JFK Assassination Forum
JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => Topic started by: Alan Ford on May 04, 2020, 08:04:28 PM
-
Now!
(https://i.imgur.com/ONgPI8w.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/TztMp5x.jpg)
-
Anyone who grasps just how problematic the data on this document are-----------
(https://i.imgur.com/PcgQxI6.jpg)
-----------can see that it presents strong evidence that curtain rods were
-brought by Mr Oswald in the Depository building on 11/22/63
-found there at a later date
-duly tested for Mr Oswald's prints...
-before being returned to the Paine garage in good time for on-the-record taking into evidence (!) by the WC.
But how, if not through Mr Oswald's actions, did a rifle get into the Depository that day?
This way:
(https://i.imgur.com/ONgPI8w.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/TztMp5x.jpg)
Lone Nutters who have agonized over this question for so long need agonize no more! Thumb1:
Mrs Hall said that she talked to the police about seeing a man carry a 5 or 6 foot long package into the TSBD before the Presidents parade. If she did, there should be a affidavit which records her observations.
-
They found the package Oswald had dropped into some container in the Annex roof part of the loading dock, when he entered the back door that Frazier saw, which door is NOT the door to TSDB proper
Since BWFhad stopped to watch the train, Oswald got ahead and entered this door (and it closed ) about 30 secs ahead of BWF.
Thus explains how BWF could have seen Oswald with package entering the “back door” of TSBD (which was actually the door to the roofed annex part of loading dock), and then Dougherty saw nothing in Oswald s hand as he entered the TSBD door
They never found the blinds and rods package that Oswald took from Paines garage during their initial searches of TSBD , thus made a bag which they put Oswalds palm print on the bag in the wrong place ( probably the print was made on the bag in Fritz office by backing up the handcuffed Oswald against the desk the bag and blanket and some other “evidence” was placed
-
This nonsense again that you have posted a million times already? And using "Mr. Oswald" LOL. Such respect for a double murderer. "Mr. Oswald" himself denied carrying any curtain rods that day. So you are claiming Mr. Oswald was a liar. Not only that but he is lying against his own self interest for some inexplicable reason since he could have directed the DPD to this curtain rod package had it existed to confirm it did not contain a rifle. But instead he lies despite knowing that he had told Frazier that story. Right.
But wait there is more! Months after Oswald is dead the authorities for some inexplicable reason decide on their own motion to the check the curtain rods they are covering up and deny exist for his fingerprints! The very last thing they would ever do. And they document this in a form. HA HA HA. It doesn't get any better than that. Those nutty conspirators. Imagine that scenario. And that doesn't even get into who found the curtain rods at the TSBD in this fantasy and how they were kept quiet etc. Comedy gold. No good deed goes unpunished. The WC learned about the presence of some curtain rods in the Paine's garage. Out of an abundance of caution because Oswald told Frazier he was carrying curtain rods, they decided to check them out. If there were any doubt whatsoever, the same WC exhibit numbers for the curtain rods in the Paine's garage are noted on the form.
-
This nonsense again that you have posted a million times already? And using "Mr. Oswald" LOL. Such respect for a double murderer. "Mr. Oswald" himself denied carrying any curtain rods that day. So you are claiming Mr. Oswald was a liar. Not only that but he is lying against his own self interest for some inexplicable reason since he could have directed the DPD to this curtain rod package had it existed to confirm it did not contain a rifle. But instead he lies despite knowing that he had told Frazier that story. Right.
But wait there is more! Months after Oswald is dead the authorities for some inexplicable reason decide on their own motion to the check the curtain rods they are covering up and deny exist for his fingerprints! The very last thing they would ever do. And they document this in a form. HA HA HA. It doesn't get any better than that. Those nutty conspirators. Imagine that scenario. And that doesn't even get into who found the curtain rods at the TSBD in this fantasy and how they were kept quiet etc. Comedy gold. No good deed goes unpunished. The WC learned about the presence of some curtain rods in the Paine's garage. Out of an abundance of caution because Oswald told Frazier he was carrying curtain rods, they decided to check them out. If there were any doubt whatsoever, the same WC exhibit numbers for the curtain rods in the Paine's garage are noted on the form.
Cool your jets, Mr Smith-------it's not my fault you can't explain away the document! :D
Now! Perhaps you could tell us where the WC exhibit numbers 275 & 276 came from?
-
They found the package Oswald had dropped into some container in the Annex roof part of the loading dock, when he entered the back door that Frazier saw, which door is NOT the door to TSDB proper
Since BWFhad stopped to watch the train, Oswald got ahead and entered this door (and it closed ) about 30 secs ahead of BWF.
Thus explains how BWF could have seen Oswald with package entering the “back door” of TSBD (which was actually the door to the roofed annex part of loading dock), and then Dougherty saw nothing in Oswald s hand as he entered the TSBD door
They never found the blinds and rods package that Oswald took from Paines garage during their initial searches of TSBD , thus made a bag which they put Oswalds palm print on the bag in the wrong place ( probably the print was made on the bag in Fritz office by backing up the handcuffed Oswald against the desk the bag and blanket and some other “evidence” was placed
Prolly [sic] the print!!!
...thus made a bag which they put Oswalds palm print on the bag in the wrong place ( probably the print was made on the bag in Fritz office by backing up the handcuffed Oswald against the desk the bag and blanket and some other “evidence” was placed.
Have you got any proof that such an event occurred?
-
Mrs Hall said that she talked to the police about seeing a man carry a 5 or 6 foot long package into the TSBD before the Presidents parade. If she did, there should be a affidavit which records her observations.
A 5 or 6 foot long package!!!
That's too long for a 40 inch Carcano rifle.
Perhaps the assassination was accomplished with a bazooka.
-
A 5 or 6 foot long package!!!
That's too long for a 40 inch Carcano rifle.
Perhaps the assassination was accomplished with a bazooka.
Mrs Hall ESTIMATED the package was about 5 feet long and 6 inches wide.....
-
Mrs Hall ESTIMATED the package was about 5 feet long and 6 inches wide.....
ESTIMATED: Like Buell Frazier and Linnie May Randle ESTIMATED Oswald's "Friday morning package" to be 2 feet give or take a few inches. That means as much as 27 inches. The shortest the package could have been (if it contained Oswald's Carcano rifle) was 35 inches. When disassembled, the longest part was the wooden stock which was 34.8 inches long. A discrepancy of 8 inches is accounted for by the fact that Randle and Frazier did not "measure" Oswald's package: they ESTIMATED its length.
So let's have no more of that claim: The package that Randle and Frazier saw Oswald carry on the morning of 22 November 1963 was "too short" to contain the Carcano rifle.
And that I believe is CHECKMATE.
-
Cool your jets, Mr Smith-------it's not my fault you can't explain away the document! :D
Now! Perhaps you could tell us where the WC exhibit numbers 275 & 276 came from?
"Cool your jets, Mr Smith"
Nah....Runs on rubber bands---Didn't you know?
-
ESTIMATED: Like Buell Frazier and Linnie May Randle ESTIMATED Oswald's "Friday morning package" to be 2 feet give or take a few inches. That means as much as 27 inches. The shortest the package could have been (if it contained Oswald's Carcano rifle) was 35 inches. When disassembled, the longest part was the wooden stock which was 34.8 inches long. A discrepancy of 8 inches is accounted for by the fact that Randle and Frazier did not "measure" Oswald's package: they ESTIMATED its length.
So let's have no more of that claim: The package that Randle and Frazier saw Oswald carry on the morning of 22 November 1963 was "too short" to contain the Carcano rifle.
And that I believe is CHECKMATE.
And that I believe is CHECKMATE.
You are funny ... but you should never play chess.
Frazier said Oswald carried the package under his armpit and in his cupped hand, which makes it about as long as Oswald's arm and thus impossible to have been long enough to conceal a broken down MC rifle.
So why don't you stop cherry picking the evidence?
-
A 5 or 6 foot long package!!! That's too long for a 40 inch Carcano rifle.
Curious....why is it too long? Did it have to be exactly 40 inches and no more?
Frazier did not "measure" Oswald's package
It was supposedly 3 feet from him laying on the car seat... :-\
You are funny....Frazier said Oswald carried the package under his armpit and in his cupped hand, which makes it about as long as Oswald's arm and thus impossible to have been long enough to conceal a broken down MC rifle. So why don't you stop cherry picking the evidence?
Do you really and truly think he is funny?
-
And that I believe is CHECKMATE.
You are funny ... but you should never play chess.
Frazier said Oswald carried the package under his armpit and in his cupped hand, which makes it about as long as Oswald's arm and thus impossible to have been long enough to conceal a broken down MC rifle.
So why don't you stop cherry picking the evidence?
Frazier said Oswald carried the package under his armpit and in his cupped hand, which makes it about as long as Oswald's arm and thus impossible to have been long enough to conceal a broken down MC rifle.
There are two (2) ways for the package to be carried "in his cupped hand" and "under his armpit".
I think you're confused. You meant to imply "IN" his armpit; which would mean the package was snug in that recess where the top of the arm meets the torso. That's only one (1) way the package could be carried "under the armpit": with the package length perpendicular to the ground.
The second way is most likely how Oswald carried his "Carcano" package. Yes, the bottom of the package rested in Oswald's cupped right hand. The package was held parallel to the body but not perpendicular to the ground. The package was angled forward slightly protruding in front of Oswald's body. To stabilize the package when walking: Oswald placed his left arm across his chest holding the package "towards its top" with his left hand. This would permit the package to be obscured by Oswald's neck and face: It would not be long enough to block his eyesight. This perfectly reasonable (and possible) option explains why Frazier--looking from behind--did not see the top of the 35" long package which extended above Oswald's shoulder line. It explains why Frazier could have thought the top of the package was "in" Oswald's armpit.
And that I believe "is" CHECKMATE.
-
The second way is most likely how Oswald carried his "Carcano" package. Yes, the bottom of the package rested in Oswald's cupped right hand. The package was ...blah blah
And that I believe "is" CHECKMATE.
I take it back...MW is correct---You are funny.
-
Frazier said Oswald carried the package under his armpit and in his cupped hand, which makes it about as long as Oswald's arm and thus impossible to have been long enough to conceal a broken down MC rifle.
There are two (2) ways for the package to be carried "in his cupped hand" and "under his armpit".
I think you're confused. You meant to imply "IN" his armpit; which would mean the package was snug in that recess where the top of the arm meets the torso. That's only one (1) way the package could be carried "under the armpit": with the package length perpendicular to the ground.
The second way is most likely how Oswald carried his "Carcano" package. Yes, the bottom of the package rested in Oswald's cupped right hand. The package was held parallel to the body but not perpendicular to the ground. The package was angled forward slightly protruding in front of Oswald's body. To stabilize the package when walking: Oswald placed his left arm across his chest holding the package "towards its top" with his left hand. This would permit the package to be obscured by Oswald's neck and face: It would not be long enough to block his eyesight. This perfectly reasonable (and possible) option explains why Frazier--looking from behind--did not see the top of the 35" long package which extended above Oswald's shoulder line. It explains why Frazier could have thought the top of the package was "in" Oswald's armpit.
And that I believe "is" CHECKMATE.
The second way is most likely how Oswald carried his "Carcano" package. Yes, the bottom of the package rested in Oswald's cupped right hand. The package was held parallel to the body but not perpendicular to the ground. The package was angled forward slightly protruding in front of Oswald's body. To stabilize the package when walking: Oswald placed his left arm across his chest holding the package "towards its top" with his left hand. This would permit the package to be obscured by Oswald's neck and face: It would not be long enough to block his eyesight. This perfectly reasonable (and possible) option explains why Frazier--looking from behind--did not see the top of the 35" long package which extended above Oswald's shoulder line. It explains why Frazier could have thought the top of the package was "in" Oswald's armpit.
The above is the concoction of an irrational brain.....
-
The second way is most likely how Oswald carried his "Carcano" package. Yes, the bottom of the package rested in Oswald's cupped right hand. The package was held parallel to the body but not perpendicular to the ground. The package was angled forward slightly protruding in front of Oswald's body. To stabilize the package when walking: Oswald placed his left arm across his chest holding the package "towards its top" with his left hand. This would permit the package to be obscured by Oswald's neck and face: It would not be long enough to block his eyesight. This perfectly reasonable (and possible) option explains why Frazier--looking from behind--did not see the top of the 35" long package which extended above Oswald's shoulder line. It explains why Frazier could have thought the top of the package was "in" Oswald's armpit.
The above is the concoction of an irrational brain.....
What an idiotic reply.
Your Ad hominem attack reveals your desperation to reply: Though you have nothing of substance to include in your attempted rebuttal.
Have you seen Jerry Organ's splendid graphic that is a representation of how Lee Harvey Oswald could have carried the long package to the Book Depository? That convinced me it's eminently plausible that Oswald could have carried the package as described above.
-
Linnie Mae Randle poses the real problem here. She got a clearer view of the package than Frazier and her description of a package is closer to the 27 inches she remembers. I dont know why this is and opens the possibility the rifle got in to the TSBD some other way:
Mr. BALL. Was he carrying any package?
Mrs. RANDLE. Yes; he was.
Mr. BALL. What was he carrying?
Mrs. RANDLE. He was carrying a package in a sort of a heavy brown bag, heavier than a grocery bag it looked to me. It was about, if I might measure, about this long, I suppose, and he carried it in his right hand, had the top sort of folded down and had a grip like this, and the bottom, he carried it this way, you know, and it almost touched the ground as he carried it.
Mr. BALL. Let me see. He carried it in his right hand, did he?
Mrs. RANDLE. That is right.
Mr. BALL. And where was his hand gripping the middle of the package?
Mrs. RANDLE. No, sir; the top with just a little bit sticking up. You know just like you grab something like that.
Mr. BALL. And he was grabbing it with his right hand at the top of the package and the package almost touched the ground?
Mrs. RANDLE. Yes, sir.
-
Linnie Mae Randle poses the real problem here. She got a clearer view of the package than Frazier and her description of a package is closer to the 27 inches she remembers. I dont know why this is and opens the possibility the rifle got in to the TSBD some other way:
Mr. BALL. Was he carrying any package?
Mrs. RANDLE. Yes; he was.
Mr. BALL. What was he carrying?
Mrs. RANDLE. He was carrying a package in a sort of a heavy brown bag, heavier than a grocery bag it looked to me. It was about, if I might measure, about this long, I suppose, and he carried it in his right hand, had the top sort of folded down and had a grip like this, and the bottom, he carried it this way, you know, and it almost touched the ground as he carried it.
Mr. BALL. Let me see. He carried it in his right hand, did he?
Mrs. RANDLE. That is right.
Mr. BALL. And where was his hand gripping the middle of the package?
Mrs. RANDLE. No, sir; the top with just a little bit sticking up. You know just like you grab something like that.
Mr. BALL. And he was grabbing it with his right hand at the top of the package and the package almost touched the ground?
Mrs. RANDLE. Yes, sir.
The above does not describe the precise alignment of Oswald's hand. Was it essentially perpendicular to the ground or was the portion between the elbow and the wrist more close to parallel to the ground?
Linnie May Randle "guessed" the length (and width) of Oswald's package. It was an E S T I M A T E.
-
Linnie May Randle "guessed" the length (and width) of Oswald's package. It was an E S T I M A T E.
I know. But her estimate was the same as Fraziers. That was always a problem for the WC. There was and is something uncomfortable about it.
-
I know. But her estimate was the same as Fraziers. That was always a problem for the WC. There was and is something uncomfortable about it.
There is no "rule-book of the Universe" that says "2 estimates must be accurate if they are the same". The 2 estimates could both be inaccurate.
-
I know. But her estimate was the same as Fraziers. That was always a problem for the WC. There was and is something uncomfortable about it.
Randle's estimate kept shrinking in tandem with Buell's nut sack, it seems.
CYA seemed the smart move for the pair.
-
Frazier said Oswald carried the package under his armpit and in his cupped hand, which makes it about as long as Oswald's arm and thus impossible to have been long enough to conceal a broken down MC rifle.
There are two (2) ways for the package to be carried "in his cupped hand" and "under his armpit".
I think you're confused. You meant to imply "IN" his armpit; which would mean the package was snug in that recess where the top of the arm meets the torso. That's only one (1) way the package could be carried "under the armpit": with the package length perpendicular to the ground.
The second way is most likely how Oswald carried his "Carcano" package. Yes, the bottom of the package rested in Oswald's cupped right hand. The package was held parallel to the body but not perpendicular to the ground. The package was angled forward slightly protruding in front of Oswald's body. To stabilize the package when walking: Oswald placed his left arm across his chest holding the package "towards its top" with his left hand. This would permit the package to be obscured by Oswald's neck and face: It would not be long enough to block his eyesight. This perfectly reasonable (and possible) option explains why Frazier--looking from behind--did not see the top of the 35" long package which extended above Oswald's shoulder line. It explains why Frazier could have thought the top of the package was "in" Oswald's armpit.
And that I believe "is" CHECKMATE.
The second way is most likely how Oswald carried his "Carcano" package
And there is your wishful thinking again..... speculative and worthless as always and only designed to not deal with what the witness actually said.
This perfectly reasonable (and possible) option explains why Frazier-
Only an unreasonable person considers his own conclusions to be reasonable.
And that I believe "is" CHECKMATE.
Which is exactly why you should not play chess.... you haven't got a clue how to...
It's pretty pathetic to ignore what Frazier said and make up your own story instead, for which there is not a shred of evidence, and then call the conclusion reasonable.
-
What an idiotic reply.
Your Ad hominem attack reveals your desperation to reply: Though you have nothing of substance to include in your attempted rebuttal.
Have you seen Jerry Organ's splendid graphic that is a representation of how Lee Harvey Oswald could have carried the long package to the Book Depository? That convinced me it's eminently plausible that Oswald could have carried the package as described above.
Though you have nothing of substance to include in your attempted rebuttal.
Oh boy, not this stupid game again! There is no reason for a rebuttal to an invented story for which there is not a shred of evidence
Have you seen Jerry Organ's splendid graphic that is a representation of how Lee Harvey Oswald could have carried the long package to the Book Depository? That convinced me it's eminently plausible that Oswald could have carried the package as described above.
"could have" are the two most significant words in that hypocritical BS....
-
There is no "rule-book of the Universe" that says "2 estimates must be accurate if they are the same". The 2 estimates could both be inaccurate.
There is also no rule-book that says your opinion is always the right one, yet here you are again acting as if it is.
-
There is no "rule-book of the Universe" that says "2 estimates must be accurate if they are the same". The 2 estimates could both be inaccurate.
If they are off who is to say the sack wasn't smaller?
22" and holding a apple and cheese sandwich.
They were under a lot of pressure.
The natural instinct would have been to exaggerate the length to satisfy LE.
-
A discrepancy of 8 inches is accounted for by the fact that Randle and Frazier did not "measure" Oswald's package: they ESTIMATED its length.
It's also "accounted for" by the bag Frazier and Randle saw not being CE 142 and not being long enough to hold the alleged murder weapon.
It's not just the length of the bag that there is a discrepancy over. Frazier said the paper was flimsier.
An unsupported opinion about how it could have happened is hardly a "checkmate".
-
A 5 or 6 foot long package!!!
That's too long for a 40 inch Carcano rifle.
Perhaps the assassination was accomplished with a bazooka.
:D
"OK boys, the morning Kennedy comes into town we're gonna get the rifle into the building by delivering it in a box."
"Sounds good, boss. I gotta 5-footer that'd do the job just perfect..."
"You CRAZY? No one's gonna look at that and think it's the perfect size for a rifle. And it'd be mighty unecological to go wasting all that cardboard."
"Gee, boss, never thought a that. I'll go get us a box that's look just right for carrying a rifle."
-
Cool your jets, Mr Smith-------it's not my fault you can't explain away the document! :D
Now! Perhaps you could tell us where the WC exhibit numbers 275 & 276 came from?
As usual, Mr Smith runs for the hills! :D
Anyone else want to explain how two curtain rods were already "marked 275 & 276" eight days before they were officially received into evidence and "marked" 275 & 276 by the WC?
EXHIBIT A!
(https://i.imgur.com/PcgQxI6.jpg)
EXHIBIT B!
Paine garage, 23 March 1964:
Mr. JENNER - May we take these curtain rods and mark them as exhibits and we will return them after they have been placed of record?
Mrs. PAINE - All right.
Mr. JENNER - Miss Reporter, the cream colored curtain rod, we will mark Ruth Paine Exhibit 275 and the white one as Ruth Paine Exhibit No. 276.
(The curtain rods referred to were at this time marked by the reporter as Ruth Paine Exhibit Nos. 275 and 276, for identification.)
-
Cool your jets, Mr Smith-------it's not my fault you can't explain away the document! :D
Now! Perhaps you could tell us where the WC exhibit numbers 275 & 276 came from?
They came from the WC. Now your turn. Why would "Mr. Oswald" himself deny carrying any curtain rods that day when it would have helped his situation to explain the package he carried that morning (i.e. demonstrating that it didn't contain a rifle)? Why would the authorities who were framing Oswald in your fantasy on their own motion suddenly decide to bring the curtain rods to light and test them for his fingerprints? Waiting...
-
They came from the WC.
When do you think the WC decided to call them '275 & 276', Mr Smith? And why those numbers? What was 'Ruth Paine Exhibit 1'?
Thumb1:
-
Linnie Mae Randle poses the real problem here. She got a clearer view of the package than Frazier and her description of a package is closer to the 27 inches she remembers. I dont know why this is and opens the possibility the rifle got in to the TSBD some other way:
"She got a clearer view of the package than Frazier"
How do you figure that? Did she go out to the car and look real good?
-
I'm a busy boy these days but I seem to recall a memo in which these rods were explained. As I recall Belin was out at the Paine house with some members of the DPD, when he asked Mrs. Paine if she'd actually had any curtain rods. When she told him yes, and showed him the rods, he decided it was best if they checked the rods to see if there was any evidence Oswald had handled them.
That's they way I recall it, anyhow. If my recollection is accurate, well, then, that would explain why the DPD knew the exhibit numbers.
I hope somebody with more time clears this up.
-
I'm a busy boy these days but I seem to recall a memo in which these rods were explained. As I recall Belin was out at the Paine house with some members of the DPD, when he asked Mrs. Paine if she'd actually had any curtain rods. When she told him yes, and showed him the rods, he decided it was best if they checked the rods to see if there was any evidence Oswald had handled them.
That's they way I recall it, anyhow. If my recollection is accurate, well, then, that would explain why the DPD knew the exhibit numbers.
I hope somebody with more time clears this up.
Thank you for this, Mr Speer! Thumb1:
I have never come across such a memo and would be very grateful if someone could unearth it so we could assess its credibility.
In the meantime............ how would it "explain why the DPD knew the exhibit numbers"? Those exhibit numbers hadn't been assigned yet---------and wouldn't be for another eight days!
Here's how they were assigned in Ms Paine's home on the evening of 23 March:
Mr. JENNER - The short piece which Mrs. Paine has picked up and has exhibited to me, we will mark "Ruth Paine Exhibit No. 270," and we will cut a piece of the other twine or string and mark that as "Ruth Paine Exhibit No. 271."
...
Mr. JENNER - We will mark the sheet of wrapping paper which we have just cut from a roll of wrapping paper as "Ruth Paine Exhibit No. 272." Would you mark that, please, Miss Reporter?
...
Mr. JENNER - Off the record.
Miss Reporter, would you mark the strip of sticky tape I now hand you as "Ruth Paine Exhibit No. 273"?
...
Mrs. PAINE - It looks rather thin to me, rather thinner than the string on the package, sir.
Mr. JENNER - All right. We will take a sample of that, and that will be marked "Ruth Paine Exhibit No. 274."
...
Mr. JENNER - Miss Reporter, the cream colored curtain rod, we will mark Ruth Paine Exhibit 275 and the white one as Ruth Paine Exhibit No. 276.
Pure happenstance, right? How did DPD on 15 March see into the future and know that exactly this would happen on 23 March?
Thumb1:
-
You're right, Alan. I thought you were complaining that the exhibits had been given numbers before they were introduced during testimony. I thought that this was okay, because I had a clear recollection of a WC counsel (I thought Belin) going out to the house and giving exhibit numbers to items found in the garage. But what I'd forgotten was that, in a remarkably strange twist, Jenner had taken Mrs. Paine's testimony from her garage, and had assigned the exhibit numbers right there in the garage.
In such case, you are correct: it makes little sense that the DPD would know these numbers in advance. The exhibits were supposedly in Mrs. Paine's garage on the 23rd, even though they were supposedly sent to the lab on the 15th, and not released until the 24th.
Something is indeed screwy. I still have the feeling I've looked into this, however, and found a plausible excuse. I'll let you know if it comes back to me.
But in the meantime, let me add a little food for thought. The shipping of the rods to the DPD lab, and Mrs. Paine's subsequent testimony, both occurred in a period when the WC and FBI were at war, and the FBI was refusing to help the Commission with its investigation.
From patspeer.com, Chapter 3:
On 3-11, Warren Commission Counsel Melvin Eisenberg and David Belin visit the FBI crime lab. An internal FBI memo to FBI crime lab chief Ivan Conrad reflects the growing tension: "During the further course of the discussion, Mr. Belin advised that inasmuch as it appeared that almost all of the investigation in this matter had been conducted by the FBI, and since the firearms identification was crucial to the case, the Commission felt that there was merit in having the firearms evidence examined by some other organization and was considering making such a request. Under any other circumstances a comment of this kind would have been the basis for an immediate discontinuance of FBI Laboratory cooperation and service; however, Belin was merely advised in this instance that any decision as to such course of action, of course, was strictly up the Commission." To this memo FBI Director Hoover adds that it is "getting to be more and more intolerable to deal with this Warren Commission."
And Hoover's irritation is infectious. A 3-18-64 memo from Dallas Special-Agent-in-Charge J. Gordon Shanklin to file (found in the Weisberg Archives) illuminates: "Inspector Malley said that the Bureau is sending a teletype with instructions re 'a bunch of real crackpots who will be in Dallas next week.' One is Hubert, a criminal law professor at Tulane University. Three attorneys on his staff are Norman Redlich, Joseph Ball, and a man named Genner (phonetic). We are to be extremely cautious in all connection with them. A loyalty investigation is being conducted on Genner and Ball. Redlich has been over in Russia and is on the borderline. Mr. Malley instructed that all personnel be told that if they have any dealings with these people, to keep quiet and not volunteer any information. The Director has said with regard to any request made by them of the Dallas Office, that it must first be cleared with the Bureau. This applies to everything, and we are to be extremely careful how we answer any questions."
Malley had it backwards, of course. Hubert, Ball, and "Genner" (actually Albert Jenner) worked for Redlich; Redlich did not work for Hubert.
And, from there, the antagonism between the FBI and the commission only grows. A 3-19 memo from Assistant Director Alex Rosen to Assistant Director Alan Belmont relates: "The Dallas Office called today and advised that United States Attorney H. Barefoot Sanders, Dallas, had telephonically advised attorneys from the President's Commission had arrived in Dallas today and were in his office. He advised they intended to interview between 50 and 100 witnesses within the next two to three weeks. Sanders requested the Dallas Office to locate six individuals that the attorneys advised they desire to interview on Friday morning and request these individuals to appear at the office of United States Attorney Sanders...The Dallas Office was advised that inasmuch as the United States Attorney's office had the names of the individuals and the addresses, this did not appear to be a matter that should be handled by the Bureau; and that Mr. Sanders should be told that the location of witnesses for the President's Commission where the names and addresses were available, was a matter that should be handled either by the United State's Attorney's office or whomever they should designate, but that it was not a matter that the Bureau should handle. The Dallas office was further advised that in the event the United States Attorney's Office was unable to locate these witnesses and it became a matter of a fugitive-type investigation to locate the witnesses, then the Dallas Office could accept a request to locate the witnesses and advise the Bureau promptly."
And it didn't stop there. A 3-24 memo from Rosen to Belmont adds: "This matter (Note: Rosen means The commission's desire to use outside experts) was discussed with J. Lee Rankin, General counsel, the President's Commission, in the early evening of March 23, 1964. Mr. Rankin was advised that in view of the action taken by the Commission concerning the firearms evidence, it was obvious the Commission does not have confidence in the FBI Laboratory, and that in view of the independent examinations being requested, it would appear desirable for the Commission to have whatever examination they desire from independent experts made and for the Bureau to step out of the picture from the standpoint of Laboratory examinations. It was pointed out to Mr. Rankin that our Laboratory was greatly burdened with a large volume of work and that if the examinations that we made were not going to be accepted, it would appear that there would be no reason for our Laboratory experts to be tied up on these examinations in utilizing the time it requires to furnish testimony concerning matters where independent examinations are being made...Throughout the discussion, Mr. Rankin seemed to be a little disturbed over the Bureau pointing out to him that the Commission obviously lacked confidence in our Laboratory and he repeatedly commented that the independent examinations of evidence were being made at the instructions of the seven members of the Commission. He gave no indication, however, whether this was the desire of certain members of the Commission and others were going along, or whether the Commission was in full agreement concerning this matter."
It is clear from these memos that the FBI considers itself above the Commission, and answerable to the "President's Commission" only as a courtesy to the President. The Commissioners, no doubt, know that dumping the FBI as their main investigative agency would be a political nightmare, and that Hoover would use his media sources to make it look like the Commissioners had gone overboard, and were wasting taxpayers' money. And Rosen knows the Commissioners know this. His threats, then, are really a warning: stop requesting outside help, which could only hurt the reputation of the FBI, or else.
-
You're right, Alan. I thought you were complaining that the exhibits had been given numbers before they were introduced during testimony. I thought that this was okay, because I had a clear recollection of a WC counsel (I thought Belin) going out to the house and giving exhibit numbers to items found in the garage. But what I'd forgotten was that, in a remarkably strange twist, Jenner had taken Mrs. Paine's testimony from her garage, and had assigned the exhibit numbers right there in the garage.
In such case, you are correct: it makes little sense that the DPD would know these numbers in advance. The exhibits were supposedly in Mrs. Paine's garage on the 23rd, even though they were supposedly sent to the lab on the 15th, and not released until the 24th.
Something is indeed screwy. I still have the feeling I've looked into this, however, and found a plausible excuse. I'll let you know if it comes back to me.
But in the meantime, let me add a little food for thought. The shipping of the rods to the DPD lab, and Mrs. Paine's subsequent testimony, both occurred in a period when the WC and FBI were at war, and the FBI was refusing to help the Commission with its investigation.
From patspeer.com, Chapter 3:
On 3-11, Warren Commission Counsel Melvin Eisenberg and David Belin visit the FBI crime lab. An internal FBI memo to FBI crime lab chief Ivan Conrad reflects the growing tension: "During the further course of the discussion, Mr. Belin advised that inasmuch as it appeared that almost all of the investigation in this matter had been conducted by the FBI, and since the firearms identification was crucial to the case, the Commission felt that there was merit in having the firearms evidence examined by some other organization and was considering making such a request. Under any other circumstances a comment of this kind would have been the basis for an immediate discontinuance of FBI Laboratory cooperation and service; however, Belin was merely advised in this instance that any decision as to such course of action, of course, was strictly up the Commission." To this memo FBI Director Hoover adds that it is "getting to be more and more intolerable to deal with this Warren Commission."
And Hoover's irritation is infectious. A 3-18-64 memo from Dallas Special-Agent-in-Charge J. Gordon Shanklin to file (found in the Weisberg Archives) illuminates: "Inspector Malley said that the Bureau is sending a teletype with instructions re 'a bunch of real crackpots who will be in Dallas next week.' One is Hubert, a criminal law professor at Tulane University. Three attorneys on his staff are Norman Redlich, Joseph Ball, and a man named Genner (phonetic). We are to be extremely cautious in all connection with them. A loyalty investigation is being conducted on Genner and Ball. Redlich has been over in Russia and is on the borderline. Mr. Malley instructed that all personnel be told that if they have any dealings with these people, to keep quiet and not volunteer any information. The Director has said with regard to any request made by them of the Dallas Office, that it must first be cleared with the Bureau. This applies to everything, and we are to be extremely careful how we answer any questions."
Malley had it backwards, of course. Hubert, Ball, and "Genner" (actually BrianJenner) worked for Redlich; Redlich did not work for Hubert.
And, from there, the antagonism between the FBI and the commission only grows. A 3-19 memo from Assistant Director Alex Rosen to Assistant Director Alan Belmont relates: "The Dallas Office called today and advised that United States Attorney H. Barefoot Sanders, Dallas, had telephonically advised attorneys from the President's Commission had arrived in Dallas today and were in his office. He advised they intended to interview between 50 and 100 witnesses within the next two to three weeks. Sanders requested the Dallas Office to locate six individuals that the attorneys advised they desire to interview on Friday morning and request these individuals to appear at the office of United States Attorney Sanders...The Dallas Office was advised that inasmuch as the United States Attorney's office had the names of the individuals and the addresses, this did not appear to be a matter that should be handled by the Bureau; and that Mr. Sanders should be told that the location of witnesses for the President's Commission where the names and addresses were available, was a matter that should be handled either by the United State's Attorney's office or whomever they should designate, but that it was not a matter that the Bureau should handle. The Dallas office was further advised that in the event the United States Attorney's Office was unable to locate these witnesses and it became a matter of a fugitive-type investigation to locate the witnesses, then the Dallas Office could accept a request to locate the witnesses and advise the Bureau promptly."
And it didn't stop there. A 3-24 memo from Rosen to Belmont adds: "This matter (Note: Rosen means The commission's desire to use outside experts) was discussed with J. Lee Rankin, General counsel, the President's Commission, in the early evening of March 23, 1964. Mr. Rankin was advised that in view of the action taken by the Commission concerning the firearms evidence, it was obvious the Commission does not have confidence in the FBI Laboratory, and that in view of the independent examinations being requested, it would appear desirable for the Commission to have whatever examination they desire from independent experts made and for the Bureau to step out of the picture from the standpoint of Laboratory examinations. It was pointed out to Mr. Rankin that our Laboratory was greatly burdened with a large volume of work and that if the examinations that we made were not going to be accepted, it would appear that there would be no reason for our Laboratory experts to be tied up on these examinations in utilizing the time it requires to furnish testimony concerning matters where independent examinations are being made...Throughout the discussion, Mr. Rankin seemed to be a little disturbed over the Bureau pointing out to him that the Commission obviously lacked confidence in our Laboratory and he repeatedly commented that the independent examinations of evidence were being made at the instructions of the seven members of the Commission. He gave no indication, however, whether this was the desire of certain members of the Commission and others were going along, or whether the Commission was in full agreement concerning this matter."
It is clear from these memos that the FBI considers itself above the Commission, and answerable to the "President's Commission" only as a courtesy to the President. The Commissioners, no doubt, know that dumping the FBI as their main investigative agency would be a political nightmare, and that Hoover would use his media sources to make it look like the Commissioners had gone overboard, and were wasting taxpayers' money. And Rosen knows the Commissioners know this. His threats, then, are really a warning: stop requesting outside help, which could only hurt the reputation of the FBI, or else.
Thanking you kindly once again, Mr Speer! What a scream Shanklin's memo is ("Redlich has been over in Russia and is on the borderline"!).
'Something screwy' is an apt description of the shenanigans around the curtain rods! Your noting of the WC-FBI tensions around this time (second week of March) is very much on point------------we have a three man dance between SS (Agent Howlett), DPD (Lt. Day) and WC (Jenner). FBI nowhere to be seen. Although it is worth noting that this is the time they suddenly get all interested in a certain clipboard shown them back in December...
It beggars belief that no one in the FBI had thought to ask Ms Paine back in November whether any curtain rods were missing from her home. It would have surely been one of the very first questions they would want the answer to. Yet not a single mention of this crucial issue to be found in those early (or later) FBI reports.
Thumb1:
-
Thanking you kindly once again, Mr Speer! What a scream Shanklin's memo is ("Redlich has been over in Russia and is on the borderline"!).
'Something screwy' is an apt description of the shenanigans around the curtain rods! Your noting of the WC-FBI tensions around this time (second week of March) is very much on point------------we have a three man dance between SS (Agent Howlett), DPD (Lt. Day) and WC (Jenner). FBI nowhere to be seen. Although it is worth noting that this is the time they suddenly get all interested in a certain clipboard shown them back in December...
It beggars belief that no one in the FBI had thought to ask Ms Paine back in November whether any curtain rods were missing from her home. It would have surely been one of the very first questions they would want the answer to. Yet not a single mention of this crucial issue to be found in those early (or later) FBI reports.
Thumb1:
It beggars belief that no one in the FBI had thought to ask Ms Paine back in November whether any curtain rods were missing from her home.
Why would they ask?.....When they knew the curtain rod story was BS!
-
It beggars belief that no one in the FBI had thought to ask Ms Paine back in November whether any curtain rods were missing from her home.
Why would they ask?.....When they knew the curtain rod story was BS!
Are you kidding, Mr Cakebread? They could tell the world about the curtain rods still in Ms Paine's garage--another of the commie's lies exposed!
But no. Up until the WC testimony taking in the Paine home in March 64, all we get on the matter is............. radio silence.
-
Are you kidding, Mr Cakebread? They could tell the world about the curtain rods still in Ms Paine's garage--another of the commie's lies exposed!
But no. Up until the WC testimony taking in the Paine home in March 64, all we get on the matter is............. radio silence.
They could tell the world about the curtain rods still in Ms Paine's garage-
I fail to see how that would have advanced the framing of Lee Oswald...... Simply because Ruthie had curtain rods in the garage wouldn't have meant much....Or am I missing something?
-
They could tell the world about the curtain rods still in Ms Paine's garage-
I fail to see how that would have advanced the framing of Lee Oswald...... Simply because Ruthie had curtain rods in the garage wouldn't have meant much....Or am I missing something?
Yes, you are! Curtain rods missing from the garage = unwelcome boost for Mr Oswald's (alleged) claim to Mr Frazier; no curtain rods missing = welcome boost for counterclaim that he lied to Mr Frazier.
And! Let's not forget that the WC built an entire (and otherwise totally unnecessary) testimony-taking session around the phoney 'finding' of two curtain rods in the Paine garage-------even rigging the thing so that they would land on the numbers 275 & 276. As Mr Speer says, something screwy here!
Thumb1:
-
When do you think the WC decided to call them '275 & 276', Mr Smith? And why those numbers? What was 'Ruth Paine Exhibit 1'?
Thumb1:
I've asked you a couple of very simple questions to test the veracity of your otherwise baseless theory that Oswald carried some curtain rods to work. Thus far you have refused to even attempt to answer. So once again:
1) Why would "Mr. Oswald" himself lie and deny that he carried curtain rods that day if he in fact had done so? It would have aided his own cause to direct the DPD to that package as it would confirm that there was no rifle in it.
2) Why would the authorities who you believe are otherwise involved in a frame up that includes denying that he carried any curtain rods suddenly, on their own motion, months after Oswald's death bring those curtain rods to light, test them for Oswald's prints (the same guy they are trying to frame by denying he carried any curtain rods!), and document all this on a form?
3) Who found these curtain rods at the TSBD and how have they been kept quiet?
The narrative you have concocted makes absolutely no sense. Both Oswald and his alleged framers are acting contrary to their own self interest in this fairy tale.
-
I've asked you a couple of very simple questions to test the veracity of your otherwise baseless theory that Oswald carried some curtain rods to work. Thus far you have refused to even attempt to answer.
Oh Mr Smith, you old rascal--------I was waiting for you to offer a meaningful answer to the question I asked you first:
Where did the numbers 275 and 276 come from?
'From the WC' doesn't cut it-------you need to explain when and why those specific numbers were assigned.
Can you do that? Or would you prefer to deflect and run away again?
1) Why would "Mr. Oswald" himself lie and deny that he carried curtain rods that day if he in fact had done so?
:D
What a terrible waste of your first question, Mr Smith!
We don't know that Mr Oswald did in fact deny it. I am proposing that he didn't. Prove my proposition wrong!
Now! If you answer my question, I'll happily move on to your second one. Hopefully it won't be so garbage-based as your first one! Thumb1:
-
Oh Mr Smith, you old rascal--------I was waiting for you to offer a meaningful answer to the question I asked you first:
Where did the numbers 275 and 276 come from?
'From the WC' doesn't cut it-------you need to explain when and why those specific numbers were assigned.
Can you do that? Or would you prefer to deflect and run away again?
:D
What a terrible waste of your first question, Mr Smith!
We don't know that Mr Oswald did in fact deny it. I am proposing that he didn't. Prove my proposition wrong!
Now! If you answer my question, I'll happily move on to your second one. Hopefully it won't be so garbage-based as your first one! Thumb1:
would you prefer to deflect defecate and run away again?
-
https://www.maryferrell.org/photos.html?set=NARA-BLANKET
Photo Set: NARA Evidence Photos: Blanket, Bag, Rods
(https://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/PaineCurtainRods-1.jpg)
(https://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/PaineCurtainRods-2.jpg)
(https://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/PaineCurtainRods-3.jpg)
-
It beggars belief that no one in the FBI had thought to ask Ms Paine back in November whether any curtain rods were missing from her home.
Why would they ask?.....When they knew the curtain rod story was BS!
Holy cow Walt! Are you coming over to the "light side".
-
ESTIMATED: Like Buell Frazier and Linnie May Randle ESTIMATED Oswald's "Friday morning package" to be 2 feet give or take a few inches. That means as much as 27 inches. The shortest the package could have been (if it contained Oswald's Carcano rifle) was 35 inches. When disassembled, the longest part was the wooden stock which was 34.8 inches long. A discrepancy of 8 inches is accounted for by the fact that Randle and Frazier did not "measure" Oswald's package: they ESTIMATED its length.
So let's have no more of that claim: The package that Randle and Frazier saw Oswald carry on the morning of 22 November 1963 was "too short" to contain the Carcano rifle.
And that I believe is CHECKMATE.
Buell Frazier years later obtained a similar rifle and stated Oswald couldn't have been carrying one under his arm.
-
Buell Frazier years later obtained a similar rifle and stated Oswald couldn't have been carrying one under his arm.
Really! What's to be derived from that?
This is immaterial to whether Oswald's long package contained HIS Carcano rifle (disassembled) or not.
-
Really! What's to be derived from that?
This is immaterial to whether Oswald's long package contained HIS Carcano rifle (disassembled) or not.
Frazier measured the similar style rifle and held it under his arm coming to the conclusion the package was not a rifle based on the length. Is scientific? No. But based on the length he concluded it was not.
-
The second way is most likely how Oswald carried his "Carcano" package
And there is your wishful thinking again..... speculative and worthless as always and only designed to not deal with what the witness actually said.
This perfectly reasonable (and possible) option explains why Frazier-
Only an unreasonable person considers his own conclusions to be reasonable.
And that I believe "is" CHECKMATE.
Which is exactly why you should not play chess.... you haven't got a clue how to...
It's pretty pathetic to ignore what Frazier said and make up your own story instead, for which there is not a shred of evidence, and then call the conclusion reasonable.
Another pointless, essentially non-specific reply born out of a compulsion to attack for no good reason.
And there is your wishful thinking again..... speculative and worthless as always and only designed to not deal with what the witness actually said.
I dealt with it. The witness (Frazier) "estimated" the package to be 8 inches shorter than it would have to be if it contained the disassembled Carcano rifle. He described the way Oswald carried the package: Cupped in his hand and under the armpit. Due to human anatomy and physics, it was possible for the top of the package to protrude forward of the torso rather than be wedged in the armpit. The fact that Frazier did not consider this possibility is immaterial. It's possible for Frazier to be honest but honestly mistaken.
Only an unreasonable person considers his own conclusions to be reasonable.
Only? So you're saying it's impossible for a "reasonable" person to consider his own conclusions "reasonable". Explain that.
It's pretty pathetic to ignore what Frazier said and make up your own story instead, for which there is not a shred of evidence, and then call the conclusion reasonable.
It's not a "story". It's an explanation of how Oswald's long package (containing the disassembled Carcano) "could" have been carried and not be seen above LHO's shoulder--by Buell Frazier.
-
Frazier measured the similar style rifle and held it under his arm coming to the conclusion the package was not a rifle based on the length. Is scientific? No. But based on the length he concluded it was not.
Frazier measured the similar style rifle and held it under his arm coming to the conclusion the package was not a rifle based on the length. Is scientific? No. But based on the length he concluded it was not.
"Based on the [estimated] length". Buell Frazier did not measure the length of Oswald's long package with a tape measure or ruler. His figure of 2 feet give or take a few inches was an E S T I M A T E.
-
Frazier measured the similar style rifle and held it under his arm coming to the conclusion the package was not a rifle based on the length. Is scientific? No. But based on the length he concluded it was not.
"Based on the [estimated] length". Buell Frazier did not measure the length of Oswald's long package with a tape measure or ruler. His figure of 2 feet give or take a few inches was an E S T I M A T E.
And a similar rifle will show it was too long in length.
-
Frazier measured the similar style rifle and held it under his arm coming to the conclusion the package was not a rifle based on the length. Is scientific? No. But based on the length he concluded it was not.
"Based on the [estimated] length". Buell Frazier did not measure the length of Oswald's long package with a tape measure or ruler. His figure of 2 feet give or take a few inches was an E S T I M A T E.
Frazier had an almost identical rifle as evidence proving it wasn't a rifle and you have a denial and an opinion with no rifle with no evidence.
-
Frazier had an almost identical rifle as evidence proving it wasn't a rifle and you have a denial and an opinion with no rifle with no evidence.
Owning an "almost identical rifle" means nothing in terms of Buell Frazier's estimate of the length of the package that Oswald carried to the TSBD.
Did Buell Frazier disassemble the rifle and place it in a paper bag?
Did he hold up the package and ask a dozen people to estimate it's length?
Did he carry the package cupped in his hand and under his armpit (the 3 ways it could have been positioned against his body): subsequently asking the same dozen people (50 feet behind him) if they could see the package above his shoulder?
If Buell Frazier did not do all those things: Mere ownership and personal observation of a Carcano rifle does not enhance the accuracy of his estimate that occurred years before.
-
Owning an "almost identical rifle" means nothing in terms of Buell Frazier's estimate of the length of the package that Oswald carried to the TSBD.
Means nothing? The nearly identical rifle was too long in length to carry so it means it wasn't a rifle.
Did Buell Frazier disassemble the rifle and place it in a paper bag?
A disassembled rifle wouldn't have fit in a paper bag according to Frazier based on shape and size.
Did he hold up the package and ask a dozen people to estimate it's length?
He held it up himself and see it didn't fit under his arm.
Did he carry the package cupped in his hand and under his armpit (the 3 ways it could have been positioned against his body): subsequently asking the same dozen people (50 feet behind him) if they could see the package above his shoulder?
Frazier held the rifle the same way Osawld carried his package and it did not fit because the rifle was too long.
If Buell Frazier did not do all those things: Mere ownership and personal observation of a Carcano rifle does not enhance the accuracy of his estimate that occurred years before.
Your making excuses. An identical rifle was used as a demonstration and Frazier did a reenactment of Oswald that showed the rifle to be too long. That is pretty good indicator of evidence which you do not have.
-
Another pointless, essentially non-specific reply born out of a compulsion to attack for no good reason.
And there is your wishful thinking again..... speculative and worthless as always and only designed to not deal with what the witness actually said.
I dealt with it. The witness (Frazier) "estimated" the package to be 8 inches shorter than it would have to be if it contained the disassembled Carcano rifle. He described the way Oswald carried the package: Cupped in his hand and under the armpit. Due to human anatomy and physics, it was possible for the top of the package to protrude forward of the torso rather than be wedged in the armpit. The fact that Frazier did not consider this possibility is immaterial. It's possible for Frazier to be honest but honestly mistaken.
Only an unreasonable person considers his own conclusions to be reasonable.
Only? So you're saying it's impossible for a "reasonable" person to consider his own conclusions "reasonable". Explain that.
It's pretty pathetic to ignore what Frazier said and make up your own story instead, for which there is not a shred of evidence, and then call the conclusion reasonable.
It's not a "story". It's an explanation of how Oswald's long package (containing the disassembled Carcano) "could" have been carried and not be seen above LHO's shoulder--by Buell Frazier.
And there is your wishful thinking again..... speculative and worthless as always and only designed to not deal with what the witness actually said.
I dealt with it. The witness (Frazier) "estimated" the package to be 8 inches shorter than it would have to be if it contained the disassembled Carcano rifle. He described the way Oswald carried the package: Cupped in his hand and under the armpit. Due to human anatomy and physics, it was possible for the top of the package to protrude forward of the torso rather than be wedged in the armpit. The fact that Frazier did not consider this possibility is immaterial. It's possible for Frazier to be honest but honestly mistaken.
The only way you dealt with it is by dismissing it, without a shred of evidence, as an "estimate' and a "honest mistake". A description like "cupped in his hand and under his armpit" isn't an estimate. It's a pretty solid indicator of how long the package could have been. You don't like that, so you go back to the speculative "the package could have protruded forward" nonsense for which you have no evidence whatsoever.
Only an unreasonable person considers his own conclusions to be reasonable.
Only? So you're saying it's impossible for a "reasonable" person to consider his own conclusions "reasonable". Explain that.
The fact that you need this to have explained to you is telling. The answer to your question is; yes!
A reasonable person accepts the possibility that his opinion could be wrong. An unreasonable person feels that his opinion is not only reasonable but also the right one. You fit the latter category perfectly!
And now, I'm sure, you want to debate this point to demonstrate that your opinion is reasonable and the right one, right?
It's pretty pathetic to ignore what Frazier said and make up your own story instead, for which there is not a shred of evidence, and then call the conclusion reasonable.
It's not a "story". It's an explanation of how Oswald's long package (containing the disassembled Carcano) "could" have been carried and not be seen above LHO's shoulder--by Buell Frazier.
Of course it is a story and a fictional one at that. You start by assuming that the rifle was in the package and then you look for a way to explain how Oswald could have carried the package without Frazier seeing it. It's a story that was made up by Dan Rather and LNs have been using it ever since, but all it really is, is an self-serving assumption.
Faced with Frazier's testimony there are two ways to go;
(1) you accept the evidence for what it is, conclude that the package was too small to contain a broken down rifle and you look for another explanation for how the rifle ended up at the TSBD or
(2) you follow your own biased agenda, dismiss what the witness said and make up your own story to fit your own pre-determined narrative....
-
Faced with Frazier's testimony there are two ways to go;
(1) you accept the evidence for what it is, conclude that the package was too small to contain a broken down rifle and you look for another explanation for how the rifle ended up at the TSBD or
(2) you follow your own biased agenda, dismiss what the witness said and make up your own story to fit your own pre-determined narrative....
Thankfully, Mr Lidell's hopeless sophisms are reduced to irrelevance by what Ms Mary Hall saw:
A long box being delivered to the Depository from a pawn shop/junkyard truck the morning of the assassination.
Can you imagine how intensely Mr Lidell must wish Mr Oswald had been seen bringing such a box into work that morning? :D
Let's also note that the 'Honest Joe's' truck was again noticed minutes before the assassination by Mr A. J. Millican.
It's pretty obvious what happened:
The rifle was brought into the building in a long box; shortly before the assassination, the empty box was picked up. Leaving only the rifle in the building.
Thumb1:
-
https://www.maryferrell.org/photos.html?set=NARA-BLANKET
Photo Set: NARA Evidence Photos: Blanket, Bag, Rods
(https://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/PaineCurtainRods-1.jpg)
Thank you, Mr Craig! Thumb1:
The dates on the crime lab document tell us that these are most probably not the curtain rods that Mr Oswald brought to work that morning--------------but the replacement curtain rods that were quietly deposited in the Paine garage by Agent Howlett (or one of his men) and 'found' during Ms Paine's in situ WC testimony of 23 March.
The rods Mr Oswald brought to work were disappeared after Agent Howlett picked them up from Lt. Day at 7.50 am on 24 March.
-
Thankfully, Mr Lidell's hopeless sophisms are reduced to irrelevance by what Ms Mary Hall saw:
A long box being delivered to the Depository from a pawn shop/junkyard truck the morning of the assassination.
Can you imagine how intensely Mr Lidell must wish Mr Oswald had been seen bringing such a box into work that morning? :D
Let's also note that the 'Honest Joe's' truck was again noticed minutes before the assassination by Mr A. J. Millican.
It's pretty obvious what happened:
The rifle was brought into the building in a long box; shortly before the assassination, the empty box was picked up. Leaving only the rifle in the building.
Thumb1:
A long box being delivered to the Depository from a pawn shop/junkyard truck the morning of the assassination.
pawn shop / junkyard truck ?? Please don't add information that is not in evidence.... "Honest Joe's "pawn shop" was not a " junkyard". ( although I believe the shop it was crammed with all sorts of junk)
As I recall Honest Joe had a station wagon or panel truck with the name of his business emblazoned on the sides of the vehicle. And I believe he had a 50 caliber machine gun mounted on top of the vehicle. It was a very distinctive vehicle and it would have attracted Mrs Hall's attention.
-
A long box being delivered to the Depository from a pawn shop/junkyard truck the morning of the assassination.
pawn shop / junkyard truck ?? Please don't add information that is not in evidence.... "Honest Joe's "pawn shop" was not a " junkyard". ( although I believe the shop it was crammed with all sorts of junk)
As I recall Honest Joe had a station wagon or panel truck with the name of his business emblazoned on the sides of the vehicle. And I believe he had a 50 caliber machine gun mounted on top of the vehicle. It was a very distinctive vehicle and it would have attracted Mrs Hall's attention.
Cool down, Mr Cakebread! I was basing my remarks on the following quote from the Dallas History Forum which Mr Lee Forman posted on the Education Forum:
"Roy, Honest Joe's Pawn Shop was a large overgrown junk yard that called itself a pawn shop located not far from the old Central Fire Station. My dad spent the last 20 year of his life as a dispatcher at that fire station. He died in 1966. I visited the fire station and Honest Joe's many times in my youth."
Did you ever enter Honest Joe's Pawn Shop yourself during the Sixties and see what was out back?
Thumb1:
-
Owning an "almost identical rifle" means nothing in terms of Buell Frazier's estimate of the length of the package that Oswald carried to the TSBD.
Did Buell Frazier disassemble the rifle and place it in a paper bag?
Did he hold up the package and ask a dozen people to estimate it's length?
Did he carry the package cupped in his hand and under his armpit (the 3 ways it could have been positioned against his body): subsequently asking the same dozen people (50 feet behind him) if they could see the package above his shoulder?
If Buell Frazier did not do all those things: Mere ownership and personal observation of a Carcano rifle does not enhance the accuracy of his estimate that occurred years before.
It's unfortunate for these nuts that even "Mr. Oswald" denied carrying any curtain rods or long package. So Oswald himself takes issue with Frazier's claim. According to Oswald he had no curtain rods or long package. Just his lunch. So Frazier's estimate of the size of a long bag is pointless unless you believe Oswald is lying for some unspecified reason about the curtain rods/long bag that Frazier indicates that he was carrying. And it obviously makes no sense at all for Oswald to lie about carrying some curtain rods that morning. In fact, it would have helped his situation to direct the police to that bag.
It's humorous that CTers cling to Frazier's estimate not realizing that it actually implicates Oswald because he takes issue with Frazier's claim. If Oswald is lying about the bag, logic dictates that he does so because he had something to hide. I wonder what? Maybe we should consult Sherlock Holmes. LOL. What we are left with is that Oswald made an unusual trip to the location where he kept a rifle, that rifle is not found there later in the day, carried a long bag that he told Frazier contained curtain rods, told Frazier he did not have his lunch that day, but then denies to the police he owned a rifle, carried any curtain rods or long bag but had only his lunch. In direct contradiction to what Frazier indicates happened. And a long bag is found at the crime scene with Oswald's prints on them. That bag is measured which confirms that it actually is a bit longer than Frazier's estimate. Thus, no need to speculate on its size or rely on estimates.
Mr. FRITZ. I told him he had a package and put it in the back seat and it was a package about that long and it was curtain rods. He said he didn't have any kind of a package but his lunch. He said he had his lunch and that is all he had, and Mr. Frazier told me that he got out of the car with that package, he saw him go toward the building with this long package.
I asked him, I said, "Did you go toward the building carrying a long package?"
He said, "No. I didn't carry anything but my lunch."
-
It's unfortunate for these nuts that even "Mr. Oswald" denied carrying any curtain rods or long package. So Oswald himself takes issue with Frazier's claim. According to Oswald he had no curtain rods or long package. Just his lunch. So Frazier's estimate of the size of a long bag is pointless unless you believe Oswald is lying for some unspecified reason about the curtain rods/long bag that Frazier indicates that he was carrying. And it obviously makes no sense at all for Oswald to lie about carrying some curtain rods that morning. In fact, it would have helped his situation to direct the police to that bag.
It's humorous that CTers cling to Frazier's estimate not realizing that it actually implicates Oswald because he takes issue with Frazier's claim. If Oswald is lying about the bag, logic dictates that he does so because he had something to hide. I wonder what? Maybe we should consult Sherlock Holmes. LOL. What we are left with is that Oswald made an unusual trip to the location where he kept a rifle, that rifle is not found there later in the day, carried a long bag that he told Frazier contained curtain rods, told Frazier he did not have his lunch that day, but then denies to the police he owned a rifle, carried any curtain rods or long bag but had only his lunch. In direct contradiction to what Frazier indicates happened. And a long bag is found at the crime scene with Oswald's prints on them. That bag is measured which confirms that it actually is a bit longer than Frazier's estimate. Thus, no need to speculate on its size or rely on estimates.
Mr. FRITZ. I told him he had a package and put it in the back seat and it was a package about that long and it was curtain rods. He said he didn't have any kind of a package but his lunch. He said he had his lunch and that is all he had, and Mr. Frazier told me that he got out of the car with that package, he saw him go toward the building with this long package.
I asked him, I said, "Did you go toward the building carrying a long package?"
He said, "No. I didn't carry anything but my lunch."
Oh look... one delusional fool trying to support another with a special brand of "logic"
It's unfortunate for these nuts that even "Mr. Oswald" denied carrying any curtain rods or long package. So Oswald himself takes issue with Frazier's claim. According to Oswald he had no curtain rods or long package. Just his lunch. So Frazier's estimate of the size of a long bag is pointless unless you believe Oswald is lying for some unspecified reason about the curtain rods/long bag that Frazier indicates that he was carrying. And it obviously makes no sense at all for Oswald to lie about carrying some curtain rods that morning. In fact, it would have helped his situation to direct the police to that bag.
It's humorous that CTers cling to Frazier's estimate not realizing that it actually implicates Oswald because he takes issue with Frazier's claim. If Oswald is lying about the bag, logic dictates that he does so because he had something to hide. I wonder what? Maybe we should consult Sherlock Holmes. LOL.
And where exactly is the verbatim record of what Oswald really said during interrogation? Oh wait, there is none... Guess we just have to accept the word of those who wrote reports about a week after Oswald was killed.....
What we are left with is that Oswald made an unusual trip to the location where he kept a rifle, that rifle is not found there later in the day, carried a long bag that he told Frazier contained curtain rods, told Frazier he did not have his lunch that day, but then denies to the police he owned a rifle, carried any curtain rods or long bag but had only his lunch. In direct contradiction to what Frazier indicates happened. And a long bag is found at the crime scene with Oswald's prints on them. That bag is measured which confirms that it actually is a bit longer than Frazier's estimate. Thus, no need to speculate on its size or rely on estimates.
Oswald made an unusual trip to [Irving]
Highly inflammatory conclusion! Oswald only made a few trips to Irving. Hardly enough to establish a pattern of sorts. In fact the weekend prior he didn't go at all.
the location where he kept a rifle
Multiple assumptions for which there isn't a shred of evidence.
that rifle is not found there later in the day
What rifle? The one you can't prove was ever there to begin with?
carried a long bag that he told Frazier contained curtain rods, told Frazier he did not have his lunch that day, but then denies to the police he owned a rifle, carried any curtain rods or long bag but had only his lunch. In direct contradiction to what Frazier indicates happened.
So you assume Frazier is being truthfull about all that but not about the size of the package he saw..... LOL
And a long bag is found at the crime scene with Oswald's prints on them.
So, at best Oswald touched a bag, at his place of work, which was made out of TSBD materials. Wow!
That bag is measured which confirms that it actually is a bit longer than Frazier's estimate. Thus, no need to speculate on its size or rely on estimates.
So why are you speculating?
Mr. FRITZ. I told him he had a package and put it in the back seat and it was a package about that long and it was curtain rods. He said he didn't have any kind of a package but his lunch. He said he had his lunch and that is all he had, and Mr. Frazier told me that he got out of the car with that package, he saw him go toward the building with this long package.
I asked him, I said, "Did you go toward the building carrying a long package?"
He said, "No. I didn't carry anything but my lunch."
The guy telling this tale, would that be the same one who tried to coerce Frazier into signing an already written "confession"?
-
It's unfortunate for these nuts that even "Mr. Oswald" denied carrying any curtain rods or long package.
It's unfortunate for Mr Smith that he trusts the word of the very people who (as we found out only last year) suppressed Mr Oswald's all-important claim to have gone "outside to watch the P. parade". I guess that's why he's seeking solace from a fellow Warren Gullible like Mr Lidell! :D
If you're still there, Mr Smith, we're still waiting for you to explain how and when the numbers 275 & 276 came to be attached to those curtain rods. You know the ones I mean--the ones that were submitted for fingerprint testing eight days before Ms Paine's WC testimony in Irving. Thumb1:
-
Means nothing? The nearly identical rifle was too long in length to carry so it means it wasn't a rifle.
A disassembled rifle wouldn't have fit in a paper bag according to Frazier based on shape and size.
He held it up himself and see it didn't fit under his arm.
Frazier held the rifle the same way Osawld carried his package and it did not fit because the rifle was too long.
Your making excuses. An identical rifle was used as a demonstration and Frazier did a reenactment of Oswald that showed the rifle to be too long. That is pretty good indicator of evidence which you do not have.
Means nothing? The nearly identical rifle was too long in length to carry so it means it wasn't a rifle.
Buell Frazier's "representation" of Oswald's long paper bag is seriously flawed. Buell is not considering "possibilities": He is working towards a predetermined outcome. The bag that he constructs is based on his E S T I M A T E. No one can be sure this was the exact length of the long paper bag Oswald carried to the TSBD. Frazier did not measure Oswald's bag with a ruler or tape measure, so his estimate cannot be considered unquestionably accurate. It's a guess. It was a guess in 1964 and it's a guess in the video interview of "20??" with the cunning, biased interviewer--who is also working towards a predetermined outcome.
A disassembled rifle wouldn't have fit in a paper bag according to Frazier based on shape and size.
Frazier's "size and shape" is a guess because Frazier did not measure Oswald's package with a tape measure or ruler. Tell us how accurate was Frazier's "estimate"? What percentage accurate? 100% accurate? 99% accurate? 92% accurate... name your best E S T I M A T E.
He held it up himself and see it didn't fit under his arm.
Buell Frazier held "his" bag in one (1) way Oswald "could have" carried his "22 November 1963" long bag. Frazier did not demonstrate the two (2) other ways Oswald could have carried the long bag "parallel to his body" and "under his armpit"--as viewed from the rear. Frazier is not interested in considering "all possibilities". He is wanting (understandably) to rule out the possibility that he (innocently) transported the murder weapon to the scene of the crime. Frazier has developed a "bias" against the Warren Commission's conclusions because the DPD treated him as an accomplice to the assassination of President Kennedy.
Frazier held the rifle the same way Osawld carried his package and it did not fit because the rifle was too long.
Who is "Osawld"?
Frazier held the package the way "he thought" Oswald carried his long bag. By his own testimony to the Warren Commission: Buell Frazier only saw Lee Oswald's paper bag from Oswald's rear. He never saw the front of Oswald's body and therefore cannot preclude the possibility that the paper bag extended beyond Oswald's torso.
Your making excuses. An identical rifle was used as a demonstration and Frazier did a reenactment of Oswald that showed the rifle to be too long. That is pretty good indicator of evidence which you do not have.
I'm not making excuses: I'm pointing out the flaws in Frazier's theory and the interviewer's theory.
That was NOT a reenactment. Did Frazier walk with the long paper bag and have the interviewer observe him from 50 feet behind? Did Frazier do three (3) reenactments; holding the paper bag in the three (3) possible ways Oswald COULD have... and have the interviewer observe him from 50 feet behind? Some people are easily fooled: Looks like your one of them.
-
Means nothing? The nearly identical rifle was too long in length to carry so it means it wasn't a rifle.
Buell Frazier's "representation" of Oswald's long paper bag is seriously flawed. Buell is not considering "possibilities": He is working towards a predetermined outcome. The bag that he constructs is based on his E S T I M A T E. No one can be sure this was the exact length of the long paper bag Oswald carried to the TSBD. Frazier did not measure Oswald's bag with a ruler or tape measure, so his estimate cannot be considered unquestionably accurate. It's a guess. It was a guess in 1964 and it's a guess in the video interview of "20??" with the cunning, biased interviewer--who is also working towards a predetermined outcome.
Coming from a guy who always works towards a pre-determined outcome, that's hilarious.
The only difference between you and Frazier is that Frazier was actually there and you were not. A description like "in his cupped hand and under his armpit" isn't an estimate. It's a sound observation which limits the size the bag could have been. So, yes, Frazier can be damned sure what the exact length was of the bag Oswald carried.
A disassembled rifle wouldn't have fit in a paper bag according to Frazier based on shape and size.
Frazier's "size and shape" is a guess because Frazier did not measure Oswald's package with a tape measure or ruler. Tell us how accurate was Frazier's "estimate"? What percentage accurate? 100% accurate? 99% accurate? 92% accurate... name your best E S T I M A T E.
Stop playing silly games. Frazier saw the bag, you didn't. If he says the bag wasn't big enough to conceal a broken down rifle, then it wasn't. And your wishful thinking isn't going to change that.
He held it up himself and see it didn't fit under his arm.
Buell Frazier held "his" bag in one (1) way Oswald "could have" carried his "22 November 1963" long bag. Frazier did not demonstrate the two (2) other ways Oswald could have carried the long bag "parallel to his body" and "under his armpit"--as viewed from the rear. Frazier is not interested in considering "all possibilities". He is wanting (understandably) to rule out the possibility that he (innocently) transported the murder weapon to the scene of the crime. Frazier has developed a "bias" against the Warren Commission's conclusions because the DPD treated him as an accomplice to the assassination of President Kennedy.
No. Frazier showed Tom Meros exactly how Oswald carred the bag. Not how he "could have" done it. That's just you again, not wanting to accept the reality that you are seeing with your own eyes. It's pretty pathetic that you now claim that Frazier is not being truthfull because of some bias against the Warren Commission, since he is saying the same thing now as he did on day one, before the Warren Commission even existed. You are just making up stuff to justify not having to believe Frazier. The dishonest one is you!
Frazier held the rifle the same way Osawld carried his package and it did not fit because the rifle was too long.
Who is "Osawld"?
Childish come back
Frazier held the package the way "he thought" Oswald carried his long bag. By his own testimony to the Warren Commission: Buell Frazier only saw Lee Oswald's paper bag from Oswald's rear. He never saw the front of Oswald's body and therefore cannot preclude the possibility that the paper bag extended beyond Oswald's torso.
No. Frazier never said that "he thought" Oswald carried the packet in a certain way. He said he saw how Oswald carried the package and the description hasn't changed from day one until today. Although Frazier did indeed not see the front of Oswald's body as the latter walked away, he did not see the package sticking out over Oswald's shoulder. In the video of Tom Meros it is shown conclusively how high the package would have reached, if there had been a rifle in there, and there is no way that Frazier could have missed seeing a package sticking out of Oswald's shoulder and nearly reaching the top of his head.
Your making excuses. An identical rifle was used as a demonstration and Frazier did a reenactment of Oswald that showed the rifle to be too long. That is pretty good indicator of evidence which you do not have.
I'm not making excuses: I'm pointing out the flaws in Frazier's theory and the interviewer's theory.
That was NOT a reenactment. Did Frazier walk with the long paper bag and have the interviewer observe him from 50 feet behind? Did Frazier do three (3) reenactments; holding the paper bag in the three (3) possible ways Oswald COULD have... and have the interviewer observe him from 50 feet behind? Some people are easily fooled: Looks like your one of them.
BS.. Unlike you, Frazier never had the intention of fooling anybody. There is no "Frazier's theory".... there is only what Frazier saw. You don't like that, but you can not prove him wrong, so you make up a bunch of crap about how Frazier should have behaved. The Tom Meros video is pretty clear and exposes your theory as being completely bogus.
Your flawed assumptions are getting tiresome.
-
#1:
(https://i.imgur.com/VJNS4IW.jpg)
#2:
(https://i.imgur.com/8sCV1jR.jpg)
#3:
(https://i.imgur.com/G2WOTBr.jpg)
#4:
(https://i.imgur.com/3wRRBRI.jpg)
Poor Mr Lidell! :D
-
(https://i.imgur.com/3wRRBRI.jpg)
How wide was the backseat in total?
-
How wide was the backseat in total?
Why does that matter?
-
Why does that matter?
The wider the back seat,the harder it would be to judge the length of the package from memory. I think some of those old back seats were 55 to 60 inches wide. That would mean the end of the package would end up somewhere around the middle of the seat and so it would be easy for Frazier to be off either way of the middle of the seat.
-
The wider the back seat,the harder it would be to judge the length of the package from memory. I think some of those old back seats were 55 to 60 inches wide. That would mean the end of the package would end up somewhere around the middle of the seat and so it would be easy for Frazier to be off either way of the middle of the seat.
Any crappy argument will do to get a broken MC rifle to fit inside a paper bag. Take a step back and take a deep breath. It might help you to see and understand just how silly this argument truly is.
-
Any crappy argument will do to get a broken MC rifle to fit inside a paper bag. Take a step back and take a deep breath. It might help you to see and understand just how silly this argument truly is.
Ain't gonna happen, Mr Weidmann----------these guys' devotion and gullibility are all-consuming! :D
-
Again, Oswald himself denied carrying any long package. So unless you begin with the premise that Oswald lied it doesn't really matter what Frazier said. To cling to Frazier's estimate as being absolutely precise entails needing to explain why Oswald denied carrying any such package. If it didn't contain the rifle because it was too short per Frazier, then why does Oswald lie about it? This where the kooks stick their head in the sand and make claims like there is no recording of the Oswald's interrogation. The old impossible standard of proof trick where any evidence they can't rebut is rejected as the product of lies or fakery - but without any evidence of such. The great circle of lunacy that allows them to make an allegation, not support it with any logical explanation, and then wave away evidence to the contrary as a product of the frame up.
-
Thank you, Mr Craig! Thumb1:
The dates on the crime lab document tell us that these are most probably not the curtain rods that Mr Oswald brought to work that morning--------------but the replacement curtain rods that were quietly deposited in the Paine garage by Agent Howlett (or one of his men) and 'found' during Ms Paine's in situ WC testimony of 23 March.
The rods Mr Oswald brought to work were disappeared after Agent Howlett picked them up from Lt. Day at 7.50 am on 24 March.
Oswald denied bringing curtain rods to work.
-
Again, Oswald himself denied carrying any long package.
Nope! According to the very people who suppressed Mr Oswald's claim that he "went outside to watch the P. parade", Mr Oswald himself denied carrying any long package.
(How are you getting on with those numbers 275 & 276 btw?)
Thumb1:
-
Oswald denied bringing curtain rods to work.
Nope! According to the very people who suppressed Mr Oswald's claim that he "went outside to watch the P. parade", Mr Oswald denied bringing curtain rods to work.
Thumb1:
-
Seems to me Oswald carried the package in such a way so as to reduce its profile:
> By his side as he walked out in the open to Randle's house
> Out in front—feasibly*—as he walked ahead of Buell towards the TSBD
*Buell said he only saw about a 9" sliver of the bag as Oswald walked ahead
-
"went outside to watch the P. parade"
How did this info come into the public domain? Shouldn't Hosty have published this in his book back in 1995?
-
Again, Oswald himself denied carrying any long package. So unless you begin with the premise that Oswald lied it doesn't really matter what Frazier said. To cling to Frazier's estimate as being absolutely precise entails needing to explain why Oswald denied carrying any such package. If it didn't contain the rifle because it was too short per Frazier, then why does Oswald lie about it? This where the kooks stick their head in the sand and make claims like there is no recording of the Oswald's interrogation. The old impossible standard of proof trick where any evidence they can't rebut is rejected as the product of lies or fakery - but without any evidence of such. The great circle of lunacy that allows them to make an allegation, not support it with any logical explanation, and then wave away evidence to the contrary as a product of the frame up.
So desperate to fit a broken down rifle into a bag that's too small, when they can't even get beyond assuming that there was a rifle in Ruth Paine's garage on 11/21/63 and/or that it was the same rifle that was found at the TSBD.
And then he calls people who question his assumptions "kooks".... Too funny.
This where the kooks stick their head in the sand and make claims like there is no recording of the Oswald's interrogation. The old impossible standard of proof trick where any evidence they can't rebut is rejected as the product of lies or fakery - but without any evidence of such.
As usual, you've got it backwards. When you claim Oswald said something during interrogation, you should be able to back it up. That's not an impossible standard of proof. Insisting that we should believe anything an interrogator tells us, is wanting to do away with any standard of proof. There is no evidence to rebut or reject. All there is are some reports written a week after the fact which contain conflicting information on some points. On proper cross-examination by an able defense lawyer those interrogators would be destroyed in an instance.
-
Again, Oswald himself denied carrying any long package.
Again, this is "Richard Smith" disinformation. What Fritz said was that Oswald "denied that he had brought the long package described by Mr. Frazier and his sister". Not "any long package". We don't know how Fritz characterized the "package described by Mr. Frazier and his sister".
The kooks are the ones who will jump through all sorts of hoops in order to get a rifle into a package that there is no evidence ever contained a rifle.
-
*Buell said he only saw about a 9" sliver of the bag as Oswald walked ahead
When did he say that?
-
When did he say that?
A long, long time ago
-
"went outside to watch the P. parade"
How did this info come into the public domain? Shouldn't Hosty have published this in his book back in 1995?
Yes, he certainly should have! Like the other parties to Mr Oswald's interrogation, he flat out lied to the public----------his unpublished handwritten interrogation notes prove it!
They came into the public domain thanks to the diligence of Mr Bart Kamp, who found them in Mr Malcolm Blunt's files:
(https://i.imgur.com/aUJNRuU.jpg)
The revelation came as a stunning point-for-point vindication of Mr Sean Murphy's 2013 conclusions as to what Mr Oswald had really told Captain Fritz. Thumb1:
-
Friends, you are cordially invited to look very closely at these two versions of the crime lab document on the two curtain rods tested by Lt. Day-------------
(https://i.imgur.com/uC1WYCb.gif)
-------------and ask yourself the question:
What do they tell us about the role played by the numbers 275 and 276 in this affair?
Thumb1:
-
Again, Oswald himself denied carrying any long package. So unless you begin with the premise that Oswald lied it doesn't really matter what Frazier said. To cling to Frazier's estimate as being absolutely precise entails needing to explain why Oswald denied carrying any such package.
What a silly/senseless statement. It demonstrates a total lack of logical evaluation... An intense belief in something that actually didn't really happen.
It is thought that Fritz was faithfully jotting down notes right there immediately at the time of Oswald's interrogation. That is not what he testified to...or is it believable anyway---
Mr. BALL. So Bookhout and Hosty came into your office?
Mr. FRITZ. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. Was anyone else present?
Mr. FRITZ. I don't remember whether there was anyone else right at that time or not.
Mr. BALL. Do you remember what you said to Oswald and what he said to you?
Mr. FRITZ. I can remember the thing that I said to him and what he said to me, but I will have trouble telling you which period of questioning those questions were in because I kept no notes at the time, and these notes and things that I have made I would have to make several days later, and the questions may be in the wrong place.
Fritz couldn't recall the presence of any more than two guys? Laughable :D
-
Coming from a guy who always works towards a pre-determined outcome, that's hilarious.
The only difference between you and Frazier is that Frazier was actually there and you were not. A description like "in his cupped hand and under his armpit" isn't an estimate. It's a sound observation which limits the size the bag could have been. So, yes, Frazier can be damned sure what the exact length was of the bag Oswald carried.
Stop playing silly games. Frazier saw the bag, you didn't. If he says the bag wasn't big enough to conceal a broken down rifle, then it wasn't. And your wishful thinking isn't going to change that.
No. Frazier showed Tom Meros exactly how Oswald carred the bag. Not how he "could have" done it. That's just you again, not wanting to accept the reality that you are seeing with your own eyes. It's pretty pathetic that you now claim that Frazier is not being truthfull because of some bias against the Warren Commission, since he is saying the same thing now as he did on day one, before the Warren Commission even existed. You are just making up stuff to justify not having to believe Frazier. The dishonest one is you!
Childish come back
No. Frazier never said that "he thought" Oswald carried the packet in a certain way. He said he saw how Oswald carried the package and the description hasn't changed from day one until today. Although Frazier did indeed not see the front of Oswald's body as the latter walked away, he did not see the package sticking out over Oswald's shoulder. In the video of Tom Meros it is shown conclusively how high the package would have reached, if there had been a rifle in there, and there is no way that Frazier could have missed seeing a package sticking out of Oswald's shoulder and nearly reaching the top of his head.
BS.. Unlike you, Frazier never had the intention of fooling anybody. There is no "Frazier's theory".... there is only what Frazier saw. You don't like that, but you can not prove him wrong, so you make up a bunch of crap about how Frazier should have behaved. The Tom Meros video is pretty clear and exposes your theory as being completely bogus.
Your flawed assumptions are getting tiresome.
Coming from a guy who always works towards a pre-determined outcome, that's hilarious.
You're trying to be clever so you "declare" I'm doing something that I'm not. What I've done is to consider the various ways that Lee Oswald could have carried his long package: The ways that are consistent with Buell Frazier's description of how he saw Oswald carry the long package. It's not a predetermined outcome. My analysis of Buell Frazier's description of how Oswald carried the long package is that his observation is not complete enough to reach a certain conclusion. The witness's testimony is inconclusive. However, the paper sack in the TSBD with Oswald's right palm-print and left index fingerprint on it is probative: particularly when the position of the prints corresponds to how Frazier said Oswald carried the long paper bag.
No. Frazier never said that "he thought" Oswald carried the packet in a certain way. He said he saw how Oswald carried the package and the description hasn't changed from day one until today. Although Frazier did indeed not see the front of Oswald's body as the latter walked away, he did not see the package sticking out over Oswald's shoulder. In the video of Tom Meros it is shown conclusively how high the package would have reached, if there had been a rifle in there, and there is no way that Frazier could have missed seeing a package sticking out of Oswald's shoulder and nearly reaching the top of his head.
Did you spot the fault in this Meros guy's "it-could-only-be-one-way" theory. He got something fundamental--wrong. Not surprising for someone who refuses to look at "all" the possibilities as to how Oswald carried the long paper-sack.
Frazier may not have said "he thought" but an estimate of length is "a thought" and an incomplete observation of Oswald's body from "all sides" as he carried the package is "a thought" not a proof.
Your flawed assumptions are getting tiresome.
Then don't bother to reply to my posts.
You're frustrated because you've come up against someone who wont capitulate to your contrarianism.
The only difference between you and Frazier is that Frazier was actually there and you were not. A description like "in his cupped hand and under his armpit" isn't an estimate. It's a sound observation which limits the size the bag could have been. So, yes, Frazier can be damned sure what the exact length was of the bag Oswald carried.
There are many differences between Buell Frazier and me. You must be more precise in your writing before you POST.
You're unable or unwilling to consider the multiple ways the package could have been carried "consistent" with Buell Frazier's observation.
You ignore the F A C T that Buell Frazier did not measure the length of Oswald's long paper bag with a ruler or tape-measure. This is not in dispute by any rational person.
Did Buell Frazier ever measure the length between Lee Oswald's "cupped hand" and "inside his armpit"? No he did not: So Frazier cannot be sure of the "exact" length of Oswald's long paper bag.
You must be more precise in thoughts and conclusions. It will save both of us wasted time.
-
So Oswald cannot be sure of the "exact" length of Oswald's long paper bag.
You must be more precise in thoughts and conclusions. It will save both of us wasted time.
Outstanding! :D
-
You're frustrated because you've come up against someone who wont capitulate to your contrarianism.
So Oswald cannot be sure of the "exact" length of Oswald's long paper bag. You must be more precise in thoughts and conclusions. It will save both of us wasted time...don't bother to reply to my posts.
From someone who really flatters himself so much....That is definitely rich :-\
Carry on.
-
Coming from a guy who always works towards a pre-determined outcome, that's hilarious.
You're trying to be clever so you "declare" I'm doing something that I'm not. What I've done is to consider the various ways that Lee Oswald could have carried his long package: The ways that are consistent with Buell Frazier's description of how he saw Oswald carry the long package. It's not a predetermined outcome. My analysis of Buell Frazier's description of how Oswald carried the long package is that his observation is not complete enough to reach a certain conclusion. The witness's testimony is inconclusive. However, the paper sack in the TSBD with Oswald's right palm-print and left index fingerprint on it is probative: particularly when the position of the prints corresponds to how Frazier said Oswald carried the long paper bag.
You're trying to be clever so you "declare" I'm doing something that I'm not. What I've done is to consider the various ways that Lee Oswald could have carried his long package: The ways that are consistent with Buell Frazier's description of how he saw Oswald carry the long package. It's not a predetermined outcome. My analysis of Buell Frazier's description of how Oswald carried the long package is that his observation is not complete enough to reach a certain conclusion. The witness's testimony is inconclusive.
Of course it is a pre-determined outcome as you are working towards the conclusion that what Frazier said wasn't conclusive when in actual fact it was. He told us how Oswald carried the package and that he did not see any package sticking out over Oswald's shoulder.
However, the paper sack in the TSBD with Oswald's right palm-print and left index fingerprint on it is probative: particularly when the position of the prints corresponds to how Frazier said Oswald carried the long paper bag.
It is at best only probative for the fact that Oswald touched that bag at some point. A bag, made from TSBD materials, found at the TSBD with more prints on them, which they couldn't identify (thus leaving open the possibility that others touched the bag also), for which there is not a shred of evidence it ever left the TSBD. And, a bag, I should add, which was shown to Frazier on Friday evening and he denied was the bag he had seen Oswald carry. Before you start using terms as probative, you might want to do some more research.....
No. Frazier never said that "he thought" Oswald carried the packet in a certain way. He said he saw how Oswald carried the package and the description hasn't changed from day one until today. Although Frazier did indeed not see the front of Oswald's body as the latter walked away, he did not see the package sticking out over Oswald's shoulder. In the video of Tom Meros it is shown conclusively how high the package would have reached, if there had been a rifle in there, and there is no way that Frazier could have missed seeing a package sticking out of Oswald's shoulder and nearly reaching the top of his head.
Did you spot the fault in this Meros guy's "it-could-only-be-one-way" theory. He got something fundamental--wrong. Not surprising for someone who refuses to look at "all" the possibilities as to how Oswald carried the long paper-sack.
There was no fault in Meros' video because he let Frazier tell his story. Period. You are in no position to determine if Meros got anything wrong and there is no need to look at all the possibilities how Oswald could have carried the paper bag when in fact you've got the only man in the world who actually saw Oswald carry the bag telling you what he saw.
The entire "look at other possibilities" is designed for one reason only; to find a way to say that Frazier got it wrong. That's it and don't pretend otherwise because you would only be making a fool of yourself and you've already done that enough times.
Frazier may not have said "he thought" but an estimate of length is "a thought" and an incomplete observation of Oswald's body from "all sides" as he carried the package is "a thought" not a proof.
When Frazier never used the word "thought" (and he didn't) you are putting words in his mouth. And you can stop going on about this "estimate" crap because Frazier clearly told us the package fitted between Oswald's cupped hand and his armpit. In other words, it was not longer than his arm. That's not an estimate, it's a sound observation. You just don't like it because it doesn't fit with your biased agenda.
Your flawed assumptions are getting tiresome.
Then don't bother to reply to my posts.
You're frustrated because you've come up against someone who wont capitulate to your contrarianism.
As long as you keep spreading falsehoods and misrepresentations, I will call you out on them. And btw, there is no need for me to get frustrated. You are way to insignificant to me for that. And you don't have to capitulate (whatever the hell that means) to me either. Just convince me that you are right by presenting factual, sound and conclusive arguments instead of stubbornly repeating the same hollow unsupported claims over and over again.
The only difference between you and Frazier is that Frazier was actually there and you were not. A description like "in his cupped hand and under his armpit" isn't an estimate. It's a sound observation which limits the size the bag could have been. So, yes, Frazier can be damned sure what the exact length was of the bag Oswald carried.
There are many differences between Buell Frazier and me. You must be more precise in your writing before you POST.
You're unable or unwilling to consider the multiple ways the package could have been carried "consistent" with Buell Frazier's observation.
You ignore the F A C T that Buell Frazier did not measure the length of Oswald's long paper bag with a ruler or tape-measure. This is not in dispute by any rational person.
Did Buell Frazier ever measure the length between Lee Oswald's "cupped hand" and "inside his armpit"? No he did not: So Oswald cannot be sure of the "exact" length of Oswald's long paper bag.
You must be more precise in thoughts and conclusions. It will save both of us wasted time.
And there he goes again, condescending as always and full of sh*t. What I do not ignore is that the only witness who actually saw the package being carried by Oswald has been telling us all his life how Oswald carried it. There is only one way the package could have been carried consistent with Frazier's observation and that is how it was carried. Period.
Unlike you I don't need to invent reasons to doubt his testimony and repeating your lame arguments to discredit Frazier doesn't make them come true.
But let me ask you this question; When you have first hand testimony from the only person who actually saw how Oswald carried package, and he tells you exactly how the package was carried, what possible reason would there be to look for other ways he could have carried the package?
-
Thank you, Mr Craig! Thumb1:
The dates on the crime lab document tell us that these are most probably not the curtain rods that Mr Oswald brought to work that morning--------------but the replacement curtain rods that were quietly deposited in the Paine garage by Agent Howlett (or one of his men) and 'found' during Ms Paine's in situ WC testimony of 23 March.
The rods Mr Oswald brought to work were disappeared after Agent Howlett picked them up from Lt. Day at 7.50 am on 24 March.
Friends, note the date on this document---------------the day after two curtain rods were submitted by Agent Howlett to Lt. Day to be tested for Mr Oswald's fingerprints!
(https://i.imgur.com/p0vsDuR.jpg)
The WC ask the FBI's help in examining the Beckley room but not in examining the primary site of interest-------------the Paine garage? What shenanigans!
-
The witness's testimony is inconclusive. However, the paper sack in the TSBD with Oswald's right palm-print and left index fingerprint on it is probative:
Probative of what, exactly?
particularly when the position of the prints corresponds to how Frazier said Oswald carried the long paper bag.
Except they don't. Pat Speer dispensed with that notion quite nicely.
http://www.patspeer.com/chapter-4c (http://www.patspeer.com/chapter-4c)
"The palmprint (A) was near the middle of the bag. The fingerprint (B) was near the bottom of the bag. The Warren Commission lied. There was nothing about these prints to indicate something heavy had been carried in the bag. It was actually just the opposite."
Frazier may not have said "he thought" but an estimate of length is "a thought" and an incomplete observation of Oswald's body from "all sides" as he carried the package is "a thought" not a proof.
And your notion of how he "could have" carried a longer bag is worth even less.
You ignore the F A C T that Buell Frazier did not measure the length of Oswald's long paper bag with a ruler or tape-measure. This is not in dispute by any rational person.
You're ignoring the F A C T that Frazier also saw how much of the back seat was taken up by the package.
-
Except they don't. Pat Speer dispensed with that notion quite nicely.
http://www.patspeer.com/chapter-4c (http://www.patspeer.com/chapter-4c)
So the palm print was not around the end of the bag (which would corroborate Fraziers account of the way Oswald carried the bag)?
I always thought it was, of course i was listening mostly to people who dont know what they're talking about so i guess i get what i deserve.
-
Friends, note the date on this document---------------the day after two curtain rods were submitted by Agent Howlett to Lt. Day to be tested for Mr Oswald's fingerprints!
(https://i.imgur.com/p0vsDuR.jpg)
The WC ask the FBI's help in examining the Beckley room but not in examining the primary site of interest-------------the Paine garage? What shenanigans!
The FBI is checking on whether Oswald's room already had curtain rods to determine if there could be a reason to take such rods to that location. Per what Oswald told Frazier. Guess what? He already had curtain rods there. So he didn't need any. Now make like Sherlock Holmes and try to think about the implication of that for any claim that he had curtain rods that morning. The ones Oswald himself denied he was carrying. Oswald takes an entirely unexpected trip to Irving on Thursday to get curtain rods he doesn't need. Why not wait until the weekend per his usual schedule? What was the urgency to obtain curtain rods on Thursday/Friday? LOL
-
The FBI is checking on whether Oswald's room already had curtain rods to determine if there could be a reason to take such rods to that location. Per what Oswald told Frazier. Guess what? He already had curtain rods there. So he didn't need any. Now make like Sherlock Holmes and try to think about the implication of that for any claim that he had curtain rods that morning. The ones Oswald himself denied he was carrying. Oswald takes an entirely unexpected trip to Irving on Thursday to get curtain rods he doesn't need. Why not wait until the weekend per his usual schedule? What was the urgency to obtain curtain rods on Thursday/Friday? LOL
Oswald takes an entirely unexpected trip to Irving on Thursday to get curtain rods he doesn't need. Why not wait until the weekend per his usual schedule?
Because there was no such thing as a usual schedule! If there had been one, he would have been in Irving the previous weekend also, but he wasn't. And yes, I know, Marina did not want him to come then, which may well explain that he wanted to go on Thursday to (1) see his kids and (2) pre-empt Marina telling him again he shouldn't come.
The curtain rods story may well be just that; a story to explain his trip, because he did not want to share his marital problems with a 19 year old kid. Would you tell a co-worker that you are going to see your wife to ask her to come back and live with you again? I seriously doubt it!
-
Like "Richard" actually knows what Oswald did or did not "need".
-
The FBI is checking on whether Oswald's room already had curtain rods to determine if there could be a reason to take such rods to that location.
Nope! The WC are suddenly interested in curtain rods and, just one day after two curtain rods are given to the DPD for testing for Mr Oswald's fingerprints, are asking the FBI to help them with something.
Mr Rankin, in asking the FBI to "check out this story fully", bizarrely fails to mention the two curtain rods being fingerprinted; bizarrely fails to ask the FBI to determine whether any curtain rods were missing from the Paine home... Why not? Because all he wants from the FBI is help in closing the story down.
If you weren't incapable of independent critical thinking, Mr Smith, you would have seen this yourself without needing it explained to you!
How is your '275' and '276' explanation coming along by the way? Do let me know if you need assistance! Thumb1:
-
It's unfortunate for these nuts that even "Mr. Oswald" denied carrying any curtain rods or long package. So Oswald himself takes issue with Frazier's claim.
>>>"It's unfortunate for these nuts"<<<
Several rice patty hats could be woven with this abundance of straw. Can Mr Smith eat that many? According to Oswald he had no curtain rods or long package. Just his lunch. So Frazier's estimate of the size of a long bag is pointless unless you believe Oswald is lying for some unspecified reason about the curtain rods/long bag that Frazier indicates that he was carrying. And it obviously makes no sense at all for Oswald to lie about carrying some curtain rods that morning. In fact, it would have helped his situation to direct the police to that bag.
And a long bag is found at the crime scene with Oswald's prints on them. That bag is measured which confirms that it actually is a bit longer than Frazier's estimate.
What sack full of crap :D
Does anyone see some prints on this paper bag? Not enough room in it for the crap in the post I just quoted.
(http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/jfkinfo3/exhibits/ce142.jpg)
Well Lt Day didn't either----
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."
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.
On the afternoon of November 24, hours after Oswald was killed in the basement of the Dallas Police Department, the rifle was returned to Dallas. Two days later, the rifle was again returned to Washington. No plausible reason was given why the weapon should be taken back to Dallas. Is there a reason? The corpse of Lee Oswald was taken to Miller Funeral Home after he was declared dead on November 24 and before he was buried on November 25. The Director of the Funeral Home, Paul Groody, stated that the FBI came to fingerprint Oswald’s corpse while it was in his Funeral Home. He even had to remove the ‘dirt’ from Oswald’s fingers afterwards. FBI agent Richard Harrison said he had personally driven an FBI agent AND the rifle to the Funeral Home.Harrison said he ‘understood that the agent intended to place Oswald’s palm print on the rifle FOR COMPARISON PURPOSES. Why this was done is *unclear: Oswald was fingerprinted while in police-custody and these prints were in perfect order, thus eliminating the need to take new fingerprints. After these new prints were taken, the rifle was returned to Washington and Lt. Day suddenly released his data of having found a palm print on the rifle as early as November 22. Three days later, the palm print arrived at the FBI in Washington and Latona identified this palm print as the right palm print of Lee Harvey Oswald. However, he was unable to determine the time elapsed since the placing of the print and the date of the lift. Perhaps this was just as well since there is a reasonable chance the print was placed only when the FBI fingerprinted Oswald’s corpse, not when the rifle was allegedly fired in Dealey Plaza.
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.452.2775&rep=rep1&type=pdf
*I think it seems quite clear.
Still after all the sneaky tactics to assure there were prints to be found....there were yet none reported where the paper bag was supposedly gripped.
The FBI wound up screwing the pooch after all :D
-
Outstanding! :D
So Oswald cannot be sure of the "exact" length of Oswald's long paper bag.
I must stop multitasking: It's distracting.
The statement is still true... in a way.
On the old forum, I had a Subject about Oswald's reason for making the long-ish paper bag too short to conceal the Carcano rifle "ready to shoot". It suggested (speculated?) that Oswald mistakenly thought he had a 36" rifle as per the Kleins Sporting Goods advertisement in the February 1962 issue of "The American Rifleman". He was shipped a similar, rifle that was 40.2" long. This is a possible explanation for Oswald making a bag that required the Carcano to be disassembled to fully conceal it in the bag. Oswald did not measure his Carcano rifle as far as we know. Oswald probably "estimated" the length of the piece of paper used to make the bag. In folding the paper to make a secure "bottom" of the bag he most likely did not make precise measurements. It's doubtful that Oswald knew the "exact" length of his long-ish paper bag. So my statement--although unintended--is possibly true.
Incidentally, Frazier cannot be sure of the exact length of Oswald's long paper bag.
-
Outstanding! :D
YES, I must!!!!!!!!!!
-
Oswald actually smuggling in the disassembled murder weapon in a bag aside, why would he include the wonky scope and how did he keep his prints off the rifle after reassembling it, taking 3 shots then ditching it before fleeing the scene? It takes precious time to wipe off all your prints and by rights there should have been a crapload of them all over the rifle. You must manhandle a rifle to reassemble it from parts. Also, Oswald could have saved some room/weight in the bag if he had removed the useless scope.
You need to ans those questions before debating what was in the bag. The conspirators didn't think this one thru. Oswald was obviously instructed to bring something in a long paper bag (long enough for a disassembled rifle) and be witnessed doing it. That's called sheep-dipping the patsy. Meanwhile, the MC was probably already on the 6th floor or in the possession of Roy Truly, who was probably up to his eyeballs in all this as much as Paine and De Mohrenschildt were as his handlers. Truly must have provided private access to the 6th floor for the conspirators to set up shop and kept the employees out of the picture. Someone should dig into Roy Truly's background.
-
So Oswald cannot be sure of the "exact" length of Oswald's long paper bag.
I must stop multitasking: It's distracting.
Indeed so-------chiding another for their lack of precision can be very distracting alright! Thumb1:
The statement is still true... in a way.
On the old forum, I had a Subject about Oswald's reason for making the long-ish paper bag too short to conceal the Carcano rifle "ready to shoot".
His reason was that he only needed a bag long enough to hold two white enamel curtain rods!
And the reason why a long (5-6ft) box was used to deliver the rifle to the Depository building from a Pawn Shop truck the morning of the assassination was to avoid using a box that looked just right for carrying a rifle.
Not complicated! Thumb1:
-
Oswald takes an entirely unexpected trip to Irving on Thursday to get curtain rods he doesn't need. Why not wait until the weekend per his usual schedule?
Because there was no such thing as a usual schedule! If there had been one, he would have been in Irving the previous weekend also, but he wasn't. And yes, I know, Marina did not want him to come then, which may well explain that he wanted to go on Thursday to (1) see his kids and (2) pre-empt Marina telling him again he shouldn't come.
Wrong. Oswald only went on weekends. He rode with Frazier on Friday and then back to work on Monday. He had never gone on a Thursday. It was so unusual Frazier even asked him about it. Of course you already know this and are intentionally trying to mislead by suggesting that because he hadn't gone on one weekend that there was no usual schedule. That is the typical dishonest tack. Oswald's pattern when he went to Irving - which never varied until Nov. 21 - was to go on Friday and return to work on Monday. He had never previously gone on a Thursday and returned on a Friday. That was a singular event. Thus, his usual schedule was to go on a Friday and return Monday. Not even the most outlandish kook would take issue with that characterization.
Mr. BALL - Your memory is that he went,, he rode home with you every Friday and came back the following Monday?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes.
Mr. BALL - Except this one weekend?
Mr. FRAZIER - Right, that is what I say. If he went home with me on Friday afternoon he always rode back with me on Monday morning. It wasn't no added job when he would come with me on the weekend. He would ride home with me on Friday and he would come back with me on Monday.
Mr. BALL - I see.
Now, there was the one date that Oswald came to you and asked you to drive him back to Irving, it was not a Friday, was it?
Mr. FRAZIER - No, sir; it wasn't.
Mr. BALL - It was on a Thursday.
Mr. FRAZIER - Right.
Mr. BALL - Was that the 21st of November?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL - Well, tell us about that.
Mr. FRAZIER - Well, I say, we were standing like I said at the four-headed table about half as large as this, not, quite half as large, but anyway I was standing there getting the orders in and he said, "Could I ride home with you this afternoon?"
And I said, "Sure. You know, like I told you, you can go home with me any time you want to, like I say anytime you want to go see your wife that is all right with me."
So automatically I knew it wasn't Friday, I come to think it wasn't Friday and I said, "Why are you going home today?"
And he says, "I am going home to get some curtain rods." He said, "You know, put in an apartment."
He wanted to hang up some curtains and I said, "Very well." And I never thought more about it and I had some invoices in my hands for some orders and I walked on off and started filling the orders.
-
Wrong. Oswald only went on weekends. He rode with Frazier on Friday and then back to work on Monday. He had never gone on a Thursday. It was so unusual Frazier even asked him about it. Of course you already know this and are intentionally trying to mislead by suggesting that because he hadn't gone on one weekend that there was no usual schedule. That is the typical dishonest tack. Oswald's pattern when he went to Irving - which never varied until Nov. 21 - was to go on Friday and return to work on Monday. He had never previously gone on a Thursday and returned on a Friday. That was a singular event. Thus, his usual schedule was to go on a Friday and return Monday. Not even the most outlandish kook would take issue with that characterization.
Of course you already know this and are intentionally trying to mislead by suggesting that because he hadn't gone on one weekend that there was no usual schedule.
No. Calling a couple of trips in the weekend "usual" is what is utterly dishonest.
Oswald started working at the TSBD on October 16th and drove with Frazier to Irving 4 times before he did not go, on 11/16/63. That's hardly enough to establish a pattern of any kind. Yes, Oswald never drove with Frazier to Irving before on a Thursday. That's true, but qualifying his previous trips as "usual" is just inflammatory to make that one trip look "suspicious", when Marina and Ruth Paine both testified that it was their impression that Oswald had come that day to reconcile with Marina, which can hardly be deemed to be a suspicious activity.
Oswald's pattern when he went to Irving - which never varied until Nov. 21 - was to go on Friday and return to work on Monday.
Except of course for the weekend of 15 - 17 November when he did vary by not going.
-
On the old forum, I had a Subject about Oswald's reason for making the long-ish paper bag too short to conceal the Carcano rifle "ready to shoot". It suggested (speculated?) that Oswald mistakenly thought he had a 36" rifle as per the Kleins Sporting Goods advertisement in the February 1962 issue of "The American Rifleman". He was shipped a similar, rifle that was 40.2" long. This is a possible explanation for Oswald making a bag that required the Carcano to be disassembled to fully conceal it in the bag. Oswald did not measure his Carcano rifle as far as we know. Oswald probably "estimated" the length of the piece of paper used to make the bag. In folding the paper to make a secure "bottom" of the bag he most likely did not make precise measurements. It's doubtful that Oswald knew the "exact" length of his long-ish paper bag. So my statement--although unintended--is possibly true.
In my mind this is nothing but a contrived excuse to make a bag that has no evidence of a rifle ever being in it a bag that was used to carry in the rifle allegedly found on the 6th floor.
-
Oswald actually smuggling in the disassembled murder weapon in a bag aside, why would he include the wonky scope and how did he keep his prints off the rifle after reassembling it, taking 3 shots then ditching it before fleeing the scene? It takes precious time to wipe off all your prints and by rights there should have been a crapload of them all over the rifle. You must manhandle a rifle to reassemble it from parts. Also, Oswald could have saved some room/weight in the bag if he had removed the useless scope.
You need to ans those questions before debating what was in the bag. The conspirators didn't think this one thru. Oswald was obviously instructed to bring something in a long paper bag (long enough for a disassembled rifle) and be witnessed doing it. That's called sheep-dipping the patsy. Meanwhile, the MC was probably already on the 6th floor or in the possession of Roy Truly, who was probably up to his eyeballs in all this as much as Paine and De Mohrenschildt were as his handlers. Truly must have provided private access to the 6th floor for the conspirators to set up shop and kept the employees out of the picture. Someone should dig into Roy Truly's background.
The conspirators didn't think this one thru.
No, the conspirators never anticipated that Lee would walk out of the TSBD.....Nor had they anticipated that Marrion Baker would rush into the building and see Lee Oswald in the lunchroom just seconds after the shooting.
Had things gone down as planned, Lee Oswald would have been dead on the sixth floor, and the spent shells and rifle would have been mute evidence that he had shot JFK. Case closed.....
-
Like "Richard" actually knows what Oswald did or did not "need".
Oswald needed to be a somebody..
-
Wrong. Oswald only went on weekends. He rode with Frazier on Friday and then back to work on Monday.
According to Ruth Paine, he came out on Saturday, November 2 instead of Friday. And on the weekend of November 8 he stayed Monday as well because it was Veteran's day. So this "usual schedule" that "Richard" describes of coming out on Friday evening and returning Monday morning consists of exactly 2 weekends.
-
In my mind this is nothing but a contrived excuse to make a bag that has no evidence of a rifle ever being in it a bag that was used to carry in the rifle allegedly found on the 6th floor.
In your mind
BFD
-
In your mind
BFD
Ross thinks it's "possible" that Oswald didn't know how long a rifle was that can't even be proven to have ever been in his possession.
BFD
-
According to Ruth Paine, he came out on Saturday, November 2 instead of Friday. And on the weekend of November 8 he stayed Monday as well because it was Veteran's day. So this "usual schedule" that "Richard" describes of coming out on Friday evening and returning Monday morning consists of exactly 2 weekends.
According to Ruth Paine he always called first.
Seems Paine was caught by surprise this time.
Now there's a 'show-up' for you.
-
According to Ruth Paine he always called first.
Seems Paine was caught by surprise this time.
Now there's a 'show-up' for you.
BFD
-
Ross thinks it's "possible" that Oswald didn't know how long a rifle was that can't even be proven to have ever been in his possession.
So what
-
BFD
Yeah, it is
-
So what
Exactly.
-
Exactly.
Yep, my 'so what' as related to you, not Ross
-
In my mind this is nothing but a contrived excuse to make a bag that has no evidence of a rifle ever being in it a bag that was used to carry in the rifle allegedly found on the 6th floor.
Iacoletti,
Does a paper bag that's been used to sneak a disassembled carbine into a building have to bear evidence that it was used for that purpose?
-- MWT ;)
-
Iacoletti,
Does a paper bag that's been used to sneak a disassembled carbine into a building have to bear evidence that it was used for that purpose?
-- MWT ;)
In his mind
-
Assumptions are good enough for Chapman. It's not like he knows anything about the evidence anyway.
-
Assumptions are good enough for Chapman. It's not like he knows anything about the evidence anyway.
Iacoletti,
Why-oh-why was one of them wearing a medium-blue headscarf instead of a lavender one?
-- MWT ;)
-
In my mind this is nothing but a contrived excuse to make a bag that has no evidence of a rifle ever being in it a bag that was used to carry in the rifle allegedly found on the 6th floor.
You say "In my mind this is nothing but a contrived excuse...".
In your mind: That's not evidence.
-
Oswald actually smuggling in the disassembled murder weapon in a bag aside, why would he include the wonky scope and how did he keep his prints off the rifle after reassembling it, taking 3 shots then ditching it before fleeing the scene? It takes precious time to wipe off all your prints and by rights there should have been a crapload of them all over the rifle. You must manhandle a rifle to reassemble it from parts. Also, Oswald could have saved some room/weight in the bag if he had removed the useless scope.
You need to ans those questions before debating what was in the bag. The conspirators didn't think this one thru. Oswald was obviously instructed to bring something in a long paper bag (long enough for a disassembled rifle) and be witnessed doing it. That's called sheep-dipping the patsy. Meanwhile, the MC was probably already on the 6th floor or in the possession of Roy Truly, who was probably up to his eyeballs in all this as much as Paine and De Mohrenschildt were as his handlers. Truly must have provided private access to the 6th floor for the conspirators to set up shop and kept the employees out of the picture. Someone should dig into Roy Truly's background.
Oswald actually smuggling in the disassembled murder weapon in a bag aside, why would he include the wonky scope and how did he keep his prints off the rifle after reassembling it, taking 3 shots then ditching it before fleeing the scene? It takes precious time to wipe off all your prints and by rights there should have been a crapload of them all over the rifle. You must manhandle a rifle to reassemble it from parts. Also, Oswald could have saved some room/weight in the bag if he had removed the useless scope.
None of those things "had to be done by Lee Oswald". Like all human beings, Oswald had "free will".
You need to ans those questions before debating what was in the bag.
No you don't.
The conspirators didn't think this one thru.
How do you know that?
Oswald was obviously instructed to bring something in a long paper bag (long enough for a disassembled rifle) and be witnessed doing it.
Why "obviously"?
That's called sheep-dipping the patsy. Meanwhile, the MC was probably already on the 6th floor or in the possession of Roy Truly, who was probably up to his eyeballs in all this as much as Paine and De Mohrenschildt were as his handlers.
Probably 1 and probably 2. It's all "probably".
Truly must have provided private access to the 6th floor for the conspirators to set up shop and kept the employees out of the picture. Someone should dig into Roy Truly's background.
Why Truly "must have"? What would compel Roy Truly to be part of a conspiracy to assassinate President Kennedy?
-
Assumptions are good enough for Chapman. It's not like he knows anything about the evidence anyway.
Chapman knows that a nobody shot a somebody in Dealey Plaza that day and has legions of worshippers crying about him to this very day. To the point of even taking a knee at his gravesite.
Well, in one instance anyway.
-
Chapman knows that a nobody shot a somebody in Dealey Plaza that day and has legions of worshippers crying about him to this very day. To the point of even taking a knee at his gravesite.
Well, in one instance anyway.
One wonders if those worshipers and apologists had a predisposition to hate and distrust American institutions before, or after, they read "Rush to Judgement" and saw "JFK," and whether or not they have ever read any "LNer" books or articles.
There are three or four of them somewhere, but no mutual-mastbatory "cottage industry" that I know of.
LOL
-- MWT ;)
-
One wonders if those worshipers and apologists had a predisposition to hate and distrust American institutions before, or after, they read "Rush to Judgement" and saw "JFK," and whether or not they have ever read any "LNer" books or articles.
There are three or four of them somewhere, but no mutual-mastbatory "cottage industry" that I know of.
LOL
-- MWT ;)
Everyone just say, "OK, OK, Mr Graves, LHO obviously shot JFK on behalf of the Ruskies. And: your wit is just to die for". Then he'll go away again for another while! Thumb1:
-
One wonders if those worshipers and apologists had a predisposition to hate and distrust American institutions before, or after, they read "Rush to Judgement" and saw "JFK," and whether or not they have ever read any "LNer" books or articles.
There are three or four of them somewhere, but no mutual-mastbatory "cottage industry" that I know of.
LOL
-- MWT ;)
and whether or not they have ever read any "LNer" books or articles.
Reading books and articles is reading somebody else's opinion. Some people actually look at the evidence and make up their own mind.
-
and whether or not they have ever read any "LNer" books or articles.
Reading books and articles is reading somebody else's opinion. Some people actually look at the evidence and make up their own mind.
excuse me, but where are the records of the other employees who brought their firearms into TSBD for 'show-and-tell' ? did i miss a post?
-
excuse me, but where are the records of the other employees who brought their firearms into TSBD for 'show-and-tell' ? did i miss a post?
WHO?? Brought a gun into the TSBD..... I believe you'll find evidence that Campbell did exactly what you describe.....
-
and whether or not they have ever read any "LNer" books or articles.
Reading books and articles is reading somebody else's opinion. Some people actually look at the evidence and make up their own mind.
"Look at the evidence".
Hmm, you mean go to the National Archives, visit The Sixth Floor Museum, and walk around Dealey Plaza for awhile?
Have you read James "Jumbo Duh" DiEugenio's opinions?
Mark Lane's?
Joachim Joesten's.
John Armstrong's?
How do you deal with evidence that conflicts with your "take"? Assume that it was manipulated by the evil powers that be to confuse you?
-- MWT ;)
-
Everyone just say, "OK, OK, Mr Graves, LHO obviously shot JFK on behalf of the Ruskies.
Actually, Al, I believe Khrushchev tried to call the mission off, possibly through Mark "Joseph Kramer" Gayn and Richard Case Nagell.
-- MWT ;)
-
"Look at the evidence".
Hmm, you mean go to the National Archives, visit The Sixth Floor Museum, and walk around Dealey Plaza for awhile?
Have you read James "Jumbo Duh" DiEugenio's opinions?
Mark Lane's?
Joachim Joesten's.
John Armstrong's?
How do you deal with evidence that conflicts with your "take"? Assume that it was manipulated by the evil powers that be to confuse you?
-- MWT ;)
How dumb is it to ask somebody if he has read the opinions of others, when he has just told you that reading the opinions of others is a waste of time?
Hmm, you mean go to the National Archives, visit The Sixth Floor Museum, and walk around Dealey Plaza for awhile?
Yes. I've done all three in the past. How about you? Or were you too busy in Russia?
How do you deal with evidence that conflicts with your "take"?
What evidence would that be? And what "take" would that be?
This may be a foreign concept to you but I try to make sense of the available evidence and whenever there is a contradiction I try to resolve it. I don't need to make up or agree with some wacky theory and then look for and cherry pick evidence to support it. I'll gladly leave that to others....
-
How dumb is it to ask somebody if he has read the opinions of others, when he has just told you that reading the opinions of others is a waste of time?
Hmm, you mean go to the National Archives, visit The Sixth Floor Museum, and walk around Dealey Plaza for awhile?
Yes. I've done all three in the past. How about you? Or were you too busy in Russia?
How do you deal with evidence that conflicts with your "take"?
What evidence would that be? And what "take" would that be?
This may be a foreign concept to you but I try to make sense of the available evidence and whenever there is a contradiction I try to resolve it. I don't need to make up or agree with some wacky theory and then look for and cherry pick evidence to support it. I'll gladly leave that to others....
Marty,
You don't read articles and books about the assassination?
Why are you here? To educate us?
"In Russia"?
I'm afraid you're confusing me with Oswald, Marty.
You know, the former Marine Corps radar operator who spent 2.5 years in The Workers Paradise and came back home with a probable KGB agent wife and admitted on radio that he was a Marxist?
I only made it as far as the Czech Republic, Comrade.
-- MWT ;)
-
Marty,
You don't read articles and books about the assassination?
Why are you here? To educate us?
In Russia? I'm afraid you're confusing me with Oswald. You know, the former Marine Corps radar operator who spent 2.5 years in The Workers Paradise and came back home with a probable KGB agent wife?
I only made it as far as the Czech Republic, Comrade.
-- MWT ;)
You don't read articles and books about the assassination?
Where did you learn asking stupid questions over and over again?
Why are you here?
Because I want to be
To educate us?
And waste my time? No thank you.
In Russia? I'm afraid you're confusing me with Oswald. You know, the former Marine Corps radar operator who spent 2.5 years in The Workers Paradise and came back home with a probable KGB agent wife?
So, you actually believe I could confuse you with a dead person? :D
I only made it as far as the Czech Republic, Comrade.
What happened? The Russians didn't want you?
-
You don't read articles and books about the assassination?
Where did you learn asking stupid questions over and over again?
Why are you here?
Because I want to be
To educate us?
And waste my time? No thank you.
In Russia? I'm afraid you're confusing me with Oswald. You know, the former Marine Corps radar operator who spent 2.5 years in The Workers Paradise and came back home with a probable KGB agent wife?
So, you actually believe I could confuse you with a dead person? :D
I only made it as far as the Czech Republic, Comrade.
What happened? The Russians didn't want you?
Marty,
Is there any evidence that you particularly like?
The "altered" x-rays that "prove" the fatal head shot (or shots???) came from somewhere other than The Sniper's Nest, for example?
The photos of "pristine" CE399?
Oswald's saying on film, "I'm just a patsy!"?
-- MWT ;)
-
Marty,
Is there any evidence that you particularly like?
The "altered" x-rays that "prove" the fatal head shot (or shots???) came from somewhere other than The Sniper's Nest, for example?
The photos of "pristine" CE399?
Oswald's saying on film, "I'm just a patsy!"?
-- MWT ;)
Is there any evidence that you particularly like?
Nope... now go and find somebody else to play your pathetic games with. I'm done with this conversation (if that's what it was)
-
Is there any evidence that you particularly like?
Nope... now go and fine [sic] somebody else to play your pathetic games with. I'm done with this conversation (if that's what it was)
Marty,
But you said, in so many words, that you eschew reading articles and books about the assassination in deference to "looking at the evidence" so that you can "make up your own mind".
There must be some evidence that you like to look at and think about, right?
Perhaps if only for the fact that it's "all been altered or planted," or some-such thing?
What evidence, "altered" or not, do you like to ... think about?
Maybe you no longer need to do that because you've already made up your mind?
LOL
-- MWT ;)
-
Marty,
But you said, in so many words, that you eschew articles and books about the assassination in deference to "looking at" the evidence and trying to figure it out by yourself.
There must be some evidence that you like to look at and think about, right?
Perhaps if only for the fact that it's "all been altered or planted," or some-such thing?
What evidence, "altered" or not, do you like to ... think about?
Maybe you no longer need to do that because you've already made up your mind?
LOL
-- MWT ;)
Ok... I'll give it another try....
There must be some evidence that you like to look at and think about, right?
Why must I like some evidence?
The evidence is what it is. I have no preference one way or the other. Only people with a pre-determined conclusion and/or a bias think along the lines of liking evidence or not.
Get it now, dumbhead?
-
Ok... I'll give it another try....
There must be some evidence that you like to look at and think about, right?
Why must I like some evidence?
The evidence is what it is. I have no preference one way or the other. Only people with a pre-determined conclusion and/or a bias think along the lines of liking evidence or not.
Get it now, dumbhead?
Marty,
You're either contradicting yourself, or you're saying you don't trust any of the evidence.
Which is it?
You're the one who suggested you believe in looking at the evidence and then making up your mind as to what you think it suggests.
Evidently you've made up your mind that Oswald was innocent.
How did you arrive at that conclusion if you don't "like" any of the (potentially) exculpatory evidence?
Because you think all of the evidence is untrustworthy, and therefore must have been fiddled with by The Bad Guys, and therefore there must have been a conspiracy?
Question: Do you think Oswald was a witting part of that conspiracy?
An unwitting "patsy"?
Just in the wrong place at the wrong time?
-- MWT ;)
-
Marty,
You're either contradicting yourself, or you're saying you don't trust any of the evidence.
Which is it?
You're the one who suggested you believe in looking at the evidence and then making up your mind as to what you think it suggests.
Evidently you've made up your mind that Oswald was innocent.
How did you arrive at that conclusion if you don't "like" any of the (potentially) exculpatory evidence?
Because you think all of the evidence is untrustworthy, and therefore must have been fiddled with by The Bad Guys, and therefore there must have been a conspiracy?
Question: Do you think Oswald was a witting part of that conspiracy?
An unwitting "patsy"?
Just in the wrong place at the wrong time?
-- MWT ;)
You're either contradicting yourself, or you're saying you don't trust any of the evidence.
No, I am not contradicting myself nor have have ever said anything of the kind. What I can, and will, say is that you should stop making stuff up, just for the sake of a pathetic argument.
Evidently you've made up your mind that Oswald was innocent.
Oh boy, one more idiot who thinks he knows what's in my mind. When and where did I ever say that I considered Oswald innocent or guilty?
The answer is: I didn't. Now go away and pester somebody else.
-
You're either contradicting yourself, or you're saying you don't trust any of the evidence.
No, I am not contradicting myself nor have have ever said anything of the kind. What I can, and will, say is that you should stop making stuff up, just for the sake of a pathetic argument.
Evidently you've made up your mind that Oswald was innocent.
Oh boy, one more idiot who thinks he knows what's in my mind. When and where did I ever say that I considered Oswald innocent or guilty?
The answer is: I didn't. No go away and pester somebody else.
Marty,
You and John Iacoletti would make an ideal pro rasslin' tag-team, metaphorically speaking.
Neither of you evidently have the gonads to proclaim Oswald innocent, but you lobby incessantly for that unsupported-by-evidence supposition.
LOL
-- MWT ;)
-
You say "In my mind this is nothing but a contrived excuse...".
In your mind: That's not evidence.
Neither is your fantasy that Oswald created a bag that was too small because he didn’t know how long the rifle was.
-
Chapman knows that a nobody shot a somebody in Dealey Plaza that day and has legions of worshippers crying about him to this very day. To the point of even taking a knee at his gravesite.
Well, in one instance anyway.
Chapman doesn’t know squat.
-
Marty,
You and John Iacoletti would make an ideal pro rasslin' tag-team, metaphorically speaking.
Neither of you evidently have the gonads to proclaim Oswald innocent, but you lobby incessantly for that unsupported-by-evidence supposition.
LOL
-- MWT ;)
A patsy usually isn't completely innocent, just not as portrayed by the conspirators. IOWs, not a lone nut assassin. It was imperative that he was portrayed as a lone nut so the Rooskies wouldn't be accused of starting WWIII, which is why your KGB hypothesis is bunk.
-
Neither is your fantasy that Oswald created a bag that was too small because he didn’t know how long the rifle was.
Neither is your fantasy that Oswald created a bag that was too small because he didn’t know how long the rifle was.
It's not a "fantasy": it's a "possibility".
FANTASY: a pleasant but unlikely situation that you enjoy thinking about, or the activity of thinking in this way
POSSIBILITY: a chance that something may happen or be true
John,
If you could improve your comprehension of English, your comments could make more sense? Additionally, you would not need to make so many of them. You'd have more time for more worthwhile pursuits.
-
Marty,
Is there any evidence that you particularly like?
The "altered" x-rays that "prove" the fatal head shot (or shots???) came from somewhere other than The Sniper's Nest, for example?
You mean the "altered" x-rays that plugged a "fist-sized hole in the back of his head", which more than a dozen medical staff noticed? Or were they all standing too close to the x-ray machine?
The photos of "pristine" CE399?
You mean CE-399, which didn't have a straight line path from the SN into JFK's back at the T1 vertebrae and out his throat at C7, then thru Connally causing 7 wounds and smashing thru bones and dropping out of Connally onto the wrong stretcher in "pristine" condition, while the other FMJ bullet disintegrated as it exploded in JFK's head?
Oswald's saying on film, "I'm just a patsy!"?
He would know, but I agree that one is hearsay. But wouldn't the avg Joe just claim innocence?
-
You mean the "altered" x-rays that plugged a "fist-sized hole in the back of his head", which more than a dozen medical staff noticed? Or were they all standing too close to the x-ray machine?
You mean CE-399, which didn't have a straight line path from the SN into JFK's back at the T1 vertebrae and out his throat at C7, then thru Connally causing 7 wounds and smashing thru bones and dropping out of Connally onto the wrong stretcher in "pristine" condition, while the other FMJ bullet disintegrated as it exploded in JFK's head?
He would know, but I agree that one is hearsay. But wouldn't the avg Joe just claim innocence?
wouldn't the avg Joe just claim innocence?
Who Knows?.... But I think you're right.... Lee KNEW that he had been set up... He was playing the same game that he'd played at Walker's back in April, and realized that he'd been a sucker. That's why he said, I'm just a patsy. When he said that, his fate was sealed....The conspirators knew that they had to snuff him ASAP.
-
Neither is your fantasy that Oswald created a bag that was too small because he didn’t know how long the rifle was.
It's not a "fantasy": it's a "possibility".
FANTASY: a pleasant but unlikely situation that you enjoy thinking about, or the activity of thinking in this way
POSSIBILITY: a chance that something may happen or be true
John,
If you could improve your comprehension of English, your comments could make more sense? Additionally, you would not need to make so many of them. You'd have more time for more worthwhile pursuits.
It's really good of you to acknowledge that engaging you isn't a worthwhile pursuit. Thumb1:
Btw, is it your foolish position that a fantasy, i.e. a pleasant but unlikely situation, can never be the same as a possibility, in as much as that a fantasy can never happen or come true?
-
It's really good of you to acknowledge that engaging you isn't a worthwhile pursuit. Thumb1:
It's really good of you to acknowledge that engaging you isn't a worthwhile pursuit.
That's not a totally accurate interpretation of the meaning I meant to convey.
I welcome comments: Just not silly generalizations.
-
It's really good of you to acknowledge that engaging you isn't a worthwhile pursuit.
That's not a totally accurate interpretation of the meaning I meant to convey.
I welcome comments: Just not silly generalizations.
That's not a totally accurate interpretation of the meaning I meant to convey.
Then you should have written it differently, because as it is written now that is exactly the meaning you are conveying.
And btw, by, rather arrogantly stating in advance what you will "welcome" and what not, only confirms that it's not worthwhile to engage you. That being said, I admit that I am now officially wasting my time, talking to you. It's a feeling I have come to know very well over the past couple of months.
-
A patsy usually isn't completely innocent, just not as portrayed by the conspirators. IOWs, not a lone nut assassin. It was imperative that he was portrayed as a lone nut so the Rooskies wouldn't be accused of starting WWIII, which is why your KGB hypothesis is bunk.
Yes, it was imperative that he be portrayed as a lone nut (which he was), and to not disclose anything that might be construed (correctly) as suggesting that he had been sent back to the U.S. (with a probable KGB-agent wife, according to true-defector Pyotr Deryabin) on a mission to assassinate JFK, and that he had "gone rogue" when Khrushchev tried to call it off.
-- MWT ;)
-
Yes, it was imperative that he be portrayed as a lone nut (which he was), and to not disclose anything that might be construed (correctly) as suggesting that he had been sent back to the U.S. (with a probable KGB-agent wife, according to true-defector Pyotr Deryabin) on a mission to assassinate JFK, and that he had "gone rogue" when Khrushchev tried to call it off.
-- MWT ;)
LOL, so you are a CT then (Coincidence Theorist).
And it was just dumb luck that Oswald landed a job in a building along the motorcade route, plus a dozen other "coincidences" that served up JFK on a silver platter to a lone nut. Was Thomas Arthur Vallee a KGB double agent too?
So how many backyard photos did his KGB wife Marina take and why did some of them wind up in the darndest places? Did Khrushchev get one?
You have to be pretty single-minded to think that the KGB could have contrived all the coincidences that led up to the Big Event, but you are like a dog with a bone. In for a penny, I suppose.
-
LOL, so you are a CT then (Coincidence Theorist).
And it was just dumb luck that Oswald landed a job in a building along the motorcade route, plus a dozen other "coincidences" that served up JFK on a silver platter to a lone nut. Was Thomas Arthur Vallee a KGB double agent too?
So how many backyard photos did his KGB wife Marina take and why did some of them wind up in the darndest places? Did Khrushchev get one?
You have to be pretty single-minded to think that the KGB could have contrived all the coincidences that led up to the Big Event, but you are like a dog with a bone. In for a penny, I suppose.
Yep, there was lots of dumb luck for Conspiracy Theorists in this case, unfortunately.
Like the very hard, very stable-in-flight, round-nosed, full-metal-jacketed bullet's tendency to start yawing just before it exits a human neck (or block of ballistics gel) even though it has not struck too much, if any, bone, and that if it enters another person's back going sideways right after that while travelling at a now-diminished but still high velocity, that that round-nosed, full metal jacket bullet can swipe that person's rib with sufficient force to smash it (and their wrist!) into pieces without causing the bullet to severely deform or fragment, and without losing more than 2.1 grains of lead core, squeezed out its base.
Oh, and the oh-so-graphic "back-and-to-the-left torso throw and head snap!" that was caused by all of JFK's neurons firing at once, by his tight and rigid back corset, and by something Issac Newton explained back-in-the-day.
Talk about good luck!
An anti-Establishment paranoid's wet dream!
-- MWT ;)
-
Jack Trojan asked incredulously and rhetorically:
"You mean CE-399 [is plausible evidence?], [although it] didn't have a straight line path from the SN into JFK's back at the T1 vertebrae and out his throat at C7, then thru Connally causing 7 wounds and smashing thru bones and dropping out of Connally onto the wrong stretcher in "pristine" condition, while the other FMJ bullet disintegrated as it exploded in JFK's head?"
.
Larry Sturtevant and his colleagues answer all of your above questions in the full PBS Nova special "Cold Case: JFK," and the National Geographic special "The Lost Bullet".
Here he talks about the fatal headshot, and why that bullet fragmented, and indirectly caused JFKs upper torso and head to go back and to the left, etc. etc.
-- MWT ;)
-
Jack Trojan asked incredulously and rhetorically:
"You mean CE-399 [is plausible evidence?], [although it] didn't have a straight line path from the SN into JFK's back at the T1 vertebrae and out his throat at C7, then thru Connally causing 7 wounds and smashing thru bones and dropping out of Connally onto the wrong stretcher in "pristine" condition, while the other FMJ bullet disintegrated as it exploded in JFK's head?"
.
Larry Sturtevant and his colleagues answer all of your above questions in the full PBS Nova special "Cold Case: JFK," and the National Geographic special "The Lost Bullet".
Here he talks about the fatal headshot, and why that bullet fragmented, and indirectly caused JFKs upper torso and head to go back and to the left, etc. etc.
-- MWT ;)
"Cold case: JFK" is horsespombleprofglidnoctobuns. If the MB trajectory was angled downward @ 17 degrees and entered JFK's back at T1, it does not come out of a small wound in the throat at C7 unless it struck JFK's spine and deflected its trajectory upward approx. 20 degrees. And if it did, it would not enter Connally at the 5th rib. It would also not exit a small hole and it would sustain damage like it should have when it broke Connally's rib and wrist bones. There is no goddamned way CE-399 would look pristine unless it was shot into a swimming pool, which would explain why it had no DNA on it from either JFK or Connally. Nova and NG didn't explore any of these aspects, they were clutching at straws trying to make the MB work. Their head shot simulation also didn't explain why the FMJ bullet exploded in JFK's head and caused the catastrophic damage as shown in frame 323 below:
(http://www.readclip.com/JFK/323.png)
"Back and to the left" from the "jet effect" or "firing neurons" my arse. What a load.
-
"Cold case: JFK" is horsespombleprofglidnoctobuns. If the MB trajectory was angled downward @ 17 degrees and entered JFK's back at T1, it does not come out of a small wound in the throat at C7 unless it struck JFK's spine and deflected its trajectory upward approx. 20 degrees. And if it did, it would not enter Connally at the 5th rib. It would also not exit a small hole and it would sustain damage like it should have when it broke Connally's rib and wrist bones. There is no goddamned way CE-399 would look pristine unless it was shot into a swimming pool, which would explain why it had no DNA on it from either JFK or Connally. Nova and NG didn't explore any of these aspects, they were clutching at straws trying to make the MB work. Their head shot simulation also didn't explain why the FMJ bullet exploded in JFK's head and caused the catastrophic damage as shown in frame 323 below:
(http://www.readclip.com/JFK/323.png)
"Back and to the left" from the "jet effect" or "firing neurons" my arse. What a load.
I guess you missed the part about that kind of bullet's beginning to yaw before it exits something relatively soft, like JFK's neck or a block of ballistics gel (which explains why it created a diagonal hole in Connally's shirt and back and did so much damage to his rib), and a separate report indicating that, according to an x-ray taken at Bethesda, it did apparently nick the tip of one of JFK's vertebrae, causing him to raise his arms involuntarily the way he did, and perhaps deflecting the bullet even more.
Larry Sturtevant explained very clearly that the Z-313 bullet fragmented into large pieces when it struck JFK's SKULL.
Funny how you can be so spot-on on Trump-related stuff, and so "out in left field" on JFK assassination-related stuff.
-- MWT ;)
-
Another ca-ca post by Jack T.
I guess you missed the part about that kind of bullet's beginning to yaw before it exits something relatively soft, like JFK's neck or a block of ballistics gel, and a separate report that according to x-ray, it did apparently nick the tip of one of his vertebrae.
Nice try again. If the bullet began to yaw as it passed thru JFK's neck then why did it leave an "entrance-like" exit wound, sucka? No YAW before exiting JFK's neck. Slight yaw AFTER exiting JFK's neck from the density change in mediums (flesh->air) causing uneven drag and yaw on its way into Connally. Except if it entered JFK's back at T1 and deflected upward and out with no yaw at C7, then it would not have even struck Connally. You need to cite a photogrammetric trajectory analysis that supports your claims that the MB could do what it did. Your 2 documentaries must have forgot to include that part.
Larry Sturtevant explained very clearly that the Z-313 bullet fragmented into large pieces when it struck JFK's skull.
How the hell does he know that and why didn't CE-399 fragment after striking 3 bones? Sorry, but Larry is full of horsespombleprofglidnoctobuns. D'oh!
-
Nice try again. If the bullet began to yaw as it passed thru JFK's neck then why did it leave an "entrance-like" exit wound, sucka? No YAW before exiting JFK's neck. Slight yaw AFTER exiting JFK's neck from the density change in mediums (flesh->air) causing uneven drag and yaw on its way into Connally. Except if it entered JFK's back at T1 and deflected upward and out with no yaw at C7, then it would not have even struck Connally. You need to cite a photogrammetric trajectory analysis that supports your claims that the MB could do what it did. Your 2 documentaries must have forgot to include that part.
How the hell does he know that and why didn't CE-399 fragment after striking 3 bones? Sorry, but Larry is full of horsespombleprofglidnoctobuns. D'oh!
What's with the "sucka" bit, punk? (At least you didn't put it in all caps this time.)
Uhh, well, regarding the one that fragmented and the one that didn't, I guess the Z-313 bullet was travelling about 1900 feet-per-second when its rounded point struck JFK's skull, causing both to break apart, whereas the CE-399 bullet was traveling about 1700 feet-per-second when it's rear third or-so sideswiped Connally's fifth rib, i.e., travelling fast enough to do that amount of damage by its tumbling motion, and fast enough for some of the lead core to be extruded out the back (with 2.1 grains of it lost), but not quite fast enough to cause it to fragment?
Beats the heck out of me.
-- MWT ;)
-
I guess you missed the part about that kind of bullet's beginning to yaw before it exits something relatively soft, like JFK's neck or a block of ballistics gel (which explains why it created a diagonal hole in Connally's shirt and back and did so much damage to his rib), and a separate report indicating that, according to an x-ray taken at Bethesda, it did apparently nick the tip of one of JFK's vertebrae, causing him to raise his arms involuntarily the way he did, and perhaps deflecting the bullet even more.
Larry Sturtevant explained very clearly that the Z-313 bullet fragmented into large pieces when it struck JFK's SKULL.
Funny how you can be so spot-on on Trump-related stuff, and so "out in left field" on JFK assassination-related stuff.
-- MWT ;)
Let's see Trojan have his own head squished to the degree that the butt end of Ce399 was squished and call that 'pristine'
-
Let's see Trojan have his own head squished to the degree that the butt end of Ce399 was squished and call that 'pristine'
In all fairness, didn't he say "pristine" in like ... quotation marks?
-- MWT ;)
-
What's with the "sucka" bit, punk? (At least you didn't put it in all caps this time.)
Uhh, well, regarding the one that fragmented and the one that didn't, I guess the Z-313 bullet was travelling about 1900 feet-per-second when its rounded point struck JFK's skull, causing both of them to break apart, whereas the CE-399 bullet was traveling about 1700 feet-per-second when it's rear third or-so sideswiped Connally's fifth rib, i.e., travelling fast enough to do that amount of damage by its tumbling motion, and fast enough for some of the lead core to be extruded out the back (with 2.1 grains of it lost), but not quite fast enough to cause it to fragment?
Beats the heck out of me.
-- MWT ;)
I guess the Z-313 bullet was travelling about 1900 feet-per-second when its rounded point struck JFK's skull, causing both of them to break apart,
The salient point ...."I GUESS"..... And obviously your guess isn't based on knowledge of ballistics...... Because the idea that a human skull would cause a COPPER jacket on a FMJ bullet to break apart is absurd.
Copper has a high tensile strength and the COPPER jacket would not have shattered.
-
In all fairness, didn't he say "pristine" in like ... quotation marks?
-- MWT ;)
In all fairness to whom? CTers are the ones claiming CE399 as being 'pristine'
-
In all fairness to whom? CTers are the ones claiming CE399 as being 'pristine'
Pristine, or "pristine"?
-- MWT ;)
-
I guess the Z-313 bullet was travelling about 1900 feet-per-second when its rounded point struck JFK's skull, causing both of them to break apart,
The salient point ...."I GUESS"..... And obviously your guess isn't based on knowledge of ballistics...... Because the idea that a human skull would cause a COPPER jacket on a FMJ bullet to break apart is absurd.
Copper has a high tensile strength and the COPPER jacket would not have shattered.
'the idea that a human skull would cause a COPPER jacket on a FMJ bullet to break apart is absurd'
The idea that the human skull wouldn't cause an FMJ bullet to break apart is absurd
'obviously your guess isn't based on knowledge of ballistics'
Neither is yours
These are the guys who have knowledge of ballistics:
Gunshot wound characteristics
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5807523/
[EXCERPTS]
2. Entrance wound bone damage (After DiMaio [8])
The bone of the cranial vault is made up of outer and inner cortical tables joined by thin cancellous bone (the Diploë) [12, p673]. The ‘typical’ appearance of an entry wound is that of a ‘broadening cone’ [12, p674] or crater [6, p261]. This is described as ‘internal beveling’ [8]. In a review of the skeletal remains of 21 gunshot victims, Quatrehomme and İșcan [13] found internal beveling in the bone entry wounds of 20 skulls but noted external beveling in one.
4. Additional fractures (after Karger [9])
The bony injury seen may be complicated by further fractures. Karger [9, p151] describes how secondary radial fractures are induced by the bullet’s impact and originate at the entry and exit sites. Karger also describes how the brain is vulnerable to cavitation [9, p149] but the intact skull does not allow expansion, resulting in high pressures within the cranial cavity. If the overpressure exceeds the skull’s capacity to elastically extend, indirect concentric fractures result. Sufficiently high pressures will result in fractures combining to produce an ‘explosive’ type of injury [6, 9, 11, 14].
-------------------
Internal bevelling/HSCA
(https://i.postimg.cc/QxFFFrkh/Illustration-of-beveling-by-a-bullet-on-a-bone-JFK-exhibit-F-61.gif)

The Medical Evidence
https://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/medical.htm
[EXCERPT]
When a bullet penetrates the skull bone, it will leave a small hole on the side from which it enters, and a larger dished-out crater on the side that it exits. The existence of beveling of the bone of Kennedy’s skull allowed the autopsists — and later panels of forensic pathologists — to establish that the bullet that hit Kennedy in the head entered from behind, with at least one large fragment exiting toward the front. See JFK Exhibit F-61, from the House Select Committee on Assassinations.
-
'the idea that a human skull would cause a COPPER jacket on a FMJ bullet to break apart is absurd'
The idea that the human skull wouldn't cause an FMJ bullet to break apart is absurd
'obviously your guess isn't based on knowledge of ballistics'
Neither is yours
These are the guys who have knowledge of ballistics:
Gunshot wound characteristics
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5807523/
[EXCERPTS]
2. Entrance wound bone damage (After DiMaio [8])
The bone of the cranial vault is made up of outer and inner cortical tables joined by thin cancellous bone (the Diploë) [12, p673]. The ‘typical’ appearance of an entry wound is that of a ‘broadening cone’ [12, p674] or crater [6, p261]. This is described as ‘internal beveling’ [8]. In a review of the skeletal remains of 21 gunshot victims, Quatrehomme and İșcan [13] found internal beveling in the bone entry wounds of 20 skulls but noted external beveling in one.
4. Additional fractures (after Karger [9])
The bony injury seen may be complicated by further fractures. Karger [9, p151] describes how secondary radial fractures are induced by the bullet’s impact and originate at the entry and exit sites. Karger also describes how the brain is vulnerable to cavitation [9, p149] but the intact skull does not allow expansion, resulting in high pressures within the cranial cavity. If the overpressure exceeds the skull’s capacity to elastically extend, indirect concentric fractures result. Sufficiently high pressures will result in fractures combining to produce an ‘explosive’ type of injury [6, 9, 11, 14].
-------------------
Internal bevelling/HSCA
(https://i.postimg.cc/QxFFFrkh/Illustration-of-beveling-by-a-bullet-on-a-bone-JFK-exhibit-F-61.gif)

The Medical Evidence
https://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/medical.htm
[EXCERPT]
When a bullet penetrates the skull bone, it will leave a small hole on the side from which it enters, and a larger dished-out crater on the side that it exits. The existence of beveling of the bone of Kennedy’s skull allowed the autopsists — and later panels of forensic pathologists — to establish that the bullet that hit Kennedy in the head entered from behind, with at least one large fragment exiting toward the front. See JFK Exhibit F-61, from the House Select Committee on Assassinations.
Yer FOS Chappie..... Copper is one of the most malleable of metals.....It does not shatter or disintegrate when it is used as a jacket for the lead core of a bullet UNLESS the nose of the bullet isn't covered by the copper jacket. But as in the case of the FULL METAL JACKET 160 grain Carcano bullet the copper jacket covers all but the base of the projectile.. Yer so FOS that you will argue that CE 399 passed through many bones that are harder and more dense than a human skull but THAT FULL METAL JACKETED bullet remained nearly pristine. Yer not the sharpest knife in the drawer are ya, Chappie.??
-
Yer FOS Chappie..... Copper is one of the most malleable of metals.....It does not shatter or disintegrate when it is used as a jacket for the lead core of a bullet UNLESS the nose of the bullet isn't covered by the copper jacket. But as in the case of the FULL METAL JACKET 160 grain Carcano bullet the copper jacket covers all but the base of the projectile.. Yer so FOS that you will argue that CE 399 passed through many bones that are harder and more dense than a human skull but THAT FULL METAL JACKETED bullet remained nearly pristine. Yer not the sharpest knife in the drawer are ya, Chappie.??
Walter,
Do round-point, 160 grain, full-metal-jacket bullets NEVER fragment when striking a male human skull at about 1900 feet per second from a slightly elevated firing position?
This one did.
-- MWT ;)
-
Neither is your fantasy that Oswald created a bag that was too small because he didn’t know how long the rifle was.
It's not a "fantasy": it's a "possibility".
In other words, not evidence either.
So great, then “contrived excuse” is another possibility.
-
Walter,
Do round-point, 160 grain, full-metal-jacket bullets NEVER fragment when striking a male human skull at about 1900 feet per second from a slightly elevated firing position?
This one did.
-- MWT ;)
No, it did not.... You in your ignorance believe that it did, but your belief isn't based on facts.
-
In other words, not evidence either.
So great, then “contrived excuse” is another possibility.
Thumb1:
This is the same Mr Lidell who thinks that a shorter-than-a-rifle bag is not a problem but a longer-than-a-rifle box is a deal-breaker! :D
-
Yer FOS Chappie..... Copper is one of the most malleable of metals.....It does not shatter or disintegrate when it is used as a jacket for the lead core of a bullet UNLESS the nose of the bullet isn't covered by the copper jacket. But as in the case of the FULL METAL JACKET 160 grain Carcano bullet the copper jacket covers all but the base of the projectile.. Yer so FOS that you will argue that CE 399 passed through many bones that are harder and more dense than a human skull but THAT FULL METAL JACKETED bullet remained nearly pristine. Yer not the sharpest knife in the drawer are ya, Chappie.??
I'm just sharp enough to notice that you are deciding for yourself what I'm arguing
-
I'm just sharp enough to notice that you are deciding for yourself what I'm arguing
Yes, I've noticed the point...... You should get a different hat.
-
Yes, I've noticed the point...... You should get a different hat.
You should stop swigging bleach.
You've doubled down on your ignorance once again:
1) Head shot: Cavitation created the explosive effect. That's the point.
2) Back/Neck-junction inshoot: FMJ ammo is designed to remain intact when passing through human flesh.
Now let's see you lot squish your heads to the extent that the butt-end portion of CE399 was, and still call it pristine.
-
You should stop swigging bleach.
You've doubled down on your ignorance once again:
1) Head shot: Cavitation created the explosive effect. That's the point.
2) Back/Neck-junction inshoot: FMJ ammo is designed to remain intact when passing through human flesh.
Now let's see you lot squish your heads to the extent that the butt-end portion of CE399 was, and still call it pristine.
Only an idiot would propose that two identical bullets fired just seconds apart from the same rifle would react entirely differently when they struck.
What's your IQ Chappie?
-
Only an idiot would propose that two identical bullets fired just seconds apart from the same rifle would react entirely differently when they struck.
What's your IQ Chappie?
Say something clever
-
Say something clever
If he does, you won't understand it.
You don't even know just how hard it is to having to dumb things down to your level all the time.
-
If he does, you won't understand it.
You don't even know just how hard it is to having to dumb things down to your level all the time.
No chance of either of you ever saying something clever
I can see just how hard it is for you to write anything at all
You both have something in common with JFK: Head cavitation
-
No chance of either of you ever saying something clever
I can see just how hard it is for you to write anything at all
You both have something in common with JFK: Head cavitation
No chance of either of you ever saying something clever
How would you know?
You need a functional brain and at least some level of eduction to make such a determination. You've got neither.
-
No chance of either of you ever saying something clever
How would you know?
You need a functional brain and at least some level of eduction to make such a determination. You've got neither.
Bill doesn't have a functioning brain?
How is he continually able to "shoot you down" on aspects of the assassination, then?
Bill doesn't have an education?
Why, then, does he generally write better than you?
-- MWT ;)
-
Tommy,
Don't you know he is really Russian?
-
Tommy,
Don't you know he is really Russian?
Martin,
If true, then as far as you're concerned, he's a great friend of America, right?
-- MWT ;)
-
Martin,
If true, then as far as you're concerned, he's a great friend of America, right?
-- MWT ;)
Don't know... do you think America has many friends left by now?
-
Don't know... do you think America has many friends left by now?
It doesn't really matter, does it, as long as your buddy(?) the great KGB-Mafia humanitarian, Vladimir Putin (along with that ugly bastard in China), can take over the world?
"Sino-Soviet Split," my ass.
-- MWT ;)
-
It doesn't really matter, does it, as long as your buddy(?) the great KGB-Mafia humanitarian, Vladimir Putin (along with that ugly bastard in China), can take over the world?
"Sino-Soviet Split," my ass.
-- MWT ;)
You're talking to the wrong guy, Putin and Xi are no friends of mine
-
You're talking to the wrong guy, Putin and Xi are no friends of mine
Oh, it's so hard to keep track of the permutations here!
1) "The evil, evil, evil CIA killed JFK" (LOL!)
2) "Trump is an unwitting or witting agent of Vladimir Putin" (correct)
3) "LHO did it by him widdle self" (probably correct, but maybe with some help from Igor Vaganov and or Policarpo or Saenz)
4) "Trump is clearing out the swamp!" (LOL!)
My bad.
-- MWT ;)
-
You should stop swigging bleach.
You've doubled down on your ignorance once again:
1) Head shot: Cavitation created the explosive effect. That's the point.
Horsespombleprofglidnoctobuns.
2) Back/Neck-junction inshoot: FMJ ammo is designed to remain intact when passing through human flesh.
What about when it struck the T1 vertebrae?
Now let's see you lot squish your heads to the extent that the butt-end portion of CE399 was, and still call it pristine.
Pristine refers to loss of material, not a slight deformation. No bullet comes out of a barrel "Pristine", as you define it. BTW, did anyone bother to note how much material gets lost as the bullet travels thru the barrel? And where is a single re-enactment of a FMJ bullet striking 3 bones, causing 7 wounds then magically showing up slightly flattened and pristine (99% intact), with no DNA on it? That's the only study that could convince me.
Why do you keep clutching at straws and bending over backward to defend the WC? Oh right, because you sold your soul long ago to the LN hypothesis and you are seeing it thru come hell or high water. Good luck with that. Every coup needs rubes to pull it off. As long as there is not a 100% consensus that Oswald was a patsy, then the WC wins. They won because LNers jumped thru hoops to defend their Report for them. They relied on all CTs to be painted as tinfoil mad hatters and discredited their conspiracy theories by lumping them in with bigfoot sightings and UFO abductions. Today, the LNer approach is to clutch at straws to explain every single contradiction and anomaly re this case, because it's 1 strike and you're out for a LNer. If there is 1 chink in the armor then it is all over, Oswald was not a lone nut and the WC loses.
Maybe Oswald knew he was the designated patsy. Maybe he smuggled the rifle into the TSBD in pieces inside a paper bag. Maybe he took some shots from the SN and wiped off all his prints, ditched the rifle, bought a coke from a vending machine in the lunchroom within 90 secs. Maybe the MC wasn't leaky enough to deposit any nitrates on Oswald's face as he took the shots. Maybe Oswald was such an elite sharpshooter he could pull off a headshot using a crap rifle with a wonky scope and no practice. Maybe the magic bullet did zig-zag thru JFK and Connally and showed up on the wrong stretcher in near-pristine condition. Maybe the DPD were just incompetent and not nefarious when it came to handling the evidence and serving up Oswald to Ruby. But what part of those "maybe"s exclude Oswald from being a pasty? You are not really a LNer, you are a WC Defender, because Oswald was a patsy, not a lone nut.
-
Horsespombleprofglidnoctobuns.
What about when it struck the T1 vertebrae?
Pristine refers to loss of material, not a slight deformation. No bullet comes out of a barrel "Pristine", as you define it. BTW, did anyone bother to note how much material gets lost as the bullet travels thru the barrel? And where is a single re-enactment of a FMJ bullet striking 3 bones, causing 7 wounds then magically showing up slightly flattened and pristine (99% intact), with no DNA on it? That's the only study that could convince me.
Why do you keep clutching at straws and bending over backward to defend the WC? Oh right, because you sold your soul long ago to the LN hypothesis and you are seeing it thru come hell or high water. Good luck with that. Every coup needs rubes to pull it off. As long as there is not a 100% consensus that Oswald was a patsy, then the WC wins. They won because LNers jumped thru hoops to defend their Report for them. They relied on all CTs to be painted as tinfoil mad hatters and discredited their conspiracy theories by lumping them in with bigfoot sightings and UFO abductions. Today, the LNer approach is to clutch at straws to explain every single contradiction and anomaly re this case, because it's 1 strike and you're out for a LNer. If there is 1 chink in the armor then it is all over, Oswald was not a lone nut and the WC loses.
Maybe Oswald knew he was the designated patsy. Maybe he smuggled the rifle into the TSBD in pieces inside a paper bag. Maybe he took some shots from the SN and wiped off all his prints, ditched the rifle, bought a coke from a vending machine in the lunchroom within 90 secs. Maybe the MC wasn't leaky enough to deposit any nitrates on Oswald's face as he took the shots. Maybe Oswald was such an elite sharpshooter he could pull off a headshot using a crap rifle with a wonky scope and no practice. Maybe the magic bullet did zig-zag thru JFK and Connally and showed up on the wrong stretcher in near-pristine condition. Maybe the DPD were just incompetent and not nefarious when it came to handling the evidence and serving up Oswald to Ruby. But what part of those "maybe"s exclude Oswald from being a pasty? You are not really a LNer, you are a WC Defender, because Oswald was a patsy, not a lone nut.
Jack,
Struck the first vertebra, or brushed the tip of it, kinda?
Where, for that matter, is a reenactment of a bullet's traveling, subcutaneously, completely around a man's skull without killing him? Would you care to volunteer?
Okay then, how about our defining "pristine" to mean the condition of a bullet after it's lost "oodles and gobs" of mass inside the barrel of a "four lands and grooves" carbine whilst being shot about half-a-mile(?) up into the sky, and coming back down and landing in a nice thick fluffy bed of prime goose down?
Is CE-399 anything like that?
-- MWT ;)
-
No chance of either of you ever saying something clever
How would you know?
You need a functional brain and at least some level of eduction to make such a determination. You've got neither.
Point out where you just said something clever
-
Point out where you just said something clever
You boys are having quite the wee-weein' contest!
-- MWT ;)
-
Jack,
Struck the first vertebra, or brushed the tip of it, kinda?
It smashed a hole thru the Transverse Process of the T1 vertebrae and nicked the rib facet. An inch to the left and JFK is dead with that shot.
(http://www.readclip.com/JFK/x-ray_mb.gif)
If the MB went in a straight line path thru JFK via the back wound to the throat, then it had to go thru the spinal column. Also JFK had to be turned in his seat 8 degrees to the right for the trajectory from the SN to work.
(http://www.readclip.com/JFK/MRI_MB_T1_8b.png)
But there is no trajectory from the SN into JFK's back at T1 and out his throat at C7 unless JFK is stooped over with his head between his legs. BTW have you done the 2 laser challenge yet? It will convince you that the MB was truly magical.
(http://www.readclip.com/JFK/2lasersJFK.jpg)
Where, for that matter, is a reenactment of a bullet's traveling, subcutaneously, completely around a man's skull without killing him? Would you care to volunteer?
No thanks, I'm already convinced that a FMJ bullet does not explode into tiny pieces when it enters the skull. Where is the anecdotal evidence from war vets re this? The headshot explosion was from a frangible bullet which was 1 of the near-simultaneous shots taken at the Turkey Shoot Point, where Greer almost stopped the limo. At that point several shots sounded like 1 so they could claim the headshot was a single bullet shot from the SN.
Okay then, how about our defining "pristine" to mean the condition of a bullet after it's lost "oodles and gobs" of mass inside the barrel of a "four lands and grooves" carbine whilst being shot about half-a-mile(?) up into the sky, and coming back down and landing in a thick fluffy bed of prime goose down?
Is CE-399 anything like that?
Into a swimming pool. Then get Fredo to jump in and retrieve it. It will slightly flatten if it hits the bottom with any speed and will be clean of any DNA. Just like CE-399.
Ps. Are you sure that's mud your rasslin in? ;)
-
Horsespombleprofglidnoctobuns.
What about when it struck the T1 vertebrae?
Pristine refers to loss of material, not a slight deformation. No bullet comes out of a barrel "Pristine", as you define it. BTW, did anyone bother to note how much material gets lost as the bullet travels thru the barrel? And where is a single re-enactment of a FMJ bullet striking 3 bones, causing 7 wounds then magically showing up slightly flattened and pristine (99% intact), with no DNA on it? That's the only study that could convince me.
Why do you keep clutching at straws and bending over backward to defend the WC? Oh right, because you sold your soul long ago to the LN hypothesis and you are seeing it thru come hell or high water. Good luck with that. Every coup needs rubes to pull it off. As long as there is not a 100% consensus that Oswald was a patsy, then the WC wins. They won because LNers jumped thru hoops to defend their Report for them. They relied on all CTs to be painted as tinfoil mad hatters and discredited their conspiracy theories by lumping them in with bigfoot sightings and UFO abductions. Today, the LNer approach is to clutch at straws to explain every single contradiction and anomaly re this case, because it's 1 strike and you're out for a LNer. If there is 1 chink in the armor then it is all over, Oswald was not a lone nut and the WC loses.
Maybe Oswald knew he was the designated patsy. Maybe he smuggled the rifle into the TSBD in pieces inside a paper bag. Maybe he took some shots from the SN and wiped off all his prints, ditched the rifle, bought a coke from a vending machine in the lunchroom within 90 secs. Maybe the MC wasn't leaky enough to deposit any nitrates on Oswald's face as he took the shots. Maybe Oswald was such an elite sharpshooter he could pull off a headshot using a crap rifle with a wonky scope and no practice. Maybe the magic bullet did zig-zag thru JFK and Connally and showed up on the wrong stretcher in near-pristine condition. Maybe the DPD were just incompetent and not nefarious when it came to handling the evidence and serving up Oswald to Ruby. But what part of those "maybe"s exclude Oswald from being a pasty? You are not really a LNer, you are a WC Defender, because Oswald was a patsy, not a lone nut.
Smashed a hole in the transverse process?
Well gosh, maybe that's how CE-399 got that little nick on its nose.
Zig-zagged through Kennedy and Connally?
LOL!
Due to the fact that JFK's head was tilted slightly downward -- and the bullet therefore went slightly downward towards Connally (but ... gasp ... slightly upward anatomically-speaking in JFK), the fact that JFK was about 20° lower than the sniper's nest, and the fact that Connally was 1) sitting 6 to 8 inches to the left of JFK (and lower than him, too), and 2) turning to his right, CE-399 didn't have to zig-zag at all to do all the damage that it did.
Nor, given the fact that JBC was hit when his lapel fluttered, did CE-399 have to hover "magically" for 1.6 seconds (or whatever) in midair between the two men.
D'oh
-- MWT ;)
-
Smashed a hole in the transverse process?
Well gosh, maybe that's how CE-399 got that little nick on its nose.
Zig-zagged through Kennedy and Connally?
LOL!
Due to the fact that JFK's head was tilted slightly downward -- and the bullet therefore went slightly downward towards Connally (but ... gasp ... slightly upward anatomically-speaking in JFK), the fact that JFK was about 20° lower than the sniper's nest, and the fact that Connally was 1) sitting 6 to 8 inches to the left of JFK (and lower than him, too), and 2) turning to his right, CE-399 didn't have to zig-zag at all to do all the damage that it did.
Nor, given the fact that JBC was hit when his lapel fluttered, did CE-399 have to hover "magically" for 1.6 seconds (or whatever) in midair between the two men.
D'oh
-- MWT ;)
Did you even look at my post? Or did you not comprehend it? You are obviously out of your element here. D'oh!
Ps. Do my 2 laser challenge and get back to me with some crow, which I will gladly devour. D'oh!
-
I'm already convinced that a FMJ bullet does not explode into tiny pieces when it enters the skull.
In JFK's case, it was into two large fragments, mostly, wasn't it?
-- MWT ;)
-
In JFK's case, it was into two large fragments, mostly, wasn't it?
-- MWT ;)
Do those 2 fragments = the whole bullet? And where did those 2 horsespombleprofglidnoctobuns fragments come from? (rhetorical)
-
Do those 2 fragments = the whole bullet? And where did those 2 horsespombleprofglidnoctobuns fragments come from? (rhetorical)
No, of course not.
The lead core probably broke up and went hither and yon, perhaps even causing "the hole in the windshield" and "the dent in the chrome".
-- MWT ;)
-
No, of course not.
The lead core probably broke up and went hither and yon, perhaps even causing "the hole in the windshield" and "the dent in the chrome".
-- MWT ;)
Why would you assume that? And where is JFK's brain so we can settle all this? Did Khrushchev take it?
-
Why would you assume that? And where is JFK's brain so we can settle all this? Did Khrushchev take it?
J.Trojan,
Surely you can do better than that.
-- MWT :-[
Oh, well ...
Edit https://www.bostonmagazine.com/news/2013/11/22/jfk-john-f-kennedy-brain-james-swanson-book-50-anniversary/
-
J.Trojan,
Surely you can do better than that.
-- MWT :-[
Did you actually expect a response to your rhetoric?
-
Did you actually expect a response to your rhetoric?
Dear Jack,
(See the edit in my previous post.)
Do you really expect straightforward answers to your gaslighting?
-- MWT ;)
PS How do you figure the "KGB" changed from such a peace-loving, humanitarian organization during the Cold War to the Counterintelligence-based Mafia that so recently installed Donald Trump as our president?
Did the evil, evil, evil CIA make it get like that, in a Hegelian-kind-of-way?
-
(See above edit.)
Do you really expect straightforward answers to your gaslighting?
-- MWT ;)
PS How do you figure the "KGB" changed from such a peace-loving, humanitarian organization during the Cold War to an evil, Counterintelligence-based mafia that so recently installed Donald Trump as our president?
WTF are you talking about? You've got Rooskies on the brain. The Russians haven't changed since 63. They were/are way too savvy to get involved with shenanigans that could start WWIII. Why do you think LBJ didn't bother to have the nuclear football with him on Air Force 1, even though by all indications, JFK was assassinated by a Commie defector? Is it because he knew the Rooskies had nothing to do with it? Otherwise, how could LBJ NOT have suspected Russia? Wake up and smell the farts.
-
WTF are you talking about? You've got Rooskies on the brain. The Russians haven't changed since 63. They were/are way too savvy to get involved with shenanigans that could start WWIII. Why do you think LBJ didn't bother to have the nuclear football with him on Air Force 1, even though by all indications, JFK was assassinated by a Commie defector? Is it because he knew the Rooskies had nothing to do with it? Otherwise, how could LBJ NOT have suspected Russia? Wake up and smell the farts.
Jack,
The answers to your rather naive questions can be found in Chapter 10 (Sinister Implications).
You might want to read Chapter 11 (Mole Hunt) and Chapter 12 (Wedge), too.
Enjoy!
https://archive.org/details/WedgeFromPearlHarborTo911HowTheSecretWarBetweenTheFBIAndCIAHasEndangeredNationalSecurity/page/n371/mode/1up
-- MWT ;)
PS Wake up, Neo. Although the military guy carrying the "football" got separated from LBJ for a while, it did make it to Air Force One in time for the flight back to Washington. I thought you knew that.
-
Point out where you just said something clever
Thank you for proving my point. I told you you wouldn't get it.
-
Horsespombleprofglidnoctobuns.
What about when it struck the T1 vertebrae?
Pristine refers to loss of material, not a slight deformation. No bullet comes out of a barrel "Pristine", as you define it. BTW, did anyone bother to note how much material gets lost as the bullet travels thru the barrel? And where is a single re-enactment of a FMJ bullet striking 3 bones, causing 7 wounds then magically showing up slightly flattened and pristine (99% intact), with no DNA on it? That's the only study that could convince me.
Why do you keep clutching at straws and bending over backward to defend the WC? Oh right, because you sold your soul long ago to the LN hypothesis and you are seeing it thru come hell or high water. Good luck with that. Every coup needs rubes to pull it off. As long as there is not a 100% consensus that Oswald was a patsy, then the WC wins. They won because LNers jumped thru hoops to defend their Report for them. They relied on all CTs to be painted as tinfoil mad hatters and discredited their conspiracy theories by lumping them in with bigfoot sightings and UFO abductions. Today, the LNer approach is to clutch at straws to explain every single contradiction and anomaly re this case, because it's 1 strike and you're out for a LNer. If there is 1 chink in the armor then it is all over, Oswald was not a lone nut and the WC loses.
Maybe Oswald knew he was the designated patsy. Maybe he smuggled the rifle into the TSBD in pieces inside a paper bag. Maybe he took some shots from the SN and wiped off all his prints, ditched the rifle, bought a coke from a vending machine in the lunchroom within 90 secs. Maybe the MC wasn't leaky enough to deposit any nitrates on Oswald's face as he took the shots. Maybe Oswald was such an elite sharpshooter he could pull off a headshot using a crap rifle with a wonky scope and no practice. Maybe the magic bullet did zig-zag thru JFK and Connally and showed up on the wrong stretcher in near-pristine condition. Maybe the DPD were just incompetent and not nefarious when it came to handling the evidence and serving up Oswald to Ruby. But what part of those "maybe"s exclude Oswald from being a pasty? You are not really a LNer, you are a WC Defender, because Oswald was a patsy, not a lone nut.
Oswald said he was a patsy so it must be true. After all, he did say he was brought in because he had lived in the Soviet Union. And the little nobody needed to claim patsy status only once, apparently.
Oswald as Patsy
1) Tried to miss JFK but was even a worse shot than what CTrolls dreamed up.
2) Only tried firing warning shots across the bow hood at Tippit but missed again.
3) Tried to hand over his revolver to the cops in the TT but damn near screwed that up.
-
Chapman thinks his sarcastic quips are clever and relevant.
Don't be like Chapman.
-
Thank you for proving my point. I told you you wouldn't get it.
In other words you can't explain what's clever about the post to which I'm referring
To Wit:
Reply#182 Weidmann
How would you know? You need a functional brain and at least some level of eduction to make such a determination. You've got neither.
> I'm not surprised that your qualifications for being 'clever' both begin & end with Ad Homs
-
Chapman thinks his sarcastic quips are clever and relevant.
Don't be like Chapman.
Taking a knee at Oswald's grave speaks volumes.
Ditto for not taking a knee at Tippit's.
Don't be like Iacoletti.
-
Taking a knee at Oswald's grave speaks volumes.
Ditto for not taking a knee at Tippit's.
Don't be like Iacoletti.
Hard to believe, seein' as how he's an Atheist.
-- MWT ;)
-
In other words you can't explain what's clever about the post to which I'm referring
To Wit:
#Rely#182 Weidmann
How would you know? You need a functional brain and at least some level of eduction to make such a determination. You've got neither.
> I'm not surprised that your qualifications for being 'clever' both begin & end with Ad Homs
I'm sorry that you don't understand this, but I was just making a factual statement. Asking what is clever about a factual statement is just dumb. If I could I would gladly explain it even better to you, but as I said before, I can't dumb things down any further to get to your level.
Btw, if you are going to quote me, it would be just a bit more honest when you provide the real and complete quote as well as the correct context. Here, I'll do it for you;
Your comment;
No chance of either of you ever saying something clever
I can see just how hard it is for you to write anything at all
You both have something in common with JFK: Head cavitation
my reply;
No chance of either of you ever saying something clever
How would you know?
You need a functional brain and at least some level of eduction to make such a determination. You've got neither.
And then the idiot complains about ad homs.... Go figure!
-
Taking a knee at Oswald's grave speaks volumes.
You have yet to explain why that's such an issue for you.
Ditto for not taking a knee at Tippit's.
How would you know where I have or have not "taken a knee"? Do you even know where Tippit's grave is? Without looking it up.
-
You have yet to explain why that's such an issue for you.
How would you know where I have or have not "taken a knee" [for Oswald]?
Iacoletti,
The grass stain.
On your knee.
Below your Bermuda shorts.
-- MWT ;)
-
Its a grave. People are entitled to kneel.
-
Its a grave. People are entitled to kneel.
Yes, especially atheists, who, although they don't believe we have a "soul" or an "afterlife" to look forward to (or dread), idolize poor widdle "patsy" Oswald.
-- MWT ;)
-
You have yet to explain why that's such an issue for you.
It's not an issue with me. On the contrary: Your knee-taking @Oswald reveals you as Oswald Arse Kisser#1
How would you know where I have or have not "taken a knee"?
> For openers, your kneeling photo at Oswald's gravesite
How would you know where I have or have not "taken a knee"? Do you even know where Tippit's grave is? Without looking it up
Not that that's a childish question. And is your question a request for directions to Tippit's gravesite? Can't you look it up for yourself? Don't worry: No one expects you to kneel this time.
-
Yes, especially atheists, who, although they don't believe we have a "soul" or an "afterlife" to look forward to (or dread), idolize poor widdle "patsy" Oswald.
-- MWT ;)
Some atheists have a sense of humour and can laugh at themselves
Several have the inscription 'All dressed up and and no place to go' on their headstones
You can look it up..
-
I'm sorry that you don't understand this, but I was just making a factual statement. Asking what is clever about a factual statement is just dumb. If I could I would gladly explain it even better to you, but as I said before, I can't dumb things down any further to get to your level.
Btw, if you are going to quote me, it would be just a bit more honest when you provide the real and complete quote as well as the correct context. Here, I'll do it for you;
Your comment;
my reply;
And then the idiot complains about ad homs.... Go figure!
You definitely have a lot of explaining to do for your trolling behaviour around here.
And you will definitely never ascend to my level. You're too shallow to compete.
Now stop squirming. And deflecting.
As for ad-homs, I welcome them.
Go ahead, make my day..
-
You have yet to explain why that's such an issue for you.
It's not an issue with me. On the contrary: Your knee-taking @Oswald reveals you as Oswald Arse Kisser#1
How would you know where I have or have not "taken a knee"?
> For openers, your kneeling photo at Oswald's gravesite
How would you know where I have or have not "taken a knee"? Do you even know where Tippit's grave is? Without looking it up
Not that that's a childish question. And is your question a request for directions to Tippit's gravesite? Can't you look it up for yourself? Don't worry: No one expects you to kneel this time.
It's not an issue with me.
You sure mention it a lot for something that's not an issue with you.
You definitely have a lot of explaining to do for your trolling behaviour around here.
And you will definitely never ascend to my level. You're too shallow to compete.
Now stop squirming. And deflecting.
As for ad-homs, I welcome them.
Go ahead, make my day..
This is the best you can come up with?
You definitely have a lot of explaining to do for your trolling behaviour around here.
Coming from you that is ironic and hilarious at the same time :D
Btw, you made a minor mistake;
And you will definitely never ascend decend to my level.
There, I fixed it for you
Go ahead, make my day..
Too funny.... Like a chiwawa barking to a pitbull
But seriously, you watch too many Dirty Harry movies and believe it's reality.
-
It's not an issue with me.
Then why do you keep bringing it up every 5 minutes?
> For openers, your kneeling photo at Oswald's gravesite
So your claim that I didn't take a knee at Tippit's grave was just more of your ignorant BS.
Not that that's a childish question. And is your question a request for directions to Tippit's gravesite? Can't you look it up for yourself? Don't worry: No one expects you to kneel this time.
:D
You could have just said "no". You're not even good at posturing.
-
Then why do you keep bringing it up every 5 minutes?
Read the next sentence in that post and and find out why
So your claim that I didn't take a knee at Tippit's grave was just more of your ignorant BS.
>Seeing you take a knee @Oswald isn't BS but does reveal some ignorance.
You could have just said "no". You're not even good at posturing
> Where did I say I didn't know where Tippit was buried? And why does it matter?
-
Read the next sentence in that post and and find out why
Because it's an issue for you?
>Seeing you take a knee @Oswald isn't BS but does reveal some ignorance.
Yes -- on your part. And your tendency to go on and on about things without ever actually saying anything.
> Where did I say I didn't know where Tippit was buried? And why does it matter?
Because you thought it was some kind of talking point that I didn't visit Tippit's grave and do the same thing (like you could possibly know that). But then you pretend to know a lot of things that you don't.
-
It's not an issue with me.
You sure mention it a lot for something that's not an issue with you.
This is the best you can come up with?
You definitely have a lot of explaining to do for your trolling behaviour around here.
Coming from you that is ironic and hilarious at the same time :D
Btw, you made a minor mistake;
And you will definitely never ascend decend to my level.
There, I fixed it for you
Go ahead, make my day..
Too funny.... Like a chiwawa barking to a pitbull
But seriously, you watch too many Dirty Harry movies and believe it's reality.
You sure mention it a lot for something that's not an issue with you
> Stop cherrypicking and read the next sentence in that post.
This is the best you can come up with?
> Is that all you've got?
Coming from you that is ironic and hilarious at the same time :D
> Anybody who disagrees with you lot is automatically ignorant, apparently
Btw, you made a minor mistake;
And you will definitely never ascend decend to my level.
There, I fixed it for you
> Apparently 'down' is 'up' to you.
Go ahead, make my day..
Too funny.... Like a chiwawa barking to a pitbull
But seriously, you watch too many Dirty Harry movies and believe it's reality.
> Not my problem if you see satire as an issue.
-
You sure mention it a lot for something that's not an issue with you
> Stop cherrypicking and read the next sentence in that post.
This is the best you can come up with?
> Is that all you've got?
Coming from you that is ironic and hilarious at the same time :D
> Anybody who disagrees with you lot is automatically a troll
Btw, you made a minor mistake;
And you will definitely never ascend decend to my level.
There, I fixed it for you
> Apparently 'down' is 'up' to you.
Go ahead, make my day..
Too funny.... Like a chiwawa barking to a pitbull
But seriously, you watch too many Dirty Harry movies and believe it's reality.
> Not my problem if you see satire as an issue.
Coming from you that is ironic and hilarious at the same time :D
> Anybody who disagrees with you lot is automatically a troll
Nah.. a troll is a troll. He doesn't have to disagree with anybody. Even if he doesn't, he's still at troll.
Btw, you made a minor mistake;
And you will definitely never ascend decend to my level.
There, I fixed it for you
> Apparently 'down' is 'up' to you.
So, now it's Pirates of the Caribbean?
But no, the basement where you live will always be the basement.
Go ahead, make my day..
Too funny.... Like a chiwawa barking to a pitbull
But seriously, you watch too many Dirty Harry movies and believe it's reality.
> Not my problem if you see satire as an issue.
Dirty Harry is "satire"? Boy, you are one confused puppy
-
Nah.. a troll is a troll. He doesn't have to disagree with anybody. Even if he doesn't, he's still at troll.
> Call it what you want; you tear into people like a rabid pit bull when anyone disagrees with you
So, now it's Pirates of the Caribbean?
> You should really stop trying to use video clips as effectively as I do: You're just not good at it.
But no, the basement where you live will always be the basement.
> Again with the ad-homs. And a worn-out clichė at that. Really impressive.
Dirty Harry is "satire"? Boy, you are one confused puppy
> Dirty Harry Harvey. There, fixed it for you.
-
you pretend to know a lot of things that you don't.
I know that you're OAK#1
And that's all I need to know about you
-
Nah.. a troll is a troll. He doesn't have to disagree with anybody. Even if he doesn't, he's still at troll.
> Call it what you want; you tear into people like a rabid pit bull when anyone disagrees with you
If you can't stand the heat.....
So, now it's Pirates of the Caribbean?
> You should really stop trying to use video clips as effectively as I do: You're just not good at it.
Really? Your response suggests otherwise....
You use video clips effectively? Really?
But no, the basement where you live will always be the basement.
> Again with the ad-homs. And a worn-out clichė at that. Really impressive.
Even a worn-out cliché can still be effective; quod erat demonstrandum.
Dirty Harry is "satire"? Boy, you are one confused puppy
> Dirty Harry Harvey. There, fixed it for you.
More confusion it seems. There is no movie called Dirty Harvey. There was nothing to fix.
-
Congratulations to Mr Graves on derailing yet another thread from its topic-----------------and our thanks to the id*ots who took his bait! Thumb1:
Now!
(https://i.imgur.com/ONgPI8w.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/TztMp5x.jpg)
-
If you can't stand the heat..
Really? Your response suggests otherwise....
You use video clips effectively? Really?
Even a worn-out cliché can still be effective; quod erat demonstrandum.
More confusion it seems. There is no movie called Dirty Harvey. There was nothing to fix.
Really? Your response suggests otherwise....
> Really? Is that all you've got?
You use video clips effectively? Really?
> You use video clips effectively? Really?
Even a worn-out cliché can still be effective; quod erat demonstrandum.
> LATIN? Really? WOW! Not that you're a condescending D*RK.
More confusion it seems. There is no movie called Dirty Harvey. There was nothing to fix
> Yep, no movie... more of an improv, right on the spot... a dark satire @Tippit you might say.
Starring the one-and-only Dirty Harvey (AKA Lee Harvey Oswald)
--------------------------------
POOR DUMB COP: A REVIEW
--------------------------------
Dirty Harry
'Smith, Wesson... and me'
Dirty Harvey
Smith, Wesson... and Lee
----------------------
Author: Bill Chapman
-
Really? Your response suggests otherwise....
> Really? Is that all you've got?
You use video clips effectively? Really?
> You use video clips effectively? Really?
Even a worn-out cliché can still be effective; quod erat demonstrandum.
> LATIN? Really? WOW! Not that you're a condescending d*rk.
More confusion it seems. There is no movie called Dirty Harvey. There was nothing to fix
> Yep, no movie... more of an improv, right on the spot... a dark satire, you might say. Right out in the open @Tippit
Here's my review of 'Poor Dumb Cop'
Dirty Harry
'Smith, Wesson... and me'
Dirty Harvey
Smith, Wesson... and Lee
----------------------
Author: Bill Chapman
And you only needed a couple of hours to re-write your post....WOW!
Really? Your response suggests otherwise....
> Really? Is that all you've got?
It is/was enough to get you rattled quickly
You use video clips effectively? Really?
> You use video clips effectively? Really?
Your question is without merit. I am not the idiot who claimed to use video clips effectively. You are!
Even a worn-out cliché can still be effective; quod erat demonstrandum.
> LATIN? Really? WOW! Not that you're a condescending d*rk.
No, just better educated than you....
More confusion it seems. There is no movie called Dirty Harvey. There was nothing to fix
> Yep, no movie... more of an improv, right on the spot... a dark satire, you might say. Right out in the open @Tippit
Your initial response was better. It didn't expose you ignorance as does this one....
-
And you only needed a couple of hours to re-write your post....WOW!
It is/was enough to get you rattled quickly
Your question is without merit. I am not the idiot who claimed to use video clips effectively. You are!
No, just better educated than you....
Your initial response was better. It didn't expose you ignorance as does this one....
And you only needed a couple of hours to re-write your post....WOW!
> I wasn't aware of any deadline... and time does fly when you're havin' fun.
It is/was enough to get you rattled quickly
> So you're here to rattle people, huh. Big of you to admit that well-known fact.
Your question is without merit. I am not the idiot who claimed to use video clips effectively. You are!
> You seem the rattled one
No, just better educated than you....
> I suggest you go back to school and try again
Your initial response was better. It didn't expose you ignorance as does this one....
> Not that you're a condescending d*rk
-
And you only needed a couple of hours to re-write your post....WOW!
> I wasn't aware of any deadline... and time flies when you're havin' fun.
There are a lot of things you are not aware of, so no surprise there..
It is/was enough to get you rattled quickly
> So you're here to rattle people, huh. Big of you to admit that well-known fact.
Nah, I'm not here to rattle people?..... Well, on second thought, maybe just obnoxious little men. Does that count?
Your question is without merit. I am not the idiot who claimed to use video clips effectively. You are!
> You seem the rattled one
Which only tells us that you lack a basic sense of perception
No, just better educated than you....
> You have yet to demonstrate that
Demonstrate to people who are less educated, like you, you mean? Everybody else already knows.
Your initial response was better. It didn't expose you ignorance as does this one....
> Not that you're a condescending d*rk
Coming from you, that's a compliment. Thank you Thumb1:
-
Better educated = more brainwashed
-
Better educated = more brainwashed
Is that how it works in the shire?
-
Is that how it works in the shire?
What's the shire?
-
What's the shire?
You don't know? I must be more "brainwashed" than you.
-
There are a lot of things you are not aware of, so no surprise there..
Nah, I'm not here to rattle people?..... Well, on second thought, maybe just obnoxious little men. Does that count?
Which only tells us that you lack a basic sense of perception
Demonstrate to people who are less educated, like you, you mean? Everybody else already knows.
Coming from you, that's a compliment. Thank you Thumb1:
What I know is that CTers can't stand being viewed as silly and not worthy of anything more than satire.
-
What I know is that CTers can't stand being viewed as silly and not worthy of anything more than satire.
And that affects me, how?
-
And that affects me, how?
By association: No matter what you lot want to call yourselves, you're all still nothing more than a bunch of Oswald Arse Kissers.
-
This way please, gentlemen... Thumb1:
-
By association: No matter what you lot want to call yourselves, you're all still nothing more than a bunch of Oswald Arse Kissers.
Your naivety is staggering.
-
Your naivety is staggering.
Yes, Chapman's child like acceptance of the fairy tale is astonishing.
-
Your naivety is staggering.
Are you sure your staggered condition isn't more a case of spending too much time in the company of your best friends TomC, JackD, and JimB?
-
Are you sure your staggered condition isn't more a case of spending too much time in the company of your best friends TomC, JackD, and JimB?
If that were only true. It would make dealing with nimwits like you a lot easier.
-
Yes, Chapman's child like acceptance of the fairy tale is astonishing.
I can fully understand why you are in a state of astonishment: Your recorded list of fabrications clearly reveals just who occupies a child-like fantasy.
-
If that were only true. It would make dealing with nimwits like you a lot easier.
You definitely have limits.
-
You definitely have limits.
Still desperately trying to say something clever?
-
Still desperately trying to say something clever?
No 'desperation' required
No 'try' required
Yeah, that's the ticket
-
No 'desperation' required
No 'try' required
Yeah, that's the ticket
And your ego still hasn't figured out that I'm only messing with you? :D
Provoking you is sooooo easy..
-
And your ego still hasn't figured out that I'm only messing with you? :D
Provoking you is sooooo easy..
Is that why you're here?
To "mess with" people and provoke them?
-- MWT ;)
-
And your ego still hasn't figured out that I'm only messing with you? :D
Provoking you is sooooo easy..
If you're going to mess with people you might want to make it less obvious
Your ego is confusing my counter-punching with your 'provoked' charge
Overall, sounds to me that you're attempting to save face
I did give you quite the thrashing, after all...
Knocked 'em out of the park & pitched a no-hitter
Besting you is soooooo easy..
-
Is that why you're here?
To "mess with" people and provoke them?
-- MWT ;)
You know it
And don't forget 'rattle'
He has all the words... the best words
-
If you're going to mess with people you might want to make it less obvious
Your ego is confusing my counter-punching with your 'provoked' charge
Overall, sounds to me that you're attempting to save face
I did give you quite the thrashing, after all...
Knocked 'em out of the park & pitched a no-hitter
Besting you is soooooo easy..
Exactly as expected. Your ego won't let you get over it, will it now?
Delusional and desperately in need of the final word.... Go on then, tell us again how "brilliant" you are and I'll promise you not to respond.
Would that make you happy?
-
Is that why you're here?
To "mess with" people and provoke them?
-- MWT ;)
No, in most cases I'll leave that to you, Tommy
-
No, in most cases I'll leave that to you, Tommy
~Sigh~
Why do you keep taking these thread-derailers' bait, Mr Weidmann? You're here to help solve the case-------------------they're not! Do the one thing they don't want you to do: ignore them. Thumb1:
-
Exactly as expected. Your ego won't let you get over it, will it now?
Delusional and desperately in need of the final word.... Go on then, tell us again how "brilliant" you are and I'll promise you not to respond.
Would that make you happy?
Exactly as expected. Your ego won't let you get over it, will it now?
> Exactly as expected. Your ego won't let you get over it, will it Martin.
Delusional and desperately in need of the final word
>You know yourself very well. My congratulations... and condolences.
Go on then, tell us again how "brilliant" you are and I'll promise you not to respond.
> You've been telling me for years that I'm not worth responding to. Yet here you are. Again. Like the moth to the flame.
Would that make you happy?
> I was was born happy