange bag that can't be accounted for in any other way, in its location near the SN with Oswald's prints on it is not evidence of anything. At the very least, the totality of circumstances lends itself to the conclusion that this was the bag Oswald carried that morning whatever false doubt that you wish to interject as to its contents. His prints are on the bag, he carried a long bag that morning, no other bag matching Frazier's description was ever found or accounted for, no explanation for this bag ever came from any other employee or person with access to that floor, it is found at the crime scene next to the SN which also had Oswald's prints. So why was this bag there? How did it get there? Did some other TSBD employee construct and use such a bag and then just not ever mention it even after it was widely publicized to have been used to carry the rifle that assassinated the president? Whew. What happened to the shorter bag you apparently believe Oswald carried pursuant to Frazier's estimate? Let me guess. You have no idea. Why did Oswald lie to the police about carrying his lunch that day and not a bag as described by Frazier? Let me guess. You have no idea. What happened to Oswald's rifle since it is missing when the police search the Paine's garage? Let me guess. You have no idea. It's all just an inexplicable fog of events which could point in Oswald's direction because he was unlucky but from which no logical inference can ever be drawn.
I'm truly perplexed (although greatly amused) at your bizarre claim that I suggested the bag precisely matched Frazier's estimate. Notice the heading in which that was contained. It will perhaps provide a clue to assist you: "The CTer song and dance goes like this:" To be clear since you are having comprehension issues, I believe that Frazier honestly but erroneously estimated the size the of bag and thought it was shorter than the one found which was carried by Oswald. Frazier was mistaken as demonstrated by the actual evidence recovered at the scene and totality of circumstances including the absence of any evidence whatsoever to support an alternative explanation for all the known events and evidence (e.g. finding another bag that matched Frazier's description or a work-related explanation for why this bag was on the 6th floor or Oswald confirming that he carried a bag as described by Frazier and directing the police to that bag because its discovery would have been exculpatory to him if innocent).
Just reiterating the same lazy contrarian nonsense over and over again? Tiresome. Everything is "conjecture" and "assumptions." Nothing in human history could ever be proven using this form of "logic." There was nothing strange about that bag? It was three feet long and made by someone. It had nothing in it. It was next to the SN. It wasn't just found anyplace in the building (i.e. "Oswald's place of work"). It was found on the very floor next to the very location from which witnesses saw a rifle sticking out the window! The exact crime scene. Good grief. Aren't you embarrassed to claim something like that? If not, please God let Roger be on my jury if I ever commit a crime.
And the reason that there is no explanation for this bag after 50 plus years of the most investigated crime in history is because - wait for it - no one ever "investigated that angle." Wow. And how would you know this? The building was searched. They found this bag during the search. Maybe they didn't find another shorter strange bag because it wasn't there instead of not investigating it. And your explanation for some other employee not coming forward to explain the bag is that they would not want to be a witness? Embarrassing. How about this? No one came forward to explain the bag because it belonged to Oswald and no one else who worked there had anything to do with it? Or how about this? Go through the various photos from the TSBD and find a similar bag that would confirm it was just an "ordinary" bag that was used for some unspecified work purpose in the TSBD. If it is not a strange or unusual bag to be there, then there should ample evidence that it is just an ordinary bag as you claim as supported with abundant similar examples from the building. Get back to us on your "research" Roger.
So many words. Honestly, ask yourself if you really believe that finding this strange bag that can't be accounted for in any other way, in its location near the SN with Oswald's prints on it is not evidence of anything.
At the very least, the totality of circumstances lends itself to the conclusion that this was the bag Oswald carried that morning whatever false doubt that you wish to interject as to its contents.
His prints are on the bag, he carried a long bag that morning, no other bag matching Frazier's description was ever found or accounted for, no explanation for this bag ever came from any other employee or person with access to that floor, it is found at the crime scene next to the SN which also had Oswald's prints.
So why was this bag there? How did it get there? Did some other TSBD employee construct and use such a bag and then just not ever mention it even after it was widely publicized to have been used to carry the rifle that assassinated the president? Whew. What happened to the shorter bag you apparently believe Oswald carried pursuant to Frazier's estimate? Let me guess. You have no idea. Why did Oswald lie to the police about carrying his lunch that day and not a bag as described by Frazier? Let me guess. You have no idea.
What happened to Oswald's rifle since it is missing when the police search the Paine's garage?
Just reiterating the same lazy contrarian nonsense over and over again? Tiresome.
Everything is "conjecture" and "assumptions." Nothing in human history could ever be proven using this form of "logic."
There was nothing strange about that bag? It was three feet long and made by someone. It had nothing in it. It was next to the SN.
Aren't you embarrassed to claim something like that? If not, please God let Roger be on my jury if I ever commit a crime.
Just reiterating the same lazy contrarian nonsense over and over again? Tiresome. Everything is "conjecture" and "assumptions."
Said he, just before he started reiterating the same conjecture and assumptions again.... and without any evidence to back it up.
The bag is only "strange" to you because you need it to be "strange" as that makes it more suspicious than it really is. What it is in fact is a bag made from materials used by the TSBD and found inside the TSBD without a shred of evidence for when it was made, who made it and that it ever left the TSBD.
And how would you know this?
Prove me wrong. Show me the reports about the building being searched for the flimsy sack that Frazier said he saw.
How about this? No one came forward to explain the bag because it belonged to Oswald and no one else who worked there had anything to do with it?
Sure, that's one of the possibilities... it's just not the only one. But isn't speculating to reach a predetermined conclusion fun, right? You may not understand this, but you've just proven my point about it being speculation rather than fact. Well done Thumb1:
If it is not a strange or unusual bag to be there, then there should ample evidence that it is just an ordinary bag as you claim as supported with abundant similar examples from the building.
Moving the goalposts again? ... Where did I say the bag was not unusual or that it was ordinary? You do understand that it could be unusual or not ordinary without it being a "strange" bag, right?
The same old, tired defense attorney nonsense.
Let us apply that definition to this bag. It is three feet long, made by someone,
empty, found at the scene of the crime
(not just somewhere at Oswald's place of employment), with Oswald's prints on it, right next to the SN boxes also with his prints on it, on the same floor as Oswald's rifle, and near bullet casings fired from his rifle.
It also is the only known such bag in the building as there are no similar bags depicted in any photos.
No other TSBD employee has their prints on that bag.
The same old, tired defense attorney nonsense. So the bag was not strange but also not ordinary? You are going to dicker with whether it was "strange" vs "unusual"? Wow. Inspector Clouseau is on the case. Here is the definition of "strange": unusual or surprising in a way that is unsettling or hard to understand."
Let us apply that definition to this bag. It is three feet long, made by someone, empty, found at the scene of the crime (not just somewhere at Oswald's place of employment), with Oswald's prints on it, right next to the SN boxes also with his prints on it, on the same floor as Oswald's rifle, and near bullet casings fired from his rifle. It also is the only known such bag in the building as there are no similar bags depicted in any photos. No other TSBD employee has their prints on that bag. Just unlucky Lee. It's just a mystery bag from some unknown source that Oswald had the misfortune to touch because he worked there (even though no other employee touched it)! Double wow. That is low brow defense attorney nonsense where someone knows a client is stone cold guilty and is trying to convince just one rube juror that up is down. It doesn't work in the real world. Check your history books. It was and forever remains "Oswald's bag."
NEWS FLASH!
OSWALD LIED ABOUT WHAT HE HAD FOR LUNCH BEFORE ACCIDENTALLY KILLING KENNEDY & A POOR DUMB COP
Reliable sources from 'The Bunion' (rhymes with 'The Onion') revealed that the little prick's 34.8" lunch bag contained remnants of what appears to be several little 'pig-in-a-blanket' sandwiches.
More details to follow one of these days.
Congrats to Mr. Mytton for proof positive the bag was NOT were it was claimed to be laying on the floor in the reconstruction photo dotted outline
And for demonstrating ( if this photo of bag is not fake) how absurd it is that if such bag were there that it nevertheless was able to be unavailable for the final “this is the way it was, we swear, final reconstruction SN photo
More details to follow one of these days.
I fully understand. Making up stuff isn't easy.... take your time! ;)
NEWS FLASH!
OSWALD LIED ABOUT WHAT HE HAD FOR LUNCH BEFORE ACCIDENTALLY KILLING KENNEDY & A POOR DUMB COP
Reliable sources from 'The Bunion' (rhymes with 'The Onion') revealed that the little prick's 34.8" lunch bag contained remnants of what appears to be several little 'pig-in-a-blanket' sandwiches.
More details to follow one of these days.
The 34.8" lunch bag contained remnants of what appears to be several little 'pig-in-a-blanket' sandwiches.
Toldya..... The bag did not hold a carcano......
Two questions for you John (and anyone else).
1. When was the SN photo taken and by whom?
2. Can you provide any evidence that the cover was sealed at both ends at any time?
Bumping again. Hoping to generate some meaningful discussion.
Question one relevance is because if this is the bag it has to be before 3pm on Nov22.
Question two has never been answered to my knowledge. To those who believe the bag was sealed at both ends please provide photographic evidence that it was.
Living in hope.
Two questions for you John (and anyone else). 1. When was the SN photo taken and by whom? 2. Can you provide any evidence that the cover was sealed at both ends at any time?Like some kind of a forum comet ...the paper bag story has to appear every 4-6 months ::)
Bumping again. Hoping to generate some meaningful discussion.
Question one relevance is because if this is the bag it has to be before 3pm on Nov22.
Question two has never been answered to my knowledge. To those who believe the bag was sealed at both ends please provide photographic evidence that it was.
Living in hope.
1. When was the SN photo taken and by whom?
Could you post the photo ?
Colin, what do you hope to accomplish ?? Will the bag actually indisputably prove anything ??
| (https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth184769/m1/1/med_res/) | (https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth184770/m1/1/med_res/) |
(https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth184769/m1/1/med_res/) (https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth184770/m1/1/med_res/)
These pictures seem to indicate one end was taped and the other end (the carrying end) gathered together the paper. The bag would have been originally carried with the taped end down.
Who said there isn't any new evidence to be found?
Here's Oswald's sack in the Sniper's nest.
(https://i.postimg.cc/3NrCjkVm/Oswaldsackinsnipnest.gif)
(https://i.postimg.cc/MZyrwRzZ/oswald-snipers-nest.jpg)
Btw I can't find the poster who originally found this groundbreaking evidence but if it was you, tell me and I will credit you! Thumb1:
EDIT
JohnM
Two questions for you John (and anyone else).
1. When was the SN photo taken and by whom?
2. Can you provide any evidence that the cover was sealed at both ends at any time?
Charles, nice pick-up on the bright sliver. The shadow on the pipe appears to correspond to about your 2PM graphic, which is pretty closely corroborated by the bright slivers position.
(https://i.postimg.cc/yYc3K4Bh/snipers-nest-shadow-2pm-2-30pm.gif)
JohnM
Thanks for your reply Jerry. So you don’t think the end was sealed while on the back seat of Frazier's car? Oswald simply relied on some fold over to stop bits escaping?
The tape used to construct the bag was from the TSBD dispenser. The bag was made in the TSBD, the question is when and who by? The Oswald did it narrative would have us believe he made it, guessed the rifle length incorrectly, and therefore had to disassemble the rifle and reassemble. Presumably one end was sealed with tape but I have yet to see anything suggesting the other end was sealed. Obviously he would have sealed the other end with something. Parts might fall out during transport and when stored in the TSBD would be easy for someone to look inside and unsealed bag.
The bag looks more like a wrapper that was made to cover the intact rifle.
The second issue are folding lines. Once Oswald took the rifle out of the bag, he did what? Folded it four-five times neatly? CE 142 has at least eight, more likely ten folding lines which suggest it was folded four times and stored. Somebody would say that these folding lines originate from the time Oswald created the sack but it is impossible. There is no chance he created the sack in TSBD, folded it, put in his pocket, took to the Ruth Peine garage, packed the rifle, handled it, took to the car, took again, carried to the TSBD, took the rifle out... And after all that, there is no way sack to have folds as we see on the photos.
What I think that happened was that while investigating and interrogating Oswald and witnesses, particularly BWF, DPD came to the question of rifle sack. BWF told that he saw Oswald was carrying a paper sack and he told about curtain rods so the officers were sent back to the TSBD to find any similar object to paper sack. There they found a folded paper bag and assumed that was the sack BWF was talking about.
CE 142 could be found anywhere inside TSBD and there is no photographic evidence to place it between the box and two pipes next to the window as it was stated by DPD officers.
Once again, due to the shape of the paper sack and the folding lines, I think it has nothing to do with Oswald and the rifle on 22/11/1963.
I don't see anything here that supports the conclusion that it is somehow "impossible" for the folds to have been created when Oswald smuggled it to Paine's house.Who told you that happened? Where is the evidence?
If a two-foot-long bag, I would expect most people would just take it into the front seat for the trip.
I don't see anything here that supports the conclusion that it is somehow "impossible" for the folds to have been created when Oswald smuggled it to Paine's house. In addition, wasn't the bag found BEFORE the DPD heard the story about Oswald's bag from Frazier? I don't recall the timeline on that but Frazier left the TSBD and wasn't interviewed about Oswald until later. If so, that would have made the scenario that you suggest impossible (i.e. the DPD hears the bag story from Frazier then go searching for a bag). There are pictures of the bag coming out of the building between 2 and 3PM.
Supposedly Linnie Mae Randle told the police about the bag when they got to the Paine’s house. But it’s conceivable that she talked to her brother before he went to the hospital to visit his estranged stepfather.
I think before you start applying cartoon shadows and handing out lollipops,
You need to consider the date at which that picture was taken.
Was it even taken on the 22nd?
That picture is not very clear.
Can you really ascertain our bag from what looks like box flaps and packing paper?
And why has no one ever recorded that location before on this important piece of evidence?
I can’t say that I know for certain what day the photo was taken. But I can say that what you term the “cartoon” shadows are computer generated images which are scientifically based on the architecture of the TSBD and the position of the sun at the specific times indicated on 11/22/63.
yea sure it is >> :D
| (https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth338859/m1/1/small_res/) | (https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth337079/m1/1/small_res//) | (https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth337742/m1/1/small_res/) |
(https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth339412/m1/1/small_res/) (https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/misc/newsgroup/spacers/dot_clear.gif) Photo of SN aisle seems to have a different camera setting than photos to right; outer boxes unmoved; could have been taken on the 22nd | (https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth338577/m1/1/small_res/) (https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/misc/newsgroup/spacers/dot_clear.gif) Photo of aisle next to SN aisle is darker; photo taken on 25th during SN reconstruction | (https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth339290/m1/1/small_res/) (https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/misc/newsgroup/spacers/dot_clear.gif) Photo of aisle two-over from SN aisle is darker; photo taken on 25th during SN reconstruction |
(https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/misc/newsgroup/spacers/dot_clear.gif)
(https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth338859/m1/1/small_res/) (https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth337079/m1/1/small_res//) (https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth337742/m1/1/small_res/)
Some pictures were taken shortly after the ones taken of the rifle in-situ on Nov. 22nd.
(https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/misc/newsgroup/spacers/dot_clear.gif)
Photo of SN aisle seems to have a
different camera setting than photos
to right; outer boxes unmoved;
could have been taken on the 22nd
(https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/misc/newsgroup/spacers/dot_clear.gif)
Photo of aisle next to SN aisle is
darker; photo taken on 25th during
SN reconstruction
(https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/misc/newsgroup/spacers/dot_clear.gif)
Photo of aisle two-over from SN aisle
is darker; photo taken on 25th during
SN reconstruction
If you lived in Kansas during the 1870's it would have been DODGE City: Possibly in CONTRARIAN Street.
a.) His means "his".
b.) Oswald's prints were on the long paper bag found on the 6th floor of the TSBD.
The bag matched the general description of the one Buell Frazier saw Oswald carry into the rear entrance to the TSBD.
The palm-print's position on the paper bag corresponds to the way Oswald carried it--according to Buell Frazier.
This goes back to what I was complaining about on another thread...the slow pace at which new information seeps in. When I went back through the fingerprint evidence in 2015, I discovered that the fingerprint was on the bottom of the bag and the palm print was on the side. I revealed this at that year's Lancer Conference, and demonstrate this in the Shining a Light on the Warren Report section of Chapter 4c at patspeer.com.
P.S. As I crawled through this thread, I was pleasantly surprised to see that John Iaccoletti had made reference to my discovery. So new information does seep in...sometimes... Yeah, John.
But what is the importance of your discovery?.....Can you prove how the prints got on the bag?..... Doesn't just a couple of prints strike you as a bit suspicious?
If Lee had carried that bag his prints should have been all over the place.
Wasn't the LN claim that the palmprint was on the bottom of the bag and that it was significant because Frazier saw Oswald carried the bag in his cupped hand?
Pat's discovery blows that one right out of the water, doesn't it?
That's pretty much it. I have no idea if Oswald actually handled that bag, or if there was a rifle in it when he handled it if he did handle it. But we now know that Latona's testimony and the archives' photos prove that the WC misrepresented Latona's testimony to help sell that the bag was the one seen by Frazier. I mean, they had the photos showing where prints A and B were, and they had Latona's testimony about prints A and B. How hard would it have been to get it right, as opposed to getting it wrong and using that mistake to help support their case against Oswald?
That's pretty much it. I have no idea if Oswald actually handled that bag, or if there was a rifle in it when he handled it if he did handle it. But we now know that Latona's testimony and the archives' photos prove that the WC misrepresented Latona's testimony to help sell that the bag was the one seen by Frazier. I mean, they had the photos showing where prints A and B were, and they had Latona's testimony about prints A and B. How hard would it have been to get it right, as opposed to getting it wrong and using that mistake to help support their case against Oswald?
Pat Speer has done a good job about the paper sack and planting of evidence. You might want to read it and learn something:
http://www.patspeer.com/chapter4d%3Asackoflies
His bag comparison re Beers is not in any way scientific and does not convince
And the top flap has fallen forward in Beers, and comparing that to the fully laid out bag in an attempt to manipulate proportions reveals yet even more CTer disingenuousness.
How can you have "no idea if Oswald actually handled that bag" if his prints were found on it?
His bag comparison re Beers is not in any way scientific and does not convince
And the top flap has fallen forward in Beers, and comparing that to the fully laid out bag in an attempt to manipulate proportions reveals yet even more CTer disingenuousness.
Were his prints found on it? We have the word of an FBI expert, and a police expert supposedly working from photos that were later published and didn't show much more than blobs. I have numerous books on fingerprinting, going back to the forties. These books show readily identifiable prints and matches. The matches presented in the WC's volumes, on the other hand, are little more than blobs. They show nothing. The government has had more than fifty years, moreover, to publish proper photos of the latents, alongside Oswald's prints, and has failed to do so. And the FBI has refused to releases its photos of the trigger guard. So, no, the fingerprint evidence is not a done deal, far from it. Every print connecting Oswald to the sniper's nest or rifle is suspect.
Now, do I think the FBI flat-out lied in its identification? I'd say no. But the provenance of most every print is suspect, starting with the palm print tore from Box D and ending with the palm print purportedly lifted from the rifle.
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.He said she said ...not a sworn statement. And why some brown paper? Why not the sack itself?
on 11/22/63 at Dallas, Texas File # DL 89-43
by Special Agent JAMES W. BOOKHOUT/cah/tjd
Date dictated 11/23/63
Mr. BALL. He put the package in the car.He warted Randle to practically no end....The jacket he wore..the shirt...the paper sack. Seemed so contrived [Yes Sir]
Mrs. RANDLE. Yes, sir; I don't know if he put it on the seat or on the floor but I just know he put it in the back.
Mr. BALL. We have got a package here which is marked Commission Exhibit No. 364. You have seen this before, I guess, haven't you, I think the FBI showed it to you?
Mrs. RANDLE. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. Was the color of that package in any way similar to the color of this package which is 364?
Mrs. RANDLE. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. Similar kind of paper, wasn't it?
Mrs. RANDLE. Yes, sir.
................
Mrs. RANDLE. What I remember seeing is about this long, sir, as I told you it was folded down so it could have been this long.
Mr. BALL. I see. You figure about 2 feet long, is that right?
Mrs. RANDLE. A little bit more.
Mr. BALL. A little more than 2 feet.
There is another package here. You remember this was shown you. It is a discolored bag, which is Exhibit No. 142, and remember you were asked by the Federal Bureau of Investigation agents if this looked like the package; do you remember?
Mrs. RANDLE. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. Now, first of all with color, you told them the bag was not the color?
Mrs. RANDLE. Yes.
Mr. BALL. But they showed you a part of the bag that had not been discolored, didn't they?
Mrs. RANDLE. Yes, sir.
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.
How can you have "no idea if Oswald actually handled that bag" if his prints were found on it?A felicitous print overkill at that....more convenient/opportune evidence left for the cops to "find"---
The long paper bag was photographed being taken out of the TSBD on 11/22/63 around 2:19. Was it taken to the DPD crime lab and locked up similarly to the way that Day testified the rifle was? If so, is there any evidence that it was taken back to the TSBD for sniper’s nest reconstruction purposes?
A felicitous print overkill at that....more convenient/opportune evidence left for the cops to "find"---
(https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/pages/WH_Vol17_0173a.jpg)
The wrapper was removed from the TSBD about 3pm by Montgomery. He is officially credited with finding CE142 some time after Studebaker finished processing the bottle and bag near where Johnson was stationed (west of the SN). Johnson carried out the lunch sack and bottle This was after Day had departed with CE139 about 2pm. Before he left the building Day and Studebaker visited the wrapping table to collect "samples".
is there any evidence that it was taken back to the TSBD for sniper’s nest reconstruction purposes?
It could not be used for "reconstruction" ie; (Creating false evidence) because it had been stained by the FBI in the testing for finger prints.....
Anyone catch the problem with this chronology?
I believe Montgomery's wrist watch indicates the time of 2:20 when he and Detective Johnson depart the TSBD with the huge paper bag ( wrapping paper) a Dr Pepper bottle and some cigarettes buts that had been collected as evidence .....
I am unsure if the bag was locked up the same way the rifle was as Day was working on and transporting the rifle on occasions that afternoon and evening.
So far no one has claimed that CE142 was sealed at both ends. I take it that the LN supporters are all comfortable with this.
A felicitous print overkill at that....more convenient/opportune evidence left for the cops to "find"---
(https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/pages/WH_Vol17_0173a.jpg)
I believe Detective Day left the TSBD with the carcano at about 2:00 pm... ( the bag was first imagined to be the container by which the rifle had been smuggled into the TSBD AFTER Day had left the building with the rifle) I doubt that they compared the length of the carcano with the length of the bag....because if they had,.... they would have known that the rifle was too long to fit in that bag, and they never would have suggested that the rifle was smuggled into the TSBD in that bag. However Fritz knew the script called for the Patsy to have carried the carcano into the TSBD in a paper sack, and when he was informed that the sack was too small to contain the rifle , he immediately responded;.....Quote.... "Well then he must have broke the rifle down then...and I'm sure he did" Unquote. Now, THAT'S first class detective work!! Unfortunately for Mr Top Notch detective's brilliant deduction ...The bag was too small to hold the disassembled rifle...
The wrapper was removed from the TSBD about 3pm by Montgomery. He is officially credited with finding CE142 some time after Studebaker finished processing the bottle and bag near where Johnson was stationed (west of the SN). Johnson carried out the lunch sack and bottle This was after Day had departed with CE139 about 2pm. Before he left the building Day and Studebaker visited the wrapping table to collect "samples".
Anyone catch the problem with this chronology?
I am unsure if the bag was locked up the same way the rifle was as Day was working on and transporting the rifle on occasions that afternoon and evening.
So far no one has claimed that CE142 was sealed at both ends. I take it that the LN supporters are all comfortable with this.
If the bag was never sealed at both ends it served as a wrapper for the intact rifle. Montgomery and Johnson never saw CE139 at the time of its discovery. Day left the building at 2pm after visiting the first floor wrapping table with Studebaker to collect samples for a bag that had not been found yet.
From the Sixth Floor Museum's Oral History by Carl Day 1996:
Bob: One of the questions that I think has come up is the bag that Oswald‟s rifle was in. There weren‟t any pictures made of that? Do you remember seeing that in that area?
Carl: Yes, there was a bag, a brown bag, there. It was made out of wrapping paper, and we collected that bag.
Bob: You did collect it, but you didn‟t photograph it?
Carl: There should be a picture of it somewhere.
Bob: Now where was it now, where was it? Kind of behind the boxes, do you remember?
Carl: To the best of my knowledge, it was to the right on the floor of where he was sitting, on the box that I showed you a minute ago. It may have been the right, it may have been the left, but there was a bag there.
Bob: Left would be like in the corner…
Carl: Yes, in the corner out back towards the north side of the building, where you headed up to it.
Bob: What did it look like to you, then, if you collected it, did you not know what it was?
Carl: I didn't know anything about a bag at that time. There was a bag laying there, at the first thing, there was a brown paper bag, it was too big for that. Later examination indicated that it was a bag had been made out of wrapping paper. It appeared to be shipping paper, and there was a roll in the shipping department downstairs that sent me the paper. Of course at that time, we didn‟t know anything about Oswald, didn‟t know anything about what happened. There was a bag there and it was collected.
(Emphasis added by me)
Please keep in mind that Carl Day had been retired for 20-years by 1996. And he had not kept up with the conspiracy theories...
The wrapper was removed from the TSBD about 3pm by Montgomery.
Not quite. Since when is 2:19 your 'about 3pm'?
The Long Brown Bag
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/bag.htm
The bag was photographed being brought out the front of the Depository at 2:19 p.m. (Trask, Pictures of the Pain)
From the Sixth Floor Museum's Oral History by Carl Day 1996:
Bob: One of the questions that I think has come up is the bag that Oswald‟s rifle was in. There weren‟t any pictures made of that? Do you remember seeing that in that area?
Carl: Yes, there was a bag, a brown bag, there. It was made out of wrapping paper, and we collected that bag.
Bob: You did collect it, but you didn‟t photograph it?
Carl: There should be a picture of it somewhere.
Bob: Now where was it now, where was it? Kind of behind the boxes, do you remember?
Carl: To the best of my knowledge, it was to the right on the floor of where he was sitting, on the box that I showed you a minute ago. It may have been the right, it may have been the left, but there was a bag there.
Bob: Left would be like in the corner…
Carl: Yes, in the corner out back towards the north side of the building, where you headed up to it.
Bob: What did it look like to you, then, if you collected it, did you not know what it was?
Carl: I didn't know anything about a bag at that time. There was a bag laying there, at the first thing, there was a brown paper bag, it was too big for that. Later examination indicated that it was a bag had been made out of wrapping paper. It appeared to be shipping paper, and there was a roll in the shipping department downstairs that sent me the paper. Of course at that time, we didn‟t know anything about Oswald, didn‟t know anything about what happened. There was a bag there and it was collected.
(Emphasis added by me)
Please keep in mind that Carl Day had been retired for 20-years by 1996. And he had not kept up with the conspiracy theories...
I hope you're not trying to prop up that Day was present when the bag was "discovered." Because that ship has sailed.
From patspeer.com, Chapter 4c.
Day's post-1964 statements on the bag, in fact, confirm he was not actually present when the bag was "discovered."
A summary of Day's 10-18-77 interview with HSCA investigators Harold Rose and Al Maxwell (HSCA record 180-10107-10176) relates: "Lt. Day stated that he remembers the brown wrapping paper in the S.E. corner and stated that he believes his office processed it and it went with the other evidence to the F.B.I."
He "believes"? Really?
In 1992, when asked by researcher Denis Morissette if he knew who found the bag, Day similarly responded: "I don't know. It was on the floor next to and north of the box Oswald was sitting on when I arrived at the 6th floor. My men and I collected the bag at this place. As far as I know it had not been moved by any officers." Note that he never describes his initial spotting and inspection of the bag, or his dusting and signing the bag. He says only that there was a bag, that it was collected by his men, and that it was found by... someone... north of the sniper's seat. (His testimony had been that it was south of the sniper's seat, directly in the corner.)
In 1996, in an oral history recorded for The Sixth Floor Museum, moreover, Day had the chance to set the record straight and once again offered smoke. When asked why the bag hadn't been photographed, he responded "There should be a picture of it somewhere." When then asked by interviewer Bob Porter where the bag had been found, he replied "To the best of my knowledge, it was to the right on the floor of where he was sitting, on the box that I showed you a minute ago. It may have been the right, it may have been the left, but there was a bag there." When Porter pointed out that "left" would mean the corner (where Day had testified the bag was discovered), moreover, Day surprised him, and once again asserted that the bag had been found north of the sniper's seat. He responded "Yes, in the corner out back towards the north side of the building, where you headed up to it." He then admitted "I didn’t know anything about a bag at that time. There was a bag laying there...Later examination indicated that it was a bag had been made out of wrapping paper. It appeared to be shipping paper...Of course at that time, we didn’t know anything about Oswald, didn’t know anything about what happened. There was a bag there and it was collected."
Now, this, of course, supports that Day hadn't actually seen the bag where he claims it was found, and that others were, in fact, responsible for its collection in the depository.
This likelihood is further supported by Day's recollection to Larry Sneed, published in 1998, moreover. Day is reported to have told Sneed that "Also found on the sixth floor, as I recall, near the shell area, was a paper bag. It should have been photographed, but for some reason, apparently wasn't."
In fact, in what was to become his final word on the subject, in a 7-11-06 interview with The Sixth Floor Museum, Day came as close to admitting perjury as one can come. In opposition to his Warren Commission testimony that he'd signed the paper bag or sack "at the time the sack was found," Day ultimately admitted that when he and Studebaker left the sniper's nest to go photograph the rifle on the other side of the building "They had posted guards or something around it and they didn't have the sense to leave things alone. And they'd got in there and picked up a sack that was in this corner. And we didn't get a picture of it. But there was a sack right in that corner...the brown paper bag. It was the one he was supposed to have brought curtain rods in. Well, they picked it up while I was gone, and I didn't get a picture of it while it was sitting there."
Were his prints found on it? We have the word of an FBI expert, and a police expert supposedly working from photos that were later published and didn't show much more than blobs. I have numerous books on fingerprinting, going back to the forties. These books show readily identifiable prints and matches. The matches presented in the WC's volumes, on the other hand, are little more than blobs. They show nothing. The government has had more than fifty years, moreover, to publish proper photos of the latents, alongside Oswald's prints, and has failed to do so. And the FBI has refused to releases its photos of the trigger guard. So, no, the fingerprint evidence is not a done deal, far from it. Every print connecting Oswald to the sniper's nest or rifle is suspect.
Now, this, of course, supports that Day hadn't actually seen the bag where he claims it was found, and that others were, in fact, responsible for its collection in the depository.J C Day said as much in his testimony---
Is this your comment Pat? If so, please explain your logic in making the claim that Day hadn’t actually seen the bag. Thanks.
Mr. BELIN. I'm going to hand you what has been marked as Commission Exhibit 729 and ask you to state if you know what this is.
Mr. DAY. 729 is a photograph of the inside wall, south and east walls, right at the corner of the building at the sixth floor of the Texas Book Depository.
Mr. BELIN. I notice some pipes on the right portion of this picture as you face it, and I also notice a box. I will first ask you to state if this picture was taken before or after anything was removed from the area.
Mr. DAY. The sack had been removed.
Mr. BELIN. You mean between--you said the sack."To the best of my knowledge" basically means he was told what to say ;)
Mr. DAY. I mean the pipe. The sack was between the pipe and the wall at the top of the picture.
Mr. BELIN. That wall at the top of the picture would be the east wall, would it not?
Mr. DAY. Yes, sir; laying parallel to the south wall.
Mr. BELIN. Did the sack--was it folded over in any way or just lying flat, if you remember?
Mr. DAY. It was folded over with the fold next to the pipe, to the best of my knowledge.
Now, this, of course, supports that Day hadn't actually seen the bag where he claims it was found, and that others were, in fact, responsible for its collection in the depository.
Is this your comment Pat? If so, please explain your logic in making the claim that Day hadn’t actually seen the bag. Thanks.
When one studies the statements of those involved in the collection of the bag, it's clear Day wasn't there when it was "collected." Montgomery, Johnson, and Studebaker never once mentioned Day in connection with the finding and dusting of the bag. Johnson makes clear, moreover, that it was "found" after Studebaker had dusted the pop bottle--which he did after he'd photographed the rifle. Day makes clear, moreover, that once the rifle was found he worked on the rifle on the west end of the building and then took it to the crime lab. He didn't come back till 3 or so. The bag was removed from the building at 3. Now, granted, this leaves a small window whereby Day could have been shown the bag when he returned, but the idea pushed in the WR that Day signed the bag upon its discovery in the sniper's nest is a flat-out lie.
And probably by design. Consider...
The FBI created a memo claiming Day found the bag and that the DPD had not shown it to anyone. Neither of these statements were true.
Montgomery and Johnson claimed Montgomery had found the bag, and Capt. Fritz's records on the assassination support their claim.
Lt. Day failed to even mention the discovery of the bag in his only report written on the crime scene.
Montgomery, Johnson and Studebaker all testified in Dallas, None of them mentioned Day in connection to the bag. And none of them were shown the bag during their testimony.
David Belin then flew Lt. Day to Washington, and put words into his mouth that suggested Day had found the bag.
Belin's chapter in the WR mentions Day and Day alone in connection to the bag.
When the FBI was asked to bring the evidence to Dallas and get those who'd discovered the evidence to confirm the evidence in possession of the FBI and WC was the original evidence,the bag was shown to Day and Day alone, even though the FBI's original evidence photo for the palm print showed Montgomery, Johnson and Studebaker's initials by the palm print, and not Day's.
When asked about the bag in his final Oral History, Day claimed the bag was picked up when he was gone. Well, let's recall that once he went to work on the rifle he did not return to the SN for 90 minutes or so, and that Montgomery and Johnson had taken the bag from the building near the end or at the end of that 90 minutes.
So this leaves the possibility Day saw the bag in the sniper's nest upon his first arrival, and that he thought he'd get back to it upon his return from the crime lab. But this fails the smell test, seeing as none of those arriving at the sniper's nest before Day's arrival had any recollection of a gun case/bag sitting on the floor of the sniper's nest, and no pictures were taken of it in the sniper's nest, and neither Montgomery nor Day (the two possible finders of the bag) could tell a consistent story regarding where the bag was "discovered."
J C Day said as much in his testimony---"To the best of my knowledge" basically means he was told what to say ;)
When one studies the statements of those involved in the collection of the bag, it's clear Day wasn't there when it was "collected." Montgomery, Johnson, and Studebaker never once mentioned Day in connection with the finding and dusting of the bag. Johnson makes clear, moreover, that it was "found" after Studebaker had dusted the pop bottle--which he did after he'd photographed the rifle. Day makes clear, moreover, that once the rifle was found he worked on the rifle on the west end of the building and then took it to the crime lab. He didn't come back till 3 or so. The bag was removed from the building at 3. Now, granted, this leaves a small window whereby Day could have been shown the bag when he returned, but the idea pushed in the WR that Day signed the bag upon its discovery in the sniper's nest is a flat-out lie.
And probably by design. Consider...
The FBI created a memo claiming Day found the bag and that the DPD had not shown it to anyone. Neither of these statements were true.
Montgomery and Johnson claimed Montgomery had found the bag, and Capt. Fritz's records on the assassination support their claim.
Lt. Day failed to even mention the discovery of the bag in his only report written on the crime scene.
Montgomery, Johnson and Studebaker all testified in Dallas, None of them mentioned Day in connection to the bag. And none of them were shown the bag during their testimony.
David Belin then flew Lt. Day to Washington, and put words into his mouth that suggested Day had found the bag.
Belin's chapter in the WR mentions Day and Day alone in connection to the bag.
When the FBI was asked to bring the evidence to Dallas and get those who'd discovered the evidence to confirm the evidence in possession of the FBI and WC was the original evidence,the bag was shown to Day and Day alone, even though the FBI's original evidence photo for the palm print showed Montgomery, Johnson and Studebaker's initials by the palm print, and not Day's.
When asked about the bag in his final Oral History, Day claimed the bag was picked up when he was gone. Well, let's recall that once he went to work on the rifle he did not return to the SN for 90 minutes or so, and that Montgomery and Johnson had taken the bag from the building near the end or at the end of that 90 minutes.
So this leaves the possibility Day saw the bag in the sniper's nest upon his first arrival, and that he thought he'd get back to it upon his return from the crime lab. But this fails the smell test, seeing as none of those arriving at the sniper's nest before Day's arrival had any recollection of a gun case/bag sitting on the floor of the sniper's nest, and no pictures were taken of it in the sniper's nest, and neither Montgomery nor Day (the two possible finders of the bag) could tell a consistent story regarding where the bag was "discovered."
So this leaves the possibility Day saw the bag in the sniper's nest upon his first arrival, and that he thought he'd get back to it upon his return from the crime lab. But this fails the smell test, seeing as none of those arriving at the sniper's nest before Day's arrival had any recollection of a gun case/bag sitting on the floor of the sniper's nest, and no pictures were taken of it in the sniper's nest, and neither Montgomery nor Day (the two possible finders of the bag) could tell a consistent story regarding where the bag was "discovered."
News reporter Kent Biffle states the bag was discovered before the rifle was located. He mentions "We", this can only be assumed to be the various detectives,
Taken from Biffle's notes page 6 and 7:
It didn't take the policemen long to find the cartridges by the ambush window. We all stood around staring at the brown wrapping paper found nearby. It was a reasonable conclusion that it held the rifle.
An officer in the northwest corner of the room yelled: "Over here!"
I ran over, dodging down narrow alleys in the stacks of packing crates. I was secure in the knowledge that my theory was materializing. They'd found the body of the gunman, I guessed.
I was let down when the policeman pointed among a jumble of boxes at the hidden rifle. The muzzle and the steel butt plate were barely visible.
Trask didn't have access to the digitized copies of the bag in front of the building now available. As first noticed by the late great researcher John Hunt, and presented on the Lancer Forum, if I recall, Montgomery's watch was fairly clear in one of the photos. Here is a close-up of that watch.
(http://www.patspeer.com/chapter-4c/Screen%20Shot%202019-03-04%20at%207.17.44%20PM.png?attredirects=0)
Mr. BELIN. When Captain Fritz told you to preserve the scene, what did you do?
Mr. JOHNSON. Now you got to remember he told L. D. Montgomery, my partner, and I to preserve the scene, and we remained there near that corner.
Now over to the right, which would be back toward the west of the window, there was a lunch sack--a brown paper bag--and some remnants of fried chicken, and a pop bottle.
And I stayed closer to that pop bottle while we were waiting for the crime lab to finish their work.
Mr. BELIN. Now there was a sack and a pop bottle. Was there anything else other than the sack and the pop bottle?
Mr. JOHNSON. And the remnants of fried chicken.
Mr. BELIN. The remnants of fried chicken, was that right by that window, or was it by another set of windows?
Mr. JOHNSON. That was by some other window.
Mr. BELIN. Now there are, I believe, on the south side of the building, seven pairs of windows?
Mr. JOHNSON. I didn't count them. I couldn't say.
Mr. BELIN. Would you say it was toward the east, or the west, or the center?
Mr. JOHNSON. Where the sack was?
Mr. BELIN. Yes.
Mr. JOHNSON. It would be toward the west. I believe the next set of windows to my--I am pretty sure it was.
Mr. BELIN. You said it would be in the second pair of windows counting from the east wall?
Mr. JOHNSON. To the west.
Mr. BELIN. Is where you found it, was it between the second and the third set of windows or between the first and the second, or right by the second?
Mr. JOHNSON. Right by the second pair of windows.
Mr. BELIN. Now you stayed over there?
Mr. JOHNSON. Yes, sir.
Mr. BELIN. And your partner, Detective Montgomery, stayed over by the first pair of windows?
Mr. JOHNSON. By the corner.
Mr. BELIN. By the corner window, southwest corner of the sixth floor?
Were you there when Lieutenant Day and Studebaker came in to take pictures?
Mr. JOHNSON. Yes, sir.
Mr. BELIN. Do you know of your own personal knowledge whether anything prior to the time that they took the first set of pictures up had been moved there?
Mr. JOHNSON. No, sir; as far as I know, they hadn't been moved. They weren't supposed to have been, and that was our job to keep them out of there, and nobody came in there, I am pretty sure.
Mr. BELIN. All right. Now, a rifle was found on the sixth floor, was it not?
Mr. JOHNSON. Yes, sir.
Mr. BELIN. When the rifle was found, did you leave your post?
Mr. JOHNSON. No, sir.
Mr. BELIN. What about Detective Montgomery?
Mr. JOHNSON. No, sir.
Johnson guarded the crime scene where the lunch remnants were. At the second set of windows. Montgomery guarded the first set, the SN. They did not leave to view the rifle. When the rifle was found Day and Studebaker left to go the the NW corner. The only crime scene processing of the SN to that time was the two pictures taken by Studebaker of the shells and some preliminary dusting of the shells by Day.
Studebaker returned to the SN after Day departed the TSBD with the rifle about 2pm.
Mr. BELIN. You were standing there when he picked it up?
Mr. JOHNSON. Yes, because the Crime Lab was already finished where I was, and I had already walked off to where he was.
The bag was found by Montgomery after Studebaker had finished processing the lunch remnants by the second set of windows and Johnson moved into the SN.
The wrapper was in a folded state when "found". Only after picking it up and unfolding it could it be presumed to be used to transport the rifle. In references to the bag's discovery both Montgomery and Johnson used the term "we" when testifying. I contend your nits to be picked Charles. The bag was "discovered" after the rifle.
Carl Day was there and these are his words:
There was a bag laying there, at the first thing, there was a brown paper bag...
I interpret "at the first thing" to mean when Day first arrived at the scene. Do you have another interpretation that supports your unfounded conclusion?
Carl Day was there and these are his words:
There was a bag laying there, at the first thing, there was a brown paper bag...
I interpret "at the first thing" to mean when Day first arrived at the scene. Do you have another interpretation that supports your unfounded conclusion?
Thanks Pat. So you are acknowledging that:
“So this leaves the possibility Day saw the bag in the sniper's nest upon his first arrival, and that he thought he'd get back to it upon his return from the crime lab.”
Instead of saying “...Day hadn’t actually seen the bag...”
By the way I purchased the video of Day’s last oral history from the Sixth Floor Museum a while back. He was ninety something. And during the conversation he was looking at photos taken at the crime scene. He was having difficulty orienting things. It is apparent to me that his memory was somewhat faded. In 1996, he says that he hasn’t read any of the conspiracy books. So it is understandable that he might have remembered incorrectly and thought that the east wall was the north wall. The diagram he made shows where he saw the bag. “To the best of his knowledge” simply implies that he cannot be sure that it wasn’t moved before he got there and saw it in the corner.
Not under oath and years later. I contend Day was not the most careful of witnesses with the truth. Similar to Biffle's piffle.
Actually I think the discovery by Patrick of the bag in the picture does prove what Biffle stated on 11/22 and Day on 7/11/06:
" We all stood around staring at the brown wrapping paper found nearby."
The Bag was discovered "nearby" and placed on top of the boxes before they realized its importance. In an odd way it validates the evidence collection because after realizing the mistake, Day decided to not stage the location of the bag and photograph the bag because it had been moved. They never wanted to admit the mistake by one of the detectives.
This is also what Day stated in his last statement.
"They had posted guards or something around it and they didn't have the sense to leave things alone. And they'd got in there and picked up a sack that was in this corner. And we didn't get a picture of it. But there was a sack right in that corner...the brown paper bag. It was the one he was supposed to have brought curtain rods in. Well, they picked it up while I was gone, and I didn't get a picture of it while it was sitting there."
No he didn’t say any such thing. And who taught you English vocabulary? I suggest you consult a dictionary.I just did and it said that you don't know what in hell you're talking about.
Yes, I agree. I think that one or more of them probably assumed that the bag had already been photographed. Otherwise, they should have known better than to disturb it. And Patrick’s discovery of the bag in the photo (which appears to have been taken during the applicable time period) should help to confirm these things.
A person would have to take leave of their good sense to believe anything that John Carl Day said ... Just as a person has to take leave of their good sense ( and ignore what they know to be the truth) to believe Joe Biden.
Reality has a way of disturbing fantasies...
Yes, that true.... thus the Warren Report is "disturbed"
Trask didn't have access to the digitized copies of the bag in front of the building now available. As first noticed by the late great researcher John Hunt, and presented on the Lancer Forum, if I recall, Montgomery's watch was fairly clear in one of the photos. Here is a close-up of that watch.
(http://www.patspeer.com/chapter-4c/Screen%20Shot%202019-03-04%20at%207.17.44%20PM.png?attredirects=0)
Does Trask give a source for his "2:19"?
Patrick's discovery of what may be CE 142 on top of boxes in a Dallas PD photo unfortunately tells us nothing about who placed it there and when.
How do we prove that the wrapper in the photo is the bag that Montgomery carried out of the TSBD.....The bag (wrapper) in the photo seems to be more crumpled than Montgomery's....
For Iacoletti, there is no evidence of anything whatsoever. Therefore, there can’t be proof either...
Well, photo-manipulation techniques are available
I don't think you'd get that one by a sharp prosecutor
But thanks for the contribution nevertheless.
Beers, Allen, and Smith likely had their own watches
A precise time of 2:19 sounds like someone looked at their own watch
Reality has a way of disturbing fantasies...
Wow. This is a truly awful post. First, you insult the late John Hunt--a well-respected researcher who supplied numerous images to Larry Sturdivan for his book--by implying he faked a photo for,,,what reason, was it? So he could contradict Trask?
And second, you totally misrepresent Trask. Trask said the tramp photos were taken AFTER 2:19, and the bag photos were taken after the tramp photos.
Try to do better. Especially if you're gonna go after Hunt.
You make several unfounded ad hoc conclusions. And then call Day and Biffle liars because their eyewitness accounts don’t agree with your opinion.
The conclusions are not “ad hoc" and founded on analysis of the under oath testimonies of those present. Your inability to rebut the testimonies is duly noted. JohnM reposted the image with the title “Oswald's sack" and when asked about the person who took the photo (and when) failed to reply.
I find the notion that Oswald would construct a bag to transport the rifle, find that in order for the rifle to fit disassembled it, then simply leave the open end unsealed during transport, laughable.
The conclusions are not “ad hoc" and founded on analysis of the under oath testimonies of those present. Your inability to rebut the testimonies is duly noted. JohnM reposted the image with the title “Oswald's sack" and when asked about the person who took the photo (and when) failed to reply.
I find the notion that Oswald would construct a bag to transport the rifle, find that in order for the rifle to fit disassembled it, then simply leave the open end unsealed during transport, laughable.
But you believe the DPD constructed the bag to carry the rifle, then didn't use the bag for that purpose, somehow confused it for the bag Oswald carried to work, never cleared that up and then lied about finding it in the SN? And how do Oswald's prints get on it. By comparison, I don't see anything implausible in a narrative where Oswald constructs a bag, puts his rifle in it, and understandably leaves it open on one end to place the rifle in it and then remove it. That seems pretty straightforward by comparison.
Try to respond better
You'd face those (post#134) asks in court
The Long Brown Bag
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/bag.htm
'The bag was photographed being brought out the front of the Depository at 2:19 p.m. (Trask, Pictures of the Pain, p338)
The conclusions are not “ad hoc" and founded on analysis of the under oath testimonies of those present. Your inability to rebut the testimonies is duly noted. JohnM reposted the image with the title “Oswald's sack" and when asked about the person who took the photo (and when) failed to reply.
I find the notion that Oswald would construct a bag to transport the rifle, find that in order for the rifle to fit disassembled it, then simply leave the open end unsealed during transport, laughable.
Maybe more laughable is you think someone would have no choice but to leave dozens of Carcano parts loose inside the bag and than the untaped end was spring-loaded to pop open.
Do you think Oswald constructed the bag with the intention of transporting the rifle intact?
I think if the paper was heavy enough, it probably would have retained its crinkled shape on the end. That end could have been pushed into the seam or gap of the back seat (where the seat-back meets the seat) to ensure it stayed close and prevent the bag itself from sliding around. The small loose bits inside could have been in a smaller bag inside the larger bag or in his pockets. Or he could have loosely re-attached all the screws and kept the disassembly to a few loose parts. That would also keep track of where the original screws went.
I didn’t see anything that required rebuttal. Unless I missed it, Mytton hasn’t responded to this thread at all since he posted the first one. This is unusual, I hope he is just busy and is okay.
This is definitely my own conjecture:
Going from memory, Ruth Paine has said that she doesn’t remember seeing the rifle in the belongings she transported to her house from New Orleans. And that she suspects the rifle could have been in the duffel bag. That makes sense to me. LHO could have disassembled it (so that less of it would stick out of the top of the duffel bag) and further concealed it in the blanket before he packed it into the duffel bag. At some point the disassembled rifle (in the blanket) was removed from the duffel bag and placed on the floor of the Paine’s garage. If this theory is true, then LHO should have had a pretty good idea of how long to make the paper bag in order to conceal the disassembled rifle while transporting it into the TSBD.
Sealing both ends of the paper bag is your idea. It just doesn’t make sense to me that it was necessary or desirable.
Try to respond better
You'd face those (post#134) asks in court
The Long Brown Bag
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/bag.htm
'The bag was photographed being brought out the front of the Depository at 2:19 p.m. (Trask, Pictures of the Pain, p338)
1. This isn't a court room, and if it was, the judge would give you a warning about abusing the witness. I thought we were researchers with a shared interest sharing different viewpoints.
Well, photo-manipulation techniques are availableOh yeah? ???
Oh yeah? ???
That is just what Oswald said when confronted with the BY pictures.
Thing of it is...he told the cops where they could find all the rest of his stuff [at the Paine's]
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=29106
The report states that LHO "became arrogant'' when they kept drilling him about the photos.
Why would Oswald direct the cops to find pictures that would incriminate him and then deny he had any knowledge of them?
Oh yeah? ???
That is just what Oswald said when confronted with the BY pictures.
Thing of it is...he told the cops where they could find all the rest of his stuff [at the Paine's]
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=29106
The report states that LHO "became arrogant'' when they kept drilling him about the photos.
Why would Oswald direct the cops to find pictures that would incriminate him and then deny he had any knowledge of them?
Lee didn't deny knowledge of THEM ( plural) He said the onethat Fritz showed him on Saturday, (at about 1:00 pm,) BEFORE they searched Paines garage ( at about 3:30) was a fake. Since it is established that CE 133A and CE133B were found in Paines garage at about 3:30 Saturday afternoon..... Then the only photo that they could have shown Lee was 133c, and Lee told them it was a fake....Walt if you read the report that I linked...
"when the photographs were presented to Oswald he sneered at them saying that they were fake..."
Bill was being ironic.Not impressed with the irony.
Walt if you read the report that I linked...
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=29106Not impressed with the irony.
You believe the rifle had previously been transported in Oswald's duffel bag. Oswald regularly had Marina do his washing when he went to the Paine's on weekends. He had not visited the previous weekend so there was no need for any curtain rod story. He simply could have used an excuse about laundry to Frazier and used the duffel bag to transport the rifle hidden amongst some clothing. There was no need for a paper bag to be constructed. But there was a concoction of a "curtain rod" story by Frazier.
I didn’t see anything that required rebuttal. Unless I missed it, Mytton hasn’t responded to this thread at all since he posted the first one. This is unusual, I hope he is just busy and is okay.
This is definitely my own conjecture:
Going from memory, Ruth Paine has said that she doesn’t remember seeing the rifle in the belongings she transported to her house from New Orleans. And that she suspects the rifle could have been in the duffel bag. That makes sense to me. LHO could have disassembled it (so that less of it would stick out of the top of the duffel bag) and further concealed it in the blanket before he packed it into the duffel bag. At some point the disassembled rifle (in the blanket) was removed from the duffel bag and placed on the floor of the Paine’s garage. If this theory is true, then LHO should have had a pretty good idea of how long to make the paper bag in order to conceal the disassembled rifle while transporting it into the TSBD.
Sealing both ends of the paper bag is your idea. It just doesn’t make sense to me that it was necessary or desirable.
Even disassembled, the rifle would have been longer than the typical military duffel bag and therefore would have had to stick out exposed to view (it was not possible to completely hide it among his clothes). The typical bag like I was issued had 3 grommets spaced at ninety degrees apart around the top opening that were placed over a fourth grommet which included an integral elongated ring. This procedure closed off the top and then a hook with a spring closure attached to the end of the carrying strap was then hooked to the elongated ring over the grommets to secure everything. If something thin (like a rifle) needed to stick out because it was too long, one of the three grommets could be left off of the elongated ring to create a small opening so the rifle could stick out. And the remainder of the top opening would be closed. Wrapped up in a blanket among the rest of their possessions, it apparently didn't attract suspicion from the Paines. But it certainly wouldn't have looked like part of his clothing if he took it to the TSBD.
In my opinion, the genesis of the curtain rod idea came from seeing the Paine's curtain rods (which were stored on a shelf in their garage). The were enclosed in none other than brown shipping paper similar to the stuff used by the TSBD shipping department. It is easy for me to believe that LHO most likely saw those curtain rods in the garage at some point. And just as easy to believe that his idea for getting his rifle into the TSBD disguised as curtain rods came from seeing them and the wrapping paper operation at the TSBD. It was a decent idea that fooled Frasier, and, if questioned by coworkers, he could have said the same thing to them.
Your conjecture fails to take in account that Michael Paine said he removed the blanket with content from Ruth's car and placed it in the garage. If you believe that the rifle was in a duffel bag, wrapped in a blanket, then what was the camping equipment that Michael Pained said he thought was in the blanket he took from the car?
Do you also have an idea about how Oswald transported his rifle on a public bus to New Orleans without being noticed? And if you do have such an idea, why would he need another one to transport the rifle from Irving to the TSBD?
Going from memory, Ruth Paine has said that she doesn’t remember seeing the rifle in the belongings she transported to her house from New Orleans. And that she suspects the rifle could have been in the duffel bag. That makes sense to me. LHO could have disassembled it (so that less of it would stick out of the top of the duffel bag) and further concealed it in the blanket before he packed it into the duffel bag. At some point the disassembled rifle (in the blanket) was removed from the duffel bag and placed on the floor of the Paine’s garage.
I assume James Fetzer and the like are nice people.Wrong. Fetzer is an idiot.
In 2013, officials of the University of Minnesota said that "Fetzer has the right to express his views, but he also has the responsibility to make clear he's not speaking for the university."[19] He is retired and no longer employed by the university.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_H._Fetzer#Promotion_of_conspiracy_theories
So now the duffel bag idea is not making sense to successfully transport the rifle.What makes sense is--- Oswald never had a rifle. That would explain the transport issues.
So now the duffel bag idea is not making sense to successfully transport the rifle.
Am I correct in understanding that the fingerprint matches on the bag by the FBI consisted of 11 and 18 points?
It was Ruth Paine's conjecture (see my original statement below). I only added my opinion. If Michael remembered doing that, then the most likely answer is that Ruth's conjecture was not correct. The point is that it is possible that LHO could have sent it back disassembled in order to shorten the length so that it would be less likely to be recognized as a rifle. Or simply so that it would fit better in the blanket and/or station wagon.
Going from memory, Ruth Paine has said that she doesn’t remember seeing the rifle in the belongings she transported to her house from New Orleans. And that she suspects the rifle could have been in the duffel bag
I didn’t see anything that required rebuttal. Unless I missed it, Mytton hasn’t responded to this thread at all since he posted the first one. This is unusual, I hope he is just busy and is okay.
This is definitely my own conjecture:
Going from memory, Ruth Paine has said that she doesn’t remember seeing the rifle in the belongings she transported to her house from New Orleans. And that she suspects the rifle could have been in the duffel bag. That makes sense to me. LHO could have disassembled it (so that less of it would stick out of the top of the duffel bag) and further concealed it in the blanket before he packed it into the duffel bag. At some point the disassembled rifle (in the blanket) was removed from the duffel bag and placed on the floor of the Paine’s garage. If this theory is true, then LHO should have had a pretty good idea of how long to make the paper bag in order to conceal the disassembled rifle while transporting it into the TSBD.
Sealing both ends of the paper bag is your idea. It just doesn’t make sense to me that it was necessary or desirable.
Lee didn't deny knowledge of THEM ( plural) He said the onethat Fritz showed him on Saturday, (at about 1:00 pm,) BEFORE they searched Paines garage ( at about 3:30) was a fake. Since it is established that CE 133A and CE133B were found in Paines garage at about 3:30 Saturday afternoon..... Then the only photo that they could have shown Lee was 133c, and Lee told them it was a fake....
So this leaves the possibility Day saw the bag in the sniper's nest upon his first arrival, and that he thought he'd get back to it upon his return from the crime lab. But this fails the smell test, seeing as none of those arriving at the sniper's nest before Day's arrival had any recollection of a gun case/bag sitting on the floor of the sniper's nest, and no pictures were taken of it in the sniper's nest, and neither Montgomery nor Day (the two possible finders of the bag) could tell a consistent story regarding where the bag was "discovered."
News reporter Kent Biffle states the bag was discovered before the rifle was located. He mentions "We", this can only be assumed to be the various detectives,
Taken from Biffle's notes page 6 and 7:
It didn't take the policemen long to find the cartridges by the ambush window. We all stood around staring at the brown wrapping paper found nearby. It was a reasonable conclusion that it held the rifle.
An officer in the northwest corner of the room yelled: "Over here!"
I ran over, dodging down narrow alleys in the stacks of packing crates. I was secure in the knowledge that my theory was materializing. They'd found the body of the gunman, I guessed.
I was let down when the policeman pointed among a jumble of boxes at the hidden rifle. The muzzle and the steel butt plate were barely visible.
Well, let me see... ummm... maybe he could have transported it on the bus (disassembled) in his duffel bag wrapped in a blanket with one end sticking out....
No. From chapter 4d:
"Latona's exhibits reflect that there were 9 points of similarity between Oswald's left index finger and the bag fingerprint, 15 points of similarity between Oswald's right palm print and the bag palm print, 11 points of similarity between Oswald's right palm print and the palm print on Box D, 13 points of similarity between Oswald's left palm print and the palm print on Box A, 10 points of similarity between Oswald's right index finger and the fingerprint on Box A, and 11 points of similarity between Oswald's right palm print and the lift from the rifle. And yes, you are correct. Only two of these would have been accepted by most American examiners, and none--not one--would have been accepted by a European examiner.
At least not in '63... Over the decades that followed, the FBI convinced experts around the world that they needn't count points, and that an expert can just "know" when two prints are a match based upon an individualized and instinctual algorithm built upon the number of similar points, and the rarity of these points (aka "hunch").
Biffle was almost certainly thinking of the lunch sack. From chapter 4c:
Kent Biffle, the only newsman besides Alyea to witness the search of the building, may also have seen this sack. Unlike Weatherford, however, he seems to have confused it with the bag purportedly found in the sniper's nest. In an account purportedly written in March 1964, and subsequently published in the Fall 1998 issue of Legacies, a History Journal For Dallas and North Texas, Biffle claimed that after the rifle shells were found by the "ambush window", "We all stood around staring at the brown wrapping paper found nearby. It was a reasonable conclusion that it held the rifle." Note that he says it was found "nearby," and not right by the window, as later purported by Studebaker. Note also that he says "we all stood around staring" at the wrapping paper, an impossibility if the wrapping paper was sitting folded on the far side of the box purportedly used as a seat by the assassin, in the southeast corner of the building. As shown on the Blind Detective slide, this was an incredibly confined space behind stacks of boxes. The "wrapping paper," should it actually have been found in this location, would not have been visible to more than a few people at a time. Perhaps, then, Biffle saw the bag sometime after it had originally been "found." Perhaps, after its initial "discovery" by Montgomery, wherever it was "discovered," Studebaker placed the bag on the floor in a more accessible location, where it was subsequently viewed by Biffle.
But there's a problem with this scenario as well. In his account, Biffle presents his observation of the bag before he presents the discovery of the rifle. Well, if this was so, why didn't Mooney, Walters, Hill, Craig, Faulkner, Boyd, Fritz or Alyea remember seeing the bag? Was it "found" after they left the area but before the rifle was found?
No, it was not. Det. Marvin Johnson, whose partner L.D. Montgomery was credited with the discovery of the bag, claimed the bag was discovered after he'd witnessed the dusting of the area around the lunch sack. And the record is clear that this didn't occur until after the discovery of the rifle.
So...was Biffle simply mistaken about the bag? Was the sack he'd observed the lunch sack observed by others, only with 20-200 hindsight in which it morphed into the "sack" purported to have held the rifle?
It sure seems so. A Biffle-authored story was published in the 11-23-63 Dallas Morning News. There, he mentioned that a "gnawed piece of fried chicken" and an "empty cold drink bottle"--items found near the lunch bag-- were found near the sniper's nest, but made no mention of a large bag or wrapping paper.
There's also this. Below is an image, (taken from the Owens film), showing the reporters invited up to the sixth floor on the afternoon of the 22nd gathering around the window where Bonnie Ray Williams ate his lunch. They appear to be looking down at something. The man with the tie, in particular, appears to be looking down at where the lunch bag was a few minutes before, before Det.s Johnson and Montgomery took the lunch sack, cigarette pack, and pop bottle to the crime lab.
Well. I'm pretty sure this man is Kent Biffle, pointing out to the other reporters where the lunch sack they'd just seen taken from the building had first been discovered.
Here's a photo of Biffle from 1963.
And finally... Biffle's latter-day story, written months after the shooting, does not begin with his entering the school book depository. Before that, he discusses his racing over to the grassy knoll after the shots. He then relates "The other side of the fence held no gunman. There was just a maze of railroad tracks and three dazed winos. 'What happened?' one asked me." Well, this is just not credible. None of the police officers claiming to have raced back behind the fence after the shots saw these "winos." If Biffle had talked to one of them, and had not bothered to point this man out to a police officer as a possible witness, then he was not much of a citizen, let alone a reporter. The so-called "three tramps" found in a railroad car passing through town, it should be noted, were not discovered till almost 2:00, an hour and a half after the shooting, and were not arrested until a few minutes later. It only follows then that Biffle had used "artistic license" to incorporate them into his story, and that he may have used this same "license" to add the bag into his story. One certainly can't accept his account as credible when he says "we all" stood around staring at the bag, when none of those to first observe the sniper's nest, including his fellow newsman Tom Alyea, had ANY recollection of the bag. It seems probable the bag Biffle was thinking of, then, was not the bag or sack supposedly used to carry Oswald's rifle, but the other bag or sack reportedly found in the building, the lunch bag, which most all the sniper's nest witnesses remembered, and which Biffle alluded to in his initial article in which he mentioned the gnawed chicken and empty bottle.
He said the onethat Fritz showed him on Saturday, (at about 1:00 pm,) BEFORE they searched Paines garage ( at about 3:30) was a fake.
That would be the one the FBI showed Michael Paine on Friday evening when they wanted to know where the photo was taken, and Paine told him it was Neely Street.
That would be the one the FBI showed Michael Paine on Friday evening when they wanted to know where the photo was taken, and Paine told him it was Neely Street.
Yes, I'd agree IF If that's the way it happened....But I suspect that it was Michael Paine who presented the BY photo (133c) to the authorities.....Not the other way around. Think about it..... Why would the police ask Micheal Paine about where a photo was taken?
I'l tell you why.... Because Paine presented the photo... and then they asked him if he knew where it was taken.
Actually, it was an FBI agent who showed the photo to Paine, not the police.
Your scenario doesn't really make much sense to me, Walt, because if Paine had given the FBI or the police the photograph on Friday evening, he would have had to explain where he got it, wouldn't he? Also, it would make his claim that he did not know Oswald had a rifle impossible.
But that would be hell of a way to "conceal" a rifle he had just used in an attempted murder, don't you think?
Even in today’s paranoid world with all the security measures, etc., people travel with firearms. As long as they aren’t in their carry-on items they are permissible. And there wasn’t exactly an active dragnet of police activity looking for Walker’s attacker when LHO traveled to New Orleans. So, no..,
he would have had to explain where he got it, wouldn't he?
How do you know that he didn't simply tell them that Lee had gave him the photo..... Do you doubt that Lee gave a photo to De Morhenschildt?
Also, it would make his claim that he did not know Oswald had a rifle impossible.
Paine denied that he knew that Lee had a rifle on 11/22/63??
You are missing the point. Sure, many people travel with firearms, but how many of those have just used that weapon to shoot somebody? It's about Oswald's frame of mind. Having just tried to kill a man with that rifle, would he risk transporting it in a duffelbag with the barrel sticking out? I seriously doubt it....
But it is once again clear that you are using biased speculation to try to shape the narrative towards your own opinion.
This is Colin’s remark that inspired the reply containing conjecture regarding the duffel bag:
I find the notion that Oswald would construct a bag to transport the rifle, find that in order for the rifle to fit disassembled it, then simply leave the open end unsealed during transport, laughable.
I was simply pointing out that it could have been made intentionally to fit the disassembled rifle.
Furthermore, LHO was laughing at the cops because they apparently had no clue that he was the one shooting at Walker. His frame of mind was more like Alfred E. Newman’s (What, me worry).
Paine denied that he knew that Lee had a rifle on 11/22/63??
Mr. LIEBELER - You must have moved the duffelbags from the station wagon into the garage?Right :-\
Mr. PAINE - That is right. I unpacked whatever was remaining in the station wagon to the garage.
So sometime later, I do remember moving about this package which, let's say, was a rifle, anyway it was a package wrapped in a blanket.
Mr Paine: The garage was kind of crowded and I did have my tools in there and I had to move this package several times in order to make space to work, and the final time I put it on the floor underneath the saw where the bandsaw would be casting dust on it and I was a little embarrassed to be putting his goods on the floor, but I didn't suppose, the first time I picked it up I thought it was camping equipment. I said to myself they don't make camping equipment of iron pipes any more.Totally ludicrous.
Mr. LIEBELER - Why did you say that to yourself when you picked up the package?
Mr. PAINE - I had, my experience had been, my earliest camping equipment had been a tent of iron pipes. This somehow reminded me of that. I felt a pipe with my right hand and it was iron, that is to say it was not aluminum.
Mr. LIEBELER - How did you make that distinction?
Mr. PAINE - By the weight of it, and by the, I suppose the moment of inertia, you could have an aluminum tube with a total weight massed in the center somehow but that would not have had the inertia this way.
Mr. DULLES - You were just feeling this through the blanket though?
Mr. PAINE - I was also aware as I was moving his goods around, of his rights to privacy. So I did not feel--I had to move this object, I wasn't thinking very much about it but it happens that I did think a little bit about it or before I get on to the working with my tools I thought, an image came to mind.
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......
Mr. LIEBELER - Did it occur to you at that time that there was a rifle in the package?Oswald was gone.
Mr. PAINE - That did not occur to me.
Mr. LIEBELER - You never at any time looked inside the package?
Mr. PAINE - That is correct. I could easily have felt the package but I was aware that of respecting his privacy of his possessions.
Mr. LIEBELER - I now show you Commission Exhibit 139, which is a rifle that was found in the Texas School Book Depository Building, and ask you if you at any time ever saw this rifle prior to November 22, 1963?
Mr. PAINE - I did not
Mr. LIEBELER - Have you seen it since that time and prior to yesterday?
Mr. PAINE - I saw a rifle being shown to Marina in an adjoining cubicle with a glass wall between us.
Mr. LIEBELER - When was that?
Mr. PAINE - That was the night of the 22nd.
Furthermore, LHO was laughing at the cops because they apparently had no clue that he was the one shooting at Walker. His frame of mind was more like Alfred E. Newman’s (What, me worry).Nonsense....Where is any of that in evidence?
This is Colin’s remark that inspired the reply containing conjecture regarding the duffel bag:
I find the notion that Oswald would construct a bag to transport the rifle, find that in order for the rifle to fit disassembled it, then simply leave the open end unsealed during transport, laughable.
I was simply pointing out that it could have been made intentionally to fit the disassembled rifle.
Furthermore, LHO was laughing at the cops because they apparently had no clue that he was the one shooting at Walker. His frame of mind was more like Alfred E. Newman’s (What, me worry).
Biffle was almost certainly thinking of the lunch sack. From chapter 4c:
Kent Biffle, the only newsman besides Alyea to witness the search of the building, may also have seen this sack. Unlike Weatherford, however, he seems to have confused it with the bag purportedly found in the sniper's nest. In an account purportedly written in March 1964, and subsequently published in the Fall 1998 issue of Legacies, a History Journal For Dallas and North Texas, Biffle claimed that after the rifle shells were found by the "ambush window", "We all stood around staring at the brown wrapping paper found nearby. It was a reasonable conclusion that it held the rifle." Note that he says it was found "nearby," and not right by the window, as later purported by Studebaker. Note also that he says "we all stood around staring" at the wrapping paper, an impossibility if the wrapping paper was sitting folded on the far side of the box purportedly used as a seat by the assassin, in the southeast corner of the building. As shown on the Blind Detective slide, this was an incredibly confined space behind stacks of boxes. The "wrapping paper," should it actually have been found in this location, would not have been visible to more than a few people at a time. Perhaps, then, Biffle saw the bag sometime after it had originally been "found." Perhaps, after its initial "discovery" by Montgomery, wherever it was "discovered," Studebaker placed the bag on the floor in a more accessible location, where it was subsequently viewed by Biffle.
But there's a problem with this scenario as well. In his account, Biffle presents his observation of the bag before he presents the discovery of the rifle. Well, if this was so, why didn't Mooney, Walters, Hill, Craig, Faulkner, Boyd, Fritz or Alyea remember seeing the bag? Was it "found" after they left the area but before the rifle was found?
No, it was not. Det. Marvin Johnson, whose partner L.D. Montgomery was credited with the discovery of the bag, claimed the bag was discovered after he'd witnessed the dusting of the area around the lunch sack. And the record is clear that this didn't occur until after the discovery of the rifle.
So...was Biffle simply mistaken about the bag? Was the sack he'd observed the lunch sack observed by others, only with 20-200 hindsight in which it morphed into the "sack" purported to have held the rifle?
It sure seems so. A Biffle-authored story was published in the 11-23-63 Dallas Morning News. There, he mentioned that a "gnawed piece of fried chicken" and an "empty cold drink bottle"--items found near the lunch bag-- were found near the sniper's nest, but made no mention of a large bag or wrapping paper.
There's also this. Below is an image, (taken from the Owens film), showing the reporters invited up to the sixth floor on the afternoon of the 22nd gathering around the window where Bonnie Ray Williams ate his lunch. They appear to be looking down at something. The man with the tie, in particular, appears to be looking down at where the lunch bag was a few minutes before, before Det.s Johnson and Montgomery took the lunch sack, cigarette pack, and pop bottle to the crime lab.
Well. I'm pretty sure this man is Kent Biffle, pointing out to the other reporters where the lunch sack they'd just seen taken from the building had first been discovered.
Here's a photo of Biffle from 1963.
And finally... Biffle's latter-day story, written months after the shooting, does not begin with his entering the school book depository. Before that, he discusses his racing over to the grassy knoll after the shots. He then relates "The other side of the fence held no gunman. There was just a maze of railroad tracks and three dazed winos. 'What happened?' one asked me." Well, this is just not credible. None of the police officers claiming to have raced back behind the fence after the shots saw these "winos." If Biffle had talked to one of them, and had not bothered to point this man out to a police officer as a possible witness, then he was not much of a citizen, let alone a reporter. The so-called "three tramps" found in a railroad car passing through town, it should be noted, were not discovered till almost 2:00, an hour and a half after the shooting, and were not arrested until a few minutes later. It only follows then that Biffle had used "artistic license" to incorporate them into his story, and that he may have used this same "license" to add the bag into his story. One certainly can't accept his account as credible when he says "we all" stood around staring at the bag, when none of those to first observe the sniper's nest, including his fellow newsman Tom Alyea, had ANY recollection of the bag. It seems probable the bag Biffle was thinking of, then, was not the bag or sack supposedly used to carry Oswald's rifle, but the other bag or sack reportedly found in the building, the lunch bag, which most all the sniper's nest witnesses remembered, and which Biffle alluded to in his initial article in which he mentioned the gnawed chicken and empty bottle.
1. This isn't a court room, and if it was, the judge would give you a warning about abusing the witness. I thought we were researchers with a shared interest sharing different viewpoints. You could have asked for more info, instead of jumping to your stance that Hunt and/or myself are liars who'd faked a photo to make a relatively minor point. I mean, do you know anything about Hunt, and all the stuff he found, simply by going to the archives, and looking?
I agree with Colin in as much as that there was no apparent need to create a paperbag at work and take it to Irving for the sole purpose of transporting a rifle he had previously transported in other ways.
His frame of mind was more like Alfred E. Newman’s (What, me worry).
Pray tell, how in the world do you know what his frame of mind was?
Pray tell, how in the world do you know what his frame of mind was?
Marina tells us (through Priscilla) in this quote from “Marina and Lee”:
The Dallas papers of Thursday, April 11, ran front-page stories about the attempt on Walker’s life. Lee left the apartment to buy both morning and afternoon editions and lay on the sofa listening to news bulletins on the radio. It was reported that the police had identified the bullet as a 30.06. It was also reported that an aide to the general had noticed two men in a “late-model, unlicensed car” in the alley behind Walker’s house on the night of his return. After the shooting, a fourteen-year-old boy, Kirk Newman, who was a neighbor of Walker’s, claimed that he had seen two cars, one with one man in it, the other with several, speed away from the scene. Reading that, Lee roared with laughter. “Americans are so spoiled!” he said, proud of his escape. “It never occurs to them that you might use your own two legs. They always think you have a car. They chased a car. And here I am sitting here!” Once again he said that before any car left the scene, “my legs had carried me a long way.”2 Lee also laughed at the police identification of the badly smashed bullet.3 “They got the bullet—found it in the chimney,” he said. “They say I had a .30 caliber bullet when I didn’t at all. They’ve got the bullet and the rifle all wrong. Can’t even figure that out. What fools!”
Q... Pray tell, how in the world do you know what his frame of mind was?And there you have it...The truth according to the gospel of Priscilla Johnson McMillan.
A... Marina tells us (through Priscilla) in this quote from “Marina and Lee”:
Oh please, do us a favor....
A book written by a CIA assett in 1977..... really? LOL
Oh please, do us a favor....
A book written by a CIA assett in 1977..... really? LOL
Expected response, you don’t like the message so you try to attack the messenger. Yawn...
While I agree with your skepticism concerning Priscilla the CIA agent..... I do believe this account of Lee's reaction to the news reports rings of truth.
I believe that he was alert, and wanted to be ready to flee for Cuba, at the first hint that the police were tracking him. Thus he was listening to the radio reports.
Walt, any attempt to crawl inside the mind of Oswald is futile.
People talk about this guy as if they knew him personally and intimately, when they didn't. They base their opinions on what they have been told about him by biased and/or questionable sources. To me, anybody who writes a book about Oswald for the purpose of financial gains is a questionable source unless the quality of the works proves otherwise.
There is so much about the whole JFK murder narrative that is questionable, contradictory or simply not true, that you can not accept any kind of information about the man at face value.
Just take yourself as example... Just how many people around you do really know you so intimately that they can say anything authoritative about your frame of mind at any given time?
Yet, here we all are shaping our opinions about Oswald based on second hand information, guesses and our own bias in considering him either guilty or innocent.
You are missing the point. Sure, many people travel with firearms, but how many of those have just used that weapon to shoot somebody? It's about Oswald's frame of mind. Having just tried to kill a man with that rifle, would he risk transporting it in a duffelbag with the barrel sticking out? I seriously doubt it....
But it is once again clear that you are using biased speculation to try to shape the narrative towards your own opinion.
Walt, any attempt to crawl inside the mind of Oswald is futile.
People talk about this guy as if they knew him personally and intimately, when they didn't. They base their opinions on what they have been told about him by biased and/or questionable sources. To me, anybody who writes a book about Oswald for the purpose of financial gains is a questionable source unless the quality of the works proves otherwise.
There is so much about the whole JFK murder narrative that is questionable, contradictory or simply not true, that you can not accept any kind of information about the man at face value.
Just take yourself as example... Just how many people around you do really know you so intimately that they can say anything authoritative about your frame of mind at any given time?
Yet, here we all are shaping our opinions about Oswald based on second hand information, guesses and our own bias in considering him either guilty or innocent.
Yet, you are the one who began directing the conversation in this direction by acting like you knew something about his frame of mind...
::)
We can form opinions about his frame of mind based on his actions. Do you have any credible evidence that Marina or Priscilla didn't tell the truth about LHO laughing at the newspaper reports on 4/11/63?
Furthermore, LHO was laughing at the cops because they apparently had no clue that he was the one shooting at Walker. His frame of mind was more like Alfred E. Newman’s (What, me worry).
Priscilla Johnson's account of what Marina told her about the Walker incident seems to be in accord with Marina's testimony about that episode.
IMO the account in "MARINA and LEE" is true......
Mrs. PORTER. We did not have television. He turned the radio on later on, listened for the news, and it wasn't, nothing on.
Mr. McDONALD. You say he returned late that evening.
Mr. McDONALD. But it is your testimony he did not come home after work, before going out to try to shoot General Walker.
Mrs. PORTER. I really do not remember right now. He might, didn't come from work, or maybe he left and come back later.
Mr. McDONALD. When he returned that evening, about what time did he get back?
Mrs. PORTER. I don't remember the time. Quite late.
Mr. McDONALD. Was it early in the evening, late in the evening?
Mrs. PORTER. I assume it is very late in the evening.
Mr. McDONALD. Did he come in with the rifle?
Mrs. PORTER. No.
Mr. McDONALD. You specifically remember he did not have it?
Mrs. PORTER. Well, as I recall right now, I think a few days later,or the next day or 2 days later, he went and brought the rifle back in thehouse.
Mr. McDONALD. How did he bring it back? How did he carry it?
Mrs. PORTER. The same way he was taking it out, with the raincoat on.
Mr. McDONALD. With the raincoat?
Mrs. PORTER. Yes. Mr. McDONALD. Is this the way he would normally take the rifle out of the Neely Street apartment, under the raincoat?
Mrs. PORTER. When he went as he said practice, target practice---
Mr. McDONALD. Yes?
Mrs. PORTER [continuing]. That usually was the procedure.
Mr. McDONALD. But concerning the General Walker incident, do you remember the night, that night, when he came in pale? When he came in, did he have the raincoat on?
Mrs. PORTER. I don't remember. But as I recall right now, I think that he went and he hid the rifle somewhere else.
Mr. McDONALD. Did he seem pleased when he got home?
Mrs. PORTER. Pleased with what?
Mr. McDONALD. Pleased with what he had done?
Mrs. PORTER. No, he was just nervous and he was eager for listen to the news, but then he was disappointed.
Mr. McDONALD. You mentioned a note, he left you a note.
Mrs. PORTER. Yes.
Mr. McDONALD. Where was this note left?
Mrs. PORTER. I don't remember right now, but I think it could be in the closet, on the table there.
Mr. McDONALD. I am sorry?
Mrs. PORTER. Maybe it is in the closet above his shelf or something like that.
Mr. McDONALD. You found this note before he returned? Did you find it before he returned?
Mrs. PORTER. I think so.
Mr. McDONALD. And what did it say?
Mrs. PORTER. What for me to do in case if he did not come back home.
Mr. McDONALD. And what specifically did it say?
Mrs. PORTER. Well, it was a key to the mailbox, post office mailbox, I think. I really don't remember what the note exactly said right now.
Mr. McDONALD. Was it written in his handwriting?
Mrs. PORTER. Yes.
Mr. McDONALD. And what did you do with the note when he returned home?
Mrs. PORTER. I don't remember.
Mr. McDONALD. Is that note in existence now?
Mrs. PORTER. I don't know.
Mr. McDONALD. Did Lee have a notebook, a book that he used to keep writings in, regarding General Walker?
Mrs. PORTER. I think so.
Mr. McDONALD. What do you remember about it?
Mrs. PORTER. Well, at the time when he was spending lots of time alone in the closet, I thought that he is writing, you know. I don't know, whatever it was, but I learn about that, that was something to do with General Walker. I learned about that later.
Mr. McDONALD. How did you learn about it?
Mrs. PORTER. I don't remember.
Mr. MCDONALD. Did he tell you?
Mrs. PORTER. Could have been.
Mr. McDONALD. You learned about it soon after the Walker incident? You learned about the notebook shortly after the Walker incident?
Mrs. PORTER. Probably.
Mr. McDONALD. So who else would be in a position to tell you what the notebook contained?
Mrs. PORTER. You--you probably have access to it.
Mr. McDONALD. No, no, I mean at that time.
Mrs. PORTER. Only Lee, yes, sir.
Mr. McDONALD. Do you recall if that notebook contained photographs?
Mrs. PORTER. I think so.
Mr. McDONALD. What did those photographs depict?
Mrs. PORTER. Well, I remember now it looked like some kind of a house or a road or something like that of that nature, and if 1 asked him what it was, he said that is General Walker's house.
Mr. McDONALD. And were these photographs attached to a piece of paper, I mean a page of the notebook itself?.
Mrs. PORTER. I don't remember right now.
Mr. McDONALD. What happened to that notebook?
Mrs. PORTER. I don't know.
Mr. McDONALD. Just 1 second.Mrs. Porter, we are speaking now of the notebook that Lee kept on the General Walker shooting.
Mrs. PORTER. OK.
Mr. McDONALD. And you testified that he brought the rifle home
a number of days after the incident.
Mrs. PORTER. Yes.
Mr. McDONALD. And you were aware of this notebook that he kept.
Mrs. PORTER. Well, I tried to recall in my memory how these things did happen, and by now maybe I assumed some things, so really I just know it as a fact that Lee did try to attempt on life of General Walker. He told me about that and that is the fact. Details of it, I do not remember. I don't want to mislead you different direction.
Mrs. PORTER. Well, afterwards, of course, I was petrified, you know, for what he did. I was afraid and--I was waiting for the police to knock on our door any minute, so I probably even myself would be eager to destroy any evidence that lead to arrest of Lee.
Mr. McDONALD. Do you remember him destroying this notebook?
Mrs. PORTER. I do not remember right now.
Mr. McDONALD. Over the weeks after the Walker incident, did Lee ever express any views, any confident views, that he attempted to do something and did not get caught? In other words, did he ever say anything that the authorities just couldn't catch him, that he was too smart, something to that effect?
Mrs. PORTER. Well, he made kind of a joking remark about, after listening to the news, that all, everybody kept looking for the car, and he said Americans did not realize some people do walk, you know, so he said he just ran, walked away or ran away from the scene.
Marina tells us (through Priscilla) in this quote from “Marina and Lee”:
The Dallas papers of Thursday, April 11, ran front-page stories about the attempt on Walker’s life. Lee left the apartment to buy both morning and afternoon editions and lay on the sofa listening to news bulletins on the radio. It was reported that the police had identified the bullet as a 30.06. It was also reported that an aide to the general had noticed two men in a “late-model, unlicensed car” in the alley behind Walker’s house on the night of his return. After the shooting, a fourteen-year-old boy, Kirk Newman, who was a neighbor of Walker’s, claimed that he had seen two cars, one with one man in it, the other with several, speed away from the scene. Reading that, Lee roared with laughter. “Americans are so spoiled!” he said, proud of his escape. “It never occurs to them that you might use your own two legs. They always think you have a car. They chased a car. And here I am sitting here!” Once again he said that before any car left the scene, “my legs had carried me a long way.”2 Lee also laughed at the police identification of the badly smashed bullet.3 “They got the bullet—found it in the chimney,” he said. “They say I had a .30 caliber bullet when I didn’t at all. They’ve got the bullet and the rifle all wrong. Can’t even figure that out. What fools!”
Yet, you are the one who began directing the conversation in this direction by acting like you knew something about his frame of mind...
Why do you lie? When in truth I merely asked you how you knew what Oswald's frame of mind was, after you made this comment;
I never acted like I knew something about his frame of mind!
We can form opinions about his frame of mind based on his actions. Do you have any credible evidence that Marina or Priscilla didn't tell the truth about LHO laughing at the newspaper reports on 4/11/63?
Sure you can form opinions... In fact you constantly do. You have formed the opinion that PJM and her book are credible, that Marina told the truth about LHO laughing at media reports and that you can reach a conclusion about somebody's state of mind based on one event.
When you form your opinion "based on his actions", you are really forming an opinion merely on what others have told you and that, in my opinion, isn't a solid basis for forming opinions.
You are missing the point. Sure, many people travel with firearms, but how many of those have just used that weapon to shoot somebody? It's about Oswald's frame of mind. Having just tried to kill a man with that rifle, would he risk transporting it in a duffelbag with the barrel sticking out? I seriously doubt it....
But it is once again clear that you are using biased speculation to try to shape the narrative towards your own opinion.
Why do you lie? When in truth I merely asked you how you knew what Oswald's frame of mind was, after you made this comment
I don't lie. But apparently you do. Here (again) is your post in which you begin to tell us about "Oswald's frame of mind":
I never acted like I knew something about his frame of mind!
Yes you did. Your "I seriously doubt it" comment implies just that.
You wrote your post before I finished mine... Go back and read it again
And btw... when I say "I seriously doubt it" it means that I seriously doubt it. It doesn't mean that I claim to know anything with certainty. I just have doubts about it. So, stop reading something that isn't there!
Charles, do you really not see the difference between a positive claim ("His frame of mind was X"), and skepticism towards that positive claim? One is a knowledge claim and the other is not.
His statement was prefaced with:
"It's about Oswald's frame of mind."
That implies that the following statement is what he thinks Oswald's frame of mind was.
You wrote your post before I finished mine... Go back and read it again
Yours was written 22 minutes before mine. Go back and read it again yourself...
And btw... when I say "I seriously doubt it" it means that I seriously doubt it. It doesn't mean that I claim to know anything with certainty. I just have doubts about it. So, stop reading something that isn't there!
I never implied that you knew anything with certainty. Stop reading something that isn't there yourself. Just acknowledge that you started the conversation in this direction as I indicated before. And that you are being hypocritical when you tell us what you doubt about Oswald's frame of mind, then turn right around and tell Walt that any attempt to crawl inside Oswald's mind is futile.
It has become obvious that any attempt to have a reasonable conversation with you is futile...
His statement was prefaced with:
"It's about Oswald's frame of mind."
That implies that the following statement is what he thinks Oswald's frame of mind was. It appears to be based on what he would have done (or not done), not on the actual actions of LHO. At least what I opined was based on reality (LHO's actions).
But what followed the preface was not a statement of fact, but rather a question.
Consider the following analogy:
"Bernie Sanders' state of mind is that he does not think he can beat Trump"
vs.
"It's all about Bernie Sanders' state of mind. Does he think he can beat Trump? I doubt it."
One is a statement of fact, and the other is a statement of opinion. The second statement does not claim to know what Sanders' state of mind is.
No, it was a question followed by an answer to the question.
But what followed the preface was not a statement of fact, but rather a question.
No, it was a question followed by an answer to the question. Together they form a statement. In Martin's case it is an opinion.
You are missing the point. Sure, many people travel with firearms, but how many of those have just used that weapon to shoot somebody? It's about Oswald's frame of mind. Having just tried to kill a man with that rifle, would he risk transporting it in a duffelbag with the barrel sticking out? I seriously doubt it....
Look at the last edit time... only 6 minutes before you posted
So for you having doubts about somebody's alleged frame of mind (as claimed by others) is the same as crawling into somebody's mind?
With that kind of superficial "logic" it is indeed impossible to have a reasonable conversation!
Besides, what you call a "reasonable conversation" means that you will twist and turn in every which way possible to push your predetermind opinion, just like you did with the whole "rifle wrapped in a blanket and concealed in a duffelbag with a part sticking out" theory, which you later tried to pass of a Ruth Paine's conjecture, when it was clearly your own. Once you've got your mind made up, it seems to become fact to you and nothing anybody can say will convince you otherwise.
"I doubt it" is not an answer. Or a claim.
I guess you really don't get the difference then.
Oh boy.... What does it take to get through to you?
Let's try again, shall we? Here's the quote you refer to;
1. I made the comment that it was about Oswald's frame of mind, because you missed the point I had made.
2. I asked a question
3. I stated my opinion that I seriously doubted it.
My opinion is not an answer to the question, nor does it indicate that I know anything about Oswald's frame of mind. It's merely an expression of doubt.
The question and my opinion combined do not constitute a statement of any kind and it most certainly does not, as you claimed about one hour ago, imply that I somehow think I know what Oswald's frame of mind was.
I did not claim that Oswald would never have carried the rifle the way you described. I merely stated that I doubted it!
If you don't understand the difference, than I don't know what else there is I, or anybody else, can tell you to make you understand.
If you don't understand the difference, than I don't know what else there is I, or anybody else, can tell you to make you understand.
This is futile. He's not going to get it.
This is a statement of fact, and a positive claim purporting to know somebody's state of mind:
"His frame of mind was more like Alfred E. Newman’s (What, me worry)."
This is a statement of opinion, and not a factual claim purporting to know somebody's state of mind:
"Having just tried to kill a man with that rifle, would he risk transporting it in a duffelbag with the barrel sticking out? I seriously doubt it...."
On top of that, is there any evidence that Oswald transported a rifle in a duffel bag with the barrel sticking out? None whatsoever.
The question and my opinion combined do not constitute a statement of any kind and it most certainly does not, as you claimed about one hour ago, imply that I somehow think I know what Oswald's frame of mind was
Statement: a definite or clear expression of something in speech or writing. The question followed by: "I seriously doubt it..." appears to be definite and clear expression of your opinion. And you wrote both of them. Therefore it is a statement (by definition).
This is futile. He's not going to get it.
This is a statement of fact, and a positive claim purporting to know somebody's state of mind:
"His frame of mind was more like Alfred E. Newman’s (What, me worry)."
This is a statement of opinion, and not a factual claim purporting to know somebody's state of mind:
"Having just tried to kill a man with that rifle, would he risk transporting it in a duffelbag with the barrel sticking out? I seriously doubt it...."
On top of that, is there any evidence that Oswald transported a rifle in a duffel bag with the barrel sticking out? None whatsoever.
Charles, do you really not see the difference between a positive claim ("His frame of mind was X"), and skepticism towards that positive claim? One is a knowledge claim and the other is not.
This is futile. He's not going to get it.
Indeed.... or maybe you and I are not dumb enough to discuss things at his level.
How about this piece of amazing "logic"
First he defines a statement as a definite or clear expression of something, then he goes on to say that what I wrote "appears to be definite and clear", only to conclude that because it appeared to be definite and clear it is somehow, by definition, a statement....
Do you think he understands that his bogus conclusion is only based upon his misguided opinion that what I wrote appears to be definite and clear? I seriously doubt it!
The point is that you didn't write "I sort of think that perhaps I might kind of doubt it a little tiny bit." The sentence "I seriously doubt it." is a definite and clear statement of your opinion. Therefore, by definition, it is a statement. Own up to it!
Oh please, just stop the twisting and turning and give it up.
Now you present me with what I should have written, in your opinion, and you claim that, what I wrote, instead of what you previously thought it appeared to be, now suddenly is, again in your opinion of course (and thus contradicting yourself), a definite and clear statement after all....
In other words, it is a statement, not because it selfevidently is, but instead merely because in your opinion you believe it is a statement.
You're all over the place trying to salvage an already sunken ship. It's getting comical and tragic at the same time. What is it with you? Does your ego get in the way or what?
Now you present me with what I should have written
I didn't say that you should have written anything. The point of all the adjectives was to show what an unclear statement might look like. And to point out that your sentence did not contain any of the adjectives that would make it unclear what your opinion was. Are you really so dense that you didn't get that? Or is your addiction to arguing for the sake of argument overpowering you?
And the definition of a statement came from the dictionary, not from my opinion.
I should have put the words "I think" at the beginning of my sentence. Are you happy now?
However, the problem with your post is that the "skepticism" was not towards the positive claim.
No one has said that it was anything but conjecture.
This is a statement of fact, and a positive claim purporting to know somebody's state of mind:Was Oswald allegedly worried or not? In other posts...they have him scared and running away to New Orleans :-\QuoteHis frame of mind was more like Alfred E. Newman’s (What, me worry)?
And the definition of a statement came from the dictionary, not from my opinion.
You decided, in your opinion, that it fitted the definition of a statement.
I didn't say that you should have written anything. The point of all the adjectives was to show what an unclear statement might look like. And to point out that your sentence did not contain any of the adjectives that would make it unclear what your opinion was. Are you really so dense that you didn't get that?
Okay, clever dick... enlighten us all. When I said I seriously doubt it.... what exactly was the opinion I was expressing?
I have already stated how the sentence does fit the definition of a statement. I see no point in repeating myself. What exactly do you think disqualifies your sentence as a statement.
Yeah, that's what I thought... You can't explain it... at least not without exposing that what you have is merely your opinion.
You just lost the argument.
No, you can't answer the question. You lost.
Frankly, I'm surprised you didn't put in "most likely".
You were trying to make the case that his doubt over a claim which indicated a state of mind was no different than your positive claim about a state of mind. That they somehow both constitute "acting like you knew something about his frame of mind". They don't.
So what's the big deal then if Martin doubts it?
Even in today’s paranoid world with all the security measures, etc., people travel with firearms. As long as they aren’t in their carry-on items they are permissible. And there wasn’t exactly an active dragnet of police activity looking for Walker’s attacker when LHO traveled to New Orleans. So, no..,
You are missing the point. Sure, many people travel with firearms, but how many of those have just used that weapon to shoot somebody? It's about Oswald's frame of mind. Having just tried to kill a man with that rifle, would he risk transporting it in a duffelbag with the barrel sticking out? I seriously doubt it....
But it is once again clear that you are using biased speculation to try to shape the narrative towards your own opinion.
Was Oswald allegedly worried or not? In other posts...they have him scared and running away to New Orleans :-\
Make up my mind!
Ok , glad that’s all cleared up lol
Now back to the bag and why there is only one palm print on the edge and no fingerprints of the four fingers on the reverse side of bag
It’s like the bag or paper the bag was made from was laying on Fritz office table and Oswald while having hands handcuffed behind was backed up to that table and placed one of his hands, palm side down on edge of desk on top the paper
You were trying to make the case that his doubt over a claim which indicated a state of mind was no different than your positive claim about a state of mind.
No I wasn't. Martin tried to imply that I was. But that isn't what I said. Here is the sequence:
Martin stated his opinion and asked for my opinion about his opinion:
But that would be hell of a way to "conceal" a rifle he had just used in an attempted murder, don't you think?
Here is my response (I didn't agree with Martin's opinion and stated some reasons why):
Here is Martin's response (He argues that the point is about Oswald's frame of mind. And then Martin explains what his opinion is regarding what Oswald's frame of mind would not have been.):
Now, if you believe Martin was not "acting like he knew something about Oswald's frame of mind, then please explain how you arrived at that conclusion.
Fast forward to - I said:
No one has said that it was anything but conjecture.
you responded:
So what's the big deal then if Martin doubts it?
There is no big deal about it. And this argument is a prime example of why no one should engage either one of you. Endless nonsense and a waste of time. Ending in ridiculous accusations...
You missed the point. What was LHO’s frame of mind?
Thank you for editorializing my comments as it makes perfectly clear where you have gone wrong with your assumptions.
The whole thing about believing that I was "acting like he knew something about Oswald's frame of mind" is only in your head.
Now, if you believe Martin was not "acting like he knew something about Oswald's frame of mind, then please explain how you arrived at that conclusion.
There is no big deal about it. And this argument is a prime example of why no one should engage either one of you. Endless nonsense and a waste of time. Ending in ridiculous accusations...
Dictionary definition:
Opinion - a view or judgment formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge.
The “question” that you wrote:
But that would be hell of a way to "conceal" a rifle he had just used in an attempted murder, don't you think?
The sentence that you wrote most certainly contains a view or judgment (opinion), then a comma, followed by a question. And you are trying to claim that it isn’t an opinion (especially yours). Do I understand that correctly? If so, then where did the opinion come from? You wrote it.
Because knowing something and doubting something are two different things.
You are the one endlessly perpetuating arguments about what should be a very simple concept, primarily because you can’t tell the difference between a claim and the response to a claim.
And on and on he goes... desperately trying to find a way to not having to accept he was and still is wrong in his assumptions.
Stop embarrasing yourself and try to get this in your head; asking a question is not the same as making a statement or having an opinion!
Because knowing something and doubting something are two different things.
Using your "logic" then: Would Martin want to win an argument by admitting that he gave his opinions on things he knows nothing about, I seriously doubt it.
I think I got it in my head now. I don't have to be accountable for anything I say as long as it has a question mark at the end. Here is an example of your way to ask a question without expressing an opinion:
It would be a hell of a thing if Martin actually had a brain, don't you think?
A simple question for the LN proponents. Who discovered CE142 on the sixth floor of the TSBD?
I think I got it in my head now. I don't have to be accountable for anything I say as long as it has a question mark at the end. Here is an example of your way to ask a question without expressing an opinion:
It would be a hell of a thing if Martin actually had a brain, don't you think?
That would be a loaded question. You still have no understanding.
And Martin's "question" wasn't loaded?
No.
Then neither is mine.
It would be a hell of a thing if Martin actually had a brain, don't you think?That will do there. There are posting rules.
That will do there. There are posting rules.
There are still a couple of paramount points not responded to in the thread...
1] ... Not the same paper-------
(https://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/images/5/5e/Pict_essay_ProofFBI_11-30-63_alt.jpg)
https://www.maryferrell.org/pages/Essay_-_Proof_the_FBI_Changed_Documents_and_Vincent_Bugliosi_Was_Wrong.html
You can't just attribute this to a coincidental clerical typing error. The entire event is so chock full of coincidences it defies reality.
2] ..... I have read the McAdams site page written by this Magen Knuth... https://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/bag.htm
Like Bugliosi...sidesteps the absence of oil deposits found in the bag. Saying there was no trace of gun oil found by FBI analysis because only the moving parts were oiled. This is assuming that only the moving parts were ever oiled. When I oil my guns...I oil the entire gun action and barrel because the outside of a weapon is also susceptible to rust and corrosion. Any idiot should know this.
None the less... I contend that if the rifle was dis-assembled... then naturally..even these moving parts would have been exposed and some traces of oil would have been found on the paper somewhere.
That will do there. There are posting rules.
There are still a couple of paramount points not responded to in the thread...
1] ... Not the same paper-------
(https://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/images/5/5e/Pict_essay_ProofFBI_11-30-63_alt.jpg)
https://www.maryferrell.org/pages/Essay_-_Proof_the_FBI_Changed_Documents_and_Vincent_Bugliosi_Was_Wrong.html
You can't just attribute this to a coincidental clerical typing error. The entire event is so chock full of coincidences it defies reality.
2] ..... I have read the McAdams site page written by this Magen Knuth... https://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/bag.htm
Like Bugliosi...sidesteps the absence of oil deposits found in the bag. Saying there was no trace of gun oil found by FBI analysis because only the moving parts were oiled. This is assuming that only the moving parts were ever oiled. When I oil my guns...I oil the entire gun action and barrel because the outside of a weapon is also susceptible to rust and corrosion. Any idiot should know this.
None the less... I contend that if the rifle was dis-assembled... then naturally..even these moving parts would have been exposed and some traces of oil would have been found on the paper somewhere.
Someone at the FBI (Vince Drain) screwed up..... On page 180 of Livingstone's High Treason both memos are presented side by side.
Clearly Drain was falsifying the document to frame Lee Oswald. It's interesting to note that Drain wrote that " The Dallas police have not exhibited this to anyone else. It was immediately locked up by Day and kept in his possession until it was turned over to FBI agent Drain for transmittal to the laboratory."
If Drain wasn't lying,..... then he needs to explain what Montgomery is DISPLAYING to the whole wide world as he leaves the TSBD.
Are the memos available online?
They are in the essay linked above at the maryferrell site.
Bump for Charles Collins, who suddenly seems to completely avoid answering a simple question. One can only wonder why....
I don't have to be accountable for anything I say as long as it has a question mark at the end.
When there is a question mark at the end, it's a question and thus not something you are saying. This really isn't all that difficult to understand, so why are you struggling to comprehend it?
Let's try it this way, genius. Tell me please, what (if any) is the difference between these two sentences;
But that would be hell of a way to "conceal" a rifle he had just used in an attempted murder, don't you think?
and
Don't you think that would be hell of a way to "conceal" a rifle he had just used in an attempted murder?
Well, Mr. Collins... what's (if any) is the difference between those two sentences?
I think I got it in my head now. I don't have to be accountable for anything I say as long as it has a question mark at the end. Here is an example of your way to ask a question without expressing an opinion:
They are both considered hypothetical questions:
A hypothetical question is based on supposition, opinion, personal belief, or conjecture, and not facts. ... This sort of a question usually requires the questioner to arrange imaginary parameters for the things he supposes.
They are both considered hypothetical questions:
A hypothetical question is based on supposition, opinion, personal belief, or conjecture, and not facts. ... This sort of a question usually requires the questioner to arrange imaginary parameters for the things he supposes.
Bottom line is that it would be dumb to be carrying a sizeable package around that day.
Especially shortly after the assassination.
Don't you think so?
;)
Before this thread degenerates any further into decay and degradation ...
P.S. it was Patrick Jackson who noticed this.
https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,2004.msg64638.html#msg64638 (https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,2004.msg64638.html#msg64638)
He left Dallas 2-weeks after the attempt on Walker.
Oh boy, it's worse than I thought. There is nothing hypothetical about either question. Both are in fact the same question and both have only one purpose; to obtain a response from the person who is asked.
A hypothetical question requires no response at all!
hypothetical question - Legal Definition
n
A question, based on assumptions rather than facts, directed to an expert witness intended to elicit an opinion
https://www.yourdictionary.com/hypothetical-question (https://www.yourdictionary.com/hypothetical-question)
Notice how John Mytton dropped out of his own topic as soon as it was discovered that he was busted for taking credit for Patrick Jackson's moves.
Btw I can't find the poster who originally found this groundbreaking evidence but if it was you, tell me and I will credit you! Thumb1:
JohnM
A simple question for the LN proponents. Who discovered CE142 on the sixth floor of the TSBD?
From the very FIRST post in this thread.
This is the very reason I haven't been posting very often.The majorityAll of the CTs here are so blinded by their paranoia that they lack the ability for rational debate and instead of making this about the evidence they keep attacking the messenger, and the way this thread has descended into chaos is ironically the perfect example.
After half a century not 1 conspiracy theory has been proved, not 1 person has come forward and claimed responsibility for any of these wacky theories, it's just accusation after accusation and a plethora of innocent people are just thrown onto the fire. Whereas all of the official investigations time after time, come to the same rock solid conclusion, go figure.
JohnM
Bottom line is that it would be dumb to be carrying a sizeable package around that day.
Especially shortly after the assassination, and especially a duffel bag.
Don't you think so?
;)
A simple question for the LN proponents. Who discovered CE142 on the sixth floor of the TSBD?
The 40 " Carcano will not fit in a duffel bag......
You are correct. But no one said that it would. One end would stick out of a partially open top. More details are available if you want to read the earlier part of this thread.
That information is intended for those who believe that Lee transported the Carcano to New Orleans. IMO Lee no longer had possession of the Carcano at the time he rode the bus to New Orleans.
The 40 " Carcano will not fit in a duffel bag......
Someone at the FBI (Vince Drain) screwed up..... On page 180 of Livingstone's High Treason both memos are presented side by side.
Clearly Drain was falsifying the document to frame Lee Oswald. It's interesting to note that Drain wrote that " The Dallas police have not exhibited this to anyone else. It was immediately locked up by Day and kept in his possession until it was turned over to FBI agent Drain for transmittal to the laboratory."
If Drain wasn't lying,..... then he needs to explain what Montgomery is DISPLAYING to the whole wide world as he leaves the TSBD.
Therefore, based on this confirmation that it was secured in the crime labs and the sun angle study that Mytton and myself presented, the photo in which Patrick found the bag laying on top of the boxes does appear to have been taken about 2:00 pm on 11/22/63.
I would ask members for a measure of thread discipline (I know.....but I’m a glass half full guy).
Who will be the first to help me out? After all it’s your narrative.
:D --have another lollipop.
This is the very reason I haven't been posting very often.Let's have one for Mytton [wannabe messenger].... :'(The majorityAll of the CTs here are so blinded by their paranoia that they lack the ability for rational debate and instead of making this about the evidence they keep attacking the messenger ---------------
(https://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/theSNbag001.jpg)
(https://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/fritzstandingonpaperbag.jpg)
~snip~
Mr. BALL. How long did you stay at the Texas School Book Depository after you found the rifle?
Mr. FRITZ. After he told me about this man almost, I left immediately after he told me that
~snip~
Mr. TRULY. And there were other officers with him. Chief Lumpkin stepped over and told Captain Fritz that I had something that I wanted to tell him.
Mr. BELIN. All right. And then what happened
Mr. TRULY. So Captain Fritz left the men he was with and walked over about 8 or 10 feet and said, "What is it, Mr. Truly," or words to that effect.
And I told him about this boy missing and gave him his address and telephone number and general description. And he says, "Thank you, Mr. Truly. We will take care of it.
~snip~
Mr. DULLES. When was the paper bag covering that apparently he brought the rifle in, was that discovered in the sixth floor about the same time?
Mr. FRITZ. No, sir; that was recovered a little later. I wasn't down there when that was found.
Mr. DULLES. It was recovered on the sixth floor, was it not?
Mr. FRITZ. Yes, sir; I believe so. We can check here and see. I believe it was. But I wasn't there when that was recovered.
Thanks, I will have a champagne flavored one!
[In reply to Mr Smith]I have been searching for a response to this. Who exactly does get credit for 1] Finding the bag and 2]Describing exactly where it was found. [something besides--" near the sniper's nest" the "southeast corner" or "the sixth floor"
Stop pretending like you know where it was found. You don't even know who found it or when.
Mr. BELIN. Did you find anything, any print of any kind, in connection with the processing of this?FBI Agent Vincent Drain?... Who seemed to have a lot more testimony to offer than Lt Day.
Mr. DAY. No legible prints were found with the powder, no.
Mr. BELIN. Do you know whether any legible prints were found by any other means or any other place?
Mr. DAY. There is a legible print on it now. They were on there when it was returned to me from the FBI on November 24.
Mr. BELIN. Do you know by what means they found these?
Mr. DAY. It is apparently silver nitrate. It could be another compound they have used. The sack had an orange color indicating it was silver nitrate.
Mr. BELIN. You mean the sack when it came back from the FBI had a----
Mr. DAY. Orange color. It is another method of processing paper for fingerprints.
Mr. BELIN. Was there anything inside the bag, if you know, when you found it?
Mr. DAY. I did not open the bag. I did not look inside of the bag at all.
Mr. BELIN. What did you do with the bag after you found it and you put this writing on after you dusted it?
Mr. DAY. I released it to the FBI agent.
On November 22nd, 1963, I'd gone down to get a sandwich for lunch and had returned to my office at 1114 Commerce Street after the parade passed to continue doing dictation. As was the usual manner, we monitored the police radio. From that it was flashed that the President had been shot and that they were en route to Parkland Hospital. I knew where they were taking him because I had been privileged to sit in on some meetings with the Secret Service the previous four or five days in the event that either he or the Vice-President were shot.Further...
It appeared to me as though the bullet traveled upward and had taken off the right portion of his skull.Vincent Drain https://www.kenrahn.com/JFK/History/The_deed/Sneed/Drain.html
There's that damn Fritz standing on the paper bag. :o
There's that damn Fritz standing on the paper bag. :o
I have been searching for a response to this. Who exactly does get credit for 1] Finding the bag and 2]Describing exactly where it was found. [something besides--" near the sniper's nest" the "southeast corner" or "the sixth floor" FBI Agent Vincent Drain?... Who seemed to have a lot more testimony to offer than Lt Day.
However, Agent Drain was not called to testify. I found this statement...
Further... Vincent Drain https://www.kenrahn.com/JFK/History/The_deed/Sneed/Drain.html
Upward?
Mr. BELIN. Did you find anything, any print of any kind, in connection with the processing of this?
Mr. DAY. No legible prints were found with the powder, no.
Mr. BELIN. Do you know whether any legible prints were found by any other means or any other place?
Mr. DAY. There is a legible print on it now. They were on there when it was returned to me from the FBI on November 24.
Mr. BELIN. Do you know by what means they found these?
Mr. DAY. It is apparently silver nitrate. It could be another compound they have used. The sack had an orange color indicating it was silver nitrate.
Mr. BELIN. You mean the sack when it came back from the FBI had a----
Mr. DAY. Orange color. It is another method of processing paper for fingerprints.
Mr. BELIN. Was there anything inside the bag, if you know, when you found it?
Mr. DAY. I did not open the bag. I did not look inside of the bag at all.
Mr. BELIN. What did you do with the bag after you found it and you put this writing on after you dusted it?
Mr. DAY. I released it to the FBI agent.
“It was immediately locked up by Day and kept in his possession until it was turned over to FBI agent Drain for transmittal to the laboratory."
Thanks Walt, This answers the question that I asked earlier in the thread regarding that.
Therefore, based on this confirmation that it was secured in the crime labs and the sun angle study that Mytton and myself presented, the photo in which Patrick found the bag laying on top of the boxes does appear to have been taken about 2:00 pm on 11/22/63.
A simple question for the LN proponents. Who discovered CE142 on the sixth floor of the TSBD?
considering you don't know, that's it's the bag , or that its Nov 22nd...don't go running with that thing in your mouth.
ok?
Okay, I will postpone the History Channel and PBS special programs just for you. When are you expecting to have the evidence that suggests that it is something other than the bag on 11/23/63? All the TV advertising agents want to know!
I will postpone the History Channel and PBS special programs just for you.
That is an EXCELLENT idea, Charles. IMO those programs are simply more disinformation and propaganda......
Yep, sometimes they do have an agenda, one way or the other...
(https://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/theSNbag001.jpg)
(https://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/fritzstandingonpaperbag.jpg)
~snip~
Mr. BALL. How long did you stay at the Texas School Book Depository after you found the rifle?
Mr. FRITZ. After he told me about this man almost, I left immediately after he told me that
~snip~
This photo has been cropped....There was a civilian gawking at the detectives as they contaminated the imaginary "Sniper's Nest".... The gawker seems to be a TSBD employee ( he doesn't appear to be a reporter. )
(https://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/fritzstandingonpaperbag.jpg)
Anybody want to guess at the reason that the gawker was cropped off the photo?
Mr. TRULY. And there were other officers with him. Chief Lumpkin stepped over and told Captain Fritz that I had something that I wanted to tell him.
Mr. BELIN. All right. And then what happened
Mr. TRULY. So Captain Fritz left the men he was with and walked over about 8 or 10 feet and said, "What is it, Mr. Truly," or words to that effect.
And I told him about this boy missing and gave him his address and telephone number and general description. And he says, "Thank you, Mr. Truly. We will take care of it.
~snip~
Mr. DULLES. When was the paper bag covering that apparently he brought the rifle in, was that discovered in the sixth floor about the same time?
Mr. FRITZ. No, sir; that was recovered a little later. I wasn't down there when that was found.
Mr. DULLES. It was recovered on the sixth floor, was it not?
Mr. FRITZ. Yes, sir; I believe so. We can check here and see. I believe it was. But I wasn't there when that was recovered.
“It was immediately locked up by Day and kept in his possession until it was turned over to FBI agent Drain for transmittal to the laboratory."
Thanks Walt, This answers the question that I asked earlier in the thread regarding that.
Therefore, based on this confirmation that it was secured in the crime labs and the sun angle study that Mytton and myself presented, the photo in which Patrick found the bag laying on top of the boxes does appear to have been taken about 2:00 pm on 11/22/63.
That will do there. There are posting rules.
There are still a couple of paramount points not responded to in the thread...
1] ... Not the same paper-------
(https://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/images/5/5e/Pict_essay_ProofFBI_11-30-63_alt.jpg)
https://www.maryferrell.org/pages/Essay_-_Proof_the_FBI_Changed_Documents_and_Vincent_Bugliosi_Was_Wrong.html
You can't just attribute this to a coincidental clerical typing error. The entire event is so chock full of coincidences it defies reality.
2] ..... I have read the McAdams site page written by this Magen Knuth... https://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/bag.htm
Like Bugliosi...sidesteps the absence of oil deposits found in the bag. Saying there was no trace of gun oil found by FBI analysis because only the moving parts were oiled. This is assuming that only the moving parts were ever oiled. When I oil my guns...I oil the entire gun action and barrel because the outside of a weapon is also susceptible to rust and corrosion. Any idiot should know this.
None the less... I contend that if the rifle was dis-assembled... then naturally..even these moving parts would have been exposed and some traces of oil would have been found on the paper somewhere.
\2] ..... I have read the McAdams site page written by this Magen Knuth... https://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/bag.htm
Like Bugliosi...sidesteps the absence of oil deposits found in the bag. Saying there was no trace of gun oil found by FBI analysis because only the moving parts were oiled. This is assuming that only the moving parts were ever oiled. When I oil my guns...I oil the entire gun action and barrel because the outside of a weapon is also susceptible to rust and corrosion. Any idiot should know this.
None the less... I contend that if the rifle was dis-assembled... then naturally..even these moving parts would have been exposed and some traces of oil would have been found on the paper somewhere.
Didn't Hoover claim that it was well-oiled?
(https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh26/pages/WH_Vol26_0246a.gif)
Well-oiled in those few necessary places, but not the lathering described by Freeman. The last time anyone oiled those parts could have been Fred Rupp, the re-conditioner.So Oswald was taught in the Marine Corps to not clean and oil his rifle? :-\
A simple question for the LN proponents. Who discovered CE142 on the sixth floor of the TSBD?
Well-oiled in those few necessary places, but not the lathering described by Freeman. The last time anyone oiled those parts could have been Fred Rupp, the re-conditioner.
The last time anyone oiled those parts could have been Fred Rupp, the re-conditioner.
Really? More than a year prior to the assassination?
That's some oil!
Is there no WC defender willing and able to reply? Was it not an exhaustive investigation? The silence so far has been golden.
If the rifle isn't used the oil will remain on it for years....And the TSBD rifle had not been used except for the one shot through the window of walker's house.
I've answered that question before. Nobody knows who noticed the paper sack first. A lot of them found it there. None of them could say for certain who found it first.
If the rifle isn't used the oil will remain on it for years....And the TSBD rifle had not been used except for the one shot through the window of walker's house.Not sure there [you know that] but...Either the FBI lied about [to the exclusion stuff] or that clunker did fire CE 399 into some mattresses or the like.
Many of them either claimed to have found it first or claimed some one else did.
Success has many fathers, failure is an orphan.
Can you have it both ways?
So how do we reconcile this?
Mr. BELIN. I will now hand you what has been marked as Commission Exhibit 626 and ask you to state if you know what this is, and also appears to be marked as Commission Exhibit 142.
Mr. DAY. This is the sack found on the sixth floor in the southeast corner of the building on November 22, 1963.
Mr. BELIN. Do you have any identification on that to so indicate?
Mr. DAY. It has my name on it, and it also has other writing that I put on there for the information of the FBI.
Mr. BELIN. Could you read what you wrote on there?
Mr. DAY. "Found next to the sixth floor window gun fired from. May have been used to carry gun. Lieutenant J. C. Day."
Mr. BELIN. When did you write that?
Mr. DAY. I wrote that at the time the sack was found before it left our possession.
Mr. BELIN. All right, anything else that you wrote on there?
Mr. DAY. When the sack was released on November 22 to the FBI about 11:45 p.m., I put further information to the FBI reading as follows: "FBI: Has been dusted with metallic magnetic powder on outside only. Inside has not been processed. Lieut J. C. Day."
Did Day write that on the bag at the time the bag was found? Did he write that before he left the TSBD with the rifle around 2pm or after he arrived back about an hour later? Was it written on the bag at police HQ or in the TSBD?
I would suggest to you that when Day said "time the sack was found" he wasn't being precise. His "before it left our possession" makes it obvious that he wasn't being precise.
I've answered that question before. Nobody knows who noticed the paper sack first. A lot of them found it there. None of them could say for certain who found it first.
When I oil my guns...I oil the entire gun action and barrel because the outside of a weapon is also susceptible to rust and corrosion. Any idiot should know this.
None the less... I contend that if the rifle was dis-assembled... then naturally..even these moving parts would have been exposed and some traces of oil would have been found on the paper somewhere.
Excessive oiling of moving parts can lead to gumming and cause dirt to stick. A drop applied through a nozzle at a few key points is recommended, and some moving parts need no oil.Qualifying rapidly for my above statement. No-- I don't drench guns in oil and I didn't suggest that...so we can cut the strawman crap. The bolt handle is one moving part that still requires light cleaning and any idiot knows that the outside of the barrel is not a moving part.
Nobody knows who noticed the paper sack first. A lot of them found it there. None of them could say for certain who found it first.Now--- where is that stated in evidence? A sack on a broom handle was walked out the door like no one had touched it.
Qualifying rapidly for my above statement. No-- I don't drench guns in oil and I didn't suggest that...so we can cut the strawman crap. The bolt handle is one moving part that still requires light cleaning and any idiot knows that the outside of the barrel is not a moving part.
Lt. J C Day testified that he did not find any fingerprints on the paper bag. However, the FBI miraculously did....even after it was contaminated with dust and everybody else's fingerprints.
This is qualified by this post-- Now--- where is that stated in evidence? A sack on a broom handle was walked out the door like no one had touched it.
(https://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/images/bag1.jpg)
'The bolt handle is one moving part that still requires light cleaning and any idiot knows that the outside of the barrel is not a moving part."
Everything-is-either-faked-planted-or-altered Freeman said:
any idiot knows
Congrats for admitting to being an idiot
the outside of the barrel is not a moving part
A number of witnesses with eyes raised near Elm & Houston would disagree with that
A number of witnesses with eyes raised near Elm & Houston would disagree with that
Please identify these "number of eyewitnesses"........
The ones who saw at least part of a rifle not in the SW window? Do what now?
The ones who saw at least part of a rifle not in the SW window
A sack on a broom handle was walked out the door like no one had touched it.....
A sack ----walked out of the door ...That must have been a startling sight!
Really?? The sack had legs?? Sorry Colin.... couldn't resist.
But seriously .... Any intelligent person can know that the bag was ALLEGEDLY found doubled over and lying on the floor in the corner of the imaginary "Sniper's Nest" .... And the paper bag that Montgomery carried from the building most certainly is NOT doubled....
Question:.... I know the bag in the photo can't be directly measured from the photo..... BUT....If the width of the bag at the midpoint could be ascertained....Would that provide a scale to determine the length of the bag Mongomery is carrying??
'Any intelligent person'
You used to say 'any idiot'
Congrats for learning a lesson here today.
Nobody said 'the bag walked out the door'
Sigh. Another Fakebread Moment.
You need to try harder to 'resist'
The bag was carried full length in order to limit any further smearing of prints.
You need to try harder to connect the dots.
Colin meant do you have motion-picture 35mm film of the discovery or can you arrange for time-travel.
You used to say 'any idiot' No, I did not.... KMA....Do not attempt to put words in my mouth!.
The bag was carried full length in order to limit any further smearing of prints.
Duh!!....The bag was allegedly found double in half..... Would it have had to have been handled to unfold it?? And what kind of idiot would carry that piece of evidence with the open end down ....which would allow any evidence that might be inside the bag, to fall out??
Bill the Thrill: You used to say 'any idiot'
Wallyburger: No, I did not.... KMA.
You just said (...) And what kind of idiot (...)
LOL. I rest my case
KMA
Sorry, not on my bucket list
Since there are many idiots in this group....I have used the word...but I don't recall ever saying "any idiot" can see such and such.
Let’s try another question that might shed some light. Who first dusted CE 142 for fingerprints?
Robert Lee Studebaker.
Did Studebaker fingerprint CE142 before the rifle was found?
The bag was carried at full length in order to limit any further smearing of prints.
Mr. BALL - What did the package look like?
Mr. FRAZIER - Well, I will be frank with you, I would just, it is right as you get out of the grocery store, just more or less out of a package, you have seen some of these brown paper sacks you can obtain from any, most of the stores, some varieties, but it was a package just roughly about two feet long.
Mrs. RANDLE. What I remember seeing is about this long, sir, as I told you it was folded down so it could have been this long.
Mr. BALL. I see. You figure about 2 feet long, is that right?
Mrs. RANDLE. A little bit more.
Mr. BALL. A little more than 2 feet.
I don't know. Probably not.
Do you think Studebaker opened it up, fingerprinted it, then refolded it and placed it in the SE corner prior to Johnson and Montgomery first noticing it?
If not then it has to be after the rifle was found. Do you agree?
He and Day got to the TSBD at 1:12 and the rifle was found at 1:22. That makes it unlikely that he dusted the bag before the rifle was found.
So you believe, like me, that the observation of the bag as variously described by Montgomery and Johnson took place after 1.22pm?
Who are "the ones"......
Colin meant do you have motion-picture 35mm film of the discovery or can you arrange for time-travel.
Some more information about the discovery of CE142 from Montgomery in an interview for Larry Sneed's "No More Silence".
(https://i.ibb.co/XCRDnyK/B394-ACC9-2-F62-476-C-B9-B8-9-A5-FD031-C862.jpg)
He recalled the bag was not in the position originally described to the WC in the various testimonies.
Another nugget from Montgomery......
(https://i.ibb.co/VVhQ68R/9-FA92-EC3-0-F04-4535-8672-21-E3-EB344-FA3.jpg)
Was CE142 really fingerprinted on the 6th floor before being taken out by Montgomery?
Some more information about the discovery of CE142 from Montgomery in an interview for Larry Sneed's "No More Silence".
(https://i.ibb.co/XCRDnyK/B394-ACC9-2-F62-476-C-B9-B8-9-A5-FD031-C862.jpg)
He recalled the bag was not in the position originally described to the WC in the various testimonies.
Another nugget from Montgomery......
(https://i.ibb.co/VVhQ68R/9-FA92-EC3-0-F04-4535-8672-21-E3-EB344-FA3.jpg)
Was CE142 really fingerprinted on the 6th floor before being taken out by Montgomery?
Good one, but it wouldn't help. The usual suspects would claim the past had been altered in some way. Btw, it looks like Oswald#As I was walking a' alane, I heard twa corbies makin' a mane. The tane untae the tither did say, Whaur sail we gang and dine the day, O. Whaur sail we gang and dine the day? It's in ahint yon auld fail dyke I wot there lies a new slain knight; And naebody kens that he lies there But his hawk and his hound, and his lady fair, O. But his hawk and his hound, and his lady fair. His hound is to the hunting gane His hawk to fetch the wild-fowl hame, His lady ta'en anither mate, So we may mak' our dinner swate, O. So we may mak' our dinner swate. Ye'll sit on his white hause-bane, And I'll pike oot his bonny blue e'en Wi' ae lock o' his gowden hair We'll theek oor nest when it grows bare, O. We'll theek oor nest when it grows bare. There's mony a ane for him maks mane But nane sail ken whaur he is gane O'er his white banes when they are bare The wind sail blaw for evermair, O. The wind sail blaw for evermair.'#1 and Wallyburger are best buds again.
? Do what now?
(https://2.bp.blogspot.com/_6kYzhJGqq2M/TBWfSG-WPgI/AAAAAAAAEMg/DOvvU_rPgc8/s712/OswaldsRiflePaperBagFromFBIReport.jpg)
Go to-----
https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/userpics/10001/metapth184770_xl_1989_100_0023_0005.jpg
That doesn't even look like the same bag.
(https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/_/rsrc/1559002005081/carcano/oswald-carry-towards-depository.png?height=200&width=175)
Drawn to scale above one can see the absurdity of walking into work carrying this bag bald faced as can be. "Gee.. I hope no one sees me" ;D
"No More Silence" was published almost 40 years after the assassination. That's a long time. You should be wary of putting too much faith in the reliability of such ancient recollections.
Your inability to answer simple questions duly noted.
Cool.
I'll try to find Stephen King's magic closet and return to 1963. Don't wait up.
No need to hurry back.
No problem. I'll hang around there until Trump gets you all killed.
It seems just a few months were sufficient to dull memories of trained police doesn't it? Unfortunately we have an unsatisfactory evidence base to work with. Pity the WC staffers were unable to help with clarification. I understand your reluctance to look for a logical answers to the questions posed. I believe you appreciate my desire for them to be answered.
At least you stepped up to represent a normally vocal group. It seems the WC narrative has Oswald transporting a disassembled rifle in a paper bag with only one end sealed. He folded the bag an unknown number of times and left it next to a box he sat on to shoot the President. The crime lab discovered remnants of a chicken lunch and assumed it to be Oswald'sfor some time after the event. After assisting Day with the rifle discovery Studebaker returned to the SN. Day left the building with the rifle. Studebaker dusted the bottle on the sixth floor and not the lunch sack. He moved to the SN and about this time Johnson claimed the bag was unfolded. Eventually dusted for prints by Studebaker it was removed by Johnson and Montgomery before Day returned to the TSBD.
I believe you appreciate my desire for them to be answered.
I understand the desire. But I am not sure that I understand the importance (to the case) of having answers to your questions.
The importance of CE142 is that it links Oswald to the scene of the crime (the SN). It was claimed to have contained a rifle belonging to accused (CE139) that was claimed to be used in the crime. Furthermore the rifle was claimed to be stored inside a blanked in the Paine's garage in Irving. The assumption was that Oswald returned to the Paine's on the evening of the day before the crime to collect the rifle.
The bag was determined to be constructed from materials available from the TSBD first floor wrapping area. It is the key piece of evidence that links Oswald and the rifle to the scene. It also indicates intent on his part as it could be argued he constructed it for the purpose of transporting the rifle the following morning.
You just avoided the question. I didn’t ask what the importance of the bag was to the case. I asked about the importance of the answers to your questions.
The importance of the questions is to provide a believable chain of evidence for the bag. Analysis of the various testimonies suggest another possibility for the evolution of the wrapper.
Here's a deal. I will if you attempt to answer my questions so far. Who discovered the bag? Did it occur before or after the discovery of the rifle? Who fingerprinted it? I feel the only way we can move forward it to have agreement on as many facts as possiblel
In this forum, agreement on much of anything doesn’t appear possible to me. It might help if you defined exactly what you are asking for. What do you mean by “discover”? Who first saw it? Or who first pointed it out to the others? Or who first unfolded it ( in order to determine that it actually was a long hand made bag?
Who were the first individuals to consider the bag could have contained the rifle? Thing is Charles the WC narrative should be supported by as many facts as possible. From your read of statements and testimonies what do you believe the sequence of events was? Was that not the intention of the investigation, to determine the sequence of events?
All the pedantic nitpicking in the world doesn't change the fact that a long bag was discovered next to the SN. Oswald was seen that morning carrying a long bag. His prints are on that bag which is next to some boxes that also had his prints and by the very window from which fired bullet casings from his rifle are found. The police officers searching the floor - which is covered in boxes - are looking for a rifle or shooter. Not necessarily a bag. It is not necessary to reconstruct with absolute certainty who first "discovered" the bag whatever that means. It was there. It eventually came to the attention of someone while others may not have noticed it because of the extreme clutter on that floor. It may have even been moved during the search itself before it dawned on someone that it could be linked to the crime. There is also often confusion in the record about which "bag" is being discussed - the long bag or lunch bag. Witnesses use imprecise language in response to questions that are subject to subjective interpretation of their own imperfect recollection of times and events. It may be impossible to reconstruct the "discovery" of the bag with absolute certainty but that itself does nothing to undermine the conclusion that it was there, has Oswald's prints on it, resembles the long bag he carried that morning, there is no accounting for a slightly shorter bag or any other similar long bag in the building along the lines Frazier estimated, Oswald denied carrying any long bag that day because he was lying, and is found not just at "Oswald's place of work" as sometimes dishonestly characterized but the exact crime scene within the building. It has no apparent work-related purpose for being there and no one else with access to that floor ever comes forward to provide any explanation whatsoever for it to have been there. It is a peculiar bag both due to its location, size, shape, and the fact that is homemade. There are no pictures which depict any similar bags at use in the building for any work purpose. It is clearly singular and related to the crime. The notion that the DPD constructed it and then somehow confused a bag that they themselves made for a legitimate purpose to carry the rifle as evidence but then somehow forgot they did so and instead decided to lie about finding near the SN is absurd in my opinion. The absence of a time machine to sort out exactly who first discovered it with absolute certainty is just an exercise in endless pedantic futility that changes nothing.
All the pedantic nitpicking in the world doesn't change the fact that a long bag was discovered next to the SN.
All the pedantic nitpicking in the world doesn't change the fact that a long bag was discovered next to the SN. Oswald was seen that morning carrying a long bag. His prints are on that bag which is next to some boxes that also had his prints and by the very window from which fired bullet casings from his rifle are found. The police officers searching the floor - which is covered in boxes - are looking for a rifle or shooter. Not necessarily a bag. It is not necessary to reconstruct with absolute certainty who first "discovered" the bag whatever that means. It was there. It eventually came to the attention of someone while others may not have noticed it because of the extreme clutter on that floor. It may have even been moved during the search itself before it dawned on someone that it could be linked to the crime. There is also often confusion in the record about which "bag" is being discussed - the long bag or lunch bag. Witnesses use imprecise language in response to questions that are subject to subjective interpretation of their own imperfect recollection of times and events. It may be impossible to reconstruct the "discovery" of the bag with absolute certainty but that itself does nothing to undermine the conclusion that it was there, has Oswald's prints on it, resembles the long bag he carried that morning, there is no accounting for a slightly shorter bag or any other similar long bag in the building along the lines Frazier estimated, Oswald denied carrying any long bag that day because he was lying, and is found not just at "Oswald's place of work" as sometimes dishonestly characterized but the exact crime scene within the building. It has no apparent work-related purpose for being there and no one else with access to that floor ever comes forward to provide any explanation whatsoever for it to have been there. It is a peculiar bag both due to its location, size, shape, and the fact that is homemade. There are no pictures which depict any similar bags at use in the building for any work purpose. It is clearly singular and related to the crime. The notion that the DPD constructed it and then somehow confused a bag that they themselves made for a legitimate purpose to carry the rifle as evidence but then somehow forgot they did so and instead decided to lie about finding near the SN is absurd in my opinion. The absence of a time machine to sort out exactly who first discovered it with absolute certainty is just an exercise in endless pedantic futility that changes nothing.
(https://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/Pict_essay_thomasbugfritz_2_marvinjohnson_lrg.jpg)
Thank you, Gary..... This is a good large photo that shows Detective Johnson carrying evidence that was found in what they imagined to be a "Sniper's Nest".
(https://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/Pict_essay_thomasbugfritz_2_marvinjohnson_lrg.jpg)
Notice that Johnson is carrying a cigarette package....( Appears to be Viceroy )
Somewhere there is a report of cigarette butts being picked up in the imaginary "Sniper's Nest".....but that bit of evidence disappeared like the puff of smoke on the grassy Knoll , after they learned that the prints on the cig package were not Lee Oswald, and Lee Oswald didn't smoke.
The importance of CE142 is that it links Oswald to the scene of the crime (the SN). It was claimed to have contained a rifle belonging to accused (CE139) that was claimed to be used in the crime. Furthermore the rifle was claimed to be stored inside a blanked in the Paine's garage in Irving. The assumption was that Oswald returned to the Paine's on the evening of the day before the crime to collect the rifle.
The bag was determined to be constructed from materials available from the TSBD first floor wrapping area. It is the key piece of evidence that links Oswald and the rifle to the scene. It also indicates intent on his part as it could be argued he constructed it for the purpose of transporting the rifle the following morning.
The bag was determined to be constructed from materials available from the TSBD first floor wrapping area. FALSE!
The original FBI lab report stated that the paper of which the bag was fabricated, DID NOT match the roll of paper in the TSBD shipping department, that was being used to wrap books. FBI agent Vince Drain retyped that FBI lab report and changed the wording in the memo to make it appear the the paper of the bag matched the roll of paper in the TSBD shipping department.
LHO was a cheapskate. He was collecting cigarette butts for Marina...
LOL!!..... You have really developed a low opinion of the patsy, haven't you Mr Collins?
All the pedantic nitpicking in the world doesn't change the fact that a long bag was discovered next to the SN. Oswald was seen that morning carrying a long bag. His prints are on that bag which is next to some boxes that also had his prints and by the very window from which fired bullet casings from his rifle are found. The police officers searching the floor - which is covered in boxes - are looking for a rifle or shooter. Not necessarily a bag. It is not necessary to reconstruct with absolute certainty who first "discovered" the bag whatever that means. It was there. It eventually came to the attention of someone while others may not have noticed it because of the extreme clutter on that floor. It may have even been moved during the search itself before it dawned on someone that it could be linked to the crime. There is also often confusion in the record about which "bag" is being discussed - the long bag or lunch bag. Witnesses use imprecise language in response to questions that are subject to subjective interpretation of their own imperfect recollection of times and events. It may be impossible to reconstruct the "discovery" of the bag with absolute certainty but that itself does nothing to undermine the conclusion that it was there, has Oswald's prints on it, resembles the long bag he carried that morning, there is no accounting for a slightly shorter bag or any other similar long bag in the building along the lines Frazier estimated, Oswald denied carrying any long bag that day because he was lying, and is found not just at "Oswald's place of work" as sometimes dishonestly characterized but the exact crime scene within the building. It has no apparent work-related purpose for being there and no one else with access to that floor ever comes forward to provide any explanation whatsoever for it to have been there. It is a peculiar bag both due to its location, size, shape, and the fact that is homemade. There are no pictures which depict any similar bags at use in the building for any work purpose. It is clearly singular and related to the crime. The notion that the DPD constructed it and then somehow confused a bag that they themselves made for a legitimate purpose to carry the rifle as evidence but then somehow forgot they did so and instead decided to lie about finding near the SN is absurd in my opinion. The absence of a time machine to sort out exactly who first discovered it with absolute certainty is just an exercise in endless pedantic futility that changes nothing.
LHO was a cheapskate. He was collecting cigarette butts for Marina...
It seems just a few months were sufficient to dull memories of trained police doesn't it? Unfortunately we have an unsatisfactory evidence base to work with. Pity the WC staffers were unable to help with clarification. I understand your reluctance to look for a logical answers to the questions posed. I believe you appreciate my desire for them to be answered.
At least you stepped up to represent a normally vocal group. It seems the WC narrative has Oswald transporting a disassembled rifle in a paper bag with only one end sealed. He folded the bag an unknown number of times and left it next to a box he sat on to shoot the President. The crime lab discovered remnants of a chicken lunch and assumed it to be Oswald'sfor some time after the event. After assisting Day with the rifle discovery Studebaker returned to the SN. Day left the building with the rifle. Studebaker dusted the bottle on the sixth floor and not the lunch sack. He moved to the SN and about this time Johnson claimed the bag was unfolded. Eventually dusted for prints by Studebaker it was removed by Johnson and Montgomery before Day returned to the TSBD.
Or 'Mommy Dearest'What a troll.
After all, she bathed the little prick until age 11.
'the WC staffers'What a pile! Are you serious? Anyone and everyone that denounced the Warren Report findings were shamed, disgraced, humiliated and/or ruined professionally.
At least one staffer stated something to the effect that they were trying like hell to find a conspiracy, adding that it would do wonders got their individual careers going forward.
Had they been successful, seems like they would also become somebodies for the next 10,000 years
;)
What a troll.What a pile! Are you serious? Anyone and everyone that denounced the Warren Report findings were shamed, disgraced, humiliated and/or ruined professionally.
And often referred to as kooks ::)
The WC was not commissioned to examine claims from Laughing Factories, Funny Farms, Looney Bins, or the far shores of the lunatic fringe.
Amen to that and thanks for once again making my day.
The WC was not commissioned to examine claims from Laughing Factories, Funny Farms, Looney Bins,A sign in Nowhere, Special -----showing Chapman's contribution to this forum....
You're angry because they ignored you when hey visited the funny farm where you were living....
A sign in Nowhere, Special -----showing Chapman's contribution to this forum....
(https://image.shutterstock.com/image-photo/nothing-az-this-old-pit-260nw-1438615901.jpg)
Maybe he doesn't want to be heard tearing the bag open just before he is getting ready to assassinate the president.
Somewhere there is a report of cigarette butts being picked up in the imaginary "Sniper's Nest".....
I can't understand how the bag being open at one end somehow lends itself to the conclusion that Oswald did not carry the rifle in it. When the bag was constructed at the TSBD, Oswald would have, by necessity, left one end unsealed in order to put the rifle in it later. Maybe he discovers there is no tape to seal it in the Paine's garage after putting the rifle in it. Or maybe he just decides to fold that end down and carry the bag upright. Most people don't seal their lunch bag shut in fear of the contents spilling out. It suffices to fold the open end down and then not hold it upside down. Gravity takes care of the rest. Maybe he doesn't want to be heard tearing the bag open just before he is getting ready to assassinate the president. Lots of plausible reasons. We can't know for sure, but it doesn't seem like a big deal in terms of whether Oswald carried the rifle in the bag.
When the bag was constructed at the TSBD, Oswald would have, by necessity, left one end unsealed in order to put the rifle in it later.
After all, she bathed the little prick until age 11.
If you ever manage to find that, I’d sure like to see it.
A sign in Nowhere, Special -----showing Chapman's contribution to this forum....
(https://image.shutterstock.com/image-photo/nothing-az-this-old-pit-260nw-1438615901.jpg)
Why are you so infatuated with that story? You bring it up on a regular basis.
Are you jealous?
Sure, just let gravity do it’s thing. Just hope you don’t trip and all the bits fall out. ;D
Then gravity is his enemy. There was twine on the blanket as a backup. Do you think he used that?
Goober Pyle (Buell Frazier)
Why are you so infatuated with that story? You bring it up on a regular basis.
Are you jealous?
I think Chappie is reminiscing and engaging in eroticism about when his mommy used to bathe him when he was 13....
Not on my bucket list.
And I've asked you before to please keep your sexual fantasies to yourself. What happens on the far shores of the lunatic fringe should stay on the far shores of the lunatic fringe.
The WC was not commissioned to examine claims from Laughing Factories, Funny Farms, Looney Bins,
You're angry because they ignored you when hey visited the funny farm where you were living....
Everybody knows who makes up stories and has the fantasies about Lee being bathed by his mother.....
The experts from the US Army and the FBI who had tested the rifle discovered that it was actually not usable in its original state:
1. Shims had to be applied to the telescopic sight before the rifle could be aimed
2. Even after the telescopic sight had been repaired, it proved unreliable and inaccurate
3. The condition of both the bolt and the trigger pull meant that the rifle could not be aimed accurately
The rifle discovered on the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository could not have caused any of the wounds to Kennedy, Connally or Tague, except by accident.
“They [the US Army marksmen] could not sight the weapon in using the telescope, and no attempt was made to sight it in using the iron sight. We did adjust the telescopic sight by the addition of two shims, one which tended to adjust the azimuth, and one which adjusted an elevation”: Warren Commission Hearings, vol.3, p.443.
According to the FBI’s firearms specialist, “Every time we changed the adjusting screws to move the crosshairs in the telescopic sight in one direction it also affected the movement of the impact or the point of impact in the other direction. … We fired several shots and found that the shots were not all landing in the same place, but were gradually moving away from the point of impact.”: Warren Commission Hearings, vol.3, p.405.
Problems with the bolt and the trigger mechanism: “There were several comments made — particularly with respect to the amount of effort required to open the bolt. … There was also comment made about the trigger pull … in the first stage the trigger is relatively free, and it suddenly required a greater pull to actually fire the weapon.”: Warren Commission Hearings, vol.3, p.449.
“The pressure to open the bolt was so great that that we tended to move the rifle off the target.”: ibid., p.451.
And his rifle was supposed to be brand new, right? Yet the Military said it was barely functional.
Who said the rifle was supposed to be brand new?
LOL Are you messing with me? Who said Oswald ordered a rifle under the name A. Hidell? Clearly it was bullspombleprofglidnoctobuns, but it didn't stop the police & FBI from claiming it happened, right? Or I'm I mistaken?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_F._Kennedy_assassination_rifle
https://harveyandlee.net/Mail_Order_Rifle/Mail_Order_Rifle.html
https://spartacus-educational.com/JFKSmannlicher.htm
https://nypost.com/2013/11/19/oswald-rifle-yard-virtually-the-same-since-1963/
Should I go on? Apparently all the Oswald swallowers who believe everything the habitual lying cops & government say, think it's true. Personally I know better. But swallowers swallow everything, except the truth, which they usually label conspiracy theories. lol
Whenever there's an abundance of evidence at every turn, people should be skeptical. Because people who commit crimes aren't usually gonna leave bread crumbs with directions to their house, their birth certificates, drivers licenses, lots of finger prints and a giant neon sign that say's "here I am!" I mean at some point it becomes a little too obvious. But maybe it's just me. I don't know.
I mean seriously... who the hell is going to pose with a rifle while holding up a communist manifesto? Unless they just wanna get caught and are trying to make sure that everyone knows it's them. "Here's my guns... and my communist bible, just in case I shoot the president one day.." lol
"I'm gonna order a rifle under a fake name, but make sure it comes to my p.o. box under my real name...because why not?" And grown ass men are like.. "Oh yeah... sounds legit!" smh
With all the evidence he left everywhere he might as well have walked out of work with the damn rifle in his hand.
LOL Are you messing with me? Who said Oswald ordered a rifle under the name A. Hidell? Clearly it was bullspombleprofglidnoctobuns, but it didn't stop the police & FBI from claiming it happened, right? Or I'm I mistaken?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_F._Kennedy_assassination_rifle
https://harveyandlee.net/Mail_Order_Rifle/Mail_Order_Rifle.html
https://spartacus-educational.com/JFKSmannlicher.htm
https://nypost.com/2013/11/19/oswald-rifle-yard-virtually-the-same-since-1963/
Should I go on? Apparently all the Oswald swallowers who believe everything the habitual lying cops & government say, think it's true. Personally I know better. But swallowers swallow everything, except the truth, which they usually label conspiracy theories. lol
Whenever there's an abundance of evidence at every turn, people should be skeptical. Because people who commit crimes aren't usually gonna leave bread crumbs with directions to their house, their birth certificates, drivers licenses, lots of finger prints and a giant neon sign that say's "here I am!" I mean at some point it becomes a little too obvious. But maybe it's just me. I don't know.
I mean seriously... who the hell is going to pose with a rifle while holding up a communist manifesto? Unless they just wanna get caught and are trying to make sure that everyone knows it's them. "Here's my guns... and my communist bible, just in case I shoot the president one day.." lol
"I'm gonna order a rifle under a fake name, but make sure it comes to my p.o. box under my real name...because why not?" And grown ass men are like.. "Oh yeah... sounds legit!" smh
With all the evidence he left everywhere he might as well have walked out of work with the damn rifle in his hand.
With all the evidence he left everywhere he might as well have walked out of work with the damn rifle in his hand.
He was out-voted by his support team Alex Hidel, OH Lee, and Dirty Harvey.
Who, me? Nah, I was at a Looney Bin searching for Stephen King's time-disrupter closet
LOL Are you messing with me? Who said Oswald ordered a rifle under the name A. Hidell? Clearly it was bullspombleprofglidnoctobuns, but it didn't stop the police & FBI from claiming it happened, right? Or I'm I mistaken?
LOL Are you messing with me? Who said Oswald ordered a rifle under the name A. Hidell? Clearly it was bullspombleprofglidnoctobuns, but it didn't stop the police & FBI from claiming it happened, right? Or I'm I mistaken?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_F._Kennedy_assassination_rifle
https://harveyandlee.net/Mail_Order_Rifle/Mail_Order_Rifle.html
https://spartacus-educational.com/JFKSmannlicher.htm
https://nypost.com/2013/11/19/oswald-rifle-yard-virtually-the-same-since-1963/
Should I go on? Apparently all the Oswald swallowers who believe everything the habitual lying cops & government say, think it's true. Personally I know better. But swallowers swallow everything, except the truth, which they usually label conspiracy theories. lol
Whenever there's an abundance of evidence at every turn, people should be skeptical. Because people who commit crimes aren't usually gonna leave bread crumbs with directions to their house, their birth certificates, drivers licenses, lots of finger prints and a giant neon sign that say's "here I am!" I mean at some point it becomes a little too obvious. But maybe it's just me. I don't know.
I mean seriously... who the hell is going to pose with a rifle while holding up a communist manifesto? Unless they just wanna get caught and are trying to make sure that everyone knows it's them. "Here's my guns... and my communist bible, just in case I shoot the president one day.." lol
"I'm gonna order a rifle under a fake name, but make sure it comes to my p.o. box under my real name...because why not?" And grown ass men are like.. "Oh yeah... sounds legit!" smh
With all the evidence he left everywhere he might as well have walked out of work with the damn rifle in his hand.
It's hard to buy the sack story when the rifle found isn't even the same one as in the backyard photo. If there was 2 rifles then there had to be some funny spombleprofglidnoctobuns going on. Just look at the shoulder straps for both and you'll see the difference.
And his rifle was supposed to be brand new, right? Yet the Military said it was barely functional.
Does that sound like a new rifle to anyone?
And something else that makes no sense... Oswald was a trained Marine. Doesn't anyone think a Marine would find a better spot, like the roof? Oswald could have easily gone to the roof. It's a better view, not to mention concealment. It just doesn't make sense.
If the rifle was bullspombleprofglidnoctobuns, then the bag was bullspombleprofglidnoctobuns too.
It's hard to buy the sack story when the rifle found isn't even the same one as in the backyard photo. If there was 2 rifles then there had to be some funny spombleprofglidnoctobuns going on. Just look at the shoulder straps for both and you'll see the difference.How did you conclude the rifle found in the building wasn't the one in the backyard photos? Because the shoulder straps were different? It's not possible that Oswald just used a different strap? How does a different STRAP equal a different RIFLE? I don't understand that at all.
And his rifle was supposed to be brand new, right? Yet the Military said it was barely functional.
Does that sound like a new rifle to anyone?
And something else that makes no sense... Oswald was a trained Marine. Doesn't anyone think a Marine would find a better spot, like the roof? Oswald could have easily gone to the roof. It's a better view, not to mention concealment. It just doesn't make sense.
If the rifle was bullspombleprofglidnoctobuns, then the bag was bullspombleprofglidnoctobuns too.
How did you conclude the rifle found in the building wasn't the one in the backyard photos? Because the shoulder straps were different? It's not possible that Oswald just used a different strap? How does a different STRAP equal a different RIFLE? I don't understand that at all.
Who said the rifle was brand new? Where did the "Military" say it was barely functional?
Where are you coming up with this information?
Google can be a terrible instrument in the hands of fools. Give up trying to think for Oswald. Or better yet thinking at all. Oswald worked in that building. He found a great shooting location. The wall around the roof was too high for him to shoot over.
Mr. BAKER - We went out on the roof.
Mr. BELIN - What did you do on the roof?
Mr. BAKER - I immediately went around all the sides of the ledges up there, and after I got on top I found out that a person couldn't shoot off that roof because when you stand up you have to put your hands like this, at the top of that ledge and if you wanted to see over you would have to tiptoe to see over it.
Give up trying to think for Oswald.
Coming from you, that's rich!
Two geniuses on the same forum. What are the odds?
Who said there isn't any new evidence to be found?
Here's Oswald's sack in the Sniper's nest.
(https://i.postimg.cc/3NrCjkVm/Oswaldsackinsnipnest.gif)
(https://i.postimg.cc/MZyrwRzZ/oswald-snipers-nest.jpg)
Btw I can't find the poster who originally found this groundbreaking evidence but if it was you, tell me and I will credit you! Thumb1:
EDIT
JohnM
Studebaker, in his testimony, references a photograph ( exhibit F) where he had drawn in - dotted lines - the outline of the bag, showing where he found it, on the floor, in the sniper's nest, near the pipes.
Sadly, no photograph was taken of the bag in this location.
So, are you saying the bag was placed on top of the - three high - stack of boxes, and then photographed, inadvertently?
Studebaker, in his testimony, references a photograph ( exhibit F) where he had drawn in - dotted lines - the outline of the bag, showing where he found it, on the floor, in the sniper's nest, near the pipes.
Sadly, no photograph was taken of the bag in this location.
So, are you saying the bag was placed on top of the - three high - stack of boxes, and then photographed, inadvertently?
What is surprising to me is that apparently the bag in the photograph wasn’t identified for 56-years... and it is exciting to now see it there now! Thanks again to Patrick!
The odds are a lot better that those for you actually dealing honestly with evidence for once and not tell us what Oswald was thinking, planning and doing....As opposed to telling us what LBJ and Hoover and the DPD and Brewer and Postal and Norman and Brennan and Markham and on and on and on.... thought?
This forum is filled with all sorts of claims from the conspiracy crowd as to why "they" had to kill JFK. And how they planned it and carried it out. We have conspiracists telling us all of these bizarre stories about why LBJ did this or Fitz did that or why this was done or that was done.
As opposed to telling us what LBJ and Hoover and the DPD and Brewer and Postal and Norman and Brennan and Markham and on and on and on.... thought?
This forum is filled with all sorts of claims from the conspiracy crowd as to why "they" had to kill JFK. And how they planned it and carried it out. We have conspiracists telling us all of these bizarre stories about why LBJ did this or Fitz did that or why this was done or that was done.
For you to come along and complain about posters telling us what Oswald thought while all of this above conspiracy fantasies are promoted is not, for me, a "good faith" complaint.
As opposed to telling us what LBJ and Hoover and the DPD and Brewer and Postal and Norman and Brennan and Markham and on and on and on.... thought?
This forum is filled with all sorts of claims from the conspiracy crowd as to why "they" had to kill JFK. And how they planned it and carried it out. We have conspiracists telling us all of these bizarre stories about why LBJ did this or Fitz did that or why this was done or that was done.
For you to come along and complain about posters telling us what Oswald thought while all of this above conspiracy fantasies are promoted is not, for me, a "good faith" complaint.
I stumbled across this Smithsonian Channel documentary about evidence still being uncovered in The Titanic story. And it occurred to me that we are still occasionally uncovering evidence in the JFK assassination story.I believe that has been done here in this forum....Warren Report---false evidence uncovered.
While there are some here who promote certain ( bizarre, unproven, ) " conspiracy" theories, there are plenty of people, including me, who are merely skeptical of the official story and point out inconsistencies, omissions and falsehoods therein. I.e. SBT, associations and motives of Jack Ruby, timeline of Oswald's activities presented, pre ,post, and during the assassination etc.
You are painting with a broad brush, and creating a "strawman" as a defense? I guess, of the Warren Commission. Instead, perhaps you could respond to the actual issues. Specifically, in this case, the rather shoddy and incomplete evidence regarding the "gunsack", and its provenance. We have conflicting stories from Studebaker, Day and Roy Truly. We have no photographs of the bag in situ. We have a photograph allegedly taken when the bag was resting on top of the stack of boxes. When was this taken? Why was the bag just lying there? Had it not already been taken into evidence?
These are just honest questions.
Oswald may well have been the actual assassin, and murderer of Tippit; the official story, at this point, does not support it's own conclusion.
As opposed to telling us what LBJ and Hoover and the DPD and Brewer and Postal and Norman and Brennan and Markham and on and on and on.... thought?
This forum is filled with all sorts of claims from the conspiracy crowd as to why "they" had to kill JFK. And how they planned it and carried it out. We have conspiracists telling us all of these bizarre stories about why LBJ did this or Fitz did that or why this was done or that was done.
For you to come along and complain about posters telling us what Oswald thought while all of this above conspiracy fantasies are promoted is not, for me, a "good faith" complaint.
While there are some here who promote certain ( bizarre, unproven, ) " conspiracy" theories, there are plenty of people, including me, who are merely skeptical of the official story and point out inconsistencies, omissions and falsehoods therein. I.e. SBT, associations and motives of Jack Ruby, timeline of Oswald's activities presented, pre ,post, and during the assassination etc.
You are painting with a broad brush, and creating a "strawman" as a defense? I guess, of the Warren Commission. Instead, perhaps you could respond to the actual issues. Specifically, in this case, the rather shoddy and incomplete evidence regarding the "gunsack", and its provenance. We have conflicting stories from Studebaker, Day and Roy Truly. We have no photographs of the bag in situ. We have a photograph allegedly taken when the bag was resting on top of the stack of boxes. When was this taken? Why was the bag just lying there? Had it not already been taken into evidence?
These are just honest questions.
Oswald may well have been the actual assassin, and murderer of Tippit; the official story, at this point, does not support it's own conclusion.
The very worst conspiracy theorists are not those with crackpot theories but the closet CTer contrarian who takes issue with every piece of evidence against Oswald but without offering ANY explanation for what did happen if their arguments about the evidence were valid. The reason is obvious. There is no sensible narrative that can explain what happened if Oswald was not the assassin.
The bag was in position to transport the wooden sill from the wrong SN window just before 3pm. This strip was not intact was was in two pieces. I believe the longer piece was supporting the bag in the photos of Montgomery leaving the building and the shorter piece was supporting the pop bottle carried by Johnson. Those who originally viewed the SN incorrectly assumed the shots were made as Kennedy approached. It was only after Day returned to the TSBD after depositing the rifle at HQ that he realised Studebaker had removed the wrong strip. Later the correct one was removed for fingerprinting.
The very worst conspiracy theorists are not those with crackpot theories but the closet CTer contrarian who takes issue with every piece of evidence against Oswald but without offering ANY explanation for what did happen if their arguments about the evidence were valid. The reason is obvious. There is no sensible narrative that can explain what happened if Oswald was not the assassin. Our dishonest contrarians know this. It's just a game to avoid checkmate by taking issue with everything. Basically what a defense attorney does for a client that they know is guilty. Frame the evidence against an impossible standard of proof, suggest there is (false) doubt, don't bother to address what did happen if their client is not guilty. Repeat endlessly.
This must be one of the most stupid posts Richard has ever come up with.....
There is no reason nor requirement for an alternative scenario or explanantion for what happened. The evidence is supposed to show that something did happen and should be strong and convincing enough to withstand scrutiny.
The is no "impossible standard of proof". The evidence either convinces or it doesn't. Complaining about an impossible standard of proof only shows that Richard isn't actually sure himself that the evidence will hold up under closer examination.
Richard likes to play the prosecutor who complains about the jury because he can't convince them with his contrived narrative
The "alternative scenario" (mostly conspiracy or railroaded theories) fail to hold up even more so than the Warren Report.
Some of them are — and you’re right to call those out too. But the WC conclusions stand or fall on their own merits.
Only "some" CT scenarios don't hold up? Do you know of any that do?
Only "some" CT scenarios don't hold up? Do you know of any that do?
Only "some" CT scenarios don't hold up? Do you know of any that do?
I can't see them removing the strip from the wrong window, if that's what occurred, because that window was closed. No reason to believe the strip from that window had any significance in terms of fingerprints. The weatherstrip from the window next to the SN may have been removed if only to have something to carrying out evidence like the paper bag and the pop bottle.
Before 3pm, those who viewed the SN assumed the sniper was shooting as the motorcade approached. Mooney makes reference to this obliquely when talking about the scar on the box. Day also mentions this in his testimony. The assumption may have also been because of the hull arrangement. The closed window wooden strip, next to the open one, is missing in early photos of the SN. This explains why the lengths of the strip in evidence differ over time. Early on it is described as about a foot shorter than the final version. The initial one broke or was already broken when removed. Later on Day organised removal of the longer one from the open window.
Before 3pm, those who viewed the SN assumed the sniper was shooting as the motorcade approached. Mooney makes reference to this obliquely when talking about the scar on the box.
"the sniper was shooting as the motorcade approached."
So Mooney imagined that the scar on the box indicated that the scar was made by the recoil of the rifle , and the rifle was aimed south and east ( toward Houston street) of the window?
Can you provide verification that" Mooney makes reference to this obliquely when talking about the scar on the box." ?
Walt you need to add what Day said about the crease to understand Mooney's assumption.
Mooney
And the minute I squeezed between these two stacks of boxes, I had to turn myself sideways to get in there that is when I saw the expended shells and the boxes that were stacked up looked to be a rest for the weapon. And, also, there was a slight crease in the top box. Whether the recoil made the crease or it was placed there before the shots were fired, I don't know. But, anyway, there was a very slight crease in the box, where the rifle could have lain--at the same angle that the shots were fired from.
Day
There was a scar on the top of or the top side of this box that was sitting there. I noticed that at the time. I thought the recoil of the gun had caused that. I later decided that was in the wrong direction. It was not the recoil of the gun but I did notice this scar on the box.
There was a scar on the top of or the top side of this box that was sitting there. I noticed that at the time. I thought the recoil of the gun had caused that. I later decided that was in the wrong direction. It was not the recoil of the gun but I did notice this scar on the box.
Thank you Colin..... So the lead detective ( J.C.Day) deduced that the scar had nothing to do with the assassination. ( And he was correct ) and yet that scar was included in the Warren Commission disinformation to continue to create confusion ......
Walt when I read the testimonies I alway try to put myself in the witnesses position at the time they describe. What did they know at that time? Understanding of events always evolve due to false but understandable contemporary assumptions. I believe all those who were in the SN just after Mooney's discovery assumed that the sniper shot while JFK approached the building, ie front on. It was only after more information was accumulated that this idea was abandoned as a theory. Day is the one who tells us this in his testimony, their initial assumption was wrong. Who knows when that happened. Was it after Brennan and or Ewins made statements?
Day is the one who tells us this in his testimony, their initial assumption was wrong. Who knows when that happened.
Who knows when Day opened his eyes?..... I do.... It's perfectly clear that Day wasn't part of the conspiracy to murder JFK....But it's also perfectly clear that Day fell in line behind Captain Fritz's orders. Day had no idea what was happening until Fritz told him that Chief Curry was following orders from Washington, and he ( Day) had better wake up and follow orders.... Day started getting the message when he took the carcano to the police station at about 3:00 pm.
Once the FBI acquired key material evidence that evening he fell in line.
Yes, You're right.... Day did not disassemble the Carcano and discover a palm print on the 5/8" diameter metal barrel,but after Henry wade had told the whole wide world that they had found Lee Oswald's prints on the Carcano Day was obligated ( He wanted to continue receiving a nice paycheck, and enjoying the green grass from above the surface) to swear that he had found the print on the metal barrel of the rifle.
PS... Personally I doubt that Detective Day had the mechanical ability to disassemble the Carcano .......
Here's a deal. I will if you attempt to answer my questions so far. Who discovered the bag? Did it occur before or after the discovery of the rifle? Who fingerprinted it? I feel the only way we can move forward it to have agreement on as many facts as possiblelFrom what I can find...It was Detective R L Studebaker---
From what I can find...It was Detective R L Studebaker---
(https://nebula.wsimg.com/ea5034b4ae6cbc89615724b83c5e0700?AccessKeyId=9CD8649F35FCA7653E81&disposition=0&alloworigin=1)
Uh no...wait a second---It was Detective Lt Carl Day!
(https://nebula.wsimg.com/6bbd4e597f01d05a4bf7635414db2fea?AccessKeyId=9CD8649F35FCA7653E81&disposition=0&alloworigin=1)
However, Studebaker drew an outline of where he found the bag----
(https://nebula.wsimg.com/84a18eabcd5a279439efa60943225299?AccessKeyId=9CD8649F35FCA7653E81&disposition=0&alloworigin=1)
From what I can find...It was Detective R L Studebaker---
(https://nebula.wsimg.com/ea5034b4ae6cbc89615724b83c5e0700?AccessKeyId=9CD8649F35FCA7653E81&disposition=0&alloworigin=1)
Uh no...wait a second---It was Detective Lt Carl Day!
(https://nebula.wsimg.com/6bbd4e597f01d05a4bf7635414db2fea?AccessKeyId=9CD8649F35FCA7653E81&disposition=0&alloworigin=1)
However, Studebaker drew an outline of where he found the bag----
(https://nebula.wsimg.com/84a18eabcd5a279439efa60943225299?AccessKeyId=9CD8649F35FCA7653E81&disposition=0&alloworigin=1)
Thanks for the reply Jerry. Trying to identify the "discoverer" of the bag is a rabbit hole. This result is a clear failure for an "exhaustive" investigation for such a key piece of evidence. Note the dates on the reports you posted. We know the bag spent some time in two locations with Studebaker in the TSBD on the 22nd November. On the sixth floor and at the first floor wrapping table. Question is in what order?
The bag is not a key piece of evidence. LHO was seen carrying a long sack to the TSBD on 11/22. If Oswald had destroyed the bag it would not have changed the fact his rifle was matched to the shells and bullet and fragments and that LHO's rifle was found between the boxes on the 6th floor of the TSBD.
If a really old rifle hull was discovered behind the fence on the Grassy Knoll, it would have to be considered irrelevant because it wasn't discovered immediately on the day of the assassination and there's no chain of evidence. Same with any new evidence such as the Babushka Lady photo or an assassin's confession.
So what was the chain of evidence for CE142? That was entered into evidence within a few hours. Who gave it to who? Who was the first to open it? Was it open and then folded first?
Of course it’s a key piece Jack. Oswald was accused of carrying a bag that morning. The FBI claimed his prints were on it. The FBI claimed it was produced from material available in the TSBD, likely the day before. It ties him to the schooling scene.
Anything else I wrote in the post you responded to that you disagree with?
No CE 142 is not key to anything. If it had been destroyed it would not change anything. It is nothing more than a distraction and adds nothing to the understanding of the assassination. The rifle is the key piece of information and can't be explained away. People stated they saw LHO bring a long bag to the TSBD on the morning of 11/22. LHO could have burned the bag and nothing would be different.
The bag never was at the first floor wrapping table. It does not matter who discovered the bag as the bag can clearly be seen in the photo in the SN thanks to Patrick Jackson. Kent Biffle stated the bag was present in the SN prior to the discovery of the rifle.
The witnesses to some supposed fence shot are in the same vague category.
If a really old rifle hull was discovered behind the fence on the Grassy Knoll, it would have to be considered irrelevant because it wasn't discovered immediately on the day of the assassination and there's no chain of evidence. Same with any new evidence such as the Babushka Lady photo or an assassin's confession.
No CE 142 is not key to anything. If it had been destroyed it would not change anything. It is nothing more than a distraction and adds nothing to the understanding of the assassination. The rifle is the key piece of information and can't be explained away. People stated they saw LHO bring a long bag to the TSBD on the morning of 11/22. LHO could have burned the bag and nothing would be different.
The bag never was at the first floor wrapping table. It does not matter who discovered the bag as the bag can clearly be seen in the photo in the SN thanks to Patrick Jackson. Kent Biffle stated the bag was present in the SN prior to the discovery of the rifle.
No CE 142 is not key to anything.
It is key to the CT argument that the DPD or FBI or some mysterious entity planted it. Patrick Jackson’s identification of it in that photo helps to dispel that one.
I do believe that I had seen it before and wondered what it was. But I didn’t correlate it with the bag until Patrick pointed it out.
No CE 142 is not key to anything. If it had been destroyed it would not change anything. It is nothing more than a distraction and adds nothing to the understanding of the assassination. The rifle is the key piece of information and can't be explained away. People stated they saw LHO bring a long bag to the TSBD on the morning of 11/22. LHO could have burned the bag and nothing would be different.
The bag never was at the first floor wrapping table. It does not matter who discovered the bag as the bag can clearly be seen in the photo in the SN thanks to Patrick Jackson. Kent Biffle stated the bag was present in the SN prior to the discovery of the rifle.
No CE 142 is not key to anything. If it had been destroyed it would not change anything. It is nothing more than a distraction and adds nothing to the understanding of the assassination. The rifle is the key piece of information and can't be explained away. People stated they saw LHO bring a long bag to the TSBD on the morning of 11/22. LHO could have burned the bag and nothing would be different.
The bag never was at the first floor wrapping table. It does not matter who discovered the bag as the bag can clearly be seen in the photo in the SN thanks to Patrick Jackson. Kent Biffle stated the bag was present in the SN prior to the discovery of the rifle.
I don’t see Biffle's testimony or contemporaneous police statement anywhere......Pat Speer has discussed Biffle in depth. Biffle was mistaken.
Pat was mistaken. Biffles notes were taken on 11/22
Mr. DAY. On the first floor of the Texas School Book Depository, and I noticed from their wrapping bench there was paper and tape of a similar--the tape was of the same width as this. I took the bag over and tried it, and I noticed that the tape was the same width as on the bag.
Mr. BELIN. Did it appear to have the same color?
Mr. DAY. Yes, sir.
Mr. BELIN. All right. Then what did you do?
Mr. DAY. Sir?
Mr. BELIN. Then what did you do?
Mr. DAY. I directed one of the officers standing by me, I don't know which, to get a piece of the tape and a piece of the paper from the wrapping bench.
Seems the bag was there Jack. When did this occur? On his way out with the rifle?
No CE 142 is not key to anything. If it had been destroyed it would not change anything. It is nothing more than a distraction and adds nothing to the understanding of the assassination.
Actually it does add to the understanding of the assassination as the WC claimed it was used by Oswald to bring the rifle into the building. Without it, you have no explanation on how Oswald could have gotten a rifle, allegedly stored in Irving, into the TSBD without Frazier seeing it.
The rifle is the key piece of information and can't be explained away.
Wrong again. The rifle by itself proves very little. It can't even be determined that it was actually fired that day and it most certainly doesn't connect to Oswald as the alleged owner. The only item that actually does that is the opinion of a handwriting expert who examined the handwriting on a Klein's order form.
People stated they saw LHO bring a long bag to the TSBD on the morning of 11/22. LHO could have burned the bag and nothing would be different.
Except for the fact that you there would be no proof or explanation on how Oswald brought the rifle into the building, when he only had one opportunity to do so!
The bag never was at the first floor wrapping table.
First of all; how in the world would you know that? And secondly, wrong again. The bag was made from TSBD materials and the tape used made it impossible for the bag to be made elsewhere. The bag was must certainly at the first floor wrapping table at some point in time.
It does not matter who discovered the bag as the bag can clearly be seen in the photo in the SN thanks to Patrick Jackson.
Yes, it can be seen in the photo, but that tells us nothing about how it got there and when. The photo also disproves the claim by the WC that the bag was found folded up on the floor at the other side of the S/N
Kent Biffle stated the bag was present in the SN prior to the discovery of the rifle.
So what?
Mr. DAY. On the first floor of the Texas School Book Depository, and I noticed from their wrapping bench there was paper and tape of a similar--the tape was of the same width as this. I took the bag over and tried it, and I noticed that the tape was the same width as on the bag.
Mr. BELIN. Did it appear to have the same color?
Mr. DAY. Yes, sir.
Mr. BELIN. All right. Then what did you do?
Mr. DAY. Sir?
Mr. BELIN. Then what did you do?
Mr. DAY. I directed one of the officers standing by me, I don't know which, to get a piece of the tape and a piece of the paper from the wrapping bench.
Seems the bag was there Jack. When did this occur? On his way out with the rifle?
The bag was made from TSBD materials and the tape used made it impossible for the bag to be made elsewhere.
Roy Truly gave the FBI a sample of the paper from the book wrapping table in the 1st floor shipping department and the FBI lab examined it and compared it to the paper of the bag that was allegedly found in what was imagined to be a "Sniper's Nest"......
A report written by FBI agent Vince Drain on 11/29/63 states..... Quote: " The paper was examined by the FBI laboratory and found not to be identical with the paper gun case that was found at the scene of the shooting".....Unquote
And while we wait, anyone want to suggest when Day had the opportunity to notice the wrapping bench and paper prior to the discovery of the bag he took to the table on the first floor?
And while we wait, anyone want to suggest when Day had the opportunity to notice the wrapping bench and paper prior to the discovery of the bag he took to the table on the first floor?
Day understood the significance of the bench and first-floor paper/tape before the bag was discovered?
Excellent rhetorical question, Colin.....when did detective Day have the opportunity to notice the wrapping bench and paper
We can be certain that Day didn't compare any bag to the paper and tape at the shipping department wrapping table BEFORE he took the carcano to the DPD crime lab. Day departed the TSBD with the Carcano at about 2:15 pm and returned to the TSBD about an hour later. And we have seen many photos of Detective Montgomery carrying a paper bag out of the TSBD at about 2:20 pm....
So the paper bag was not available at the TSBD when Detective JC Day returned to the scene. Which brings us to the question..... IF Detective Day compared a bag and tape on the bag with the paper and tape at the shipping table ...... Where did this bag come from?????
What's wrong with about 1:50 to 2:10?
What's wrong with about 1:50 to 2:10?
So he had noticed the wrapping table prior to the bags discovery.
Realised the similarity of materials and decided to take the bag down just to make sure?
You have the rifle, bag, Day and Studebaker all on the first floor before Day leaves the building with the rifle. When did Day first notice the wrapping table?
We know that the rifle was discovered well hidden beneath a pallet that had boxes of books stacked on the pallet at about 1:22 pm..... But the rifle was not removed from that hiding place until about 1:45 ( the scene was photographed and measured prior to touching the rifle) Then Detective Day, and Captain Fritz, verified that the rifle was safe to handle before Day started dusting it for finger prints. After checking the rifle for prints and lifting some prints from the rifle Day took the rifle and departed the TSBD .....HE DID NOT HAVE A PAPER BAG WITH HIM AT THAT TIME.
The bag was discovered near the time the rifle was. Sorry, I don't have Hollywood movie film with superimposed time of the discovery.
That's one weirdo spin. You can make it work, if you wanted to.
Have you checked to see if Day said something regarding that?
Also, your idea that the paper bag was made to protect prints on a window sill strip is cart before the horse. :D ;D
What makes you think they measured before picking up the rifle. The location of the rifle wasn't about to shift, and they could measure it some time later that afternoon.
Day said he got some others to take the paper bag in. I imagine he would end up going through the first floor whether he used the stairs or the freight elevator.
What makes you think they measured before picking up the rifle. The location of the rifle wasn't about to shift, and they could measure it some time later that afternoon.
Day said he got some others to take the paper bag in. I imagine he would end up going through the first floor whether he used the stairs or the freight elevator.
Day said he got some others to take the paper bag in. I imagine he would end up going through the first floor whether he used the stairs or the freight elevator.
Yes.....And we have many photos of Montgomery carrying a huge paper bag from the TSBD at about 2:20 pm. But Detective Day had departed the scene at least ten minutes before Montgomery. Neither Day nor Montgomery have ever said anything about stopping at the shipping table and comparing the paper and tape. As a matter of fact, I believe the bag was still in the imaginary "Sniper's Nest" being guarded by Montgomery and Johnson when Day left the building with the Carcano.
Imagination can be deceiving sometimes Jerry. He didn't go up initially via the shipping table.
Who said I was talking about Day going through the first floor on his way in?
So he had noticed the wrapping table prior to the bags discovery. Realised the similarity of materials and decided to take the bag down just to make sure?
You have the rifle, bag, Day and Studebaker all on the first floor before Day leaves the building with the rifle. When did Day first notice the wrapping table? He then gets Studebaker to collect the samples of paper and tape. The bag goes back upstairs. Day claimed he left it for Hicks and Studebaker to bring with them later. We know that is wrong. Montgomery brought it in at 3 pm. Signed in at 3.20pm.
Day said he got some others to take the paper bag in. I imagine he would end up going through the first floor whether he used the stairs or the freight elevator.
Yes.....And we have many photos of Montgomery carrying a huge paper bag from the TSBD at about 2:20 pm. But Detective Day had departed the scene at least ten minutes before Montgomery. Neither Day nor Montgomery have ever said anything about stopping at the shipping table and comparing the paper and tape. As a matter of fact, I believe the bag was still in the imaginary "Sniper's Nest" being guarded by Montgomery and Johnson when Day left the building with the Carcano.
So he noticed it on his way out? Perhaps you could expand on your thoughts?
Now you have Day leaving at 2:50, if Montgomery's watch is correct and you're correct about Day leaving ten minutes before Montgomery. Day was offered a ride to City Hall by FBI agent Bardwell Odum and was at the Identification Bureau on the fourth floor just long enough to lock the Carcano in an evidence box, when he left to return to the Depository.
Day: "On the first floor of the Texas School Book Depository, and I noticed from
their wrapping bench there was paper and tape of a similar--the tape was
of the same width as this. I took the bag over and tried it, and I noticed that
the tape was the same width as on the bag."
Do you know some other way that Day made his way from the Sixth Floor to the front steps of the Depository?
Day has commented on both his entries to the TSBD that day. Neither went via the shipping table. I can only assume that his stop there occurred on his way out with the rifle. Given his WC testimony I suggest that the visit to the table occurred then. He stated he also took the bag over to compare materials. So you have him on his way to City Hall with the bag and rifle. Notices the wrapping table. Compares materials and get Studebaker to collect samples. If this is what occurred, why was Studebaker there when Day was leaving? Why have Studebaker take the bag back upstairs and have him place it for Montgomery to find according to Johnson. Montgomery’s discovery occurred after the Crime Lab (Studebaker) had finished processing the bottle and lunchsack, according to Johnson.
Clearly we are in disagreement about what time Montgomery and Johnson departed the TSBD..... I believe Montgomery's wrist watch reads 2:19 . While you apparently believe his watch indicates 3:00 O'Clock.
(https://i.ibb.co/fMQR31H/2-A3-C23-DC-922-B-4406-9-C37-8-DBD99-D63-ABC.png)
If you post the picture that you believe reads 2.19 would be happy to review it. The evidence was entered by Montgomery and Johnson in a document stating 3.20pm. You think it likely took them an hour to write up?
One of our shadow experts should be able to clear it up surely from the Allen photos.
Perhaps Jack missed this? Anyone else want to offer an opinion?
Day returned to the TSBD at the same time the bag was being transported by Montgomery at 3:00. Day states he took the bag "over" to the tape room not "down" to the tape room. His estimate of time and his return perfectly coincides with the bag being seen in front of the TSBD.
Mr. DAY. I went back to the School Book Depository and stayed there. It was around three that I got back, and I was in that building until about 6, directing the other officers as to what we needed in the way of photographs and some drawing, and so forth.
Mr. DAY. On the first floor of the Texas School Book Depository, and I noticed from their wrapping bench there was paper and tape of a similar--the tape was of the same width as this. I took the bag over and tried it, and I noticed that the tape was the same width as on the bag.
The bag never was at the first floor wrapping table.
Day returned to the TSBD at the same time the bag was being transported by Montgomery at 3:00. Day states he took the bag "over" to the tape room not "down" to the tape room. His estimate of time and his return perfectly coincides with the bag being seen in front of the TSBD.
Mr. DAY. I went back to the School Book Depository and stayed there. It was around three that I got back, and I was in that building until about 6, directing the other officers as to what we needed in the way of photographs and some drawing, and so forth.
Mr. DAY. On the first floor of the Texas School Book Depository, and I noticed from their wrapping bench there was paper and tape of a similar--the tape was of the same width as this. I took the bag over and tried it, and I noticed that the tape was the same width as on the bag.
The photos of Montgomery Leaving the TSBD with the huge paper bag have been posted many times in this forum..... A couple of them show Montgomery's watch.
It hasn't been long ago that the time indicated was discussed .....
Pat was mistaken. Biffles notes were taken on 11/22
Do you have anyone that mentions Biffle or anything like the event he claimed. Who were the guys all looking at the bag when the rifle was found? Does anyone even mention Biffle there at that time? It is an uncorroborated statement not taken under oath and it’s all you got.
So the bag was at the wrapping table as I suggested after all. At least you used the quote I provided in my post to prove my point.
The problem with using it to prove your theory about it coinciding with Montgomery leaving with it is this.....that boat don’t float.
Mr. BELIN. Did you take it down to the station with you?
Mr. DAY. I didn't take it with me. I left it with the men when I left. I left Detectives Hicks and Studebaker to bring this in with them when they brought other equipment in.
You are assuming they knew Biffle or anything about him. There were people all around on the 6th floor and Biffle mentions that he not only saw the bag but the detectives were discussing its purpose which Detective Johnson confirms.
Mr. JOHNSON. No; other than like I said, my partner picked it up and we unfolded it and it appeared to be about the same shape as a rifle case would be. In other words, we made the remark that that is what he probably brought it in.
That is why, the reason we saved it.
Day said he left the bag with the men when he left, which he obviously did. Day took the rifle back to the station earlier and then returned to the TSBD. The men left with the bag around three o'clock and are seen in front of the TSBD at three, which coincided with Day's return to the TSBD. He took the bag "over" to the wrapping table and compared it with the paper and tape in use there.
Once in the wrapping room Day asked an officer to get a piece of tape and paper.
Mr. DAY. I directed one of the officers standing by me, I don't know which, to get a piece of the tape and a piece of the paper from the wrapping bench.
CE 142 is not key to anything.If it isn't a key to anything...why is the last couple of pages spent on trying to make it fit?
If it isn't a key to anything...why is the last couple of pages spent on trying to make it fit?
It is clear that Frazier could have discerned the difference between a 6-7 lb bag of hardware and a 6 oz package with curtain rods.
Wes Frazier was arrested and charged as an accessory to murder...or he could go on home if he could just "come clean" about Oswald. What was Oswald to him and his sister? The cops were in on it. Why is this so hard to believe?
The shadow gurus would give us a definitive answer......Ray or Charles have dabbled with that science in the past from memory.
I created a reasonably accurate 3-D model of the sniper’s nest area of the TSBD that is based on actual measurements. If I had actual measurements to use for a similar 3-D model of the TSBD entrance area, I would be happy to apply the sun’s positioning in the computer program and compare to the Allen photos. If anyone has these measurements, or can obtain them please let me know.
:D your "sun positioning" is a cartoon of what you want to see.
If it isn't a key to anything...why is the last couple of pages spent on trying to make it fit?
It is clear that Frazier could have discerned the difference between a 6-7 lb bag of hardware and a 6 oz package with curtain rods.
Wes Frazier was arrested and charged as an accessory to murder...or he could go on home if he could just "come clean" about Oswald. What was Oswald to him and his sister? The cops were in on it. Why is this so hard to believe?
What's the motive for the Dallas Cops to "be in on it"?And this did all before knowing - with any idea at all - where Oswald was at the time of the shooting. Was he on the steps (as some still believe)? Was he on the street? Was he with co-workers having lunch or watching the motorcade?
So ordinary law enforcement officers agree to be part of a conspiracy--to kill President Kennedy--within minutes of the crime being committed? So they are willing to become accessories after the fact to murder which carried the death penalty in Texas.
Some law enforcement officers must have been "in on it" before the crime occurred: Accessories before the fact to murder.
A lot of police are willing to risk being prosecuted and convicted and to "die in the electric chair"--for what reason? Hard to believe indeed!
What's the motive for the Dallas Cops to "be in on it"?
So ordinary law enforcement officers agree to be part of a conspiracy--to kill President Kennedy--within minutes of the crime being committed? So they are willing to become accessories after the fact to murder which carried the death penalty in Texas.
Some law enforcement officers must have been "in on it" before the crime occurred: Accessories before the fact to murder.
A lot of police are willing to risk being prosecuted and convicted and to "die in the electric chair"--for what reason? Hard to believe indeed!
And this did all before knowing - with any idea at all - where Oswald was at the time of the shooting. Was he on the steps (as some still believe)? Was he on the street? Was he with co-workers having lunch or watching the motorcade?
They are framing a person without having any idea as to whether he would have an alibi. And everyone went along - pre-assassination, assassination, and post-assassination - with not only the acts but of covering up those acts. And remained silent about it for the rest of their lives.
This would be and has been the most studied event in American history. Reporters, investigators, "citizen" journalists, would be studying it for decades. It's impossible - in my considered view - to keep this conspiracy silent. Too many moving parts, too many people involved, too much time would pass.
There are several ways of looking at these conspiracy ideas. One is viewing it as historian hobbyists looking at a past event in a non-serious way. If so, then I guess it's "fun" to discuss it. But some of these people are serious. They truly believe in a secret cabal that killed JFK. This is, well, I'll bite my tongue.
The two of you seem to be missing an important point; the story that we all know through the Warren Report isn't necessarily what actually happened!
So you have no corroboration of Biffle seeing the bag before the gun was found. No one said there was a reporter there and Biffle did not name anyone. An unconfirmed, uncorroborated anecdote not offered as an official statement or under oath. Who knows could have been a dream.
And as for using Johnson.....
Mr. BELIN. Your testimony then is that all the sack would have been east of the pipes. Is that correct?
Mr. JOHNSON. I would say that the sack was folded up here and it was east of the pipes in the corner. To the best of my memory, that is where my partner picked it up. I was standing there when he picked it up.
Mr. BELIN. You were standing there when he picked it up?
Mr. JOHNSON. Yes, because the Crime Lab was already finished where I was, and I had already walked off to where he was.
Johnson gives us the best indication when this occurred. He was assigned an area west of the SN, essentially guarding the chicken lunch remnants, outside the arranged boxes. Once Studebaker returned following the departure of Day with the rifle, Studebaker processed the bottle and lunch sack. Johnson then moved to where Montgomery was inside the SN. This is when Montgomery "discovered" the bag.
Day said he left the bag with Hicks and Studebaker. Hicks did not arrive until after 3pm. The bag had departed by then.
The officer who collected the samples of paper was Studebaker. Studebaker had just assisted Day at the scene of the rifle discovery. He too left the sixth floor. I propose that this occurred at the time Day descended to take the rifle to the TSBD.
You failed to respond to the specific point about the implausibility of "Dallas cops" being accessories before, during and after the fact to the murder of John F. Kennedy. Texas had the death penalty. It would have been the punishment for all of those who "were in on it". Unless of course you think all judges and all potential jurors were "in on it" too.
You raised the issue of "in on it". So... motive please?
Huh? I didn't raise anything of the kind.... You seem to be talking to the wrong guy.
And, for what it is worth, I don't think that Dallas cops were in on the assassination before, during or after the fact. What I do believe is possible is that they didn't have to be "in on it" for the WC narrative to be construed.
Studebaker did not first pick up the bag Montgomery did.
Mr. MONTGOMERY. Which sack are we talking about now?
Mr. BALL. The paper sack?
Mr. MONTGOMERY. The small one or the larger one?
Mr. BALL. The larger one you mentioned that was in position 2.
Mr. MONTGOMERY. Yes.
Mr. BALL. You picked it up?
Mr. MONTGOMERY. Wait just a minute no; I didn't pick it up. I believe Mr. Studebaker did. We left it laying right there so they could check it for prints.
Isn't the debate about the paper bag just a continuing diversion ? The FBI examined the paper bag and found no evidence that there was any rifle in that paper bag. End of story!
Maybe that was because LHO pulled it out and shot JFK and JBC with it. Just sayin...
I don't think that Dallas cops were in on the assassination before, during or after the fact.
Aha!.... Thank you, Martin, for solving a mystery for me. I've often wondered why you seem so intelligent, and you can see that the official tale is utter nonsense, but you keep struggling to find the truth. Your statement above solves the mystery.
Or maybe there never was a rifle in that bag. Just sayin....
And God didn't make little green apples
And it don't rain in Indianapolis in the summertime...
There was another thread about some documents that indicate curtain rods were returned to Mrs Paines garage and referencing a 27” length package
There is a discrepancy of the date on that document about the rods found and being “returned” on a date when Mrs Paine was on vacation
This suggests to me that Oswald DID ACTUALLY take the 27”package of blinds and rods that Mrs Paine DID have on a shelf in the garage , on Friday morning Nov 22/63 and that was the package Buell saw Oswald able to carry between armpit and palm of hand
That package Oswald probable left in the Annex roofed portion of loading dock as he entered the outer door and BEFORE he entered the rear door to TSBD proper, thus why Jack Dougherty saw no package in Oswalds hands
That package may not have beendiscovered until the date on that document which is about a month after Nov 22 and so they HAD no choice but return that package to Paines garage while she was onvacation, then stage a fake return when Mrs Paine has returned to “make sure” that Oswald had not taken any package from the garage
Says the guy who has no evidence whatsoever that a rifle was in that bag or in any bag.
Appeals to ridicule are no substitute for evidence.
The bag: What are the chances? Yep, all long bags in 1963 were mandated to carry blanket fibers
Huh? I didn't raise anything of the kind.... You seem to be talking to the wrong guy.
And, for what it is worth, I don't think that Dallas cops were in on the assassination before, during or after the fact. What I do believe is possible is that they didn't have to be "in on it" for the WC narrative to be construed.
Your lack of actual knowledge about the evidence in this case is astounding.
You wanted corroboration that they stood around and talked about the bag and you got it.
Studebaker did not first pick up the bag Montgomery did.
Mr. JOHNSON. Yes, sir. We found this brown paper sack or case. It was made out of heavy wrapping paper. Actually, it looked similar to the paper that those books was wrapped in. It was just a long narrow paper bag.
Mr. BELIN. Where was this found?
Mr. JOHNSON. Right in the corner of the building.
Mr. BELIN. On what floor?
Mr. JOHNSON. Sixth floor.
Mr. BELIN. Which corner?
Mr. JOHNSON. Southeast corner.
Mr. BELIN. Do you know who found it?
Mr. JOHNSON. I know that the first I saw of it, L. D. Montgomery, my partner, picked it up off the floor, and it was folded up, and he unfolded it.
Mr. BELIN. When it was folded up, was it folded once or refolded?
Mr. JOHNSON. It was folded and then refolded. It was a fairly small package.
Mr. JOHNSON. No; other than like I said, my partner picked it up and we unfolded it and it appeared to be about the same shape as a rifle case would be. In other words, we made the remark that that is what he probably brought it in.
That is why, the reason we saved it.
It is not quite that simple. Patrick Jackson solved the mystery of why the bag was not photographed . They had picked it up and moved it. Biffle confirms the event.
No mention of Studebaker doing anything first.
Marty,
I was fooled by the double-quote: J. Freeman and you. Off my game because of concern about the China-virus pandemic.
But surely any deliberate suppression of evidence or enhancement of evidence (by the Dallas police) would be highly illegal? When is it incompetence and when is it an offense?
Off my game because of concern about the China-virus pandemic.
Or you were simply babbling away without paying much attention to what you were doing.
But surely any deliberate suppression of evidence or enhancement of evidence (by the Dallas police) would be highly illegal?
So is driving through a red traffic light. Are you by any chance under the mistaken impression that every single police officer always abides by the law?
But surely any deliberate suppression of evidence or enhancement of evidence (by the Dallas police) would be highly illegal?
When is it incompetence and when is it an offense?
When evidence is tampered with it is always an offense regardless if the person doing it is imcompetent or not.
So is driving through a red traffic light. Are you by any chance under the mistaken impression that every single police officer always abides by the law?
Going through a red-light: Misdemeanor
Suppression of evidence in a criminal case: Felony
Or you were simply babbling away without paying much attention to what you were doing.
Were you? Or should the third letter of your surname be changed to another vowel.
Going through a red-light: Misdemeanor
Suppression of evidence in a criminal case: Felony
Same difference... both are just as illegal.
Were you? Or should the third letter of your surname be changed to another vowel?
Babbling again?
You could have simply owned up to the mistake instead of making some silly excuse. And now you're trying to make it about me.... Pathetic!
Same difference... both are just as illegal.
Not the same difference. Think about the differences in the consequences of being convicted and sentenced.
Running a red-light... not a criminal offense: Monetary fine.
Suppressing evidence (accessory after the fact to murder - Texas 1963)... a criminal offense: Execution in the electric chair.
Now do you understand?
If you are suggesting that they wouldn’t do that because it’s a crime, I’d suggest you study the case of Randall Dale Adams.
I have no doubt the bag was on the sixth floor Jack. I propose that the picture shows the bag at some time around 2pm or so. The rifle was found about 1.22pm (from memory). As for using Johnson to claim that Biffle's claim the bag wa found before the rifle I have already said that Johnson indicates this happened after Studebaker had returned from assisting Day with the rifle. After he had finished processing evidence where Johnson was (pop bottle and chicken lunch).
So you have no corroboration of Biffle seeing the bag before the gun was found. No one said there was a reporter there and Biffle did not name anyone. An unconfirmed, uncorroborated anecdote not offered as an official statement or under oath.
And as for using Johnson.....
Mr. BELIN. Your testimony then is that all the sack would have been east of the pipes. Is that correct?
Mr. JOHNSON. I would say that the sack was folded up here and it was east of the pipes in the corner. To the best of my memory, that is where my partner picked it up. I was standing there when he picked it up.
Mr. BELIN. You were standing there when he picked it up?
Mr. JOHNSON. Yes, because the Crime Lab was already finished where I was, and I had already walked off to where he was.
Johnson gave us the best indication when this occurred. He was assigned an area west of the SN, essentially guarding the chicken lunch remnants, outside the arranged boxes. Once Studebaker returned following the departure of Day with the rifle, Studebaker processed the bottle and lunch sack. Johnson then moved to where Montgomery was inside the SN. This is when Montgomery "discovered" the bag.
The bag was used to cover the inital wooden strip removed from a SN window. The bag was originally made to transport the rifle back to City Hall. That plan was abandoned by Carl Day. He hints at the use of paper to protect crime evidence for transport. The Crime Scene guy routinely bring bags etc with them for transporting evidence to the lab for processing. They had no such bag big enough to do so. There are pictures of the rifle and other evidence sitting on a large sheet of paper. Why do you think they put paper under the evidence to photograph it?
Did Day initially think it was a good idea to wrap the rifle up and then abandon the idea?
"Just looking at it I thought the chances were slim that we’d find any prints on the rifle itself. It had what we call a wartime
finish on the barrel which would lift out of the stock. That type of surface didn’t take prints well, nor did the wood stock which was too course or rough. You’ve got to have a smooth, fairly clean surface before the ridges will leave an impression. If it’s rougher than the ridges of the finger, you’re not going to find anything there.
At that time, just through casual observation, it didn’t look too promising. It wasn’t the place to try to do any fingerprint work since it’s a rather lengthy process and we had other things to do. So I decided to carry the gun back to the office at City Hall, store it under lock and key, examine it under ideal conditions, and get to it when I could. I didn’t have anything to wrap it up with at the time, so I carried it out making sure that I didn’t touch anything other than the strap. Besides, you had to be careful in wrapping stuff because if there were any prints, you’re liable to smear them just from the wrapping."
Carl Day from No More Silence
Some other case is immaterial.
Weatherford saw the bag.
Bull. What was the Dallas PD’s and DA’s motive to railroad Adams and suppress evidence in Adams’ case? To get a conviction!
Same difference... both are just as illegal.
Not the same difference. Think about the differences in the consequences of being convicted and sentenced.
Running a red-light... not a criminal offense: Monetary fine.
Suppressing evidence (accessory after the fact to murder - Texas 1963)... a criminal offense: Execution in the electric chair.
Now do you understand?
So John: Is this Adams' case linked to the Assassination of John F. Kennedy? If not it's immaterial.
Which bag though? The chicken lunch bag?
To Pat Speer.....I believe I saw a reference that you said in an oral history interview that Carl Day virtually admitted that he did not see the bag on the sixth floor. Can you confirm?
Here's the section of chapter 4C in which I quote back Day's statements to prove he wasn't present when the bag was "discovered".
Day's post-1964 statements on the bag, in fact, confirm he was not actually present when the bag was "discovered."
A summary of Day's 10-18-77 interview with HSCA investigators Harold Rose and Al Maxwell (HSCA record 180-10107-10176) relates: "Lt. Day stated that he remembers the brown wrapping paper in the S.E. corner and stated that he believes his office processed it and it went with the other evidence to the F.B.I."
He "believes"? Really?
In 1992, when asked by researcher Denis Morissette if he knew who found the bag, Day similarly responded: "I don't know. It was on the floor next to and north of the box Oswald was sitting on when I arrived at the 6th floor. My men and I collected the bag at this place. As far as I know it had not been moved by any officers." Note that he never describes his initial spotting and inspection of the bag, or his dusting and signing the bag. He says only that there was a bag, that it was collected by his men, and that it was found by... someone... north of the sniper's seat. (His testimony had been that it was south of the sniper's seat, directly in the corner.)
In 1996, in an oral history recorded for The Sixth Floor Museum, moreover, Day had the chance to set the record straight and once again offered smoke. When asked why the bag hadn't been photographed, he responded "There should be a picture of it somewhere." When then asked by interviewer Bob Porter where the bag had been found, he replied "To the best of my knowledge, it was to the right on the floor of where he was sitting, on the box that I showed you a minute ago. It may have been the right, it may have been the left, but there was a bag there." When Porter pointed out that "left" would mean the corner (where Day had testified the bag was discovered), moreover, Day surprised him, and once again asserted that the bag had been found north of the sniper's seat. He responded "Yes, in the corner out back towards the north side of the building, where you headed up to it." He then admitted "I didn’t know anything about a bag at that time. There was a bag laying there...Later examination indicated that it was a bag had been made out of wrapping paper. It appeared to be shipping paper...Of course at that time, we didn’t know anything about Oswald, didn’t know anything about what happened. There was a bag there and it was collected."
Now, this, of course, supports that Day hadn't actually seen the bag where he claims it was found, and that others were, in fact, responsible for its collection in the depository.
This likelihood is further supported by Day's recollection to Larry Sneed, published in 1998, moreover. Day is reported to have told Sneed that "Also found on the sixth floor, as I recall, near the shell area, was a paper bag. It should have been photographed, but for some reason, apparently wasn't."
In fact, in what was to become his final word on the subject, in a 7-11-06 interview with The Sixth Floor Museum, Day came as close to admitting perjury as one can come. In opposition to his Warren Commission testimony that he'd signed the paper bag or sack "at the time the sack was found," Day ultimately admitted that when he and Studebaker left the sniper's nest to go photograph the rifle on the other side of the building "They had posted guards or something around it and they didn't have the sense to leave things alone. And they'd got in there and picked up a sack that was in this corner. And we didn't get a picture of it. But there was a sack right in that corner...the brown paper bag. It was the one he was supposed to have brought curtain rods in. Well, they picked it up while I was gone, and I didn't get a picture of it while it was sitting there."
Thanks Pat. There is a statement somewhere from Day that he did no processing of the paper and tape samples and mentions that was done by the FBI. He indicates that he could perform a matching of ends at that time and that it was a tedious process but it could be done. Do you recall where this statement was? I only read it yesterday and am struggling to find it in my files.
You're so desperate to make the flawed argument that no DPD officer would break the law in the Kennedy case for fear of the consequences.
John has shown you quite clearly that DPD officers have in fact broken the law in at least one other case, regardless of the consequences, so why would they do it there and not in the Kennedy case? Evidence tampering is a nearly every day occurrence as frequently demonstrated by the release of innocent prisoners who were in jail due to prosecutorial misconduct.
And there is in fact persuasive evidence that DPD officers did tamper with evidence one way or the other, so your entire argument is going nowhere...
John has shown you quite clearly that DPD officers have in fact broken the law in at least one other case, regardless of the consequences, so why would they do it there and not in the Kennedy case?
That's a non sequitur.
That's a non sequitur.
You don't know what you are talking about.
If you want to argue for argument's sake, you're going to have to find somebody else to bore to death with your BS
Non sequitur: A conclusion or statement that does not logically follow from the previous argument or statement.
In other words: Because some members of the Dallas PD allegedly "broke the law" in a case sometime previous to the tragic events of 22 November 1963: It does not follow that they (the same ones or others) would become accessories before, during or after the fact to the murder of John F. Kennedy.
The consequences of the latter are many orders of magnitude greater than the former. Therefore you need to suggest a motive for Dallas PD officers risking the possibility of being prosecuted and convicted for a capital crime. Police officers would be aware of the terror experienced by those criminals who have been executed in the electric chair and not want to suffer that fate.
(1) tampering with evidence can surely get an officer into trouble but it will not get him the death penalty, as it doesn't automatically make an officer a co-conspirator to a murder,
Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Cadigan, did you notice when you looked at the bag whether there were---that is the bag found on the sixth floor, Exhibit 142--whether it had any bulges or unusual creases?http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/cadigan1.htm
Mr. CADIGAN. I was also requested at that time to examine the bag to determine if there were any significant markings or scratches or abrasions or anything by which it could be associated with the rifle, Commission Exhibit 139, that is, could I find any markings that I could tie to that rifle.
Mr. EISENBERG. Yes?
Mr. CADIGAN. And I couldn't find any such markings.
I have no doubt the bag was on the sixth floor Jack. I propose that the picture shows the bag at some time around 2pm or so. The rifle was found about 1.22pm (from memory). As for using Johnson to claim that Biffle's claim the bag wa found before the rifle I have already said that Johnson indicates this happened after Studebaker had returned from assisting Day with the rifle. After he had finished processing evidence where Johnson was (pop bottle and chicken lunch).
So you have no corroboration of Biffle seeing the bag before the gun was found. No one said there was a reporter there and Biffle did not name anyone. An unconfirmed, uncorroborated anecdote not offered as an official statement or under oath.
And as for using Johnson.....
Mr. BELIN. Your testimony then is that all the sack would have been east of the pipes. Is that correct?
Mr. JOHNSON. I would say that the sack was folded up here and it was east of the pipes in the corner. To the best of my memory, that is where my partner picked it up. I was standing there when he picked it up.
Mr. BELIN. You were standing there when he picked it up?
Mr. JOHNSON. Yes, because the Crime Lab was already finished where I was, and I had already walked off to where he was.
Johnson gave us the best indication when this occurred. He was assigned an area west of the SN, essentially guarding the chicken lunch remnants, outside the arranged boxes. Once Studebaker returned following the departure of Day with the rifle, Studebaker processed the bottle and lunch sack. Johnson then moved to where Montgomery was inside the SN. This is when Montgomery "discovered" the bag.
The bag was used to cover the inital wooden strip removed from a SN window. The bag was originally made to transport the rifle back to City Hall. That plan was abandoned by Carl Day. He hints at the use of paper to protect crime evidence for transport. The Crime Scene guy routinely bring bags etc with them for transporting evidence to the lab for processing. They had no such bag big enough to do so. There are pictures of the rifle and other evidence sitting on a large sheet of paper. Why do you think they put paper under the evidence to photograph it?
Did Day initially think it was a good idea to wrap the rifle up and then abandon the idea?
"Just looking at it I thought the chances were slim that we’d find any prints on the rifle itself. It had what we call a wartime
finish on the barrel which would lift out of the stock. That type of surface didn’t take prints well, nor did the wood stock which was too course or rough. You’ve got to have a smooth, fairly clean surface before the ridges will leave an impression. If it’s rougher than the ridges of the finger, you’re not going to find anything there.
At that time, just through casual observation, it didn’t look too promising. It wasn’t the place to try to do any fingerprint work since it’s a rather lengthy process and we had other things to do. So I decided to carry the gun back to the office at City Hall, store it under lock and key, examine it under ideal conditions, and get to it when I could. I didn’t have anything to wrap it up with at the time, so I carried it out making sure that I didn’t touch anything other than the strap. Besides, you had to be careful in wrapping stuff because if there were any prints, you’re liable to smear them just from the wrapping."
Carl Day from No More Silence
Non sequitur: A conclusion or statement that does not logically follow from the previous argument or statement.
In other words: Because some members of the Dallas PD allegedly "broke the law" in a case sometime previous to the tragic events of 22 November 1963: It does not follow that they (the same ones or others) would become accessories before, during or after the fact to the murder of John F. Kennedy.
The consequences of the latter are many orders of magnitude greater than the former. Therefore you need to suggest a motive for Dallas PD officers risking the possibility of being prosecuted and convicted for a capital crime. Police officers would be aware of the terror experienced by those criminals who have been executed in the electric chair and not want to suffer that fate.
(https://i.ibb.co/fMQR31H/2-A3-C23-DC-922-B-4406-9-C37-8-DBD99-D63-ABC.png)The timing of 3:00 pm is correct within just a few minutes, based on the doorway shadows in this Allen photograph compared with my 3D model. The simulation runs from 2:45 to 3:15.
If you post the picture that you believe reads 2.19 would be happy to review it. The evidence was entered by Montgomery and Johnson in a document stating 3.20pm. You think it likely took them an hour to write up?
One of our shadow experts should be able to clear it up surely from the Allen photos.
The timing of 3:00 pm is correct within just a few minutes, based on the doorway shadows in this Allen photograph compared with my 3D model. The simulation runs from 2:45 to 3:15.
(https://i.imgur.com/WeWdnhG.gif)
Thanks James.... It certainly appears that the time that Montgomery and Johnson departed the TSBD with that huge paper sack was around 3:00pm.
I wonder if you've used the shadows to determine what time Detective Day left the TSBD with the carcano. I believe that Day departed at about 2:10 and returned to the TSBD about an hour later..... Or around 3:15..... If that is true, then Montgomery left with the paper sack before Day returned, and Day never saw this bag in the imaginary "Sniper's Nest"
I found it. From No More Silence, Carl Day.
"Also found on the sixth floor, as I recall, near the shell area, was a paper bag. It should have been photographed, but for some reason, apparently wasn’t. The story that I received later was that when this man came to work that morning he was carrying something wrapped in shipping or wrapping paper or brown roll paper. In the shipping room on the first floor, there were one or
two rolls of that paper. We took the end pieces off those rolls for possible comparison with the bag that was found. It would have been a tedious job, but on other cases I’ve had occasion to match the ends of two pieces of paper. If you can find the right place, they’ll match up, even if it’s torn off. We had possession of that bag, but I didn’t have a chance to work with it due to events that later occurred."
Sounds like they took a sample to match ends. He claimed "end pieces" but only one roll sample was removed. Did he really think the end would match up with the bag? Or did he know that the roll they used to make the bag would have a matching end?
It had what we call a wartime finish on the barrel
Detective Liar Day could get away with blatant lies like this because most folks were ignorant and didn't know that what he was saying was a lie.
A "war time finish" is a dull non reflective finish..... The process to create that finish was called "Parkerizing" and the Mannlicher Carcano did not have a parkerized finish. The carcano has a blued steel finish like many hunting rifles. And that surface does in fact take and hold fingerprints.
Thanks James.... It certainly appears that the time that Montgomery and Johnson departed the TSBD with that huge paper sack was around 3:00pm.I spent much of last night looking for photos or video of Lt. Day as he carried the rifle from the TSBD that I could use for shadow work. I found nine or so, including Skagg's, that showed Day that time at the SFM's emuseum site.
I wonder if you've used the shadows to determine what time Detective Day left the TSBD with the carcano. I believe that Day departed at about 2:10 and returned to the TSBD about an hour later..... Or around 3:15..... If that is true, then Montgomery left with the paper sack before Day returned, and Day never saw this bag in the imaginary "Sniper's Nest"
"Detective Liar Day could get away with blatant lies like this because most folks were ignorant and didn't know that what he was saying was a lie."
Turning surplus military rifles into hunting rifles was and is a economical and popular thing in gun cultures like Texas.
If he is lying, many of those listening would know he is. He also knows he won't be challenged by anyone.
IMO
SENATOR COOPER - Have you fired other types of rifles other than the one you used?
Mr. BAKER - Yes, sir; the first one I had was a 30-30 Marlin lever type.
SENATOR COOPER - Have you ever seen the rifle that is alleged to have belonged to Lee Oswald?
Mr. BAKER - I saw it, a photograph of it, in the newspaper.
SENATOR COOPER - Do you know what kind of rifle it is?
Mr. BAKER - Not offhand. I heard it was some foreign make gun. Most of the boys down there at the police
department have had dealings with foreign type guns, rifles, you know of this kind, and a lot of them sell them,
and a lot of them rework them, you know, make them into deer rifles.
Turning surplus military rifles into hunting rifles was and is a economical and popular thing in gun cultures like Texas.
This is very true...However ....One of the primary reasons that gun buffs convert military rifles to high powered or hunting rifles is due to the fact that some military rifles were of superior quality. A sportsman could build a very high quality rifle at a economical price. BUT Not many sportsmen started with an inferior, smaller caliber, hard to reload, rifles, like the Mannlicher Carcano. The Carcano wasn't worth the time and effort......
If he is lying, many of those listening would know he is. He also knows he won't be challenged by anyone.
This is also very true....A good example of the naivete and gullibility of the reporters, is DA Henry Wade telling them that the DPD had found Lee Harrrrrrvey Osssssswald's ( Boooo Hisssss) prints on the rifle. Which was a bare faced lie.....But the reporters swallowed his lie without asking for verification.
Turning surplus military rifles into hunting rifles was and is a economical and popular thing in gun cultures like Texas.
This is very true...However ....One of the primary reasons that gun buffs convert military rifles to high powered or hunting rifles is due to the fact that some military rifles were of superior quality. A sportsman could build a very high quality rifle at a economical price. BUT Not many sportsmen started with an inferior, smaller caliber, hard to reload, rifles, like the Mannlicher Carcano. The Carcano wasn't worth the time and effort......
There is a million WW1 Austrian soldiers that will attest to the quality and accuracy of the Carcano.
There is a million WW1 Austrian soldiers that will attest to the quality and accuracy of the Carcano.
There is a million WW1 Austrian soldiers that will attest to the quality and accuracy of the Carcano.
The timing of 3:00 pm is correct within just a few minutes, based on the doorway shadows in this Allen photograph compared with my 3D model. The simulation runs from 2:45 to 3:15.
(https://i.imgur.com/WeWdnhG.gif)
Thanks James.... It certainly appears that the time that Montgomery and Johnson departed the TSBD with that huge paper sack was around 3:00pm.
I wonder if you've used the shadows to determine what time Detective Day left the TSBD with the carcano. I believe that Day departed at about 2:10 and returned to the TSBD about an hour later..... Or around 3:15..... If that is true, then Montgomery left with the paper sack before Day returned, and Day never saw this bag in the imaginary "Sniper's Nest"
There is a million WW1 Austrian soldiers that will attest to the quality and accuracy of the Carcano.
And they are all dead and buried, so you can easily make such an unverifiable and meaningless claim......
From “Live by the Sword” by Gus Russo:
The Rifle’s Capability
If Oswald was up to the task, surely his cheap ($13) rifle was incapable of such a performance, other critics assert. Upon close examination, this too proves to be an inaccurate oversimplification. Originally manufactured in 1891 for the Italian Army, the bolt-action 6.5 mm Mannlicher-Carcano rifle Oswald owned has been widely maligned as too inferior to be used in the assassination. The truth is that this weapon is so powerful—and accurate—at the range of the Kennedy murder that it should be among the last choices for a weapon someone would want pointed at them from that distance. At the turn-of-the-twentieth-century, for example, the Mannlicher-Carcano was the weapon of choice for those competing in 1,000-yard shooting contests! It was preferred because it was one of the first to incorporate the new idea of “gain twist,” popularized by the famous 19th century American gun-barrel maker, Harry Pope. Gain twist means simply that the grooves inside of the rifle barrel were designed to make the bullet spiral as it exited, much like a well-thrown football. Just as in football, the imparted spiral, or twist, increases the stability and accuracy of the bullet. The Mannlicher has a slightly higher twist ratio (1:8”) than the current military issue M-16 (1:7”). The rifle has been further ridiculed because of its bolt-action mechanism, which obviously impedes the ability to fire off multiple shots in rapid succession—presumably necessary under the circumstances. This criticism, however, ignores the fact that the knob on the end of the bolt is not there for either aesthetic reasons or comfort. This practical addition allows the well-practiced shooter minimal hand movement when cycling from the trigger to the bolt— essentially rotating the trigger hand in one plane past the knob, with no extraneous movement. This is easier demonstrated than described. Someone skilled in the weapon’s use could recycle the weapon in under two seconds, much less than was actually needed in the Kennedy case. Oswald may very well have been so skilled. I noted earlier in the text that Marina Oswald was disturbed by Lee’s repeated dry-firing speed drills on their New Orleans front porch. Witnesses in Dallas recall the speed and accuracy with which he performed at the shooting range in the days just prior to Kennedy’s murder. Oswald’s ammunition was similarly deadly. The Mannlicher Carcano bullets are full-metal jacketed, hyper-velocity (2,700 fps—feet per second), and heavy-loaded (160 grains—twice the amount of today’s bullets of the same caliber). In addition, they are extremely long projectiles, giving them (especially in combination with the gain twist rifle barrel) increased stability. HSCA ballistics expert Larry Sturdivan testified that the Mannlicher-Carcano bullet is “one of the most stable bullets we have ever done experimentation with.” After the infamous dum-dum bullets (which caused massive fatal injuries) were outlawed at the end of World War I, this Mannlicher rifle/bullet combination became extremely popular because of its amazing penetrating abilities, which are legendary among big game hunters and ballistics experts. Outlawing the combination was in fact welcomed by military planners because even though the bullet, when striking the torso, caused fewer fatalities, it often disabled two or more soldiers—this, combined with the two men who had to carry out the wounded, showed how economical and strategic one well-placed bullet could be. Mannlicher ammunition has often been the ammunition of choice for big game hunters because it penetrates even the thick skulls of elephants. In experiments conducted by Dr. John Nichols and Dr. John Lattimer, using identical bullets (and rifle) as Oswald’s, the bullets cleanly penetrated four feet of ponderosa pine and two feet of elm wood, emerging undamaged. Furthermore, these bullets are considered “over-stabilized,” meaning that after the first penetration, they begin spinning like helicopter blades, which causes even more injury to the second person hit. Sound familiar? In the Kennedy killing, the penetrating abilities of this ammunition allowed one bullet to wound two victims, with the second victim, Governor Connally, suffering massive torso damage from the spinning, “over-stabilized” bullet. In summary, the Mannlicher Carcano, when combined with its accompanying ammunition, is clearly a weapon to be reckoned with.
From Sixth Floor Museum Oral History interview of Carl Day by Bob Porter (8/15/1996):
I put a, I think I put a little powder on the gun at the time, but I told Captain Fritz this is not the place to try to work on this gun. I took it back to the City Hall and locked it up. This must have been maybe 2 p.m., best of my memory.
.
.
.
When I was going to City Hall with Mr. Odom, with the gun, I asked him then, how badly is he hit? He said the president is dead. Well that was the first I knew that the shot had been fatal. And then of course when I got back to the building, after taking it up there - I guess it took me 30 minutes to go up there and back - Mr. Truly told me that one of his men had been arrested. And I didn‟t at that time know that Mr., Officer Tippit had been killed.
Bob:
"Oswald may very well have been so skilled. I noted earlier in the text that Marina Oswald was disturbed by Lee’s repeated dry-firing speed drills on their New Orleans front porch."
HSCA Report, Volume XI
Current Section: Wesley Liebeler
OSWALD"S RIFLE CAPABILITY
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?mode=searchResult&absPageId=39836
On top of all the faults found in the Carcano by a team of Army sharpshooters the WC employed to test it's capabilities as JFK's murder weapon, WC counsel Wesley Liebeler pointed out, in his critique of LHO's rifle capabilities, that Marina first answered that she didn't know what Lee was doing on the porch in New Orleans but then was led to the correct answer.
http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=37#relPageId=33&tab=page (http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=37#relPageId=33&tab=page)
Warren Commission Hearings, Volume I
Current Section: Mrs. Lee Harvey Oswald
~snip~
Mrs. OSWALD. No. I know for sure that he didn't. But I know that we had a kind of a porch with a---screened-in porch,
and I know that sometimes evenings after dark he would sit there with his rifle. I don't know what he did with it. I
came there by chance once and saw him just sitting there with his rifle. I thought he is merely sitting there and resting.
Of course I didn't like these kind of little jokes.
Mr. RANKIN Can you give us an idea of how often this happened that you recall?
Mrs. OSWALD. It began to happen quite frequently after he was arrested there in connection with some demonstration and
handing out of leaflets.
Mr. RANKIN. Was that the Fair Play for Cuba demonstration?
Mrs. OSWALD. Yes.
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?
217 O--64--vol.I---3
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?
~snip~
Also this...
Bob:You came back just to look for more…?
Carl: Down here to finish up what we were doing here - we had an awful lot of work here. Drawings, and photos and so forth; the whole area on the sixth floor, not just that one area which we were working in. When I came back from the City Hall, after I‟d placed the gun up there, I came up on the second floor, and I run into Mr. Truly, who was the manager of this School Book Depository. It so happened that he and I went to the same church. I didn‟t really know him, but he and I both went out there to my church. And he started walking back with me, and he told me that an officer came in after the shooting, and he started up the stairs, they walked, on the second floor, they walked back to the back wall, and then west to the northeast corner where the stairs and the elevator were. Well, on that floor there was a little lunchroom. Mr. Truly said that as he and the officer came up to that lunchroom, Oswald was standing there by the Coke machine or some vending machine. The officer drew his gun, and he asked Mr. Truly if he knew the man, and Mr. Truly told him, yes, he worked there. They just let him go on, walk on out the building. Apparently he had just come down from the sixth floor after the shooting and when they approached him, he just acted like he was getting something out of the machine there.
Day came back and talks of going up to the second floor and Talking with Truly. No mention of noticing the bag on its way out and getting samples from the wrapping table then as some have suggested. Did Day come back and go up the front stairs and then across to the NW corner stairway as he and Sudebaker had done when first entering?
Did Day come back and go up the front stairs and then across to the NW corner stairway as he and Sudebaker had done when first entering?
In his signed memo dated 1/8/64 (CE 3145) Day states that he returned to the TSBD about 2:45. Plenty of time to go up to the sixth floor and return back down to the shipping area before the bag was taken out at about 3:00. If that is what happened.
Did Day come back and go up the front stairs and then across to the NW corner stairway as he and Sudebaker had done when first entering?
In his signed memo dated 1/8/64 (CE 3145) Day states that he returned to the TSBD about 2:45. Plenty of time to go up to the sixth floor and return back down to the shipping area before the bag was taken out at about 3:00. If that is what happened.
Funny thing about that 1/8/64 letter from Day--he never mentions finding the bag. Hmmm... By then, the FBI had dragged out of Day and Fritz etc that Frazier had been shown the bag and had stated as fact that it was not the bag he saw in Oswald's possession. It seems that scared the DPD out of using it as evidence against Oswald, which would explain why they never got their stories straight. As far as they were concerned, it was like that stinking map--non-evidence. But the FBI and WC wouldn't let it go, and kept asking them about it, which resulted in the incredible mess we have today--with multiple men claiming they discovered the bag, or saw it discovered, and none of them telling a consistent or credible story about when and where it was found.
And they are all dead and buried, so you can easily make such an unverifiable and meaningless claim......
Funny thing about that 1/8/64 letter from Day--he never mentions finding the bag. Hmmm... By then, the FBI had dragged out of Day and Fritz etc that Frazier had been shown the bag and had stated as fact that it was not the bag he saw in Oswald's possession. It seems that scared the DPD out of using it as evidence against Oswald, which would explain why they never got their stories straight. As far as they were concerned, it was like that stinking map--non-evidence. But the FBI and WC wouldn't let it go, and kept asking them about it, which resulted in the incredible mess we have today--with multiple men claiming they discovered the bag, or saw it discovered, and none of them telling a consistent or credible story about when and where it was found.
Funny thing about that 1/8/64 letter from Day--he never mentions finding the bag. Hmmm... By then, the FBI had dragged out of Day and Fritz etc that Frazier had been shown the bag and had stated as fact that it was not the bag he saw in Oswald's possession. It seems that scared the DPD out of using it as evidence against Oswald, which would explain why they never got their stories straight. As far as they were concerned, it was like that stinking map--non-evidence. But the FBI and WC wouldn't let it go, and kept asking them about it, which resulted in the incredible mess we have today--with multiple men claiming they discovered the bag, or saw it discovered, and none of them telling a consistent or credible story about when and where it was found.
That fact they were killed during the war by the Italians is the point. The carcano was an accurate rifle.
Day's final comment on the whole bag story makes the most sense about what happened that day. They found it but the detectives moved it before it was processed and the rest is just hoping the whole thing will go away. It is obvious they did not get together and fabricate a storyline. To their credit they did not try and stage the photo. Obviously they could not get their story straight about the discovery of the bag. Day's description of what it looked like in the corner when he first saw the bag is fairly descriptive.
Mr. DAY. I mean the pipe. The sack was between the pipe and the wall at the top of the picture.
Mr. BELIN. That wall at the top of the picture would be the east wall, would it not?
Mr. DAY. Yes, sir; laying parallel to the south wall.
Mr. BELIN. Did the sack--was it folded over in any way or just lying flat, if you remember?
Mr. DAY. It was folded over with the fold next to the pipe, to the best of my knowledge.
Funny thing that the case report (page 2) filed by Captain Fritz on 11/22/1963 says that Lieutenant J.C. Day lifted prints on building and from rifle and paper rifle was wrapped in.
That fact they were killed during the war by the Italians is the point. The carcano was an accurate rifle.
The nutjob in the Cuckoo's Nest amply demonstrated just how accurate the Carcano can be in practiced hands. Going 2-for-3 is a great batting average in any man's league.
The other point about the curtain rod/bag story is that it originated with Frazier many hours after his sister talked to Adamcek at the Paine’s. We were told she was aware the day before of the reason for Oswald's unusual visit yet failed to mention it to the police.
Mr. BELIN. Then what did you do?
Mr. ADAMCIK. Coming back, Mrs. Frazier, I believe it was, drove up to the house as I was coming back with--no, it was Mrs. Bill Randle. She (Mrs. Randle) was a neighbor there and she was driving up to the house, so I asked her whether she knew anything about what had happened, and whether she had seen Lee Oswald, and she did tell me that Lee Oswald rode to work with her brother, which is Wesley Frazier, who was staying with her, and he rode to work with him that morning. She told me that she saw--she was up early in the morning and was drinking coffee, and saw Lee Harvey Oswald go across the front yard, across the yard carrying like a long package wrapped in something, carrying it from the Paine house to Wesley's car.
Mr. BELIN. Did she say how he was carrying the package?
Mr. ADAMCIK. No; she didn't. I think we got an affidavit. In fact, I know we did, but I didn't take it.
Mr. BELIN. Did she say about how long the package was?
Mr. ADAMCIK. Mrs. Oswald, yes; she was. She was questioned that same evening.
Mr. BELIN. What did she say?
Mr. ADAMCIK. Well, she was questioned through an interpreter, and an affidavit was gotten from her also. I know she was showed the rifle in my presence. I was there with Captain Fritz and myself and Detective Senkel, and the rifle was showed to her then, and she looked at it, and I remember her saying through an interpreter that it did look like the rifle, but she didn't say, but it did look like the rifle that Lee Oswald, that was in the garage previous to finding the blanket eventually.
Mr. BELIN. When you say finding the blanket eventually, did she say the blanket was there? Was it simply that when you showed the blanket to the officers, apparently she made some remark that about a week or so previous to that her husband's rifle had been wrapped in a blanket?
Mr. ADAMCIK. I can't remember exactly how long. I don't remember when she said the last time was she saw it.
Mr. BELIN. Did Mrs. Paine indicate she ever saw the rifle there?
Mr. ADAMCIK. I can't remember. I took an affidavit, and I know I questioned her about the rifle, and I can't remember whether she ever said. I would have to see the affidavit. I don't have a copy. I don't believe she said she seen the rifle. I believe that she said she saw the blanket there, but I am sure that that would be in the affidavit.
and she was driving up to the house, so I asked her whether she knew anything about what had happened?...Had she seen Oswald?
she did tell me that Lee Oswald rode to work with her brother, which is Wesley Frazier, who was staying with her, and he rode to work with him that morning.I don't believe that or any of it for a second. The cops knew exactly who Wes Frazier was before they ever went out to Irving.....
Mr. BELIN. All right.
Mr. ADAMCIK. Oh, yes, after talking to this Mrs. Randle, we wanted to talk to Wesley Frazier, and she said that he was at Parkland visiting his sick daddy. So when we got back to the station, we checked with Parkland and couldn't find anybody by that name over there, so we checked with the clinic there in Irving, I believe it was, Irving Professional Center, and found out that he was there. The nurse checked the room, and he was there at the time, so some of the detectives called out there and had him placed in custody at that time so we could get an affidavit from him or question him.
I remember her saying through an interpreter that it did look like the rifleIn various other testimony it was mentioned that Marina could not identify that rifle.
Like you actually know for a fact what the shooter was aiming at, or what weapon fired the shots that hit Kennedy and Connally.
Thanks James.... It certainly appears that the time that Montgomery and Johnson departed the TSBD with that huge paper sack was around 3:00pm.I found some very interesting and some new (to me) films taken as Lt. Day left by the doorway steps, walks with the rifle about half-way to the corner, stops and poses for photographers. He then walks past the corner toward his car. Quite fortunately for this subject several film frames catch the TSBD's shadow as it creeps upward with time. Richard Trask, in his “Pictures of The Pain”, states this time is about 13:45. Walter seems to like around 14:10 for the time. This new video shows the time is 1:56pm within 1 or 2 minutes.
I wonder if you've used the shadows to determine what time Detective Day left the TSBD with the carcano. I believe that Day departed at about 2:10 and returned to the TSBD about an hour later..... Or around 3:15..... If that is true, then Montgomery left with the paper sack before Day returned, and Day never saw this bag in the imaginary "Sniper's Nest"
I found some very interesting and some new (to me) films taken as Lt. Day left by the doorway steps, walks with the rifle about half-way to the corner, stops and poses for photographers. He then walks past the corner toward his car. Quite fortunately for this subject several film frames catch the TSBD's shadow as it creeps upward with time. Richard Trask, in his “Pictures of The Pain”, states this time is about 13:45. Walter seems to like around 14:10 for the time. This new video shows the time is 1:56pm within 1 or 2 minutes.
The result follows from my 3D simulation at 13:30-14:30 showing that the shadow reaches the height of the lower DalTex ledge below the second floor. Anyone can, and I encourage, verify this timing while in Dealey Plaza with sunshine. Note and photograph when the shadow reaches this height on the DalTex. Just record the date and accurate time. From that we can determine the sun's azimuth at that time and work backwards to the equivalent time of November 22, 1963.
Credit Helmer Reenberg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ep-L8ZBnJxU (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ep-L8ZBnJxU)
(https://i.imgur.com/9DtEXl4.gif)
(https://i.imgur.com/XcqK1oE.png)
James
Excellent work James! I thought that I saw a movie cameraman in a blue sweater in one of the still photos. It might have even been the photo you mentioned in your last post. I wonder if that is the cameraman who filmed what is in the YouTube video?Charles, the only color photos of this scene are from Jay Skaggs, as far as I know.. The Skaggs slides all have a blue color cast-which I made a correction for. Skaggs19 shows a man in a sweater? Possibly blue. He is backlit and underexposed but this is probably the man you saw. He does have a movie camera to his eye and aiming just where Day is standing. So yes, I think he could have filmed at least some of the YouTube film. Perhaps Denis Morrisette knows his ID.
Fibers in paper bag matched fibers in blanket.--When Paul M. Stombaugh of the FBI Laboratory examined the paper bag, he found, on the inside, a single brown delustered viscose fiber and several light green cotton fibers.198 The blanket in which the rifle was stored was composed of brown and green cotton, viscose and woolen fibers.199Coulda..woulda..shoulda...possibly.. maybe.. is not positive evidence.
The single brown viscose fiber found in the bag matched some of the brown viscose fibers from the blanket in all observable characteristics.200 The green cotton fibers found in the paper bag matched some of the green cotton fibers in the blanket "in all observable microscopic characteristics." 201 Despite these matches, however, Stombaugh was unable to render on opinion that the fibers which he found in the bag had probably come from the blanket, because other types of fibers present in the blanket were not found in the bag. He concluded: All I would say here is that it is possible that these fibers could have come from this blanket., because this blanket is composed of brown and green woolen fibers, brown and green delustered viscose fibers, and brown and green cotton fibers... We found no brown cotton fibers, no green viscose fibers, and no woolen fibers.
So if I found all of these then I would have been able to say these fibers probably had come from this blanket. But since I found so few, then I would say the possibility exists, these fibers could have come from this blanket.202 Stombaugh confirmed that the rifle could have picked up fibers from the blanket and transferred them to the paper bag.203 In light of the other evidence linking Lee Harvey Oswald, the blanket, and the rifle to the paper bag found on the sixth floor, the Commission considered Stombaugh's testimony of probative value in deciding whether Oswald carried the rifle into the building in the paper bag.
PorchGate: The Little Prick That Could
Click-Click
'I think I can, I think I can'
Click-Click
'I think I can, I think I can'
Click-Click
'I think I can, I think I can'
'WOO, WOOOOO...'
Back to the sack-----
From the Warren Report..... Coulda..woulda..shoulda...possibly.. maybe.. is not positive evidence.
Gee--- if we only had someone who saw Oswald conspicuously coming into the building carrying a large HEAVY paper package ::)
Charles, the only color photos of this scene are from Jay Skaggs, as far as I know.. The Skaggs slides all have a blue color cast-which I made a correction for. Skaggs19 shows a man in a sweater? Possibly blue. He is backlit and underexposed but this is probably the man you saw. He does have a movie camera to his eye and aiming just where Day is standing. So yes, I think he could have filmed at least some of the YouTube film. Perhaps Denis Morrisette knows his ID.
Skaggs19:
https://emuseum.jfk.org/objects/22067/image-of-lt-j-c-carl-day-holding-rifle-outside-the-book?ctx=7aeaa966-f063-440c-9cbe-0afb9043ac16&idx=15
Cropped, enhanced view of cameraman.in Skaggs19:
(https://i.imgur.com/77VE04J.png)
Back to the sack-----
From the Warren Report.....
Fibers in paper bag matched fibers in blanket.--When Paul M. Stombaugh of the FBI Laboratory examined the paper bag, he found, on the inside, a single brown delustered viscose fiber and several light green cotton fibers.198 The blanket in which the rifle was stored was composed of brown and green cotton, viscose and woolen fibers.199
The single brown viscose fiber found in the bag matched some of the brown viscose fibers from the blanket in all observable characteristics.200 The green cotton fibers found in the paper bag matched some of the green cotton fibers in the blanket "in all observable microscopic characteristics." 201 Despite these matches, however, Stombaugh was unable to render on opinion that the fibers which he found in the bag had probably come from the blanket, because other types of fibers present in the blanket were not found in the bag. He concluded: All I would say here is that it is possible that these fibers could have come from this blanket., because this blanket is composed of brown and green woolen fibers, brown and green delustered viscose fibers, and brown and green cotton fibers... We found no brown cotton fibers, no green viscose fibers, and no woolen fibers.
So if I found all of these then I would have been able to say these fibers probably had come from this blanket. But since I found so few, then I would say the possibility exists, these fibers could have come from this blanket.202 Stombaugh confirmed that the rifle could have picked up fibers from the blanket and transferred them to the paper bag.203 In light of the other evidence linking Lee Harvey Oswald, the blanket, and the rifle to the paper bag found on the sixth floor, the Commission considered Stombaugh's testimony of probative value in deciding whether Oswald carried the rifle into the building in the paper bag.
Coulda..woulda..shoulda...possibly.. maybe.. is not positive evidence.
Gee--- if we only had someone who saw Oswald conspicuously coming into the building carrying a large HEAVY paper package ::)
Back to the sack-----
From the Warren Report..... Coulda..woulda..shoulda...possibly.. maybe.. is not positive evidence.
Gee--- if we only had someone who saw Oswald conspicuously coming into the building carrying a large HEAVY paper package ::)
Back to the sack-----
From the Warren Report..... Coulda..woulda..shoulda...possibly.. maybe.. is not positive evidence.
Gee--- if we only had someone who saw Oswald conspicuously coming into the building carrying a large HEAVY paper package ::)
I'm trying to imagine how the Carcano was wrapped in the blanket.
How it would not be identifiable as a rifle.
"If we only had someone who saw a [fantasy conspirator] conspicuously coming into the building carrying a large HEAVY paper package." The bag was found in the building. Thus, we know that it was possible for someone to have carried it in unnoticed. That includes Oswald. And there is a witness that confirms that Oswald carried a long package into the building that morning that was not his lunch and for which there is no other accounting for except as the bag found with his prints on it on the 6th floor.Frazier saw him carry it into the building. His sister saw Oswald carrying a large package with him as he walked to Frazier's car. I know I'm a lone assassin sheeple who believes "thuh government" but I'll wager that he brought it with him to the building. He didn't leave it in the car.
Frazier saw him carry it into the building. His sister saw Oswald carrying a large package with him as he walked to Frazier's car. I know I'm a lone assassin sheeple who believes "thuh government" but I'll wager that he brought it with him to the building. He didn't leave it in the car.
You're responding to a person who doesn't believe Oswald went to Mexico City. All of the evidence that he did was faked, planted, manufactured to make it look like he did.
And I'll go back to asking the type of questions that the conspiracy believers hate: "If Marina and Ruth Paine and others were coerced into giving false testimony then why didn't they coerce them into saying they saw Oswald with a large package/bag that morning?"
They can't answer that. It causes all kinds of angry responses. Why? Because if they are forced to answer them, if they are forced to consider it, then their entire "Oswald was framed" theory is severely challenged. A kind of conspiracy cognitive dissonance ensues and they don't know how to react other than to be upset.
Frazier saw him carry it into the building. His sister saw Oswald carrying a large package with him as he walked to Frazier's car. I know I'm a lone assassin sheeple who believes "thuh government" but I'll wager that he brought it with him to the building. He didn't leave it in the car.
You're responding to a person who doesn't believe Oswald went to Mexico City. All of the evidence that he did was faked, planted, manufactured to make it look like he did.
And I'll go back to asking the type of questions that the conspiracy believers hate: "If Marina and Ruth Paine and others were coerced into giving false testimony then why didn't they coerce them into saying they saw Oswald with a large package/bag that morning?"
They can't answer that. It causes all kinds of angry responses. Why? Because if they are forced to answer them, if they are forced to consider it, then their entire "Oswald was framed" theory is severely challenged. A kind of conspiracy cognitive dissonance ensues and they don't know how to react other than to be upset.
"If we only had someone who saw a [fantasy conspirator] conspicuously coming into the building carrying a large HEAVY paper package." The bag was found in the building. Thus, we know that it was possible for someone to have carried it in unnoticed.
And there is a witness that confirms that Oswald carried a long package into the building that morning that was not his lunch
Frazier saw him carry it into the building. His sister saw Oswald carrying a large package with him as he walked to Frazier's car. I know I'm a lone assassin sheeple who believes "thuh government" but I'll wager that he brought it with him to the building. He didn't leave it in the car.
You're responding to a person who doesn't believe Oswald went to Mexico City. All of the evidence that he did was faked, planted, manufactured to make it look like he did.
And I'll go back to asking the type of questions that the conspiracy believers hate: "If Marina and Ruth Paine and others were coerced into giving false testimony then why didn't they coerce them into saying they saw Oswald with a large package/bag that morning?"
They can't answer that. It causes all kinds of angry responses. Why? Because if they are forced to answer them, if they are forced to consider it, then their entire "Oswald was framed" theory is severely challenged. A kind of conspiracy cognitive dissonance ensues and they don't know how to react other than to be upset.
Frazier saw him carry it into the building.
Frazier saw him carry it into the building. His sister saw Oswald carrying a large package with him as he walked to Frazier's car.Frazier said he saw him carry it into the building.
Mr. BALL - Now we have over here this exhibit for identification which is 364 which is a paper sack made out of tape, sort of a home made affair. Will you take a look at this.........Will you take a look at it as to the length. Does it appear to be about the same length?
Mr. FRAZIER - No, sir. .................
Mr. BALL - The dark bag is Commission Exhibit No. 142.
When you were shown this bag, do you recall whether or not you told the officers who showed you the bag--did you tell them whether you thought it was or was not about the same length as the bag you saw on the back seat?
Mr. FRAZIER - I told them that as far as the length there, I told them that was entirely too long.
But at least you're warm. As for me, I'm a lemming. I know that because I was told so by a nobody so it must be true. Oh, yeah: I'm also a parrot, apparently. Looking on the bright side, I can follow other lemmings off a cliff, and then just glide away.
If only Mr. Paine had rifled through Oswald's belongings...
;)
Frazier said he saw him carry it into the building.
Will remind the readers of Wes Frazier testimony----
"If we only had someone who saw a [fantasy conspirator] conspicuously coming into the building carrying a large HEAVY paper package." The bag was found in the building. Thus, we know that it was possible for someone to have carried it in unnoticed. That includes Oswald. And there is a witness that confirms that Oswald carried a long package into the building that morning that was not his lunch and for which there is no other accounting for except as the bag found with his prints on it on the 6th floor.
(https://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/BaginDallasarchives.png)
(https://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/bag%20%20blanket.gif)
If I remember right he said he picked up the blanket to move it and thought it had camping equipment wrapped in it.
BS IMO.
Back to the sack-----
From the Warren Report..... Coulda..woulda..shoulda...possibly.. maybe.. is not positive evidence.
Gee--- if we only had someone who saw Oswald conspicuously coming into the building carrying a large HEAVY paper package ::)
(https://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/BaginDallasarchives.png)
(https://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/bag%20%20blanket.gif)
But at least you're warm. As for me, I'm a lemming. I know that because I was told so by a nobody so it must be true. Oh, yeah: I'm also a parrot, apparently. Looking on the bright side, I can follow other lemmings off a cliff, and then just glide away.
Fabricated sob stories don’t suit you. You’re not even competent enough to be a lemming.
I'm a lemming......I'm also a parrotAn insult to both lemmings and parrots :-\
Mr. BALL - It has been suggested that you take this bag, which is the colored bag, Commission Exhibit No. 142, and put it under your arm just as a sample, or just to show about how he carried the bag.Frazier's sister was not all that helpful either in the description of a rifle case.....
Mr. FRAZIER - Okay.
Mr. BALL - Put it under your armpit.
Mr. FRAZIER - Like that, normally your hand would come down like that and you would say, you would have an item, like you have seen people carry items like they would be walking along and your arm would come down like that, just like --
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. Now, was the length of it any similar, anywhere near similar?Apparently not happy with Mrs Randle's description there...Mr Ball drops the matter and moves on to Oswald's clothes.
Mrs. RANDLE. Well, it wasn't that long, I mean it was folded down at the top as I told you. It definitely wasn't that long.........
Mr. BALL. This package is about the span of my hand, say 8 inches, is that right? He would have about this much to grip?
Mrs. RANDLE. What I remember seeing is about this long, sir, as I told you it was folded down so it could have been this long.
Mr. BALL. I see. You figure about 2 feet long, is that right?
Mrs. RANDLE. A little bit more.
Mr. BALL. A little more than 2 feet..........
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. How was Lee dressed that morning?
A damned lie .....IMO..... Mike Paine was a rat. He was involved up to his eyeballs.
Frazier's sister was not all that helpful either in the description of a rifle case.....Apparently not happy with Mrs Randle's description there...Mr Ball drops the matter and moves on to Oswald's clothes.
The Commission needed at least a 36 inch gun bag. They didn't get one from the only people they had---even after months of testimonial contemplation ::)
Involved in what up to his eyeballs?
What, when, where, who, how, why?
Mike Paine was instrumental in the framing of Lee Oswald......
(https://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/BaginDallasarchives.png)
How come there are only 2 [empty] shells and one live round in the display?
I've seen similar photos in Mexican crime tabloids.
How tacky is that?
Mike Paine was instrumental in the framing of Lee Oswald......
We've asked these type of questions repeatedly - it's one way of looking at the assassination from a different perspective, as a sort of attempt at proving a negative - and every time these "Why didn't?" type questions are asked the conspiracy believers and the so-called "undecideds" get quite angry and upset. Very angry. They don't like these questions. Not a bit.
Is that because he did the obvious things someone trying to frame Oswald would do like confirming Oswald owned a rifle and stored it in the garage, hated JFK, and was a violent nut job? This where you don't understand the point but tell me he didn't do those things.
Wow! Details please Walt.
Here's a helpful starting point: During 1963, Michael Paine was employed as an engineer at Bell Helicopter in Irving Texas. Bell Helicopter was part of the military-industrial complex. I cannot get beyond that: Maybe you can?
Is that because he did the obvious things someone trying to frame Oswald would do like confirming Oswald owned a rifle and stored it in the garage, hated JFK, and was a violent nut job? This where you don't understand the point but tell me he didn't do those things.
(https://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/BaginDallasarchives.png)
How come there are only 2 [empty] shells and one live round in the display?
I've seen similar photos in Mexican crime tabloids.
How tacky is that?
How can one prove a negative? That is, that Marina wasn't coerced into lying about Oswald? Okay, how about asking the question that if she was coerced why didn't she say he hated JFK? Or that she saw him with the rifle that morning? The same can be asked about the Paines. If they were part of this framing then why didn't they more fully implicate Oswald?
You're not the sharpest tool in the shed...are you Mr. "Smith"Some might think he is quite a tool :D
Oswald owned a rifle and stored it in the garage, hated JFK, and was a violent nut job?Guilt by accusation persists to this very day...also called "the lynch mob mentality".
Mr. BALL. How was Lee dressed that morning?
Mrs. RANDLE. He had on a white T-shirt, I just saw him from the waist up, I didn't pay any attention to his pants or anything, when he was going with the package. I was more interested in that. But he had on a white T-shirt and I remember some sort of brown or tan shirt and he had a gray jacket, I believe.
Mr. BALL. What was he carrying?Mrs Randle testified that she only saw Oswald from the waist up...so how could she know that this alleged package 'touched the ground as he carried it'? How could she then discern that it was 'heavier than a grocery bag'? And if Oswald was carrying this alleged package as she described it...then why were there no fingerprints discovered showing this manner of gripping?
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.
Senator COOPER. When he placed the package in there do you remember whether he used one hand or two?Mrs Randle said she was 'more interested in the bag'. If she was so damned interested...why didn't she just go out and have a good look?
Mrs. RANDLE. No; because I only opened the door briefly and what made me establish the door on Wesley's car, it is an old car and that door, the window is broken and everything and it is hard to close, so that cinched in my mind which door it was, too. But it was only briefly that I looked.
The arrow shows where Frazier's car was parked. There was a barrier between the carport and the parked car. Randle said she saw the car from the back door...How in hell could she?
We've asked these type of questions repeatedly - it's one way of looking at the assassination from a different perspective, as a sort of attempt at proving a negative - and every time these "Why didn't?" type questions are asked the conspiracy believers and the so-called "undecideds" get quite angry and upset. Very angry. They don't like these questions. Not a bit.
If a person is truly interested in taking this event apart, in looking at it inside and out, upside down, as a sort of intellectual exercise then these types of questions should be welcomed.
How can one prove a negative? That is, that Marina wasn't coerced into lying about Oswald? Okay, how about asking the question that if she was coerced why didn't she say he hated JFK? Or that she saw him with the rifle that morning? The same can be asked about the Paines. If they were part of this framing then why didn't they more fully implicate Oswald?
Again, these are legitimate questions. Except for those who are unwilling to consider the possibility that their conspiracy beliefs are flat out nonsense. Which they are.
You're an idiot Mr "Smith"...... You simpleton.... Didn't Mike Paine claim that he didn't know anything about a rifle in Lee's possession?? And yet YOU Mr "Smith" just wrote....." he did the obvious things someone trying to frame Oswald would do like confirming Oswald owned a rifle and stored it in the garage,"
How could Mike Paine have done that if he didn't know about the rifle in the blanket??? Hmmmmm?
hated JFK, Really, Mr "Smith"?? ...Do you think that Mike Paine knew Lee better than Marina?? Marina testified that Lee admired JFK.....
was a violent nut job?
Mr "Smith" Are you referring to the same man who had a confrontation with Carlos Bringuer, the anti Castro Cuban, on the street in New Orleans. Are you referring to that " violent" man ? The one who never raised a hand to defend himself ........
You're not the sharpest tool in the shed...are you Mr. "Smith"
Wow. I knew Walt was dense but this is abusing his village idiot exemption. That's exactly my point imbecile. If MP were trying to frame Oswald as you suggested, then he would have confirmed things like Oswald owned a rifle, hated JFK and was a violent nut. None of which he did. Thus, he was not framing Oswald. Can you understand that obvious point? That's a rhetorical question (meaning that I already know the answer).
On the night of 11/22/63 Mike Paine showed Captain Fritz a BY photo .... (133c) Fritz asked him if he knew where the photo was taken, but apparently Paine didn't know where the photo had been taken, so Fritz displayed the photo to Lee Oswald and asked him where the photo had been taken ...Lee told Fritz that the photo was a fake....
I'm sure you know that the back yard photo shows Lee Oswald holding a Mannlicher Carcano like the one the FBI claimed was the murder weapon.
Wow!!! Please provide a little more detail about how and when Michael Paine found the backyard (Neely Street, Dallas) photo showing Lee Oswald holding a Carcano rifle.
On the night of 11/22/63 Mike Paine showed Captain Fritz a BY photo .... (133c) Fritz asked him if he knew where the photo was taken, but apparently Paine didn't know where the photo had been taken, so Fritz displayed the photo to Lee Oswald and asked him where the photo had been taken ...Lee told Fritz that the photo was a fake....
I'm sure you know that the back yard photo shows Lee Oswald holding a Mannlicher Carcano like the one the FBI claimed was the murder weapon.
he would have confirmed things like Oswald owned a rifle,
Paine testified at LBJ's "Special Select Blue Ribbon Committee" hearings, that he never knew that Lee Oswald had possession of a rifle. So how could he have "confirmed things like Oswald owned a rifle" Are you now saying that Paine lied to the WC ??
he would have confirmed things like Oswald owned a rifle,
Paine testified at LBJ's "Special Select Blue Ribbon Committee" hearings, that he never knew that Lee Oswald had possession of a rifle. So how could he have "confirmed things like Oswald owned a rifle" Are you now saying that Paine lied to the WC ??
Ugh. Do you have a learning disability? I said that Paine WOULD have said things like he knew Oswald owned a rifle if he were attempting to frame him. Not that he did say that. That is the entire point. The fact that Paine didn't say these types of things suggests his intent was not to frame Oswald. I can't dumb it down any further for you.
On the night of 11/22/63 Mike Paine showed Captain Fritz a BY photo ....
Walt, this isn't what happened.
On Friday evening an FBI agent showed a BY photo to Paine and asked him if he knew where it was taken. Paine told him it was Neely Street and that information was somehow relayed to Captain Fritz who asked Oswald about it on Saturday morning....
Mr. LIEBELER - Did the FBI or any other investigatory agency of the Government ever show you a picture of the rifle that was supposed to have been used to assassinate the President?
Mr. PAINE - They asked me at first, the first night of the assassination if I could locate, identify the place where Lee was standing when he was holding this rifle and some, the picture on the cover of Life.
Mr. LIEBELER - Were you able to?
Mr. PAINE - I identified the place by the fine clapboard structure of the house.
Mr. LIEBELER - By the what?
Mr. PAINE - By the small clapboard structure, the house has an unusually small clapboard.
Mr. LIEBELER - What did you identify the place as being?
Mr. PAINE - The Neely Street address. He didn't drive a car, so to have them over for dinner I had to go over and pick them up.
The trouble with this is of course that the BY photos were officially not found until the second search (this time with a warrant) of Ruth Paine's house on Saturday afternoon.
The fact that Paine didn't say these types of things suggests his intent was not to frame Oswald.
No, it does not suggest that at all.
The argument can just as easily be made that when you try to frame somebody it shouldn't be done too obviously. Sometimes less is more!
The "camping gear in the blanket" story does not confirm that Paine knew Oswald had a rifle, yet is sufficient to "suggest" that there was really a rifle in that blanket.
You can find it just as I did..... Hint....Appendix XI......
On the night of 11/22/63 Mike Paine showed Captain Fritz a BY photo ....
Walt, this isn't what happened.
On Friday evening an FBI agent showed a BY photo to Paine and asked him if he knew where it was taken. Paine told him it was Neely Street and that information was somehow relayed to Captain Fritz who asked Oswald about it on Saturday morning....
Mr. LIEBELER - Did the FBI or any other investigatory agency of the Government ever show you a picture of the rifle that was supposed to have been used to assassinate the President?
Mr. PAINE - They asked me at first, the first night of the assassination if I could locate, identify the place where Lee was standing when he was holding this rifle and some, the picture on the cover of Life.
Mr. LIEBELER - Were you able to?
Mr. PAINE - I identified the place by the fine clapboard structure of the house.
Mr. LIEBELER - By the what?
Mr. PAINE - By the small clapboard structure, the house has an unusually small clapboard.
Mr. LIEBELER - What did you identify the place as being?
Mr. PAINE - The Neely Street address. He didn't drive a car, so to have them over for dinner I had to go over and pick them up.
The trouble with this is of course that the BY photos were officially not found until the second search (this time with a warrant) of Ruth Paine's house on Saturday afternoon.
There's nothing in Appendix XI about Michael Paine finding a photo.
The FBI interviewed Randle and creating the package that she describes it was 27 inches long.
It needed to be at least 36" WTF? ::)
Please do not present testimony from LBJ's Special Select Blue Ribbon Committee in attempting to support your point..... The Warren Commission's mission was not to uncover evidence and bring the truth to the taxpayers whose money they were stuffing in their bank accounts. Their mission was to convince the piss ants that Lee Oswald was the killer.
On Friday evening an FBI agent showed a BY photo to Paine and asked him if he knew where it was taken.
Are you serious Martin ??.... First off WHERE? did the FBI agent get the BY photo? Second ...Why would he ask Mike Paine?? Why wouldn't he ask Marina or Lee about the photo..?
Don't you think the first thing the FBI agent would ask Paine would be....Where Did you get this photo?... And the second thing he would ask, Do you know when and where this photo was taken.
The fact that he asked Mike Paine about the photo, is a strong indication that Mike Paine gave him the photo.
There IS the tale about the BY photo .... Captain Fritz clearly had a BY photo in his possession,..... Because at 12:35 pm 11 /23 /63 he called for Lee Oswald to be brought to his office for another interrogation. Then he started questioning Lee about the photo which he described by items that appeared in the BY photo. He couldn't have described the identifying aspects of the photo if he didn't have a photo. Fritz said that inspector Kelley was present...which leads me to believe that it was Kelley who presented the photo to Fritz....
That doesn't bar the possibility that Oswald carried the rifle in to the TSBD another earlier day. Oswald might have thought that it might look to suspicious to carry the rifle in on the day of the assassination itself.
unless of course the rifle was not in Irving after all....
Well it couldn't have been in Irving because when the police officers lifted the blanket up in front of Marina and Ruth just hours after the assassination, the blanket fell limp in his arms.
Captain Fritz clearly had a BY photo in his possession,
Yes he did....
Because at 12:35 pm 11 /23 /63 he called for Lee Oswald to be brought to his office for another interrogation. Then he started questioning Lee about the photo which he described by items that appeared in the BY photo.
Which is 2,5 hours prior to the "discovery" of the BY photos during the second search of the Paine house by the DPD, but this time with a warrant.
He couldn't have described the identifying aspects of the photo if he didn't have a photo.
Again, yes he did have the photo.... and it was either found in the Paine house during the first search on Friday afternoon or it was provided to the DPD or FBI by some unidentified source.
That doesn't bar the possibility that Oswald carried the rifle in to the TSBD another earlier day. Oswald might have thought that it might look to suspicious to carry the rifle in on the day of the assassination itself.Right. What earlier day would that be?
Is that your logic? ....The rifle was supposed to have been removed on Friday morning, so obviously it wasn't there anymore in the afternoon, when the police searched Ruth Paine's house. How you reach the conclusion that the rifle couldn't have been in Irving is beyond me.
But, as I don't believe, the MC rifle was ever in Ruth Paine's garage or wrapped in that blanket, I would be interested to learn from you, where you think Oswald could have kept it in the weeks prior to the murder. Got any ideas?
Only possible locations for Oswald's Carcano rifle.
-- The boarding house at 1026 North Beckley... not likely.
-- The Paine's garage at Irving... extremely likely.
-- In "the ether"" (A location so beloved by JFK Conspiracy contrarians).
Only possible locations for Oswald's Carcano rifle.
-- The boarding house at 1026 North Beckley... not likely.
-- The Paine's garage at Irving... extremely likely.
-- In "the ether"" (A location so beloved by JFK Conspiracy contrarians).
Only possible locations for Oswald's Carcano rifle.
Or none of the above....
North Beckley and Irving only come into play if Oswald did in fact have a rifle in his possession on 11/21/63. You can assume that he did, but nobody can prove it.
Unless you are going to nominate a location for Oswald's Carcano rifle: You're a contrarian.
When compiling physical evidence: Often a conclusion is made based on a series of previous events and/or statements by relatives, friends, acquaintances, neighbors or co-workers.
-- Marina Oswald testified that Lee Oswald had a rifle at Neely Street Dallas.
-- Marina Oswald testified that she took the backyard photos of Lee Oswald with a rifle (and pistol).
--Marina Oswald testified that Lee Oswald had a rifle in New Orleans.
-- Marina Oswald testified that Lee Oswald had a rifle stored in a blanket in the Paine's garage.
-- Marina Oswald nearly fainted when the Police Officer held the blanket and it hung limp over his arm. No rifle in the blanket (afternoon of 22 November1963).
-- Marina Oswald spoke about "the fateful rifle" of Lee Oswald.
Not enough for ya [sic] Sherlock Weidmann?
I assume you are expecting someone to verify where Oswald's Carcano rifle was regularly... perhaps ever day from late March 1963 to the evening of 21 November 1963? The date, location written down in a diary with a detailed description of the gun; serial number etc. This is unrealistic and would never be required in a criminal trial.
Nobody can prove it.... ha, ha!
If you're child, wife, brother, sister, father or mother was murdered and the police arrested some person who was the last to be seen with him or her: You'd be enraged if the cops didn't arrest the suspect.
Or would you say: "No, no, no Captain let the guy go. Unless you have photographic evidence and seven witnesses, that man is inoooooocent".
Well?
Oh, if you were asked to participate in a television documentary about the JFK assassination (on camera) would you speak the sort of nonsense you write here?
Unless you are going to nominate a location for Oswald's Carcano rifle: You're a contrarian.
When compiling physical evidence: Often a conclusion is made based on a series of previous events and/or statements by relatives, friends, acquaintances, neighbors or co-workers.
-- Marina Oswald testified that Lee Oswald had a rifle at Neely Street Dallas.
-- Marina Oswald testified that she took the backyard photos of Lee Oswald with a rifle (and pistol).
-- Marina Oswald testified that Lee Oswald had a rifle in New Orleans.
-- Marina Oswald testified that Lee Oswald had a rifle stored in a blanket in the Paine's garage.
-- Marina Oswald nearly fainted when the Police Officer held the blanket and it hung limp over his arm. No rifle in the blanket (afternoon of 22 November1963).
-- Marina Oswald spoke about "the fateful rifle" of Lee Oswald.
Not enough for ya [sic] Sherlock Weidmann?
I assume you are expecting someone to verify where Oswald's Carcano rifle was regularly... perhaps ever day from late March 1963 to the evening of 21 November 1963? The date, location written down in a diary with a detailed description of the gun; serial number etc. This is unrealistic and would never be required in a criminal trial.
Nobody can prove it.... ha, ha!
If you're child, wife, brother, sister, father or mother was murdered and the police arrested some person who was the last to be seen with him or her: You'd be enraged if the cops didn't arrest the suspect.
Or would you say: "No, no, no Captain let the guy go. Unless you have photographic evidence and seven witnesses, that man is inoooooocent".
Well?
Oh, if you were asked to participate in a television documentary about the JFK assassination (on camera) would you speak the sort of nonsense you write here?
If you're child, wife, brother, sister, father or mother was murdered and the police arrested some person who was the last to be seen with him or her: You'd be enraged if the cops didn't arrest the suspect.
Or would you say: "No, no, no Captain let the guy go. Unless you have photographic evidence and seven witnesses, that man is inoooooocent".
Well?
Oh, if you were asked to participate in a television documentary about the JFK assassination (on camera) would you speak the sort of nonsense you write here?
When compiling physical evidence: Often a conclusion is made based on a series of previous events and/or statements by relatives, friends, acquaintances, neighbors or co-workers.
-- Marina Oswald testified that Lee Oswald had a rifle at Neely Street Dallas.
-- Marina Oswald testified that she took the backyard photos of Lee Oswald with a rifle (and pistol).
-- Marina Oswald testified that Lee Oswald had a rifle in New Orleans.
-- Marina Oswald testified that Lee Oswald had a rifle stored in a blanket in the Paine's garage.
-- Marina Oswald nearly fainted when the Police Officer held the blanket and it hung limp over his arm. No rifle in the blanket (afternoon of 22 November1963).
-- Marina Oswald spoke about "the fateful rifle" of Lee Oswald.
Not enough for ya [sic] Sherlock Weidmann?
When compiling physical evidence: Often a conclusion is made based on a series of previous events and/or statements by relatives, friends, acquaintances, neighbors or co-workers.All that was actually "compiled" [above] were the statements of the wife..a Russian national..couldn't speak English all that well...was not aware of the legal options notably that a wife cannot be compelled to testify against her spouse [dead or otherwise]
Fabricated sob stories don’t suit you. You’re not even competent enough to be a lemming.
Only possible locations for Oswald's Carcano rifle.
-- The boarding house at 1026 North Beckley... not likely.
-- The Paine's garage at Irving... extremely likely.
-- In "the ether"" (A location so beloved by JFK Conspiracy contrarians).
Unless you are going to nominate a location for Oswald's Carcano rifle: You're a contrarian.
Because I don't agree with the crap you're trying to sell us? Works for me.... I'll gladly be contrarian, as to me it is only confirmation of the fact that I am asking you questions that you can not answer and confront you with factual information you don't want to deal with.... Thumb1:
When compiling physical evidence: Often a conclusion is made based on a series of previous events and/or statements by relatives, friends, acquaintances, neighbors or co-workers.
That would be circumstantial evidence at best and not physical evidence! Get your facts straight, Clouseau!
-- Marina Oswald testified that Lee Oswald had a rifle at Neely Street Dallas.
-- Marina Oswald testified that she took the backyard photos of Lee Oswald with a rifle (and pistol).
So what? That was in late March/early April and what she did not testify was that Oswald actually owned the rifle she photographed him with!
-- Marina Oswald testified that Lee Oswald had a rifle in New Orleans.
Really, did she? And again, did she testify it was a Carcano rifle?
-- Marina Oswald testified that Lee Oswald had a rifle stored in a blanket in the Paine's garage.
Actually, no she didn't. She said she had looked in the blanket once, in late September 1963, and she saw what she described as the wooden stock of a rifle. The WC lawyers subsequently got her to say it was a rifle.
-- Marina Oswald nearly fainted when the Police Officer held the blanket and it hung limp over his arm. No rifle in the blanket (afternoon of 22 November1963).
Insignificant BS... Even if true, it proves nothing.
-- Marina Oswald spoke about "the fateful rifle" of Lee Oswald.
And that's what you call evidence?
Not enough for ya [sic] Sherlock Weidmann?
No, not nearly enough or convincing, but it might fool a simpleton ...
I assume you are expecting someone to verify where Oswald's Carcano rifle was regularly... perhaps ever day from late March 1963 to the evening of 21 November 1963? The date, location written down in a diary with a detailed description of the gun; serial number etc. This is unrealistic and would never be required in a criminal trial.
You can assume all you want. It doesn't mean you are right. You don't have to show me any of that. Just show me one piece of evidence that supports the conclusion that there (still) was a rifle in the blanket on 11/21/63, that it was the Carcano rifle later found at the TSBD and that it belonged to Oswald. Can you do that, genius?
Nobody can prove it.... ha, ha!
Indeed... nobody can prove there was a rifle in Ruth Paine's garage on 11/21/63 and that it belonged to Oswald and you haven't done so either....
To support your conjecture and speculations, you rely only on Marina's testimony, but a good cross examination by a defense lawyer would have destroyed her within minutes. Marina was in survival mode. She did not start to cooperate until after Oswald was dead and Hoover had promised her she could stay in the country. Her entire testimony is tainted and worthless.
Actually, my younger brother was murdered some years ago and I let the police do their job, which they did.
The mere fact that you consider it to be nonsense doesn't mean it is. It only means that you are not willing to consider contrary points of view.
And yes, I would ask the same critical questions which the WC and you and your ilk simply can not answer.
Your annoying habit of believing that you are right unless somebody else can prove you wrong (which will never happen because of your unwillingness to accept anything that does not compute with your belief) doesn't make you right. It makes you a fool.
Now, do you have any real evidence that the MC Carcano found in the TSBD belonged to Oswald and that he still owned it on 11/21/63? Well....?
-- Marina Oswald nearly fainted when the Police Officer held the blanket and it hung limp over his arm. No rifle in the blanket (afternoon of 22 November1963).
In 1983 the Dallas Morning News printed a commemorative supplement to a Sunday edition .....and they printed an interview with Marina Porter in hat supplement.
In responding to the reporters questions there were a couple of things that Marina wanted the reporter to know....First off ( regarding the visit from the police that afternoon) she was adamant that she had told Ruth Paine( in Russian) that "YES!" Lee did have a rifle, but Ruth Paine ignored her and told the cop that "NO" Lee did not have a rifle..... Marina was astonished and offered to take the cop to the garage and show him the rifle. When they got to the garage Marina said hat the "sack was empty" Those were her words...."the sack was empty" I believe that Marina had seen the carcano in a paper sack..... ( I have never learned if Kleins shipped their rifles in paper gum cases....But I'd bet they did, because it was a very common way to ship rifles ...Inside a paper gun case, and inside a cardboard box.)
At any rate....Marina did say ( according to the reporter) " the sack was empty".... Question.....Was Marina referring to the blanket as a "sack"..... It doesn't seem logical to me.
Is this article available online?
Is this article available online?
-- Marina Oswald nearly fainted when the Police Officer held the blanket and it hung limp over his arm. No rifle in the blanket (afternoon of 22 November1963).
In 1983 the Dallas Morning News printed a commemorative supplement to a Sunday edition .....and they printed an interview with Marina Porter in hat supplement.
In responding to the reporters questions there were a couple of things that Marina wanted the reporter to know....First off ( regarding the visit from the police that afternoon) she was adamant that she had told Ruth Paine( in Russian) that "YES!" Lee did have a rifle, but Ruth Paine ignored her and told the cop that "NO" Lee did not have a rifle..... Marina was astonished and offered to take the cop to the garage and show him the rifle. When they got to the garage Marina said hat the "sack was empty" Those were her words...."the sack was empty" I believe that Marina had seen the carcano in a paper sack..... ( I have never learned if Kleins shipped their rifles in paper gum cases....But I'd bet they did, because it was a very common way to ship rifles ...Inside a paper gun case, and inside a cardboard box.)
At any rate....Marina did say ( according to the reporter) " the sack was empty".... Question.....Was Marina referring to the blanket as a "sack"..... It doesn't seem logical to me.
So, you take her words as the gospel truth?Read below....
So in 1983 Marina says that she suspected that Lee may have been involved in the assassination PRIOR to the arrival of the police, so she went to the garage to see if the rifle was still there in the garage and ASSUMED that it was, but she never looked IN THE SACK.Even after 20 years, my Russian wife's English is not all that perfect. Even today I heard her mention to a friend on the phone about 'net over window' ...meaning a screen of course.
Read below....
I find it extremely difficult to believe that Oswald ever had this rifle.
That it was transported around [on his behalf] by Ruth Paine ...unbeknownst to her.
That it was wrapped in a blanket and so dutifully kept wrapped in this blanket that no one ever bothered to look.
That Michael Paine felt around and decided that it must have been a tent pole or a shovel or something. Right.
If Marina actually thought there was a rifle there...she would have put it away in a remote corner at least.
There were children in the house. A rifle just laying around on a garage floor was certainly not the Soviet way.
The rifle story is stupid and ridiculous. Only four shells were ever attributed to it. No one has ever intelligently responded to that anomaly.Even after 20 years, my Russian wife's English is not all that perfect. Even today I heard her mention to a friend on the phone about 'net over window' ...meaning a screen of course.
Stuck in the morass of the entire imbroglio surrounding the event...Marina found herself actually believing what didn't happen.
Marina Oswald testified that Lee Oswald had a rifle at Neely Street Dallas.
Did Marina know for a fact that Lee had ammuntion for the rifle and did see actually ever see him fire the rifle?
Marina Oswald testified that she took the backyard photos of Lee Oswald with a rifle (and pistol).
Marina only recalled taking ONE BY photo.....They tricked her into saying that she might have taken two photos..... But there are three BY photos,... so even if Marina did take both CE 133A and CE 133B....( and I believe she did take only CE 133A). Who took 133c ???
Marina Oswald testified that Lee Oswald had a rifle in New Orleans.
Yes, But was it the same rifle that she'd seen in Dallas? IMO it was not.....
Marina Oswald testified that Lee Oswald had a rifle stored in a blanket in the Paine's garage.
Marina never actually saw a rifle in the blanket....She saw something that she thought might have been the carcano, but she couldn't verify that it was the carcano.
Marina Oswald spoke about "the fateful rifle" of Lee Oswald.
Yes, and she was speaking in Russian, .....It's reported that she said ...." So this is the fateful rifle of Lee Oswald ?" I doubt that anybody but Marina could know what she meant.
It is a fact that nobody can prove that the TSBD carcano was owned by Lee Oswald......
Marina Oswald testified that she took the backyard photos of Lee Oswald with a rifle (and pistol).
Marina only recalled taking ONE BY photo.....They tricked her into saying that she might have taken two photos..... But there are three BY photos,... so even if Marina did take both CE 133A and CE 133B....( and I believe she did take only CE 133A). Who took 133c ???
If Maria took one (of the backyard photos) she took them all. Any speculative alternative is absurd.
Marina Oswald testified that Lee Oswald had a rifle in New Orleans.
Yes, But was it the same rifle that she'd seen in Dallas? IMO it was not.....
What other rifle would it be than the rifle in the backyard photos that Maria took with Lee Oswald's Imperial Reflex Camera?
IMO means nothing.
Marina Oswald testified that Lee Oswald had a rifle stored in a blanket in the Paine's garage.
Marina never actually saw a rifle in the blanket....She saw something that she thought might have been the carcano, but she couldn't verify that it was the carcano.
Considering Marina Oswald's existing knowledge of "a" rifle owned and possessed by Lee (at Neely Street), it's the same rifle he obtained by mail-order from Kleins Chicago. Marina Oswald was not a firearms expert. When all her statements about Oswald's rifle are considered together: Marina's concern that Lee Oswald might have used it to kill President Kennedy is believable.
Marina Oswald spoke about "the fateful rifle" of Lee Oswald.
Yes, and she was speaking in Russian, .....It's reported that she said ...." So this is the fateful rifle of Lee Oswald ?" I doubt that anybody but Marina could know what she meant.
Russian smushin: She said it.
All Marina really knew is that Oswald had a rifle at Neely Street.Martin...there was no Oswald rifle. There never was.
Martin...there was no Oswald rifle. There never was.
No Oswald rifle? Explain that odd theory in detail.
Marina Oswald said she took the backyard (Neely Street Dallas) photo of Lee Oswald holding a rifle.
Testimony:
-- Warren Commission 1964
-- House Select Committee on Assassinations 1978
Marina Oswald has never recanted her statements that she took the photo in which Lee Oswald is holding a rifle.
The photo negative was matched to Oswald's Imperial Reflex Camera to the exclusion of all other cameras. Oswald possessed a rifle in late March of 1963... the photograph proves it. There WAS an Oswald rifle.
Plus both Jean and George DeMohrenschildt saw it.
No Oswald rifle? Explain that odd theory in detail.
Marina Oswald said she took the backyard (Neely Street Dallas) photo of Lee Oswald holding a rifle.
Testimony:
-- Warren Commission 1964
-- House Select Committee on Assassinations 1978
Marina Oswald has never recanted her statements that she took the photo in which Lee Oswald is holding a rifle.
The photo negative was matched to Oswald's Imperial Reflex Camera to the exclusion of all other cameras. Oswald possessed a rifle in late March of 1963... the photograph proves it. There WAS an Oswald rifle.
Plus both Jean and George DeMohrenschildt saw it.
Wait for it Gerry: The conspiracy lunatics will say there is no proof that the rifle was disassembled (to fit in the paper sack) and then reassembled to shoot the President.
So what? She took a picture of a guy with a rifle.... Does that automatically mean that the guy is the owner of the rifle?
I was photographed holding a rifle once. It belonged to a friend of mine. I've never owned a rifle.
Could your "logic" be a little less shallow, please?
No Oswald rifle? Explain that odd theory in detail.You people are hopeless. https://spartacus-educational.com/JFKSmannlicher.htm
Marina Oswald said she took the backyard (Neely Street Dallas) photo of Lee Oswald holding a rifle."THE"? Where did two others come from? Asked hundreds of times.
Plus both Jean and George DeMohrenschildt saw it.Sez U. Easy to testify against someone after they are DEAD.
Mr. JENNER. What did she say?Nuff said ::)
Mrs. De MOHRENSCHILDT. She said, "Oh, he just loves to shoot." I said, "Where on earth does he shoot? Where can he shoot?" When they lived in a little house. "Oh, he goes in the park and he shoots at leaves and things like that." But it didn't strike me too funny, because I personally love skeet shooting. I never kill anything. But I adore to shoot at a target, target shooting.
Mr. JENNER. Skeet?
Mrs. De MOHRENSCHILDT. I just love it.
Mr. JENNER. Didn't you think it was strange to have someone say he is going in a public park and shooting leaves?
Mrs. De MOHRENSCHILDT. But he was taking the baby out. He goes with her, and that was his amusement.
Mr. JENNER. Did she say that?
Mrs. De MOHRENSCHILDT. Yes; that was his amusement, practicing in the park, shooting leaves. That wasn't strange to me, because any time I go to an amusement park I go to the rifles and start shooting. So I didn't find anything strange.
So what? She took a picture of a guy with a rifle.... Does that automatically mean that the guy is the owner of the rifle?
I was photographed holding a rifle once. It belonged to a friend of mine. I've never owned a rifle.
Could your "logic" be a little less shallow, please?
You people are hopeless. https://spartacus-educational.com/JFKSmannlicher.htm"THE"? Where did two others come from? Asked hundreds of times.
Could your logic be a little less idiotic"?
So, now you you do what you do best.... just parrot?
I told you why your "logic" is idiotic. It seems you can't reciprocate.... Pathetic!
Where did two others come from? Asked hundreds of times.
Have you ever considered these facts about all three (3) photos:
-- Same location
-- Same subject (Lee Harvey Oswald)
-- Same camera (Oswald's Imperial Reflex)
Therefore:
-- Same photographer (Marina Oswald)
What other conclusion can there be?
Instead of posting ridiculous "contrarian" questions, give your opinion about specifics of the other "Oswald with rifle" photographs.
-- Location?
-- Camera?
-- Photographer?
That should not be too hard for a genius researcher.
Your assertions are only attempts to escape scrutiny of your silly speculations.
Parrot what? Parrot who?
Parrot, what the WC has told you! That's what...
Your assertions are only attempts to escape scrutiny of your silly speculations.
BS... Scrutinize away! What's wrong with my statement that somebody being photographed holding a rifle does not have to be the owner of that rifle?
Well, genius.... Go on, tell me!
What other conclusion can there be?
How about; Marina lied when she admitted taking one photograph?
She did not know how the camera was operated and why admit to taking just one picture if she really knew there were more than one?
Again, you superficial "logic" isn't serving you correctly.... that's what happens with confirmation bias.
The rifle that Lee Oswald held in the Neely Street backyard photos is reasonably assumed to be owned by him.
You saying it's not (owned by him) is not evidence that Oswald did not own the rifle.
You need to provide proof that "someone else" owned "the rifle" that Lee Oswald held in the photo taken by Marina Oswald.
Something like:
-- So and so loaned the rifle to Lee Oswald so he could be photographed with it.
-- Lee Oswald found the rifle abandoned on the sidewalk and decided to have Marina take a photo of him with it before he put it back where he found it.
The fatal fault in your musings is that you invoke generalizations as superior to known facts. You ignore the most likely conclusion and provide another that is unsupported by any evidence. That's why you are a contrarian: some might say a troll.
How about; Marina lied when she admitted taking one photograph?
How about providing proof that Marina Oswald lied about taking the backyard photograph of Lee Oswald holding a rifle?
The rifle that Lee Oswald held in the Neely Street backyard photos is reasonably assumed to be owned by him.
Reasonably assumed? Are you kidding?... You can not base and affirmative opinion on an assumption!
You saying it's not (owned by him) is not evidence that Oswald did not own the rifle.
You need to provide proof that "someone else" owned "the rifle" that Lee Oswald held in the photo taken by Marina Oswald.
That's a strawman! First of all, I did not say Oswald didn't own a rifle. I asked you to explain you claim that he did own a rifle and your "he was photographed with it" simply doesn't cut it. Secondly, since I never claimed anything I also do not need to provide proof for what I didn't say.
Besides, even when somebody does not provide the proof you want, it still doesn't mean your opinion is the right one. That's a common LN error!
The fatal fault in your musings is that you invoke generalizations as superior to known facts. You ignore the most likely conclusion and provide another that is unsupported by any evidence. That's why you are a contrarian: some might say a troll.
Again, the most likely conclusion is always going to be what you want it to be. There are no known facts other than that Oswald was photographed holding a rifle. Everything else is conjecture that is not supported by evidence. Calling me a contrarian isn't going to change that.
And since you failed completely to answer my question, I'll ask it again. What's wrong with my statement that somebody being photographed holding a rifle does not have to be the owner of that rifle?
What's wrong with my statement that somebody being photographed holding a rifle does not have to be the owner of that rifle?
It's a generalization. :'( It does not provide proof that Lee Oswald did not own the rifle he held in the Neely Street backyard photo.
Speaking generally about generalizations: Someone walking a small child in the park is not necessarily the father of the boy or girl just because he/she calls him "daddy".
A birth certificate would not be acceptable proof for you.
A DNA test certificate would not be acceptable proof for you.
Being present at the conception (and the birth) would not be acceptable proof for you.
Nothing would be acceptable proof for you... because you are a contrarian.
How about; Marina lied when she admitted taking one photograph?Ross Lidell...What in hell is wrong with you? Did you develop Craniumvirus?
How about providing proof that Marina Oswald lied about taking the backyard photograph of Lee Oswald holding a rifle?
No it isn't a generalization. It is a simple straight forward statement of fact. Being photographed with an object does not automatically mean you own that object. A three year old can tell you that. You just don't want to go there, because once you admit this is true, your pet theory that it was Oswald's rifle falls apart.
And nobody needs to provide proof that Oswald did not own the rifle, as nobody has actually ever provided any proof that it was his rifle in the first place!
For a moment I thought you were starting to get it, but then you started rambling on about birth certificates etc.... which only tells me that you have no sound argument to make.
You simply can not prove that the rifle Oswald is holding in the BY photos is actually a rifle he owned.
Don't get me wrong, I would love it if your crazy notion was actually true because there is a beautiful Lamborghini parked down the street.... Now where's my camera?
Ross Lidell...What in hell is wrong with you? Did you develop Craniumvirus?
During her testimony...Marina 1. Stated that she took one picture with it.
2. Could not operate that camera when asked to demonstrate how she took that picture.
A generalization is a statement that seems to be true in most situations or for most people, but that may not be completely true in all cases.
The fact that Oswald is not holding a visible and readable receipt of purchase for the rifle (in the photograph) does not prove he does not own the rifle. Is that the sort of evidence that would convince you Oswald owned the rifle he held in the photograph taken by Marina Oswald.
Think about this example: A photograph of Dorothy Hamill wearing skates when she won the Olympic Gold medal at the Winter Olympics (1976) in Innsbruck Austria does not prove she owned the skates. However, 99.99% of people would consider she owned the skates she was wearing in the photograph. Of course there would be some nut, somewhere, who would insist that she does not (did not) own the skates. Why some nut would make that assertion is for psychiatrists to explain.
Oh boy.... here he goes again.
No proof for it not being his rifle is needed, since (and I think I have mentioned this before) the mere fact that he was photographed holding a rifle does not prove that he owns the rifle. Your assumption that it is his rifle is just that.... an assumption!
Btw... I now have a photograph of myself with a brand new Lamborghini. Following your "logic" I must be the owner of that car, so if you are interested, I can give you a good deal. Come to think of it, I also have photographs of myself in front of the Eiffel tower and on London Bridge.... Would you be interested?
Your desperation is showing as that is a pathetic example. Although, to some extend, you seem to be on the right track. The photograph by itself does indeed not prove she owned the skates Thumb1:
And you are right, it is a fair and reasonable assumption that they were indeed her skates, as she was wearing them, which is of course where your example goes off the rails as Oswald was wearing a shirt (probably he owned it) and holding a rifle, that could have been owned by somebody else.
Now, how about the Lamborghini... Interested?
And you are right, it is a fair and reasonable assumption that they were indeed her skates, as she was wearing them, which is of course where your example goes off the rails as Oswald was wearing a shirt (probably he owned it) and holding a rifle, that could have been owned by somebody else.
Huh?
How do you know Lee Oswald owned the shirt he was wearing? To be consistent: You would have to demand proof that he owned the shirt he was wearing.
The rifle "could have been owned by somebody else".
Unless you can suggest a credible alternate owner of the rifle that Oswald held in the backyard photo, your assertion is that it's not owned by him is nonsense.
Ever heard of a human being being confused under stress?You are referring to Marina? Perhaps she was under stress when she stated that Lee would take his rifle to the airport and practice shooting? You are completely hopeless as I mentioned earlier. You just want to argue...citing nothing helpful or logical.
Unless you can suggest a credible alternate owner of the rifle that Oswald held in the backyard photo, your assertion is that it's not owned by him is nonsense.
Brilliant... there is the classic "I am right unless you can prove me wrong (which you never can)" crap!
The mere fact that the possibility exists that somebody else owned the rifle Oswald was holding in the BY photo means that you can never ever claim, based on the photo alone, that he owned the rifle he was holding in the photo's....
But that's probably way over your head............
You are referring to Marina? Perhaps she was under stress when she stated that Lee would take his rifle to the airport and practice shooting? You are completely hopeless as I mentioned earlier. You just want to argue...citing nothing helpful or logical.
The possibility that someone else owned the rifle Lee Oswald held in the Neely Street Dallas backyard photograph is minuscule. The DEFAULT likelihood is that Lee Oswald owned the rifle he was holding. Is this way over your head?
If you believe that Lee Oswald did not own the rifle he was holding...
Well, let’s see. What are these possibilities based on? The only evidence you’ve presented that Oswald owned the rifle in the photo is that you think it’s a “reasonable assumption”. Same goes for the Imperial Reflex camera.
Martin never said that. This is a rather transparent attempt to shift the burden of proof.
The possibility that someone else owned the rifle Lee Oswald held in the Neely Street Dallas backyard photograph is minuscule. The DEFAULT likelihood is that Lee Oswald owned the rifle he was holding. Is this way over your head?
If you believe that Lee Oswald did not own the rifle he was holding... provide the identity of the owner. Otherwise you are just "contraionising".
The only evidence you’ve presented that Oswald owned the rifle in the photo is that you think it’s a “reasonable assumption”. Same goes for the Imperial Reflex camera.
No! Even without the documentation related to the Hidell (Oswald's alias) rifle purchase from Kleins: It's Lee Oswald's rifle in the "backyard" photograph.
Marina Oswald is interviewed in the 1964 CBS program "November 22nd and The Warren Report" speaking about her husband's (Lee Oswald's) rifle. My goodness she was pretty!!!
Eddie Barker (WFAA TV): "Did you ever see the rifle?".
Marina: "Yes. But I, you know I fear, fear to take this rifle. I see it in the corner, I never done touch his rifle".
Marina took the photograph with Lee Oswald holding a rifle. You know the rifle... "contrarians". The rifle Marina Oswald:
-- "saw in the corner"
-- "never done touch"
Only a nutcase contrarian would think the rifle Lee Oswald held in the backyard photograph was not "his rifle".
The possibility that someone else owned the rifle Lee Oswald held in the Neely Street Dallas backyard photograph is minuscule. The DEFAULT likelihood is that Lee Oswald owned the rifle he was holding.
This is just about the most idiotic thing you have said so far. All it does is expose your confirmation bias. Your so-called "default likelihood" is nothing more than a Salem-like presumption of guilt unless proven innocent.
Even more pathetic. John is correct. All you have only presented as "proof" that Oswald owned the rifle is the BY photo. The documentation from Klein's (which is highly questionable itself) doesn't enter into it, as there is not a shred of evidence that the rifle Oswald is holding in the BY photo is the same one as the rifle ordered at Klein's by Hidell.
So all you really have is your own misguided opinion that "it's Lee Oswald's rifle in the "backyard" photograph". You are acting like a three year old who keeps saying the same thing over and over again, hoping it might become the truth.
Thanks for showing us just how basic and shallow your "logic" is.
We already know there was a rifle at Neely Street, at some point in time, because Oswald was photographed with it. So, Marina seeing a rifle "in the corner" that she did not want to touch tells us nothing about the ownership of the rifle. All it tells us is that a rifle was there, but we already knew that.
All this shows once again is that you can't argue with stupid....... but thanks for the laugh!
You're not laughing: You're angry.
We already know there was a rifle at Neely Street, at some point in time, because Oswald was photographed with it. So, Marina seeing a rifle "in the corner" that she did not want to touch tells us nothing about the ownership of the rifle. All it tells us is that a rifle was there, but we already knew that.
Marina Oswald saw a rifle in the Neely Street apartment (late March 1963) and photographed Lee Oswald holding a rifle in the backyard of that rented premises (late March 1963). Marina is on-camera (1964) speaking of "his rifle" but you don't accept that Lee Oswald "owned" a rifle? Why would Marina describe it as "his" rifle if it was not Lee Oswald's rifle?
You play a childish game refusing to nominate who might be the owner of the rifle that Oswald held in the photo even though you insist it is not his. You don't have "a shred of evidence" that the rifle is owned by someone other than Lee Oswald. Then you have the gall to call me a 3 year old. Priceless!!!
Funny... all those insults actually apply to you.
(https://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/mainascope-1.jpg)
Citation please for Marina Oswald's statement re Lee Oswald / Airport / Practice shooting.
You ignore the possibility that Lee Oswald might have told a lie to Marina. Alternately, you cannot seem to understand that human beings are not perfect in their actions and verbal communications.
You are completely hopeless as I mentioned earlier.
Unjustified ad hominem attack that reeks of desperation.
Mr. RANKIN. What period of time was there between when he got the rifle and you learned of it, and the time that you first learned about the pistol?http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/oswald_m1.htm
Mrs. OSWALD. I can't say.
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.
You ignore the possibility that Lee Oswald might have told a lie to Marina. Alternately, you cannot seem to understand that human beings are not perfect in their actions and verbal communications.What in hell do you mean by that? You obviously don't/haven't read the Hearings and Exhibits for yourself.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/oswald_m1.htmWhat in hell do you mean by that? You obviously don't/haven't read the Hearings and Exhibits for yourself.
You obviously don't understand that Marina was desperate.
The Warren Commission counsels even knew that she was lying.
I am tired of looking up things for you every time you whine :'( cite this-- cite that
Ross might be a nice guy in real life but here he is behaving as a contentious prick who is not interested in an honest discussion or the truth.
Like many other LNs, he has made up his mind without feeling the need, or being able to, provide any evidence to support his conjecture and speculation. He doesn't even understand that it is conjecture and speculation. To him, his assumptions, equal the "truth" as he sees it and when you give him another explanation for the same set of facts, he wants you to provide conclusive evidence in triplicate which he will never accept, understand or agree with anyway.
In his feeble mind, Oswald owned the rifle he was photographed with because he was photographed with the rifle, no matter how silly that stance makes him appear to be. And don't give him credible arguments to counter his opinion, because when you do you are the contrarian. It's really kinda sad....
You don't have "a shred of evidence" that the rifle is owned by someone other than Lee Oswald.
Hey stupid, I am not the one claiming it belonged to someone else. It's you who is claiming that the rifle belonged to Oswald. You need to prove that and your are failing miserably.
And yes, I am laughing.... You are actually making my day with the superficial crap you come up with. It's a welcome diversion in these dire times.
You should try stand up comedy. You seem to be very good at it.
Hey stupid, I am not the one claiming it belonged to someone else. It's you who is claiming that the rifle belonged to Oswald. You need to prove that and your are failing miserably.
More insults, no facts. Why? Because you've got nuthin (sic) of any substance. You provide no speculative narrative because you are afraid of scrutiny of your peculiar, illogical ideas.
Let's figure this out logically.
I'm stating that Lee Oswald owned the rifle he held in the Neely Street Dallas "backyard photograph" taken by his wife Marina Oswald. This is based on an analysis of the historical record.
You say that you're "not the one claiming it belonged to someone else": It being the rifle in the backyard photograph.
OKAY. 2 possibilities:
1.) Someone other than you is claiming it (the rifle Oswald held in the picture) belonged to someone else.
(In this scenario: You refuse to nominate who the person is or you don't know who the person is)
2.) You are claiming the rifle in the photograph does not belong to Lee Oswald but are not claiming it belongs to someone else. [The words "the one" were possibly accidentally included as you fired-off a swift, angry response to my polite, reasoned comment.]
(Perplexingly, you seem to consider that it's not necessary to provide an explanation for these mutually exclusive beliefs)
You insist that I have to prove something but you don't have to prove anything. Hmmmm.
This is a typical trollish, nutcase mindset.
Stop showing off your ignorance. I don't need to prove anything as I have no "illogical ideas". Those "ideas" only exist in your imagination. And please don't talk to me about facts as you clearly have no idea what that word means.
You are the one who rather stupidly claims that Oswald owned the rifle he was photographed with and the only "proof" you present for that claim is the photograph.
Don't you understand just how pathetic this is? You need to prove that Oswald owned the rifle he was holding in the photograph. There is nothing in the "historical record" that supports such a conclusion. All you really have is a selfserving opinion which isn't evidence or proof of anything.
1.) Someone other than you is claiming it (the rifle Oswald held in the picture) belonged to someone else.
2.) You are claiming the rifle in the photograph does not belong to Lee Oswald but are not claiming it belongs to someone else.
More strawman crap. Nobody is claiming either, nor do they need to. I can understand why you want to talk about claims others never made instead of talking about the claim you yourself have made, because you have nothing to support your pathetic claim.
There is no evidence to support the conclusion that Oswald owned the rifle he was photographed with. All the photograph proves is that Oswald was holding a rifle when the picture was taken. Period!
You insist that I have to prove something but you don't have to prove anything. Hmmmm.
This really isn't very difficult to understand for anybody who has a functional brain.
You made the claim that Oswald owned the rifle he was photographed with, so you need to prove that (and you can't!)
I made no claim at all so I don't have to prove anything. Your silly strawman BS does not alter this! So, give it up please. I'm not going to play your silly game.
The problem that exists in this debate is caused by the fact that you're deliberately unwilling to reveal "your" opinion when you assert that mine is wrong. It's obvious that you are just playing a silly game. You could fairly be described as a mischievous contrarian.
Using the word "pathetic" repeatedly indicates you are incapable of mounting a reasoned intellectual explanation for your strange theory. This is the intellectual lightweight's attitude that "insults" trump "facts".
Your illogical belief that Lee Oswald did not own the rifle in the backyard photograph taken in late March 1963 demonstrates a lack of critical thinking. You ignore the fact that Oswald purchased a rifle in March 1963 (using his Hidell alias) from Kleins Sporting Goods of Chicago. You don't need to be a genius to conclude that this is the rifle in the photograph. CLUE: The time frame!
If you don't think the rifle in the late March 1963 photograph (Neely Street Dallas) is owned by Lee Oswald who had recently purchased a rifle (using his alias Hidell): You need to provide evidence that it's some other rifle owned by someone else. Of course, you are exempted from this obligation if you are a troll.
I note that you don't attempt to dismiss the historical record related to Lee Oswald's purchase of a rifle using "his" alias A. Hidell. Why not?
You're entire "career" as a JFK Assassination debate "contrarian" relies on the fact that nobody can prove something to 100% certainty: Certainly not to an obstinate fool.
Next time: Why don't you add a couple of LOLs to your "PATHETICs"? That should make you feel clever.
Constantly calling me a contrarian is actually the same as admitting defeat.
It was Hidell's rifle. He was in charge of armament procurement.
He was in charge of armament procurement.
I believe that's correct....George De M had bought a money order and gave it to Lee to send to Klein's for the purchase of the carcano.
And technically that makes George De M the owner of the rifle......
Walt Fabrication.
Can you prove it isn't the truth?..... If you're honest you'll have to agree that the information available supports my contention.
I don't know of any evidence whatsoever that DeMohrenschildt purchased the Klein's money order. Do you?
He was in charge of armament procurement.
I believe that's correct....George De M had bought a money order and gave it to Lee to send to Klein's for the purchase of the carcano.
And technically that makes George De M the owner of the rifle......
No, George was (inadvertently) in charge of delusion-building
All of the CTs here are so blinded by their paranoia that they lack the ability for rational debate and instead of making this about the evidence they keep attacking the messenger, and the way this thread has descended into chaos is ironically the perfect example.I would say that is the most condescending post I've ever read... Except when Mytton wrote that I was so much crap that he would scrape off his shoe [which he deleted] What 'innocent people were thrown into the fire'? I guess we'll never know there :-\
After half a century not 1 conspiracy theory has been proved, not 1 person has come forward and claimed responsibility for any of these wacky theories, it's just accusation after accusation and a plethora of innocent people are just thrown onto the fire. Whereas all of the official investigations time after time, come to the same rock solid conclusion, go figure.
Well we know that Lee didn't purchase the MO, And Marina is unlikely because she couldn't couldn't speak English... and she probably wouldn't have approved of spending their much needed money for an unnecessary rifle.......
PS.... As I recall there wasn't enough money available to Lee and Marina that he could spent over twenty dollars for that rifle.
Well we know that Lee didn't purchase the MO,
How do we know this, Walt?
Marina is unlikely because she couldn't couldn't speak English
In her first television interview, only a couple of months after the events, her English wasn't perfect but it was good enough to understand the questions and answer them.
It is documented that Lee was at work at the time the MO was sold.....And Marina was not fluent enough to buy the MO and she would have had no way to get to the PO that issued the MO. The PO was located a couple of miles away ......And she probably didn't know about that PO because they received the mail at the main PO in downtown Dallas.
It is documented that Lee was at work at the time the MO was sold
It is true that there is indeed a handwritten time sheet that shows that Oswald did sign in for work that day. Whether you can conclude from it that he was actually at work the whole time and never left is another matter. But fair enough, the time sheet makes it at least unlikely that he could have gone out to buy the MO.
And Marina was not fluent enough to buy the MO and she would have had no way to get to the PO that issued the MO.
The first part I am, quite honestly, not so convinced about but the second part makes sense. With a small kid at home, living in Oak Cliff she would have had to have gone to downtown Dallas by bus and that seems unlikely to me. Also, if she had bought the MO she would have been far more involved in whatever was going on than the record shows.
It is documented that Lee was at work at the time the MO was sold.....And Marina was not fluent enough to buy the MO and she would have had no way to get to the PO that issued the MO. The PO was located a couple of miles away ......And she probably didn't know about that PO because they received the mail at the main PO in downtown Dallas.
We are at least in the same chapter, if not on the same page..... :) I'll grant you that I have no proof that George De M bought the MO....., but what I do know certainly supports that contention.
So you have "no proof" but are certain? Wow.
Wait, how do you know which PO the money order found in Virginia was purchased at?
Georgie wore many hats.......
So you have "no proof" but are certain? Wow.
Marina is unlikely because she couldn't couldn't speak English
In her first television interview, only a couple of months after the events, her English wasn't perfect but it was good enough to understand the questions and answer them.
She may have been coached for the cameras. Her hair was all done up. Its possible that the interviewer showed her the questions beforehand, helped clean up her english in her answers. Only then were the cameras turned on, the interview proper began, and the interviewer asked her the same questions again.
Go to hell and learn to read....
Here's what I wrote....:"what I do know certainly supports that contention."
How about reading the part you omitted? Not being very bright is not your own fault but dishonesty is.
"I'll grant you that I have no proof that George De M bought the MO"
She may have been coached for the cameras. Her hair was all done up. Its possible that the interviewer showed her the questions beforehand, helped clean up her english in her answers. Only then were the cameras turned on, the interview proper began, and the interviewer asked her the same questions again.
Kinda like the way they did all the WC testimonies.True. But you can't say there was anything suspicious about the way the WC did it. They (the questioners) needed to know how an interview would go too so as to be prepared as to what questions to ask.
True. But you can't say there was anything suspicious about the way the WC did it. They (the questioners) needed to know how an interview would go too so as to be prepared as to what questions to ask.
True. But you can't say there was anything suspicious about the way the WC did it. They (the questioners) needed to know how an interview would go too so as to be prepared as to what questions to ask.
They took the testimony from Tomlinson, the man who found a bullet on a strecher at Parkland Hospital, before they introduced the bullet into evidence as CE399. As the bullet was not in evidence when Tomlinson testified, they never showed him CE399 or asked him to identify it. The reason is obvious; they couldn't risk that Tomlinson would deny that CE399 is the bullet he found.
Mr. STOMBAUGH. Yes, sir; I am. My mark is here on the blanket, and when this was received in the FBI laboratory this string was around a portion of it.This proves that on the morning of the 23rd Nov 1963, the FBI was actively--- not engaged in pursuing all avenues of possibilities regarding the death of JFK--but with one goal...Lets pin it on Oswald.
Mr. EISENBERG. Could you tell us what your mark is exactly, Mr. Stombaugh?
Mr. STOMBAUGH. Due to the fact this was a piece of fabric and hard to mark, I put a piece of evidence tape on the blanket, stapled it to the blanket, and put my initials "PMS" with the date 11-23-63 thereon.
Mr. EISENBERG. When did you receive this blanket, Mr. Stombaugh?
Mr. STOMBAUGH. This was approximately 7:30 a.m., on the morning of November 23, 1963.
I wonder if CE399 came from JFKs stretcher? That would radically alter the single bullet theory.Off topic, but, yes, CE399 came from JFK's stretcher.
Off topic, but, yes, CE399 came from JFK's stretcher.
J C Day said as much in his testimony---"To the best of my knowledge" basically means he was told what to say ;)
No he didn’t say any such thing. And who taught you English vocabulary? I suggest you consult a dictionary.I didn't catch that reply back then but certainly question the response.