JFK Assassination Forum
JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => Topic started by: David Von Pein on January 13, 2022, 05:44:53 PM
-
At the link below, I have compiled a few questions for Buell Wesley Frazier. I would like it very much if Buell could some day answer these inquiries:
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2022/01/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-1349.html
With all of the above individual facts piled up against the door, which are facts that are just dying to be strung together to form a cohesive whole known as "The Totality Of Evidence In The JFK Murder Case", can you, Buell Wesley Frazier, possibly still cling to the notion that Lee Harvey Oswald, merely because he was kind to you and the children who lived near you in Irving, was innocent of killing President John F. Kennedy?
I truly wonder if Mr. Frazier has ever once examined the evidence against Oswald in an objective way in which his friendship with the accused assassin was set aside in order to let the evidence speak for itself. I doubt that he has.
-
At the link below, I have compiled a few questions for Buell Wesley Frazier. I would like it very much if Buell could some day answer these inquiries:
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2022/01/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-1349.html
With all of the above individual facts piled up against the door, which are facts that are just dying to be strung together to form a cohesive whole known as "The Totality Of Evidence In The JFK Murder Case", can you, Buell Wesley Frazier, possibly still cling to the notion that Lee Harvey Oswald, merely because he was kind to you and the children who lived near you in Irving, was innocent of killing President John F. Kennedy?
I truly wonder if Mr. Frazier has ever once examined the evidence against Oswald in an objective way in which his friendship with the accused assassin was set aside in order to let the evidence speak for itself. I doubt that he has.
Frazier is extremely defensive on the topic of the assassination. He is certainly not an expert on the evidence against Oswald. He is in no better position than anyone else to assess much of that. Does anyone really care if he accepts Oswald's guilt or not? He could help fill in some historical details of his own activities and things he directly observed. The roll call, his movements after leaving the TSBD, when did he first become aware that the "Lee" he drove that morning was a suspect, the content of his call from the hospital to his sister. I've always thought it was possible that Frazier's sister advised him to distance himself from any implication that he should have been a little more suspicious of Oswald that morning. So the package becomes shorter, he didn't really take any notice, no discussion with Oswald of the presidential visit that day even though he has said that he went to his supervisors and asked if the employees could watch the parade. Hard to believe there would have been no mention of the top news story of the day involving the President of the US driving by their place of employment.
-
Frazier is...certainly not an expert on the evidence against Oswald.
I think you're right. He's not an expert. And it could be that Buell has deliberately avoided becoming well-schooled on the evidence so that he can continue to maintain a (false) rosy picture of his friend and co-worker Lee Oswald for as long as he lives.
But I really have no idea as to how much Buell knows about the details of the JFK case. As I asked in my article in the OP, I'm wondering if Frazier even believes Oswald shot and killed J.D. Tippit. I have a feeling he doesn't believe Lee took a shot at anyone in 1963 --- including Walker. But for that matter, is Buell even aware of the Walker shooting at all? You'd never know by looking at any of his interviews. That topic never comes up. Nor does the topic of Tippit's murder. It's as if those things never even happened....which is one of the reasons I wanted to write out the above list of questions for Buell Frazier. If he were ever to study those questions, perhaps he would be inclined to accept the fact that Lee Harvey wasn't always the perfect co-worker after all.
-
At the link below, I have compiled a few questions for Buell Wesley Frazier. I would like it very much if Buell could some day answer these inquiries:
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2022/01/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-1349.html
With all of the above individual facts piled up against the door, which are facts that are just dying to be strung together to form a cohesive whole known as "The Totality Of Evidence In The JFK Murder Case", can you, Buell Wesley Frazier, possibly still cling to the notion that Lee Harvey Oswald, merely because he was kind to you and the children who lived near you in Irving, was innocent of killing President John F. Kennedy?
I truly wonder if Mr. Frazier has ever once examined the evidence against Oswald in an objective way in which his friendship with the accused assassin was set aside in order to let the evidence speak for itself. I doubt that he has.
On Ripley's Believe It or Not, I read a document that Frazier said 'It looked like Lee was trying to hide the bag from me'.
.
-
On Ripley's Believe It or Not, I read a document that Frazier said 'It looked like Lee was trying to hide the bag from me'.
That's very interesting. I have never heard about that before. Buell has certainly never mentioned that detail in any of his interviews. I'd like to see that document.
-
I think that's correct. And it could be that Buell has deliberately avoided becoming well-schooled on the evidence so that he can continue to maintain a (false) rosy picture of his friend and co-worker Lee Oswald for as long as he lives.
But I really have no idea as to how much Buell knows about the details of the JFK case. As I asked in my article in the OP, I'm wondering if Frazier even believes Oswald shot and killed J.D. Tippit. I have a feeling he doesn't believe Lee took a shot at anyone in 1963 --- including Walker. But for that matter, is Buell even aware of the Walker shooting at all? You'd never know by looking at any of his interviews. That topic never comes up. Nor does the topic of Tippit's murder. It's as if those things never even happened....which is one of the reasons I wanted to write out the above list of questions for Buell Frazier. If he were ever to study those questions, perhaps he would be inclined to accept the fact that Lee Harvey wasn't always the perfect co-worker after all.
Buell Frazier was a witness to an event in history. He, like many other witnesses, is not a researcher. He doesn't need to have an outspoken opinion about the Walker and Tippit shootings. He knew the man they named as a suspect for the Kennedy murder and he simply does not believe that there was a rifle in the package he saw Lee carry. It is my impression that Frazier is sick and tired of all the fanatics who keep questioning what he actually saw, just because they don't like what he saw.
For many years he wanted as little as possible to do with the case as it had a major impact on his life and that was something he did not ask for. His opinion, based upon personally knowing LHO, is just that; his opinion. He simply does not believe that Oswald was capable of murder. He has a right to his opinion. You don't like that? Deal with it!
-
Buell Frazier was a witness to an event in history. He, like many other witnesses, is not a researcher. He doesn't need to have an outspoken opinion about the Walker and Tippit shootings. He knew the man they named as a suspect for the Kennedy murder and he simply does not believe that there was a rifle in the package he saw Lee carry. It is my impression that Frazier is sick and tired of all the fanatics who keep questioning what he actually saw, just because they don't like what he saw.
For many years he wanted as little as possible to do with the case as it had a major impact on his life and that was something he did not ask for. His opinion, based upon personally knowing LHO, is just that; his opinion. He simply does not believe that Oswald was capable of murder. He has a right to his opinion. You don't like that? Deal with it!
Yes, Buell Frazier has a right to his opinion. Of course he does. Everyone does. But what I wonder is this: Is Buell Wesley Frazier's opinion a truly informed opinion? Is Buell even fully aware of all the evidence against Oswald? I wonder. And it's evidence which proves for all time that Lee Harvey Oswald was a double-murderer.
You don't like that? Deal with it!
-
That's very interesting. I have never heard about that before. Buell has certainly never mentioned that detail in any of his interviews. I'd like to see that document.
Don't get your hopes up. As I recall the heart of the document looks legit, but they've lopped off the top where we should see something official. I'll take a look at my files and post whatever I find within a day or two.
-
Yes, Buell Frazier has a right to his opinion. Of course he does. Everyone does. But what I wonder is this: Is Buell Wesley Frazier's opinion a truly informed opinion? Is Buell even fully aware of all the evidence against Oswald? I wonder. And it's evidence which proves for all time that Lee Harvey Oswald was a double-murderer.
You don't like that? Deal with it!
Is Buell Wesley Frazier's opinion a truly informed opinion?
Why is that even of interest to you? Why does it bother you so much that Buell Frazier does not consider Oswald guilty?
And it's evidence which proves for all time that Lee Harvey Oswald was a double-murderer.
What's the weather like in fairyland?
I'm sorry, but when you have not a shred of evidence that the MC rifle found at the TSBD was ever stored in Ruth Paine's garage, when you have to dismiss out of hand as "mistaken" the eye-witness testimony of two persons who actually saw the bag Oswald was carrying and said it wasn't the one allegedly found at the sniper's nest, when you can not even place Oswald on the 6th floor of the TSBD at 12:30 on 11/22/63, when none of the women on the 4th floor see Oswald running down the stairs within 60 seconds of the shots being fired, and when the MC rifle found at the TSBD can only be tentatively linked to Oswald, you haven't got much of a case. In fact all you've got are assumptions.
Or am I mistaken? Did I miss something? If I wrote anything that isn't factual and correct, feel free to correct me!
-
What's the weather like in fairyland?
I'm sorry, but when you have not a shred of evidence that the MC rifle found at the TSBD was ever stored in Ruth Paine's garage, when you have to dismiss out of hand as "mistaken" the eye-witness testimony of two persons who actually saw the bag Oswald was carrying and said it wasn't the one allegedly found at the sniper's nest, when you can not even place Oswald on the 6th floor of the TSBD at 12:30 on 11/22/63, when none of the women on the 4th floor see Oswald running down the stairs within 60 seconds of the shots being fired, and when the MC rifle found at the TSBD can only be tentatively linked to Oswald, you haven't got much of a case. In fact all you've got are assumptions.
Or am I mistaken? Did I miss something? If I wrote anything that isn't factual and correct, feel free to correct me!
You weren't very good in math class when you were in school, were you Martin? Because you, like most other conspiracy theorists, seem incapable of adding 2 & 2 together.
And this statement of yours (which you claim is "factual and correct") can only elicit laughter from anyone who knows just how utterly wrong this statement is: "The MC rifle found at the TSBD can only be tentatively linked to Oswald".
When will the conspiracy fantasists stop perpetuating the "Oswald Never Ordered Or Possessed The C2766 Rifle" myth?
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2014/12/oswald-ordered-rifle.html
More of Martin's tripe is taken care of here:
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/07/frazier-randle-and-paper-bag.html
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/oswald-was-in-snipers-nest.html
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2014/07/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-743.html
-
You weren't very good in math class when you were in school, were you Martin? Because you, like most other conspiracy theorists, seem incapable of adding 2 & 2 together.
And this statement of yours (which you claim is "factual and correct") can only elicit laughter from anyone who knows just how utterly wrong this statement is: "The MC rifle found at the TSBD can only be tentatively linked to Oswald".
When will the conspiracy fantasists stop perpetuating the "Oswald Never Ordered Or Possessed The C2766 Rifle" myth?
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2014/12/oswald-ordered-rifle.html
More of Martin's tripe is taken care of here:
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/07/frazier-randle-and-paper-bag.html
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/oswald-was-in-snipers-nest.html
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2014/07/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-743.html
You weren't very good in math class when you were in school, were you Martin? Because you, like most other conspiracy theorists, seem incapable of adding 2 & 2 together.
Maybe, but I know a BS artist when I see one. When you need to start your reply with an insult, you've already lost the argument. You are not an authority on this case, no matter how much information you accumulate. You're just a parrot.
And this statement of yours (which you claim is "factual and correct") can only elicit laughter from anyone who knows just how utterly wrong this statement is: "The MC rifle found at the TSBD can only be tentatively linked to Oswald".
Then prove me wrong! Why don't you?
I have no intention to read the bias diatribes you post on your blog. I have asked you to prove anything I have written is wrong and it seems you can't.
Do you have any evidence that the MC rifle found at the TSBD was ever stored in Ruth Paine's garage?
Do you have any evidence that Buell Frazier and his sister were "mistaken" about the bag Oswald was carrying?
Can you place Oswald on the 6th floor of the TSBD at 12:30 on 11/22/63?
Can you name any of the women on the 4th floor who saw Oswald running down the stairs within 60 seconds of the shots being fired?
And can you prove conclusively that the MC rifle found at the TSBD is linked, beyond tentatively, to Oswald?
Note: I did have a look at the links you've provided and found a number of absolute misrepresentations of the evidence. When you need to misrepresent the evidence only once, you've already lost all credibility.
-
At the link below, I have compiled a few questions for Buell Wesley Frazier. I would like it very much if Buell could some day answer these inquiries:
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2022/01/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-1349.html
With all of the above individual facts piled up against the door, which are facts that are just dying to be strung together to form a cohesive whole known as "The Totality Of Evidence In The JFK Murder Case", can you, Buell Wesley Frazier, possibly still cling to the notion that Lee Harvey Oswald, merely because he was kind to you and the children who lived near you in Irving, was innocent of killing President John F. Kennedy?
I truly wonder if Mr. Frazier has ever once examined the evidence against Oswald in an objective way in which his friendship with the accused assassin was set aside in order to let the evidence speak for itself. I doubt that he has.
I have compiled a Frazier-related question for Mr von Pein. I would like it very much if Mr von Pein could some day answer my inquiry.
Question: How do you explain what's on the document below?
(https://i.imgur.com/qBOkbcb.jpg)
Thumb1:
-
I would like it very much if Mr von Pein [sic] could some day answer my inquiry.
[...]
How do you explain what's on the document below?
As has happened on several documents relating to the JFK case, the "3-15-64" date is obviously an error. It should say March 23rd.....as Vincent Bugliosi discusses in the book excerpt seen below. And even Vince B. isn't immune to slipping a digit. In this book excerpt, in fact, his "March 26" should say "March 24". But, nobody's perfect. Not even the former Los Angeles Deputy District Attorney....
(https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-clRnURH4S0I/WIa7Wh64z5I/AAAAAAABLUo/lDcJL-FbZBkmYe2ikyPs_vmu20BcU63hgCLcB/s1400/RH-Excerpts-Regarding-Curtain-Rods.png)
-
I did have a look at the links you've provided and found a number of absolute misrepresentations of the evidence.
Name one.
-
Addendum to my post regarding Bugliosi and the Paine curtain rods....
My apologies to the late Mr. Bugliosi for saying he "slipped a digit". He didn't slip a digit at all, because I just now noticed that there are two different versions of CE1952. The one posted above by Alan Ford shows a March 24 date; whereas the CE1952 in WC Volume 23 (the one Vince obviously was referring to in his 2007 book) shows a different version, featuring a March 26th date on it (shown below). Most curious indeed.
https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh23/html/WH_Vol23_0394b.htm
(https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh23/pages/WH_Vol23_0394b.gif)
-
Name one.
The Vincent Scalice bit. The conclusions you draw from it is a complete over exaggeration.
Scalice never handled the rifle itself and was only asked to compare photographs that were claimed to have been of the trigger of the rifle in the National Archives.
Btw, that's the difference between you and me. When you ask me a question, I actually answer it.
When I ask you a question, I get a bunch of links with biased assumptions and one sided interpretations of pieces of evidence. What I don't get is a straight answer and one can only wonder why!
-
Yes, Buell Frazier has a right to his opinion. Of course he does. Everyone does. But what I wonder is this: Is Buell Wesley Frazier's opinion a truly informed opinion? Is Buell even fully aware of all the evidence against Oswald? I wonder. And it's evidence which proves for all time that Lee Harvey Oswald was a double-murderer.
You don't like that? Deal with it!
Frazier's opinion is based on his feelings. He thinks LHO was a nice guy because he was polite and liked playing with kids. The evidence appears to be less persuasive to Frazier than his feelings. Typical of the CT crowd...
-
The Vincent Scalice bit. The conclusions you draw from it is a complete over exaggeration.
Scalice never handled the rifle itself and was only asked to compare photographs that were claimed to have been of the trigger of the rifle in the National Archives.
Lousy example. I misrepresented nothing here....
"In the early 1990s, fingerprint expert Vincent Scalice, by utilizing different methods of fingerprint photo comparison, was able to find well over a dozen points of identity linking the previously unidentified fingerprints on the trigger housing of the C2766 Carcano rifle to Lee Harvey Oswald's comparison prints. To any reasonable person who evaluates this evidence concerning the fingerprints found near the rifle's trigger, this shows that it's very likely that the last person who touched rifle C2766 prior to its being found on the sixth floor of the Book Depository was Lee Harvey Oswald." -- DVP
Try again, Martin. (You claimed to have numerous examples of my "misrepresentations". Let me see another one.)
-
Frazier's opinion is based on his feelings. He thinks LHO was a nice guy because he was polite and liked playing with kids. The evidence appears to be less persuasive to Frazier than his feelings. Typical of the CT crowd...
I agree. Plus he likely would prefer that Oswald is not guilty. That would mean he would not forever be known in history as the guy who drove the assassin with his rifle to the TSBD. Frazier is the poster boy for "no good deed goes unpunished." He did a favor for Oswald and found himself as a potential suspect in the assassination of the President. He must feel some guilt and anger no matter how undeserved.
-
Lousy example. I misrepresented nothing here....
"In the early 1990s, fingerprint expert Vincent Scalice, by utilizing different methods of fingerprint photo comparison, was able to find well over a dozen points of identity linking the previously unidentified fingerprints on the trigger housing of the C2766 Carcano rifle to Lee Harvey Oswald's comparison prints. To any reasonable person who evaluates this evidence concerning the fingerprints found near the rifle's trigger, this shows that it's very likely that the last person who touched rifle C2766 prior to its being found on the sixth floor of the Book Depository was Lee Harvey Oswald." -- DVP
Try again, Martin. (You claimed to have numerous examples of my "misrepresentations". Let me see another one.)
Only to be dismissed out of hand, one more time? I can find other ways to waste my time.
All you did was copy/paste the crap you have posted on your blog, as if it somehow is the truth. You can't/don't even show that Scalice was actually shown photographs of the MC rifle in the National Archives.
I might give you another example after you have actually answered my questions... so it's up to you.
-
I agree. Plus he likely would prefer that Oswald is not guilty. That would mean he would not forever be known in history as the guy who drove the assassin with his rifle to the TSBD. Frazier is the poster boy for "no good deed goes unpunished." He did a favor for Oswald and found himself as a potential suspect in the assassination of the President. He must feel some guilt and anger no matter how undeserved.
You really are one sick puppy. Have you ever met the man?
Or if you haven't, how in the world can you judge him?
-
I agree. Plus he likely would prefer that Oswald is not guilty. That would mean he would not forever be known in history as the guy who drove the assassin with his rifle to the TSBD. Frazier is the poster boy for "no good deed goes unpunished." He did a favor for Oswald and found himself as a potential suspect in the assassination of the President. He must feel some guilt and anger no matter how undeserved.
If he's a Republican, he feels no guilt no matter how deserved.
(https://imagenes.elpais.com/resizer/rbq93LLer0UkIP7m9_u5q12gkPc=/1960x1103/cloudfront-eu-central-1.images.arcpublishing.com/prisa/T7LQC4OM3KM5IMQ7ISEOWGLBBU.jpg)
-
If he's a Republican, he feels no guilt no matter how deserved.
(https://imagenes.elpais.com/resizer/rbq93LLer0UkIP7m9_u5q12gkPc=/1960x1103/cloudfront-eu-central-1.images.arcpublishing.com/prisa/T7LQC4OM3KM5IMQ7ISEOWGLBBU.jpg)
Dear Richard is an obvious republican Thumb1:
-
As has happened on several documents relating to the JFK case, the "3-15-64" date is obviously an error. It should say March 23rd.....as Vincent Bugliosi discusses in the book excerpt seen below.
So, Mr Von Pein, you believe the curtain rods were submitted at 9.45 a.m. on March 23?
(https://i.imgur.com/qBOkbcb.jpg)
-
You weren't very good in math class when you were in school, were you Martin? Because you, like most other conspiracy theorists, seem incapable of adding 2 & 2 together.
Maybe, but I know a BS artist when I see one. When you need to start your reply with an insult, you've already lost the argument. You are not an authority on this case, no matter how much information you accumulate. You're just a parrot.
And this statement of yours (which you claim is "factual and correct") can only elicit laughter from anyone who knows just how utterly wrong this statement is: "The MC rifle found at the TSBD can only be tentatively linked to Oswald".
Then prove me wrong! Why don't you?
I have no intention to read the bias diatribes you post on your blog. I have asked you to prove anything I have written is wrong and it seems you can't.
Do you have any evidence that the MC rifle found at the TSBD was ever stored in Ruth Paine's garage?
Do you have any evidence that Buell Frazier and his sister were "mistaken" about the bag Oswald was carrying?
Can you place Oswald on the 6th floor of the TSBD at 12:30 on 11/22/63?
Can you name any of the women on the 4th floor who saw Oswald running down the stairs within 60 seconds of the shots being fired?
And can you prove conclusively that the MC rifle found at the TSBD is linked, beyond tentatively, to Oswald?
Note: I did have a look at the links you've provided and found a number of absolute misrepresentations of the evidence. When you need to misrepresent the evidence only once, you've already lost all credibility.
When you need to start your reply with an insult, you've already lost the argument.
_Like you did in Reply #8
(https://i.postimg.cc/NfXYRcX5/FAIRY-TALE-LAND.png)
billchapman_hunter of trolls_you_are_next
-
At the link below, I have compiled a few questions for Buell Wesley Frazier. I would like it very much if Buell could some day answer these inquiries:
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2022/01/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-1349.html
With all of the above individual facts piled up against the door, which are facts that are just dying to be strung together to form a cohesive whole known as "The Totality Of Evidence In The JFK Murder Case", can you, Buell Wesley Frazier, possibly still cling to the notion that Lee Harvey Oswald, merely because he was kind to you and the children who lived near you in Irving, was innocent of killing President John F. Kennedy?
I truly wonder if Mr. Frazier has ever once examined the evidence against Oswald in an objective way in which his friendship with the accused assassin was set aside in order to let the evidence speak for itself. I doubt that he has.
you might find this interesting
https://www.ripleys.com/weird-news/the-assassination-of-jfk/
-
Do you have any evidence that Buell Frazier and his sister were "mistaken" about the bag Oswald was carrying?
1. Lee Oswald carries one large-ish brown paper bag into the TSBD on 11/22/63.
2. One large-ish EMPTY brown paper bag is found on the 6th floor of the TSBD after the assassination (in the precise location where an assassin was located). And that bag has LHO's prints on it.
3. No other large-ish paper bag is located anywhere in the TSBD.
4. So, if Buell Frazier and Linnie Randle were right about the length of Oswald's package, then the question needs to be asked: What happened to the SHORTER 27-inch bag that Frazier and Randle said Oswald had with him on Nov. 22nd? Did THAT bag just disappear into a puff of smoke?
5. Final conclusion: Linnie Mae Randle and Buell Wesley Frazier were simply mistaken about the length of the package they each saw Lee Harvey Oswald carrying on 11/22/63.
But instead of logically adding up #1 thru #4 above and accepting the obvious truth about the discrepancy concerning the length of Oswald's paper bag, many conspiracy theorists here in the 21st century have decided to abandon their previous "The Bag Was Too Short To Hold The Rifle" argument (which most CTers have embraced to their bosoms for decades) and have decided it would be a good idea to come out and call Frazier and Randle bald-faced liars, with those 21st-century conspiracy fantasists inventing the fantastically idiotic theory that has BOTH Frazier AND Randle getting together and just MAKING UP a story about Oswald carrying a large-ish paper bag on the morning of the assassination.
These new 21st-century conspiracy innovators couldn't care less, of course, about the fact that they haven't produced a single shred of solid evidence or proof to show that their goofy "There Was No Bag At All" theory is true. As is usually the case with most Internet CTers, their motto is: The More Liars, The Better. And their Liars List now includes 19-year-old TSBD order filler Buell Wesley Frazier and Irving, Texas, housewife Linnie Mae Randle. It doesn't get much more pathetic (and desperate) than that for these 21st-century conspiracy mongers.
But, based on the question he asked me above about the bag, at least Martin Weidmann doesn't seem to be in the "No Bag At All" club. That's one small point in Martin's favor at least.
The question now remains: Will Martin be able to reasonably perform the third-grade math when he adds up #1 thru #4 above?
-
Standard reply from all Lone Nutters when confronted with witness testimony they don't like: THEY MUST BE LYING!
Irony at its best here. I have never accused Frazier or Randle of "lying". It's most Internet CTers who think those two witnesses were liars, not me.
A dictionary is evidently needed here. .... thinks Mistaken = Liar. Who knows why.
-
1. Lee Oswald carries one large-ish brown paper bag into the TSBD on 11/22/63.
Yes, and Frazier tells the investigators, the bag fitted between the cup of Oswald's hand and his shoulder. He also shows FBI agents to where the bag reached on the backseat of his car and the FBI agents measure the distance which is 27''.
Linnie Mae Randle says she saw Oswald holding the bag at the top and carry next to his leg. If that bag contained a wooden stock of a rifle it would have been at least 34" long, which means it would have hit the ground. Since it didn't it is reasonable to assume that the bag was shorter than 34". In fact, the bag that Oswald could have carried in the way Linnie Mae Randle described could not have been larger than 27".
2. One large-ish EMPTY brown paper bag is found on the 6th floor of the TSBD after the assassination (in the precise location where an assassin was located). And that bag has LHO's prints on it.
The only evidence there is that the bag was found at the sniper's nest are the statements of a couple of cops. However a similar number of cops said they did not see it there. There's no photograph of the bag in situ and it is still not clear who actually found that bag. There is evidence that DPD officers made a bag themselves to carry a window sill out of the building. And low and behold, when the bag was being photographed as it was carried out of the building, it clearly had something in it that was holding it up. Any change that you can tell us what was in that bag?
As the bag was made out of TSBD materials there are a number of ways how LHO's print got on it. Besides, there were more prints on the bag that could not be identified, leaving open the possibility that other people had touch the bag as well.
Most interesting about this bag, allegedly found at the sniper's nest, is the panic of Lt Day after Frazier was shown the bag (when he was being polygraphed) and he said it wasn't the bag he had seen. It made Day speculate that perhaps Oswald had carried this bag, inside the bag Frazier had seen Oswald carry. That's how desperate they were to connect the bag they had to Oswald. It's beyond pathetic.
3. No other large-ish paper bag is located anywhere in the TSBD.
There is no record of the TSBD being searched for another bag. But even if there was, the mere fact that they couldn't find the bag doesn't mean it didn't exist. Oswald would have had all morning to dispose of the bag and it's content.
4. So, if Buell Frazier and Linnie Randle were right about the length of Oswald's package, then the question needs to be asked: What happened to the SHORTER 27-inch bag that Frazier and Randle said Oswald had with him on Nov. 22nd? Did THAT bag just disappear into a puff of smoke?
You can ask that question all you want, but the lack of an answer is meaningless. The only person who could have told us what happened with that bag died on 11/24/63.
5. Final conclusion: Linnie Mae Randle and Buell Wesley Frazier were simply mistaken about the length of the package they each saw Lee Harvey Oswald carrying on 11/22/63.
Self serving speculation based on flawed circular logic.
But instead of logically adding up #1 thru #4 above and accepting the obvious truth about the discrepancy concerning the length of Oswald's paper bag, many conspiracy theorists here in the 21st century have decided to abandon their previous "The Bag Was Too Short To Hold The Rifle" argument (which most CTers have embraced to their bosoms for decades) and have decided it would be a good idea to come out and call Frazier and Randle bald-faced liars, with those 21st-century conspiracy fantasists inventing the fantastically idiotic theory that has BOTH Frazier AND Randle getting together and just MAKING UP a story about Oswald carrying a large-ish paper bag on the morning of the assassination.
These new 21st-century conspiracy innovators couldn't care less, of course, about the fact that they haven't produced a single shred of solid evidence or proof to show that their goofy "There Was No Bag At All" theory is true. As is usually the case with most Internet CTers, their motto is: The More Liars, The Better. And their Liars List now includes 19-year-old TSBD order filler Buell Wesley Frazier and Irving, Texas, housewife Linnie Mae Randle. It doesn't get much more pathetic (and desperate) than that for these 21st-century conspiracy mongers.
An add hom attack on 21st-century conspiracy theorists is unwarranted and serves no other purpose but to attempt to "win" the argument by pathetic ridicule. The irony is that Buell Frazier's frustration is largely based on the fact that he feels he was unjustly being called a liar by the WC. "He was mistaken" is just the WC and LN's way to call somebody a liar!
But, based on the question he asked me above about the bag, at least Martin Weidmann doesn't seem to be in the "No Bag At All" club. That's one small point in Martin's favor at least.
The question now remains: Will Martin be able to reasonably perform the third-grade math when he adds up #1 thru #4 above?
Don't need to. All you've presented here are vague speculative self-serving arguments in defiance of the words of the only two people who actually saw the bag. I'd take Buell Frazier's word over that of the WC, or you for that matter, any day.
Two things you fail to address are;
(1) To this day Frazier maintains he was right about the size of the bag and he never wavered from that, ever. Why do you think his is so adamant?
(2) What are the odds that two people who saw the paper bag are both "mistaken" in exactly the same manner?
-
If he's a Republican, he feels no guilt no matter how deserved.
(https://imagenes.elpais.com/resizer/rbq93LLer0UkIP7m9_u5q12gkPc=/1960x1103/cloudfront-eu-central-1.images.arcpublishing.com/prisa/T7LQC4OM3KM5IMQ7ISEOWGLBBU.jpg)
Is that a photo from one of Trudeau's blackface parties?
-
You really are one sick puppy. Have you ever met the man?
Or if you haven't, how in the world can you judge him?
Yes, I have actually. Not judging him, though. He has spoken and written a book on the topic. What exactly is "sick" about saying that Frazier did a good deed (giving Oswald a ride to work) and became a potential suspect? Do you take issue with the conclusion that he prefers not to be remembered as the person who drove the assassin to the TSBD? You are really starting to lose it with the endless insults. Maybe take up a new hobby. There are UFO and Bigfoot forums where your contrarian mania could be used to go down any number of rabbit holes. The answer is out there.
-
Yes, I have actually. Not judging him, though. He has spoken and written a book on the topic. What exactly is "sick" about saying that Frazier did a good deed (giving Oswald a ride to work) and became a potential suspect? Do you take issue with the conclusion that he prefers not to be remembered as the person who drove the assassin to the TSBD? You are really starting to lose it with the endless insults. Maybe take up a new hobby. There are UFO and Bigfoot forums where your contrarian mania could be used to go down any number of rabbit holes. The answer is out there.
How ironic that you know about those UFO and Bigfoot forums and I don't.
Yes, I have actually.
I seriously doubt it, but the next time I meet him, I'll ask him if he has ever met Richard Smith.
Not judging him, though.
Of course you are. You always judge everybody
You are really starting to lose it with the endless insults.
Says the guy who insults people on a daily basis. Just another entitled one playing the victim. Pathetic
-
How ironic that you know about those UFO and Bigfoot forums and I don't.
Yes, I have actually.
I seriously doubt it, but the next time I meet him, I'll ask him if he has ever met Richard Smith.
Not judging him, though.
Of course you are. You always judge everybody
You are really starting to lose it with the endless insults.
Says the guy who insults people on a daily basis. Just another entitled one playing the victim. Pathetic
More deflection and personal insults to avoid the topic. Again, what was "sick" about pointing out that Frazier did a good deed for Oswald and was rewarded by becoming a potential suspect in the assassination. What was "sick" about stating that Frazier doesn't want to be remembered as the person who drove the assassin to the TSBD. Those seem to be reasonable, neutral statements that you have taken issue with.
-
Frazier tells the investigators the bag fitted between the cup of Oswald's hand and his shoulder. He also shows FBI agents to where the bag reached on the backseat of his car and the FBI agents measure the distance which is 27''.
Yes, Buell Frazier has, indeed, been very consistent when he has made the claim that Oswald carried the bag cupped in his right hand with the other end of the package under Oswald's right armpit.
But....
Mr. Frazier is also on record as having said the following at the 1986 Oswald Mock Trial in London, England:
VINCENT T. BUGLIOSI -- "Mr. Frazier, is it true that you paid hardly any attention to this bag?"
BUELL WESLEY FRAZIER -- "That is true."
BUGLIOSI -- "So the bag could have been protruding out in front of his body, and you wouldn't have been able to see it, is that correct?"
FRAZIER -- "That is true."
Linnie Mae Randle says she saw Oswald holding the bag at the top and carry next to his leg. If that bag contained a wooden stock of a rifle it would have been at least 34" long, which means it would have hit the ground. Since it didn't, it is reasonable to assume that the bag was shorter than 34".
But Mrs. Randle also told FBI agent James Bookhout on the day of the assassination itself that the package she saw Lee Oswald carrying that same day was "approximately 3 feet" (36 inches) in length (see the 11/22/63 FBI Report below)....
https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/testimony/randl_l1.htm
So it would appear as if Linnie Mae's bag-length estimate got smaller over a period of time. The reason for this change can never be fully known, of course. But the fact remains (per Bookhout's Nov. 22 report above) that Linnie, in her very first attempt at estimating the size of Oswald's paper bag, said the bag was "approximately three feet" long. And that is just 2 inches away from the actual size of the 38-inch bag that was found in the Sniper's Nest.
[BTW / FYI / FWIW --- In the 1964 David Wolper motion picture "Four Days In November", Linnie Mae Randle said the bag was "approximately two-and-a-half feet long" (30 inches). See video below.]
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1G4mVIszdpy7RHsHQskIefrB_F_s1rOnz/view
The only evidence there is that the bag was found at the sniper's nest are the statements of a couple of cops.
It's more than just a couple. It's at least double that number, and possibly as many as 5 or 6 officers said they saw the empty paper bag on the sixth floor. Here's a list of the four DPD officers that I usually cite whenever this topic comes up:
J.C. Day [4 H 267 (http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh4/html/WC_Vol4_0138a.htm)]
L.D. Montgomery [7 H 97 (http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh7/html/WC_Vol7_0053a.htm)]
Robert Studebaker [7 H 143-144 (http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh7/html/WC_Vol7_0076a.htm)]
Marvin Johnson [7 H 103 (http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh7/html/WC_Vol7_0056a.htm)]
There is evidence that DPD officers made a bag themselves to carry a window sill out of the building. And lo and behold, when the bag was being photographed as it was carried out of the building, it clearly had something in it that was holding it up. Any chance that you can tell us what was in that bag?
A "window sill"? That's the first time I've ever heard that one.
You think there's a window sill tucked away in this bag?....
(https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-eSB3HYpevE0/T3oIdYEqRtI/AAAAAAAAHJM/qCyDjxVjJUw/s1600/LD-Montgomery-Holds-Brown-Paper-Bag.jpg)
In reality, of course, there's nothing at all in the above bag.
"He was mistaken" is just the WC and LN's way to call somebody a liar!
That's total nonsense, Martin. When I say that I think someone was "mistaken", that's precisely what I mean. I'm not calling that person a liar.
Two things you fail to address are:
(1) To this day Frazier maintains he was right about the size of the bag and he never wavered from that, ever. Why do you think [he] is so adamant?
I would guess it is because his memory of the package is firm and concrete in his own mind, and he sees no reason to change now.
But a lot of people were mistaken about the things they saw and heard on 11/22/63. (And I mean mistakes, not lies.) Nellie Connally being another good example. She always maintained that she witnessed JFK reacting to being hit by the first shot. But a close look at the Zapruder Film shows that Nellie wasn't even looking in JFK's direction in order to see what she always said she saw at the time she says she saw it. But she's not a liar, she's simply mistaken.
A lot of the Parkland witnesses were "mistaken" too when they said they saw a big hole in the back of JFK's head. But the autopsy photos prove for all time that those witnesses were, indeed, mistaken. (CTer protests notwithstanding, of course.)
(2) What are the odds that two people who saw the paper bag are both "mistaken" in exactly the same manner?
See my last comment about all the mistaken Parkland Hospital witnesses.
-
Yes, Buell Frazier has, indeed, been very consistent when he has made the claim that Oswald carried the bag cupped in his right hand with the other end of the package under Oswald's right armpit.
But....
Mr. Frazier is also on record as having said the following at the 1986 Oswald Mock Trial in London, England:
VINCENT T. BUGLIOSI -- "Mr. Frazier, is it true that you paid hardly any attention to this bag?"
BUELL WESLEY FRAZIER -- "That is true."
BUGLIOSI -- "So the bag could have been protruding out in front of his body, and you wouldn't have been able to see it, is that correct?"
FRAZIER -- "That is true."
Of course that was his answer to that leading question. If the package had protruded out Frazier wouldn't have been able to see that, by looking at Oswald's back as he walked away. Frazier was just being honest, but the mere fact that the bag "could have been protruding" doesn't automatically mean that it was.
What Frazier actually saw (looking at Oswald's front side) was a package cupped in Oswald's right hand and under his right armpit and there is no way that a package of 34" would have fitted between the cup of his hand and his armpit. So, even if the package did protrude out, it wouldn't grow because of it.
But Mrs. Randle also told FBI agent James Bookhout on the day of the assassination itself that the package she saw Lee Oswald carrying that same day was "approximately 3 feet" (36 inches) in length (see the 11/22/63 FBI Report below)....
https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/testimony/randl_l1.htm
Here we go again... That's what Bookhout claimed in his FD-302 report Linnie Mae Randle had said. This was not an affidavit! Randle did not sign it and never knew about the content. There are plenty of FB-302 reports in circulation that contain incorrect content. In all her official statements, including her testimony Randle remained adamant about the size of the bag.
In fact, on 02/12/63 she was interviewed by FBI agents Odum and McNeely and described to them how Oswald had held the bag. McNeely then did a reconstruction in accordance to Randle's instructions and when they subsequently measured the size of the bag it was 27". So even if Randle misestimated the size when she spoke to Bookhout, she recified it only a few days later.
And there's something else; In her WC testimony, Randle described how Oswald carried the package;
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.
Unless you are going to argue that Oswald's legs were longer than 34" (the size of the wooden stock) there is no way the package could have been that size and not touch the ground.
Now, tell me, David, why can Randle be "mistaken" in all her official statements but not in an alleged statement to Bookhout?
So it would appear as if Linnie Mae's bag-length estimate got smaller over a period of time. The reason for this change can never be fully known, of course. But the fact remains (per Bookhout's Nov. 22 report above) that Linnie, in her very first attempt at estimating the size of Oswald's paper bag, said the bag was "approximately three feet" long. And that is just 2 inches away from the actual size of the 38-inch bag that was found in the Sniper's Nest.
There is no need for me to respond to speculation. The mere fact that you give great weight to an internal FBI report that may or may not be correct over all her official statements tells me you're cherry picking and grasping at straws
[BTW / FYI / FWIW --- In the 1964 David Wolper motion picture "Four Days In November", Linnie Mae Randle said the bag was "approximately two-and-a-half feet long" (30 inches). See video below.]
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1G4mVIszdpy7RHsHQskIefrB_F_s1rOnz/view
The operative word here is "approximately"! It's a meaningless estimate.
The evidence shows that the size of the package was determined twice by FBI agents who measured the size after an reenactment, once in Frazier's car and the other in Irving, based upon Randle's instructions. In addition we have Frazier stating that he saw the package fit between the cup of Oswald's hand and his armpit and we have Randle describing the way Oswald carried the package which did not touch the ground.
It's more than just a couple. It's at least double that number, and possibly as many as 5 or 6 officers said they saw the empty paper bag on the sixth floor. Here's a list of the four DPD officers that I usually cite whenever this topic comes up:
J.C. Day [4 H 267 (http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh4/html/WC_Vol4_0138a.htm)]
L.D. Montgomery [7 H 97 (http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh7/html/WC_Vol7_0053a.htm)]
Robert Studebaker [7 H 143-144 (http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh7/html/WC_Vol7_0076a.htm)]
Marvin Johnson [7 H 103 (http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh7/html/WC_Vol7_0056a.htm)]
Actually, if I remember correctly it's six law enforcement officers who said they saw the bag. And there were six other who said they didn't. Those included Deputy Sheriff Luke Mooney (who actually discovered the sniper's nest), DPD Sgt Hill and Detective Boyd, who arrived with Captain Fritz before Studebaker and Day got there.
Yet, on 11/24/63 Studebaker told an FBI agent he found the bag, Lt Day told FBI agent Vincent Drain on 11/30/63 that he found it and Montgomery said in his WC testimony that he handed over the bag to Studebaker and Day. Go figure! Several people claiming to have found the bag and all of them got there after Mooney, Hill and Boyd had already been in the sniper's nest and saw nothing.
A "window sill"? That's the first time I've ever heard that one.
You think there's a window sill tucked away in this bag?....
(https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-eSB3HYpevE0/T3oIdYEqRtI/AAAAAAAAHJM/qCyDjxVjJUw/s1600/LD-Montgomery-Holds-Brown-Paper-Bag.jpg)
In reality, of course, there's nothing at all in the above bag.
Well, a window sill was removed from the window in the sniper's nest, or do you deny that?
I simply do not know what's inside there and neither do you, but something is holding up that bag.
Your opinion isn't of course automatically "reality". Btw, have a look at the photo on the left.
How is Montgomery holding that bag if there's nothing in it?
That's total nonsense, Martin. When I say that I think someone was "mistaken", that's precisely what I mean. I'm not calling that person a liar.
Yeah, right... pull the other one.
I would guess it is because his memory of the package is firm and concrete in his own mind, and he sees no reason to change now.
You can guess all you want and so can I. And my guess is that he sees no reason to change his story because he has been telling the truth all along and in a consistent way. Unlike other witnesses (like Brennan and Graig) who changed their story over time, Frazier has always said the same thing.
The WC (and you) may say he's mistaken but that's based on absolutely nothing except flawed circular logic.
And let's not forget that, on Friday evening, only hours after the event and while he was being polygraphed, Frazier was shown the bag found at the TSBD (by then already deemed to be - without a shred of actual evidence - the bag Oswald used to bring in the rifle) and rejected it as the bag he had seen Oswald carry. He described the latter as being "a thin, flimsy sack like the one purchased at a dime store". Why do you think this was ignored by the investigators?
Let's try to reconstruct this is a hypothetical conversation;
Officer 1: We have this man, Frazier, here and he says he saw the bag Oswald carried. It fitted between the cup of Oswald's hand and under his armpit. That's about 27". And we also have his sister saying roughly the same thing.
Officer 2: Yeah, that may well be but we found a larger bag in the TSBD which we think was used to bring the rifle in.
Officer 1: Yes, I know, but Frazier was shown that bag on Friday evening and said it wasn't the one he saw Oswald carry, which was a flimsy dime store kinda bag.
Officer 2: Never mind about all that. We have this big bag and Frazier and Randle are simply mistaken. That's all there is to it.
Now, in the real world, does that even strike you as being a normal way to conduct an investigation?
But a lot of people were mistaken about the things they saw and heard on 11/22/63. (And I mean mistakes, not lies.) Nellie Connally being another good example. She always maintained that she witnessed JFK reacting to being hit by the first shot. But a close look at the Zapruder Film shows that Nellie wasn't even looking in JFK's direction in order to see what she always said she saw at the time she says she saw it. But she's not a liar, she's simply mistaken.
So, now you compare the incorrect statement of somebody who witnesses something happening in a blink of an eye, with the observation of Frazier who saw the package far longer and thus was able to get more details right? Pffff
A lot of the Parkland witnesses were "mistaken" too when they said they saw a big hole in the back of JFK's head. But the autopsy photos prove for all time that those witnesses were, indeed, mistaken. (CTer protests notwithstanding, of course.)
Is that why Arlen Specter told Dr. Jones, after a meeting that included discussion about the supposed exit wound being an entrance wound;
"We have people who will testify that they saw him [JFK] shot from the overpass. We do not believe they are credible witnesses... and I don’t want you saying anything about it."
See my last comment about all the mistaken Parkland Hospital witnesses.
Just because you and the WC claim the Parkland doctors were wrong, doesn't mean they were.
-
Its always the Lone Nutter's fallback position. Its their mantra: "They were mistaken!" Repeat 1,000,000 gazillion times.
Is .... .... your real name?
-
Well, a window sill was removed from the window in the sniper's nest, or do you deny that?
Yes, I have heard about the WHOLE WINDOW being removed and saved as a souvenir. Wasn't it the building's owner (Byrd) who had it removed? But it certainly wasn't removed on the afternoon of the assassination. No way it was removed that early on.
How is Montgomery holding that bag if there's nothing in it?
The bag is made from fairly stiff heavy-duty paper stock. The thickness of the paper can be detected in those photos. It's similar in style and thickness to a grocery store paper bag. And the rigidness of its construction is the thing that obviously is keeping it from completely collapsing as Det. Montgomery is holding it in those photos.
Here's what Linnie Mae Randle said (emphasis is my own):
"He was carrying a package in a sort of a heavy brown bag, heavier than a grocery bag it looked to me."
(https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-eSB3HYpevE0/T3oIdYEqRtI/AAAAAAAAHJM/qCyDjxVjJUw/s1600/LD-Montgomery-Holds-Brown-Paper-Bag.jpg)
-
Well, a window sill was removed from the window in the sniper's nest, or do you deny that?
I simply do not know what's inside there and neither do you, but something is holding up that bag.
Your opinion isn't of course automatically "reality". Btw, have a look at the photo on the left.
How is Montgomery holding that bag if there's nothing in it?
You mean the length of narrow wooden weather strip that was removed from the SN window? And Tony's theory that Day or Studebaker constructed the paper bag as a protective cover to preserve any potential for fingerprints?
It's the other way. A piece of scrap wood is used to support and help keep the paper bag from being touched on its way to the police lab.
-
Yes, I have heard about the WHOLE WINDOW being removed and saved as a souvenir. Wasn't it the building's owner (Byrd) who had it removed? But it certainly wasn't removed on the afternoon of the assassination. No way it was removed that early on.
The bag is made from fairly stiff heavy-duty paper stock. The thickness of the paper can be detected in those photos. It's similar in style and thickness to a grocery store paper bag. And the rigidness of its construction is the thing that obviously is keeping it from completely collapsing as Det. Montgomery is holding it in those photos.
Here's what Linnie Mae Randle said (emphasis is my own):
"He was carrying a package in a sort of a heavy brown bag, heavier than a grocery bag it looked to me."
(https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-eSB3HYpevE0/T3oIdYEqRtI/AAAAAAAAHJM/qCyDjxVjJUw/s1600/LD-Montgomery-Holds-Brown-Paper-Bag.jpg)
So, now we're reduced to only answering the points where you think you can score points?
Yes, I have heard about the WHOLE WINDOW being removed and saved as a souvenir. Wasn't it the building's owner (Byrd) who had it removed? But it certainly wasn't removed on the afternoon of the assassination. No way it was removed that early on.
Yes the window was completely removed later on, but I do recall reading a report about the removal of the window sill. I'll see if I can find it
The bag is made from fairly stiff heavy-duty paper stock. The thickness of the paper can be detected in those photos. It's similar in style and thickness to a grocery store paper bag.
Of course the back is made from fairy stiff heavy-duty paper stock. Which makes it all the more significant that, in the evening of 11/22/63, Frazier rejected that bag as the one he had seen Oswald carry, because he knew the difference between a rigid sturdy bag like the TSBD one and the "thin, flimsy sack like the one purchased at a dime store" he had seen Oswald carry.
And the rigidness of its construction is the thing that obviously is keeping it from completely collapsing as Det. Montgomery is holding it in those photos.
You'd better take another look at the way he is holding the bag. It is utterly absurd to carry an unfolded bag by only holding it with one hand at the bottom. If there was nothing in the bag to hold it up, why would it be unfolded in the first place. It was alledgely found folded up, so what was the purpose of unfolding it and taking it outside in that manner?
Here's what Linnie Mae Randle said (emphasis is my own):
"He was carrying a package in a sort of a heavy brown bag, heavier than a grocery bag it looked to me."
(https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-eSB3HYpevE0/T3oIdYEqRtI/AAAAAAAAHJM/qCyDjxVjJUw/s1600/LD-Montgomery-Holds-Brown-Paper-Bag.jpg)
Sure, but she only saw the bag at a fair distance. Frazier saw it up close. Now why would you prefer a sighting from a fair distance over an up close observation?
-
So, now we're reduced to only answering the points where you think you can score points?
If you can't score a point, why shoot?
And there will always be contradictions in many of the witness statements. CTers will always choose the statements that help their cause, and LNers will prop up the stuff that helps the LN cause. And we'll all stay on the JFK merry-go-round for another day.
Sure, but she [Linnie Mae] only saw the bag at a fair distance. Frazier saw it up close. Now why would you prefer a sighting from a fair distance over an up close observation?
I wanted to make sure that Linnie's "Heavier than a grocery sack" testimony was placed on the table too. (Fair is fair, right?) You post the "flimsy" testimony; I post the "heavy sack" testimony. It's pick-&-choose heaven....just like always at JFK forums.
But the key difference is: I can "pick & choose" all day long (and every single forum member does it all the time; can't be helped; it's human nature to do that, and it will always be that way), but at the end of today, like every other day since 1963, I'll still have every scrap of physical evidence to back up my LN beliefs, vs. your collection of zero pieces of physical evidence to support your make-believe conspiracy.
-
...but I do recall reading a report about the removal of the window sill.
Removed (by the police) prior to sundown on Nov. 22?
-
If you can't score a point, why shoot?
Perhaps this shouldn't be about scoring point?
You do understand that selecting those parts of the conversation you want to continue, you actually admit defeat on all the other topics, right?
And there will always be contradictions in many of the witness statements. CTers will always choose the statements that help their cause, and LNers will prop up the stuff that helps the LN cause. And we'll all stay on the JFK merry-go-round for another day.
Fair enough, at least to some extent. It's the proscution vs defense game, which is exactly why the LN case is just as much a theory than the one for the defense. However, having said that, witness statements very often are subject to corrections and alterations because the initial statement isn't complete or accurate. So, it follows that a witness statement that is not only consistent but also can not be debunked with actual facts in 58 years can normally be considered to have been correct.
I wanted to make sure that Linnie's "Heavier than a grocery sack" testimony was placed on the table too. (Fair is fair, right?) You post the "flimsy" testimony; I post the "heavy sack" testimony. It's pick-&-choose heaven....just like always at JFK forums.
Actually, I just quoted from an airtel from James Anderton to SAC Dallas, dated 11/29/63, the content of which was basically confirmed by the statement Detective Lewis (who conducted Frazier's polygraph) gave to FBI Vincent Drain on 12/01/63
But the key difference is: I can "pick & choose" all day long (and every single forum member does it all the time; can't be helped; it's human nature to do that, and it will always be that way),
I agree. Everybody who is looking for a predetermined outcome will cherry pick the pieces of evidence that support their narrative. That's the way the WC and the FBI worked and things haven't changed since. Unfortunately, there is no guarentee whatsoever that that particular narritive is the right one. It's only the selected one.
but at the end of today, like every other day since 1963, I'll still have every scrap of physical evidence to back up my LN beliefs, vs. your collection of zero pieces of physical evidence to support your make-believe conspiracy.
Still desperate to score a point, I see. Like a child (or Chappy) who always needs to have the last word. Very disappointing.
I don't have a conspiracy theory, make believe or otherwise. I couldn't care less if there was a conspiracy or if Oswald did it alone. What I am only interested in is finding out if the case against Oswald is strong enough to withstand scrutiny. Those pieces of physical evidence are only as good as the interpretation of them. A correct investigation is one of considering all the possible explanations and eliminating theories. That's not what happened here.
How do I know? That's an easy question to answer. In a proper investigation more physical evidence is collected than will ever be used in a subsequent prosecution, because there will always be dead ends in an investigation. As that evidence is nevertheless part of the investigation, it should be stored at the National Archives along with everything else. And guess what, it isn't. All you will find by way of physical evidence are those items that are part of the case against Oswald, which either means that the investigators got everything right from day one or there is/was more to this case than what we know now.
-
Perhaps this shouldn't be about scoring point?
I agree. It should be more about making good points, evaluating ALL the evidence and witness testimony, and then discarding the parts that can reasonably be deemed invalid or unworthy of serious consideration. (IOW, wheat over chaff.)
IMO, the CTers retain way too much chaff and discard virtually all of the wheat (i.e., the actual physical evidence in the case, which all points to Mr. Oswald, of course). That's certainly not the way to solve this (or any) case.
All you will find by way of physical evidence are those items that are part of the case against Oswald, which either means that the investigators got everything right from day one or there is/was more to this case than what we know now.
And the reason for that is simple (IMO) --- There is no physical evidence other than the stuff that leads directly to Oswald. No such "non-Oswald" physical evidence was found. It doesn't exist, and never did.
But you don't believe that, do you Martin?
-
One thing that Buell said in the video just (before the 14-minute mark) from the Sixth Floor Museum from 11/22/21 is that LHO told him that Marina made him some curtains for his room. And that he wanted a ride on Thursday in order to pick up some curtain rods from Ruth Paine's house. My question is: Has Buell said that part about LHO saying that Marina made some curtains for him before this interview, or is this a new revelation? I just don't recall seeing anything about any curtains made by Marina before now.
-
I agree. It should be more about making good points, evaluating ALL the evidence and witness testimony, and then discarding the parts that can reasonably be deemed invalid or unworthy of serious consideration. (IOW, wheat over chaff.)
IMO, the CTers retain way too much chaff and discard virtually all of the wheat (i.e., the actual physical evidence in the case, which all points to Mr. Oswald, of course). That's certainly not the way to solve this (or any) case.
And the reason for that is simple (IMO) --- There is no physical evidence other than the stuff that leads directly to Oswald. No such "non-Oswald" physical evidence was found. It doesn't exist, and never did.
But you don't believe that, do you Martin?
I agree. It should be more about making good points, evaluating ALL the evidence and witness testimony, and then discarding the parts that can reasonably be deemed invalid or unworthy of serious consideration. (IOW, wheat over chaff.)
As long as those parts are discarded are the result of actual investigation and not just because they don't fit the narrative you're trying to build. And, as far as I can tell, the latter happened far more in this "investigation", in which Hoover himself had declared Oswald guilty before the evidence was in.
And the reason for that is simple (IMO) --- There is no physical evidence other than the stuff that leads directly to Oswald. No such "non-Oswald" physical evidence was found. It doesn't exist, and never did.
So this was the most perfect and to the point investigation ever conducted in the country?
And you actually believe that, do you David?
Btw, you do understand that you are contradicting yourself, right?
You can not claim at the same time that there was no such "non-Oswald" physical evidence and also say that some parts of the evidence were discarded because they can reasonably be deemed invalid or unworthy of serious consideration.
-
Has Buell said that part about LHO saying that Marina made some curtains for him before this interview, or is this a new revelation?
That's not a new revelation, Charles. Buell said the same thing in his interview with Gary Mack 20 years ago in 2002. Go to 29:45 in this video to hear it:
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/07/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-979.html
-
So, Mr Von Pein, you believe the curtain rods were submitted at 9.45 a.m. on March 23?
(https://i.imgur.com/qBOkbcb.jpg)
Bumped for Mr Von Pein! Thumb1:
-
Btw, you do understand that you are contradicting yourself, right?
You can not claim at the same time that there was no such "non-Oswald" physical evidence and also say that some parts of the evidence were discarded because they can reasonably be deemed invalid or unworthy of serious consideration.
I was talking about the need to discard some things relating to the case (e.g., witness testimony that is obviously inaccurate), not necessarily physical evidence. Since there is no "non-Oswald" physical evidence, then there is none of that material to discard -- although most CTers have decided to discard all of it by way of calling all of it fake. But, then too, that's the only way they can pretend Oswald was a patsy. So they're pretty much forced to toss all the evidence in the dumpster.
-
So, Mr Von Pein, you believe the curtain rods were submitted at 9.45 a.m. on March 23?
Or March 24.
-
That's not a new revelation, Charles. Buell said the same thing in his interview with Gary Mack 20 years ago in 2002. Go to 29:45 in this video to hear it:
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/07/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-979.html
Thanks!
-
There were two window strips removed for potential fingerprint analysis. Initially it was the one on the right of the "sniper window". It was removed during Day's absence sometime between 2 and 3pm. It was broken into a larger piece and smaller piece at the weak point near a nail hole. These pieces were entered into evidence by Montgomery and Johnson. Montgomery had the larger piece in the bag and Johnson the smaller piece in the bottle. I believe a hammer can be seen on the sill in early photos that may have been used to remove it.
When Day returned around 3pm he realised the wrong strip had been removed. The initial feeling was that the shooter had shot facing JFK along Houston. When Day returned he organised the left hand window strip removed. It was intact and also appears in the documentation.
-
Questions for Buell Frazier.
JFK - Assassination : Buell Wesley Frazier ( 2002 )
Approximate times in the clip indicated.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iNq-y_NLv
28.30 Frazier didn’t know time of parade passing......says someone asked Shelley, but later it’s him that asks. Who did?
30:00 Marina had made curtains – When had he picked them up?
33:00 No talk of JFK visit on the way home.
36:20 Lee looking in window, sister said who’s that, I said Oh ’that’s Lee. She had seen him previous day being dropped off by Frazier according to WC testimony. Why the failed recognition?
56:50 Got on the steps late...after 12.25 – he didn’t see the Belknap ambulance. What was he doing the previous 30 minutes?
https://www.c-span.org/video/?287933-101/kennedy-assassination-buell-wesley-frazier-part-2
21.20 nothing was made of Oswalds absence at first at roll call....Frazier claimed to have seen him leave.....yet said nothing? Truly saw Norman, Jarman and Givens leave. How did he know Givens had not returned like the other two when reporting Oswald the only employee missing?
23.00 Frazier learned JFK dead on way home. So he went home first before visiting his Step- father?
At the hospital was he counting drops or monitoring Oxygen?
Why does he think Rose and Stovall arrived about 2.30pm? A three hour gap.
32.00 Thinks he called LMR from hospital. When and where did their first contact occur after he left the TSBD.
39.00 He claimed to have heard Oswald was a suspect on the way to the hospital. When was this?
Frazier's Interview Full-HSCA
14.00 Told to take the rest of the day off, maybe Shelley? This is the same as Oswald's story.
14:20 Left for Irving and turned on Radio – JFK being worked on at Parkland. He must have left after headcount and before the Senkel was told by Fritz to gather everyone up who was on 6th floor that day for questioning....between 1.15 and 1.30? When was JFK pronounced dead on radio? Julia Postal heard on radio KLIF about time of Oswald's arrest.
14:51 Went to sisters house and Mother was there – then went to hospital – Irving Professional Center –giving step father oxygen
“Sister said, she was there” she had to go somewhere. I can give him oxygen.
Got a phone call after oxygen – two detectives tried to grab him - he ran to exit – they said stop or shoot – frisk and shake down occurred – Rose and Stovall – they thought it was strange he ran - took to Irving PS – then took to Dallas
Why the large disparity in timeline and arrest details? Nothing like documentation.
23:10 Police trying to whitewash – lax security procedures. Does he still believe in whitewash?
24:00 Found out Oswald was in custody while he was Irving PD or about time he left for Dallas with Rose and Stovall?
25:21 Did not see LHO leave building – only found out was not there at head count – Shelley said he could go home between 1 and 1.30pm – but Shelley goes to city hall with other 6th floor workers – must have been before request by Fritz to Senkel. Why was he allowed to leave TSBD when others on 6th floor that day were taken to city hall for questioning? Did he tell them he had been there?
26:30 He did not notice police leave for Tippit shooting.
27.00 He knew Oswald was missing when he left building.
27:20 Got home (not hospital) and it was on TV – sister knew what had happened (
at the TSBD) – "we both said it was bad thing" ------there was an 8 sec pause ----- “she said”……..I went to the house and mother was there. Asked where sister was and she was at hospital. She had been there a while, he went to relieve her. Please clarify what happened after you arrived at home. What discussions occurred?
29:20 Knew Oswald had been arrested. What were his thoughts?
30:50 He wondered if he did it while driving – to where and when? After missing or arrested?
31:10 Only thought of curtain rods when questioned – was told its been reported he had a package with him – what did it look like? Did they raise package with him first?
32:30 "cops went to my sisters house first – asked my mother - was up at hospital with sister". Another inconsistency. Please clarify.
34:30 Frazier mentioned the motorcade to Oswald on the way to work. Differs from WC testimony.
39:10 Again he did not see the Belknap ambulance. Must have gone outside late. What was he doing before?
1:00:30 What time did you get to the hospital? Didn’t know. Went home a short time then to hospital. Thinks mother had news on TV and knew Tippit shot. At the hospital remembers someone being arrested at Texas Theater. Did not know it was Oswald.
1:06:40 We made package together? “the one that we made” Did they make a common package first?
1:08:30 He knew Oswald was missing, only one... Bill did the count.
1:09: When he knew Tippit was shot and Oswald arrested did he get scared? He was scared before, but had never been in trouble before. Was when at hospital with step father he thought Oswald was involved. Did anyone call to say it was Oswald (LMR?) Repeated did not know for sure at that time. Did not know it was Oswald while at the hospital.
1:24:40 DPD searched the Randle home – before or after they came to hospital –he can’t remember
1:26:30 Was going to need lawyer until Rose and Stovall convinced cops he was telling truth. Assume this was after polygraph?
1:27:10 LMR and minister came to Irving PS.
1:29:50 Can’t remember what mother/cops said before the search....took his .303 and double gauge shotgun....mother was not happy.
1:30:10 No one tried to call him at the hospital. Not LMR, or mother?
3:29:30 LMR at kitchen sink "says must be late because here comes Lee". But previously said LMR didn’t know who it was. What is the truth?
3:32:00 Conversation with Lee about battery charging – this is new. Why was it not mentioned before?
3:36:00 Parade was closer to lunch hour end – why hadn’t he hadn’t eaten his lunch?
3:40:10 How did Oswald know about the broken lock on rear door to car? "He figured that one out!" "I guess he had"…..LOL
His "story" from the time of the shooting until his arrest is a total concoction.
-
I was talking about the need to discard some things relating to the case (e.g., witness testimony that is obviously inaccurate), not necessarily physical evidence. Since there is no "non-Oswald" physical evidence, then there is none of that material to discard -- although most CTers have decided to discard all of it by way of calling all of it fake. But, then too, that's the only way they can pretend Oswald was a patsy. So they're pretty much forced to toss all the evidence in the dumpster.
You're not making sense, David.
There is no physical evidence for or against Oswald. There is only physical evidence that is being interpreted for or against Oswald. Take for instance the order coupon for the rifle. In one interpretation it could be against Oswald, because his P.O. Box was used and he potentially wrote the form. On the other hand it could be interpreted for Oswald, because it was A. Hidell who ordered the rifle and not Oswald.
Now let's get back to the paper bag found at the TSBD.
We have two witnesses who both say that the bag found at the TSBD is not the bag they saw Oswald carry. Frazier told the investigators, the bag fitted between the cup of Oswald's hand and his armpit and he also showed FBI agents to where the bag reached on the backseat of his car and the FBI agents measured the distance as being 27''.
Linnie Mae Randle told FBI against Odum and McNeely she saw Oswald holding a bag at the (folded up) top and carry it next to his leg. If that bag contained a wooden stock of a rifle it would have had to have been at least 34" long, which means it would have hit the ground, as Oswald's legs, measured from his hip, were not not 34" long. As the package didn't hit the ground it is reasonable to assume that the bag was shorter than 34". In fact, the bag that Oswald could have carried in the way Linnie Mae Randle described could not have been much larger than 27".
So, estimates aside, we have two measurements of the package compared to (1) the backseat of Frazier's car and (2) the size of Oswald's leg and a visual comparison of the size of the package in relation to the length of Oswald's arm. That seems pretty definitive to me. But that's not all. On Friday evening, only hours after the event and while he was being polygraphed, Frazier was shown the bag found at the TSBD and he rejected it as the bag he had seen Oswald carry. He described the latter as being "a thin, flimsy sack like the one purchased at a dime store".
As far as the bag is concerned that's the evidence interpretation for Oswald. Now, what exactly is there against Oswald?
The bag was (allegedly) found in the sniper's nest. It turned out to be made of materials that are common to the TSBD. Several prints are on the bag, but the only ones that could be identified belong to Oswald, which is somewhat remarkable as we know that at least Detective Montgomery handled the bag also (he unfolded it and carried it out of the building). It was never established that the bag found at the TSBD ever left the building, nor that it ever contained a rifle. So what we are left with is a bag, made from TSBD material, found inside the TSBD with prints of an employee of the TSBD on it.
Now, can you tell me, what plausible reason (other than circular logic) the investigators had to ignore the witness evidence as "mistaken" in favor of the TSBD bag being the one that Oswald carried after all?
-
The 2002 Sixth Floor video is illuminating for me. And here are a few items that I take away from it.
1. Frazier heard three shots from above his location. Frazier says that there was no more that 15-seconds between the first and last shots. He says that he estimates that there was 8 to 10-seconds between the first two shots, and no more than 5-seconds between the second and third shots.
2. Frazier says that the limo hadn’t gone very far from the time it disappeared from his sight (due to the corner of the front stairs alcove). The fact that he associates that time of disappearance with the first shot suggests to me that the time of the first shot was close to that point in time. A preliminary look at Roberdeau’s map suggests that this was a little before the Z133 timeframe.
3. Frazier only saw the package out of the corner of his eye during a quick glance into the back seat as he was sitting down in the driver’s seat. And he didn’t think any more about it after that.
4. Frazier says the package was made out of brown wrapping paper and tape similar to what they used at the TSBD.
5. After discussing the description of the length of the package vs the length of the rifle controversy with Gary Mack, Frazier asks himself if the rifle was in the bag. His answer is “I don’t know.” I find this particularly interesting after hearing the claims from many CTers that the bag coudn’t have contained the rifle. Here is the man who saw the package and provided the length estimate (that the CT crowd clings so closely to) saying he doesn’t know if the rifle was in the bag. In my opinion, BWF is admitting (in a round about way) that his estimate of the length of the bag might be mistaken. Frazier will most likely never admit this directly, but he certainly leaves that possibility open to interpretation.
6. Frazier’s main reason for not believing LHO was guilty appears to be that LHO liked playing with kids. (Not because the package was too short.)
7. It is very obvious that Frazier became upset with the DPD and how they treated him during questioning on 11/22/63. My opinion is that when they showed him the bag, he was determined to be of no help to the DPD (due to his anger at them). So it appears to me that he probably said the bag was longer than the one he saw in his back seat for potentially two reasons. 1. He didn’t want to willingly accept any possible responsibility for transporting the murder weapon (even though he had no way of knowing what was in the bag). 2. He wanted to be uncooperative due to his anger at the DPD for their treatment of him.
-
The 2002 Sixth Floor video is illuminating for me. And here are a few items that I take away from it.
1. Frazier heard three shots from above his location. Frazier says that there was no more that 15-seconds between the first and last shots. He says that he estimates that there was 8 to 10-seconds between the first two shots, and no more than 5-seconds between the second and third shots.
2. Frazier says that the limo hadn’t gone very far from the time it disappeared from his sight (due to the corner of the front stairs alcove). The fact that he associates that time of disappearance with the first shot suggests to me that the time of the first shot was close to that point in time. A preliminary look at Roberdeau’s map suggests that this was a little before the Z133 timeframe.
3. Frazier only saw the package out of the corner of his eye during a quick glance into the back seat as he was sitting down in the driver’s seat. And he didn’t think any more about it after that.
4. Frazier says the package was made out of brown wrapping paper and tape similar to what they used at the TSBD.
5. After discussing the description of the length of the package vs the length of the rifle controversy with Gary Mack, Frazier asks himself if the rifle was in the bag. His answer is “I don’t know.” I find this particularly interesting after hearing the claims from many CTers that the bag coudn’t have contained the rifle. Here is the man who saw the package and provided the length estimate (that the CT crowd clings so closely to) saying he doesn’t know if the rifle was in the bag. In my opinion, BWF is admitting (in a round about way) that his estimate of the length of the bag might be mistaken. Frazier will most likely never admit this directly, but he certainly leaves that possibility open to interpretation.
6. Frazier’s main reason for not believing LHO was guilty appears to be that LHO liked playing with kids. (Not because the package was too short.)
7. It is very obvious that Frazier became upset with the DPD and how they treated him during questioning on 11/22/63. My opinion is that when they showed him the bag, he was determined to be of no help to the DPD (due to his anger at them). So it appears to me that he probably said the bag was longer than the one he saw in his back seat for potentially two reasons. 1. He didn’t want to willingly accept any possible responsibility for transporting the murder weapon (even though he had no way of knowing what was in the bag). 2. He wanted to be uncooperative due to his anger at the DPD for their treatment of him.
5. After discussing the description of the length of the package vs the length of the rifle controversy with Gary Mack, Frazier asks himself if the rifle was in the bag. His answer is “I don’t know.” I find this particularly interesting after hearing the claims from many CTers that the bag coudn’t have contained the rifle. Here is the man who saw the package and provided the length estimate (that the CT crowd clings so closely to) saying he doesn’t know if the rifle was in the bag. In my opinion, BWF is admitting (in a round about way) that his estimate of the length of the bag might be mistaken. Frazier will most likely never admit this directly, but he certainly leaves that possibility open to interpretation.
There is nothing illuminating here. Just like Frazier answered Bugs, during the mock trial, that he wouldn't have seen the rifle stick out over Oswald's should if it was protruding outward, he honestly states that he doesn't know if the rifle was in the bag or not. It's not up to Frazier to make a determination about what was in the bag or not. He just described the bag he had seen and simply isn't about to make any kind of firm claim about what was in it. That doesn't imply in any way that he somehow admits that his estimate of the size of the bag might be mistaken. That's just your bias interpretation.
7. It is very obvious that Frazier became upset with the DPD and how they treated him during questioning on 11/22/63. My opinion is that when they showed him the bag, he was determined to be of no help to the DPD (due to his anger at them). So it appears to me that he probably said the bag was longer than the one he saw in his back seat for potentially two reasons. 1. He didn’t want to willingly accept any possible responsibility for transporting the murder weapon (even though he had no way of knowing what was in the bag). 2. He wanted to be uncooperative due to his anger at the DPD for their treatment of him.
This is just silly. Frazier was still considered a suspect when they polygraphed him. Not cooperating with the investigators could result in an obstruction of justice charge. Highly unlikely if you haven't done anything wrong.
And he never said the bag was longer than the one he saw Oswald carry. He actually told Lewis and Day that the bag he had seen was a "thin, flimsy sack like the one purchased at a dime store". And, according to Lewis, who took the polygraph, Day believed him, because he instantly started to theorize that Oswald might have had the TSBD bag inside another flimsy bag. Frazier vented his anger after Fritz put before him a pre-typed confession that he wanted him to sign.
-
5. After discussing the description of the length of the package vs the length of the rifle controversy with Gary Mack, Frazier asks himself if the rifle was in the bag. His answer is “I don’t know.” I find this particularly interesting after hearing the claims from many CTers that the bag coudn’t have contained the rifle. Here is the man who saw the package and provided the length estimate (that the CT crowd clings so closely to) saying he doesn’t know if the rifle was in the bag. In my opinion, BWF is admitting (in a round about way) that his estimate of the length of the bag might be mistaken. Frazier will most likely never admit this directly, but he certainly leaves that possibility open to interpretation.
There is nothing illuminating here. Just like Frazier answered Bugs, during the mock trial, that he wouldn't have seen the rifle stick out over Oswald's should if it was protruding outward, he honestly states that he doesn't know if the rifle was in the bag or not. It's not up to Frazier to make a determination about what was in the bag or not. He just described the bag he had seen and simply isn't about to make any kind of firm claim about what was in it. That doesn't imply in any way that he somehow admits that his estimate of the size of the bag might be mistaken. That's just your bias interpretation.
7. It is very obvious that Frazier became upset with the DPD and how they treated him during questioning on 11/22/63. My opinion is that when they showed him the bag, he was determined to be of no help to the DPD (due to his anger at them). So it appears to me that he probably said the bag was longer than the one he saw in his back seat for potentially two reasons. 1. He didn’t want to willingly accept any possible responsibility for transporting the murder weapon (even though he had no way of knowing what was in the bag). 2. He wanted to be uncooperative due to his anger at the DPD for their treatment of him.
This is just silly. Frazier was still considered a suspect when they polygraphed him. Not cooperating with the investigators could result in an obstruction of justice charge. Highly unlikely if you haven't done anything wrong.
And he never said the bag was longer than the one he saw Oswald carry. He actually told Lewis and Day that the bag he had seen was a "thin, flimsy sack like the one purchased at a dime store". And, according to Lewis, who took the polygraph, Day believed him, because he instantly started to theorize that Oswald might have had the TSBD bag inside another flimsy bag. Frazier vented his anger after Fritz put before him a pre-typed confession that he wanted him to sign.
Frazier is reminded by Gary Mack about the incompatibility of the actual length of the rifle with Frazier’s description of his estimate of the length of the bag. Then shortly thereafter Frazier (the one who actually saw the bag) voluntarily verbally asks himself if the rifle was in the bag. And says that he doesn’t know. This implies that he knows that he might be mistaken about his description of the length of the bag. No biased (or unbiased) interpretation is needed. It is what Frazier himself said on a video recording in 2002.
-
Frazier is reminded by Gary Mack about the incompatibility of the actual length of the rifle with Frazier’s description of his estimate of the length of the bag. Then shortly thereafter Frazier (the one who actually saw the bag) voluntarily verbally asks himself if the rifle was in the bag. And says that he doesn’t know. This implies that he knows that he might be mistaken about his description of the length of the bag. No biased (or unbiased) interpretation is needed. It is what Frazier himself said on a video recording in 2002.
This implies that he knows that he might be mistaken about his description of the length of the bag.
No it doesn't imply that at all. If you interview a person often enough, you're always going to find a comment that raises a question, especially if you are biased. Knowing the man, if he really had the slightest doubt about the size of the package he wouldn't have spent all his life maintaining his description of the bag. You are simply blowing one honest comment, about not knowing if a rifle was in the bag, into something it isn't.
-
This implies that he knows that he might be mistaken about his description of the length of the bag.
No it doesn't imply that at all. If you interview a person often enough, you're always going to find a comment that raises a question, especially if you are biased. Knowing the man, if he really had the slightest doubt about the size of the package he wouldn't have spent all his life maintaining his description of the bag. You are simply blowing one honest comment, about not knowing if a rifle was in the bag, into something it isn't.
If Frazier was sure that his estimate was not possibly mistaken (as many CTers claim) then he should have answered his own question about whether or not the rifle was in the bag with an unqualified negative. The fact that he said that he doesn’t know means he isn’t sure at all. But if he ever directly admits that he intentionally misled the investigation, he could be criticized or worse.
-
If Frazier was sure that his estimate was not possibly mistaken (as many CTers claim) then he should have answered his own question about whether or not the rifle was in the bag with an unqualified negative. The fact that he said that he doesn’t know means he isn’t sure at all. But if he ever directly admits that he intentionally misled the investigation, he could be criticized or worse.
Amazing what an LN will do to twist and turn something to benefit his case.
Frazier is (and has always been) adamant about his description of the bag and he doesn't know if there was a rifle in it or not.
It is a simple as that. Everything else is just your bias at work.
It's 58 years after the fact and an LN is still struggling to somehow increase the size of the bag so that a rifle can fit in it. :D
-
(https://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/twentyseven3.jpg)
(https://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/twentyseven2.jpg)
-
Amazing what an LN will do to twist and turn something to benefit his case.
Frazier is (and has always been) adamant about his description of the bag and he doesn't know if there was a rifle in it or not.
It is a simple as that. Everything else is just your bias at work.
It's 58 years after the fact and an LN is still struggling to somehow increase the size of the bag so that a rifle can fit in it. :D
Frazier certainly wasn’t being adamant about his estimate of the size of the bag when he stated that he didn’t know whether or not the rifle was in it shortly after being reminded about the conflicting lengths.
-
There were two window strips removed for potential fingerprint analysis. Initially it was the one on the right of the "sniper window". It was removed during Day's absence sometime between 2 and 3pm. It was broken into a larger piece and smaller piece at the weak point near a nail hole.
Please provide some documents/links for this claim about the window strips. I cannot find anything in the WC testimonies of Detective Montgomery or Detective Johnson or Captain Fritz or Lieutenant J.C. Day concerning the removal of any "window strips" or "window sills" from the Book Depository Building.
And I can find nothing about that topic in the many documents that are available at the Dallas Municipal Archives site or the Portal To Texas History site.
These pieces were entered into evidence by Montgomery and Johnson.
Links please. After multiple searches today, I can find no links or documents relating to such items. So your assistance in finding them would be appreciated.
Montgomery had the larger piece in the bag and Johnson the smaller piece in the bottle.
I seriously doubt that was the case. If it had been, why didn't Montgomery or Johnson say anything about transporting these pieces of the window sill in their WC testimony or in their DPD reports? No such thing is mentioned by either officer.
https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth339549/m1/1/?q=marvin%20johnson
https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth337898/m1/3/?q=l.d.%20montgomery
The record indicates that L.D. Montgomery carried ONLY the long paper bag (which became CE142) out of the building, while his partner, Detective Marvin Johnson, carried Bonnie Ray Williams' Dr. Pepper bottle and Bonnie Ray's lunch sack (plus, as we can see in the first photo below, Johnson also has with him an empty cigarette package).
https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth184773/m1/1/
https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth184770/m1/1/
When Day returned around 3pm he realised the wrong strip had been removed. .... When Day returned he organised the left hand window strip removed. It was intact and also appears in the documentation.
Can you provide any link/document? Thanks.
-
I always thought Johnson was using a screw driver to carry the bottle. To me, that looks like a screw driver.
-
Or March 24.
Ah, I see.
You started with this explanation:
"the "3-15-64" date is obviously an error. It should say March 23rd"
Now your explanation is:
the "3-15-64" date is obviously an error. It should say either March 23rd or March 24th
So your position has matured into the following:
The curtain rods were submitted by Agent Howlett to Lt. Day
-----------EITHER a good half a day BEFORE Agent Howlett extracted them from the Paine garage (=the 23 March option)
-----------OR nearly two hours AFTER they were released by Lt. Day back to Agent Howlett (=the 24 March option)
Is this really the best you can do, Mr Von Pein?
(https://i.imgur.com/qBOkbcb.jpg)
-
I truly wonder if Mr. Von Pein has ever once examined the evidence in an objective way, period.
-
Amazing what an LN will do to twist and turn something to benefit his case.
Frazier is (and has always been) adamant about his description of the bag and he doesn't know if there was a rifle in it or not.
It is a simple as that. Everything else is just your bias at work.
It's 58 years after the fact and an LN is still struggling to somehow increase the size of the bag so that a rifle can fit in it. :D
Your struggle is not against LNers but reality. The bag was found. It had Oswald's prints on it. It has been measured. No one has to rely on an estimate of its size made at a glance with no particular cause to take note of it. Here is where you go into the song and dance about proving this is the bag Oswald carried that morning. Spare us. No bag matching Frazier's description was ever found in the building. Oswald himself denied carrying any bag other than his ordinary lunch bag (i.e. not one matching Frazier's estimate). So he is either lying or Frazier is lying about him carrying a much longer bag that morning. And who has the incentive to lie about that? Obviously Oswald if it contained the rifle. If Old Lee simply had a shorter bag that contained some nonincriminating item like curtain rods he not only admits to that but directs the police to that bag. Instead he denies it.
No other person who worked on that floor ever accounted for the bag that was found. It had no apparent work-related purpose to be there and no other person who had access to the floor ever claimed that bag or offered any explanation for its presence there. The claim that this large bag was made to carry some other evidence out of the building like a window sill is laughable. If there is an object inside the bag, the cops are holding that object. You don't make a large bag to protect evidence for prints, but then hold the evidence getting your prints all over it. LOL. It's obvious that if there is an object in the bag its being used to avoid touching the bag. Thus, the bag is the evidence and not any object inside the bag.
-
Please provide some documents/links for this claim about the window strips. I cannot find anything in the WC testimonies of Detective Montgomery or Detective Johnson or Captain Fritz or Lieutenant J.C. Day concerning the removal of any "window strips" or "window sills" from the Book Depository Building.
(https://i.imgur.com/9Vbezkz.jpg)
-
4. So, if Buell Frazier and Linnie Randle were right about the length of Oswald's package, then the question needs to be asked: What happened to the SHORTER 27-inch bag that Frazier and Randle said Oswald had with him on Nov. 22nd? Did THAT bag just disappear into a puff of smoke?
This is an argument from ignorance logical fallacy.
What happened to Harold Norman's lunch bag? It was never found. Did it just disappear into a puff of smoke?
-
Your struggle is not against LNers but reality. The bag was found. It had Oswald's prints on it. It has been measured. No one has to rely on an estimate of its size made at a glance with no particular cause to take note of it. Here is where you go into the song and dance about proving this is the bag Oswald carried that morning. Spare us. No bag matching Frazier's description was ever found in the building. Oswald himself denied carrying any bag other than his ordinary lunch bag (i.e. not one matching Frazier's estimate). So he is either lying or Frazier is lying about him carrying a much longer bag that morning. And who has the incentive to lie about that? Obviously Oswald if it contained the rifle. If Old Lee simply had a shorter bag that contained some nonincriminating item like curtain rods he not only admits to that but directs the police to that bag. Instead he denies it.
No other person who worked on that floor ever accounted for the bag that was found. It had no apparent work-related purpose to be there and no other person who had access to the floor ever claimed that bag or offered any explanation for its presence there. The claim that this large bag was made to carry some other evidence out of the building like a window sill is laughable. If there is an object inside the bag, the cops are holding that object. You don't make a large bag to protect evidence for prints, but then hold the evidence getting your prints all over it. LOL. It's obvious that if there is an object in the bag its being used to avoid touching the bag. Thus, the bag is the evidence and not any object inside the bag.
Try something new for once. This BS is getting boring.
-
I always thought Johnson was using a screw driver to carry the bottle. To me, that looks like a screw driver.
(https://images2.imgbox.com/38/12/avoPRqFv_o.gif)
I remember an old screwdriver with four flat sides. Would hurt my hand as the torque force increased. Maybe they were cheap screwdrivers made in Japan, then production of such handles were replaced by more ergonomic handles.
-
(https://images2.imgbox.com/38/12/avoPRqFv_o.gif)
I remember an old screwdriver with four flat sides. Would hurt my hand as the torque force increased. Maybe they were cheap screwdrivers made in Japan, then production of such handles were replaced by more ergonomic handles.
Isn't it amazing what you can do with computers?
Even the top part of the item inside the bottle becomes thinner as it morphes into a screwdriver.
-
[Apr. 1964 FBI FD-302 photo (https://i.imgur.com/9Vbezkz.jpeg)]
Is that all? Isn't there some sort of document to confirm that the DALLAS POLICE removed the window frame/molding? The FBI report you provided doesn't prove anything. It's merely telling us Roy Truly's opinion of what happened.
I didn't see anything at all in the testimonies or DPD reports of Johnson/Montgomery/Day/Fritz regarding any removal of any window moldings.
-
Is that all? Isn't there some sort of document to confirm that the DALLAS POLICE removed the window frame/molding? The FBI report you provided doesn't prove anything. Maybe some souvenir hunter took a hunk of the window frame between 11/22 and that April '64 report. Who can know?
But I sure didn't see anything at all in the testimonies or DPD reports of Johnson/Montgomery/Day/Fritz regarding any removal of any window moldings.
Wanna play that game? Alright....
There isn't a single first day report about the wallet Bentley took from Oswald in the car containing a Hidell alias card.
So, if we follow your "logic" here, doesn't that mean there was no Hidell ID in the wallet took from Oswald?
And while we are on the subject of answering questions, did you miss my last question in post #56 or are you simply ignoring it?
Here it is again;
We have two witnesses who both say that the bag found at the TSBD is not the bag they saw Oswald carry. Frazier told the investigators, the bag fitted between the cup of Oswald's hand and his armpit and he also showed FBI agents to where the bag reached on the backseat of his car and the FBI agents measured the distance as being 27''.
Linnie Mae Randle told FBI against Odum and McNeely she saw Oswald holding a bag at the (folded up) top and carry it next to his leg. If that bag contained a wooden stock of a rifle it would have had to have been at least 34" long, which means it would have hit the ground, as Oswald's legs, measured from his hip, were not not 34" long. As the package didn't hit the ground it is reasonable to assume that the bag was shorter than 34". In fact, the bag that Oswald could have carried in the way Linnie Mae Randle described could not have been much larger than 27".
So, estimates aside, we have two measurements of the package compared to (1) the backseat of Frazier's car and (2) the size of Oswald's leg and a visual comparison of the size of the package in relation to the length of Oswald's arm. That seems pretty definitive to me. But that's not all. On Friday evening, only hours after the event and while he was being polygraphed, Frazier was shown the bag found at the TSBD and he rejected it as the bag he had seen Oswald carry. He described the latter as being "a thin, flimsy sack like the one purchased at a dime store".
As far as the bag is concerned that's the evidence interpretation for Oswald. Now, what exactly is there against Oswald?
The bag was (allegedly) found in the sniper's nest. It turned out to be made of materials that are common to the TSBD. Several prints are on the bag, but the only ones that could be identified belong to Oswald, which is somewhat remarkable as we know that at least Detective Montgomery handled the bag also (he unfolded it and carried it out of the building). It was never established that the bag found at the TSBD ever left the building, nor that it ever contained a rifle. So what we are left with is a bag, made from TSBD material, found inside the TSBD with prints of an employee of the TSBD on it.
Now, can you tell me, what plausible reason (other than circular logic) the investigators had to ignore the witness evidence as "mistaken" in favor of the TSBD bag being the one that Oswald carried after all?
-
Wanna play that game? Alright....
There isn't a single first day report about the wallet Bentley took from Oswald in the car containing a Hidell alias card.
So, if we follow your "logic" here, doesn't that mean there was no Hidell ID in the wallet took from Oswald?
That's not analogous at all, Martin.
Why?
Because we've got the Hidell Selective Service I.D. card (CE795 (https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0354a.htm)) that was in Oswald's wallet (even if Detective Paul Bentley didn't say anything about seeing it in an official report).
But where's the TWO "window sill" pieces talked about in this thread? Why aren't they seen (or mentioned) in any WC exhibits or documents or testimony?
-
...did you miss my last question in post #56 or are you simply ignoring it?
Here it is again:
We have two witnesses who both say that the bag found at the TSBD is not the bag they saw Oswald carry. Frazier told the investigators, the bag fitted between the cup of Oswald's hand and his armpit and he also showed FBI agents to where the bag reached on the backseat of his car and the FBI agents measured the distance as being 27''.
Linnie Mae Randle told FBI against Odum and McNeely she saw Oswald holding a bag at the (folded up) top and carry it next to his leg. If that bag contained a wooden stock of a rifle it would have had to have been at least 34" long, which means it would have hit the ground, as Oswald's legs, measured from his hip, were not not 34" long. As the package didn't hit the ground it is reasonable to assume that the bag was shorter than 34". In fact, the bag that Oswald could have carried in the way Linnie Mae Randle described could not have been much larger than 27".
So, estimates aside, we have two measurements of the package compared to (1) the backseat of Frazier's car and (2) the size of Oswald's leg and a visual comparison of the size of the package in relation to the length of Oswald's arm. That seems pretty definitive to me. But that's not all. On Friday evening, only hours after the event and while he was being polygraphed, Frazier was shown the bag found at the TSBD and he rejected it as the bag he had seen Oswald carry. He described the latter as being "a thin, flimsy sack like the one purchased at a dime store".
As far as the bag is concerned that's the evidence interpretation for Oswald. Now, what exactly is there against Oswald?
The bag was (allegedly) found in the sniper's nest. It turned out to be made of materials that are common to the TSBD. Several prints are on the bag, but the only ones that could be identified belong to Oswald, which is somewhat remarkable as we know that at least Detective Montgomery handled the bag also (he unfolded it and carried it out of the building). It was never established that the bag found at the TSBD ever left the building, nor that it ever contained a rifle. So what we are left with is a bag, made from TSBD material, found inside the TSBD with prints of an employee of the TSBD on it.
Now, can you tell me, what plausible reason (other than circular logic) the investigators had to ignore the witness evidence as "mistaken" in favor of the TSBD bag being the one that Oswald carried after all?
I'll go back about 15 years to answer your inquiry, Martin. Here's what I said in 2007:
"I wonder what the odds are of Lee Oswald having carried a DIFFERENT brown bag into work from the one WITH HIS TWO IDENTIFIABLE PRINTS ON IT that was found by the cops in the Sniper's Nest on the 6th Floor?
Care to guess at what those odds might be? They must be close to "O.J. DNA" type numbers (in favor of the empty brown bag that was found by the police on the 6th Floor of the Book Depository being the very same bag that Buell Wesley Frazier and Linnie Mae Randle saw in Lee Harvey Oswald's hands on the morning of November 22, 1963).
I'm eagerly awaiting the logical and believable conspiracy-slanted explanation that will answer the question of why a 38-inch empty paper bag (which could house Oswald's 34.8-inch disassembled rifle), which was an empty bag with Oswald's fingerprints on it, was in the place where it was found after the assassination (the sixth-floor Sniper's Nest) and yet still NOT have Lee Oswald present at that sniper's window on 11/22/63.
I, for one, cannot think of a single "Oswald Is Innocent" explanation for that empty paper sack being where it was found after the assassination of John Kennedy....AND with Oswald's fingerprints on it." -- DVP; October 2007
-
That's not analogous at all, Martin.
Why?
Because we've got the Hidell Selective Service I.D. card (CE795 (https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0354a.htm)) that was in Oswald's wallet (even if Detective Paul Bentley didn't say anything about seeing it in an official report).
But where's the TWO "window sill" pieces talked about in this thread? Why aren't they seen (or mentioned) in any WC exhibits or documents?
Because we've got the Hidell Selective Service I.D. card that was in Oswald's wallet (even if Detective Paul Bentley didn't say anything about seeing it in an official report).
Are you sure? According to his WC testimony Detective Rose was off duty that day. He was called back in and arrived at the DPD office about the same time when Oswald was being brought in. Rose was the first person to talk to Oswald, just after an unidentified officer gave him a wallet which he said belonged to Oswald. Nobody knows who that officer was (much like the officers who handled the white/grey jacket). What we do know is that Bentley was taken to the hospital because of the injury to his leg. So, where is the chain of custody that shows the wallet Rose was given was the same one Bentley took from Oswald?
And before you start claiming just how silly this is, please check out why chains of custody are relevant and important!
-
"Window Sill" Follow-Up....
I found this document at the Ferrell archives (CD899):
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=11295#relPageId=4
And if that "strip of wood" from the TSBD window is, in fact, the item that Colin Crow and others have been talking about in this thread, then it's pretty clear that Det. Montgomery did not have that item in the bag he's seen carrying out of the TSBD. The above document makes clear that Lt. Day gave the wood piece to Capt. Doughty, and it then went to the FBI.
But, I guess CTers can always theorize that L.D. Montgomery was still involved in taking it out of the Depository, but his name certainly isn't mentioned in the above report at all.
-
Because we've got the Hidell Selective Service I.D. card that was in Oswald's wallet (even if Detective Paul Bentley didn't say anything about seeing it in an official report).
Are you sure? According to his WC testimony Detective Rose was off duty that day. He was called back in and arrived at the DPD office about the same time when Oswald was being brought in. Rose was the first person to talk to Oswald, just after an unidentified officer gave him a wallet which he said belonged to Oswald. Nobody knows who that officer was (much like the officers who handled the white/grey jacket). What we do know is that Bentley was taken to the hospital because of the injury to his leg. So, where is the chain of custody that shows the wallet Rose was given was the same one Bentley took from Oswald?
And before you start claiming just how silly this is, please check out why chains of custody are relevant and important!
So, I guess all this is leading to the suggestion that the "Hidell" I.D. card was somehow faked by the DPD, is that it?
Boy, those DPD boys were sure busy faking & framing that weekend, weren't they?
The authorities were a bit sloppy with some of the evidence in the JFK case, I'll grant you that -- e.g., the careless way that SS Agent Richard Johnsen handled CE399 at Parkland on 11/22. Instead of putting it in some kind of container (which the hospital certainly could have provided), he just sticks it in his pocket.
And I'm sure that the DPD officers could have done a better job when it comes to some areas (like keeping the damn basement doors shut and locked until their famous prisoner made it out of City Hall alive).
But I'm not prepared to accept the common belief that dozens of pieces of evidence in this case were fraudulently manufactured by the DPD (or FBI) in order to frame Mr. Oswald. I just don't think that happened. And no one has ever proved any of the evidence in this case was faked.
-
I'll go back about 15 years to answer your inquiry, Martin. Here's what I said in 2007:
"I wonder what the odds are of Lee Oswald having carried a DIFFERENT brown bag into work from the one WITH HIS TWO IDENTIFIABLE PRINTS ON IT that was found by the cops in the Sniper's Nest on the 6th Floor?
Care to guess at what those odds might be? They must be close to "O.J. DNA" type numbers (in favor of the empty brown bag that was found by the police on the 6th Floor of the Book Depository being the very same bag that Buell Wesley Frazier and Linnie Mae Randle saw in Lee Harvey Oswald's hands on the morning of November 22, 1963).
I'm eagerly awaiting the logical and believable conspiracy-slanted explanation that will answer the question of why a 38-inch empty paper bag (which could house Oswald's 34.8-inch disassembled rifle, which was an empty bag with Oswald's fingerprints on it, was in the place where it was found after the assassination (the sixth-floor Sniper's Nest) and yet still NOT have Lee Oswald present at that sniper's window on 11/22/63.
I, for one, cannot think of a single "Oswald Is Innocent" explanation for that empty paper sack being where it was found after the assassination of John Kennedy....AND with Oswald's fingerprints on it." -- DVP; October 2007
So, it's circular logic.... Oswald brought in a paper bag and we found a paper bag, so it must be his, no matter what the witnesses say who actually saw the bag and said the two are not the same bag.
"I wonder what the odds are of Lee Oswald having carried a DIFFERENT brown bag into work from the one WITH HIS TWO IDENTIFIABLE PRINTS ON IT that was found by the cops in the Sniper's Nest on the 6th Floor?
Care to guess at what those odds might be?
I have no idea what those odds are and neither do you. You're just guessing.
I'm eagerly awaiting the logical and believable conspiracy-slanted explanation that will answer the question of why a 38-inch empty paper bag (which could house Oswald's 34.8-inch disassembled rifle, which was an empty bag with Oswald's fingerprints on it, was in the place where it was found after the assassination (the sixth-floor Sniper's Nest) and yet still NOT have Lee Oswald present at that sniper's window on 11/22/63.
This is an extremely leading and bad faith question. There's a lot to unpack here. First of all, it was a bag made from TSBD materials, found at the TSBD. There's hardly anything strange about finding a bag at the location where it was made. What the purpose of the TSBD bag was is something we can only guess about. There is no way to know for sure. What is easy to explain is how Oswald's prints (and there were not only his prints on it) could have gotten on the bag. Oswald worked in the building and collected books from the 6th floor. It can not be ruled out that he simply moved that bag to get to a box of books he needed. Now, what needs to be considered is that the evidence that the bag was found in the sniper's nest is extremely ambivalent at best. Six law enforcement officers who were in the nest before Fritz, Day and Studebaker arrived failed to see the bag. After the arrival of these men, other officers did see the bag, but Studebaker failed to photograph it in situ. At least three people have claimed that they found the bag, which - to say the least - is odd. So, I'm not so sure the bag was actually found inside the sniper's nest. But even if it was, that does not, in any way, shape or form justify the conclusion that Oswald was in the sniper's nest on 11/22/63.
I, for one, cannot think of a single "Oswald Is Innocent" explanation for that empty paper sack being where it was found after the assassination of John Kennedy....AND with Oswald's fingerprints on it."
The mere fact that you can not think of such an explanation is meaningless. It certainly doesn't make what you prefer to believe true.
Having said all this, my question related to this comment;
I agree. It should be more about making good points, evaluating ALL the evidence and witness testimony, and then discarding the parts that can reasonably be deemed invalid or unworthy of serious consideration. (IOW, wheat over chaff.)
and the question still stands.
What plausible reason (other than circular logic) did the investigators have to ignore, from day one, the witness evidence provided by Frazier and Randle as "mistaken" in favor of the TSBD bag being the one that Oswald carried after all?
-
What plausible reason (other than circular logic) did the investigators have to ignore, from day one, the witness evidence provided by Frazier and Randle as "mistaken" in favor of the TSBD bag being the one that Oswald carried after all?
The answer to that couldn't be more obvious, Mr. Weidmann....
The "investigators" possessed the capability of drawing reasonable and logical inferences and conclusions from the available evidence. In other words, they were capable of adding 2 & 2 together, which is a task that most Internet conspiracy believers seem incapable of performing.
(Can you really not see the logic in my October 2007 comment above regarding the paper bag, Martin? You really can't grasp it?)
-
So, I guess all this is leading to the suggestion that the "Hidell" I.D. card was somehow faked by the DPD, is that it?
Boy, those DPD boys were sure busy faking & framing that weekend, weren't they?
The authorities were a bit sloppy with some of the evidence in the JFK case, I'll grant you that -- e.g., the careless way that SS Agent Richard Johnsen handled CE399 at Parkland on 11/22. Instead of putting it in some kind of container (which the hospital certainly could have provided), he just sticks it in his pocket.
And I'm sure that the DPD officers could have done a better job when it comes to some areas (like keeping the damn basement doors shut and locked until their famous prisoner made it out of City Hall alive).
But I'm not prepared to accept the common belief that dozens of pieces of evidence in this case were fraudulently manufactured by the DPD (or FBI) in order to frame Mr. Oswald. I just don't think that happened. And no one has ever proved any of the evidence in this case was faked.
So, I guess all this is leading to the suggestion that the "Hidell" I.D. card was somehow faked by the DPD, is that it?
No. I don't think the DPD faked the Hidell ID card
Boy, those DPD boys were sure busy faking & framing that weekend, weren't they?
Irony doesn't enhance your case one bit
The authorities were a bit sloppy with some of the evidence in the JFK case, I'll grant you that -- e.g., the careless way that SS Agent Richard Johnsen handled CE399 at Parkland on 11/22. Instead of putting it in some kind of container (which the hospital certainly could have provided), he just sticks it in his pocket.
A bit sloppy? That's the understatement of the century!
Let's not get into CE399 and it's authenticity here. I'll be glad to discuss that and the bullet fragments allegedly found in the limo in another thread, if you're interested, but not here.
And I'm sure that the DPD officers could have done a better job when it comes to some areas (like keeping the damn basement doors shut and locked until their famous prisoner made it out of City Hall alive).
And not walk around for some two hours with a revolver and then claim it was Oswald's, as Hill did. Or have unidentified officers handle the jacket found under a car (which in radio traffic was repeately refered to as being white) as Captain Westbrook did, and then ending up handing it into the evidence room with initials of officers on it who were not even present when the jacket was found. And the list goes on....
But I'm not prepared to accept the common belief that dozens of pieces of evidence in this case were fraudulently manufactured by the DPD (or FBI) in order to frame Mr. Oswald. I just don't think that happened.
I never claimed the DPD manufactured evidence, although I do believe they did manipulate some of it (not unusual at the time), but as far as the FBI goes, I am absolutely convinced there was some dodgy stuff going on. Perhaps not with the intention to frame an innocent man (which IMO Oswald could not be. He must have been involved in something somehow) but more likely in an effort to wrap the case more tightly around the already dead Oswald.
The shenanigans of Shanklin's airtel re Odum allegedly showing the bullet CE399 to Tomlinson and Wright, which by now I am convinced never happened, comes to mind.
And no one has ever proved any of the evidence in this case was faked.
It's a bit difficult to prove anything when the evidence is locked away and classified top secret for decades, don't you think?
I'll grant you this. For a large part of the population all this stuff about evidence tampering is way out there. They simply don't come across it in their every day life and can't even begin to imagine what really goes on. Not only in Goverment, but also in business. Sure, once in a while they see a crime show, but they don't take it seriously because they've seen multiple crime shows and movies about the same thing and that's just the movies, right? Only a few people see through it and understand that fraud in all shapes and forms is part of every day life and law enforcement is no exemption. From false police reports to drop guns to prosecutorial misconduct, it's a matter of every day life. That's why chain of custody is so massively important and when I see just how many "honest mistakes" were allegedly made in the investigation into the assassination of a President my BS meter automatically explodes. A first year prosecutor prosecuting a low life criminal would be ashamed to take such a pathetic case to court, but here we have the Government asking us to believe this is what happened. It's sad.
-
The authorities were a bit sloppy with some of the evidence in the JFK case, I'll grant you that
Understatement of the year.
But I'm not prepared to accept the common belief that dozens of pieces of evidence in this case were fraudulently manufactured by the DPD (or FBI) in order to frame Mr. Oswald.
Strawman alert.
I just don't think that happened. And no one has ever proved any of the evidence in this case was faked.
The burden is on you (and the police) to prove that the evidence is authentic. And their "sloppyness" rendered the evidence tainted and unreliable.
-
The answer to that couldn't be more obvious, Mr. Weidmann....
The "investigators" possessed the capability of drawing reasonable and logical inferences and conclusions from the available evidence. In other words, they were capable of adding 2 & 2 together, which is a task that most Internet conspiracy believers seem incapable of performing.
(Can you really not see the logic in my October 2007 comment above regarding the paper bag, Martin? You really can't grasp it?)
You won't get very far talking down to me, Mr. Von Pein.
All you are telling me is that it's a case of 100% circular logic. They believed Oswald was their man so obviously he did bring the bag found at the TSBD into the building.
It's pathetic. It isn't following the evidence where it leads you, it's deciding up front what the outcome should be and looking for the evidence to connect the dots. There is nothing even remotely logical about it.
And your high and mighty attitude doesn't alter one bit of the fact that you have just demonstrated beyond doubt that the case against Oswald was rigged from the beginning. Thank you for playing the game. You just lost!
-
The "investigators" possessed the capability of drawing reasonable and logical inferences and conclusions from the available evidence. In other words, they were capable of adding 2 & 2 together, which is a task that most Internet conspiracy believers seem incapable of performing.
You're free to speculate to your heart's content, but don't pretend that your speculations constitute evidence. The evidence is that CE142 was not the package that Frazier and Randle saw, and there's no evidence that either wrapper contained a rifle, so what difference does it make?
-
And your high and mighty attitude doesn't alter one bit of the fact that you have just demonstrated beyond doubt that the case against Oswald was rigged from the beginning. Thank you for playing the game. You just lost!
Why is it that so many of the "Oswald did it" faithful think that arrogance and condescension makes their handwaving arguments more convincing?
-
You won't get very far talking down to me, Mr. Von Pein.
All you are telling me is that it's a case of 100% circular logic. They believed Oswald was their man so obviously he did bring the bag found at the TSBD into the building.
It's pathetic. It isn't following the evidence where it leads you, it's deciding up front what the outcome should be and looking for the evidence to connect the dots. There is nothing even remotely logical about it.
And your high and mighty attitude doesn't alter one bit of the fact that you have just demonstrated beyond doubt that the case against Oswald was rigged from the beginning. Thank you for playing the game. You just lost!
Just like I said. No ability to add 2 and 2.
And you're dead wrong when you say "It isn't following the evidence where it leads you". That's exactly what I'm doing---following the evidence that exists in this case and applying simple logic and reasonable inferences from that evidence.
You think Oswald took a long-ish bag into the building and then----did what with it? Please tell me your theory on that.
If CE142 isn't the "Oswald bag", then what did Lee do with that 27-inch bag he took into the TSBD?
One thing's for sure --- whatever answer you dream up is not going to be nearly as logical as my October 2007 comment I posted earlier. But good luck trying.
-
Just like I said. No ability to add 2 and 2.
And you're dead wrong when you say "It isn't following the evidence where it leads you". That's exactly what I'm doing---following the evidence that exists in this case and applying simple logic and reasonable inferences from that evidence.
You think Oswald took a long-ish bag into the building and then----did what with it? Please tell me your theory on that.
If CE142 isn't the "Oswald bag", then what did Lee do with that 27-inch bag he took into the TSBD?
One thing's for sure --- whatever answer you dream up is not going to be nearly as logical as my October 2007 comment I posted earlier. But good luck trying.
Your level of arrogance is astounding.
The answer to your pathetic question is that I don't need to have a theory about the bag Oswald brought in. And I couldn't care less what he did with it. I can speculate about it, but I don't play that game. Assumptions and speculation is for people who have no actual evidence to support their claim and then call it more logical than anything I can come up with.
In the real world, you need to prove that the bag found in the TSBD was in fact the same bag that Oswald brought in. And you can't! It really is as simple as that. That's why two eyewitness accounts, who basically said the same thing, were dismissed as "mistaken", because that's the best you can do.
You claim to be following the evidence, but that's not what you are doing at all. In fact, it seems you don't even understand what the meaning of following the evidence actually is. What you do is making assumptions and speculate and you know what, with enough assumptions and speculation you can "prove" anybody guilty of anything.
You childish insults only tell me that you foolishly think you are better and more knowledgeable than everybody else, which in my mind makes you a complete nobody with lots of bravado and nothing of substance to back it up. I'll be more than happy to discuss the details of the case with you, but I will not accept the patronizing BS you are posting right now.
-
Mr. DAY. There was a scar on the top of or the top side of this box that was sitting there. I noticed that at the time. I thought the recoil of the gun had caused that. I later decided that was in the wrong direction. It was not the recoil of the gun but I did notice this scar on the box.
Translation: upon arrival to the SN the box "scar", arrangement of shells and shooting "logic" would have had the assassin shooting as JFK approached on Houston. Therefore the right strip was removed for analysis. I believe this is the one that broke around the 30 inch mark.
Note the missing strip on the right but not the left in the photo below.
(https://i.ibb.co/rmF9QcV/BFE4-B8-B7-3-CA2-4502-A889-B9181-EEBA0-F6.png)
I believe this piece is referenced below.
(https://i.ibb.co/tc63BsB/A13-B7588-3-B70-4-F52-93-E3-277-BF719-BA5-B.png)
I am still trying to locate the doc in my files that mentions two pieces indicating that a break occurred around a nail hole.
-
So back to the topic.
How does Frazier account for the 3 hour gap between leaving the TSBD and his apprehension at the hospital?
Who was it that mentioned the bag first? Him to Linnie May? Linnie May to him? Cops to him? Cops to Linnie May?
Why does his account of his arrest differ so much from the documentation? It was not Rose and Stovall who originally detained him.
-
Thanks for the follow-up info, Colin.
Montgomery doesn't have that window ledge in that CE142 paper bag, however.
But, then too, you don't believe for a second that the bag Leslie Montgomery is holding is CE142, do you?
And around we go again....
-
MARTIN WEIDMANN SAID:
Your level of arrogance is astounding.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
It certainly is no more astounding than your level of complete denial regarding Commission Exhibit No. 142.
MARTIN WEIDMANN SAID:
The answer to your pathetic question is that I don't need to have a theory about the bag Oswald brought in. And I couldn't care less what he did with [it]. I can speculate about it, but I don't play that game. Assumptions and speculation is for people who have no actual evidence to support their claim and then call it more logical than anything I can come up with.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Yeah. I didn't think you would dare answer my inquiry. What I got instead was the standard wishy-washy response from a conspiracist who probably knows the LN logic on this matter is perfectly sound and reasonable (and accurate), but can't admit it.
I can't say I blame you though for not wanting to answer my question. Because, as I said earlier, "whatever answer you dream up is not going to be nearly as logical as my October 2007 comment I posted earlier."
MARTIN WEIDMANN SAID:
In the real world, you need to prove that the bag found in the TSBD was in fact the same bag that Oswald brought in. And you can't! It really is as simple as that. That's why two eyewitness accounts, who basically said the same thing, were dismissed as "mistaken", because that's the best you can do.
You claim to be following the evidence, but that's not what you are doing at all. In fact, it seems you don't even understand what the meaning of following the evidence actually is. What you do is make assumptions and speculate and you know what, with enough assumptions and speculation you can "prove" anybody guilty of anything.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
And by the same token, with enough "assumptions and speculation", a conspiracy theorist can easily manage to get a double-murderer named Lee Oswald off the hook completely and pretend he was "just a patsy".
Thanks for the classic Pot/Kettle moment there, Martin.
MARTIN WEIDMANN SAID:
Your childish insults only tell me that you foolishly think you are better and more knowledgeable than everybody else, which in my mind makes you a complete nobody with lots of bravado and nothing of substance to back it up. I'll be more than happy to discuss the details of the case with you, but I will not accept the patronizing BS you are posting right now.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
I don't think I insulted you, Martin. I merely pointed out a fact that I discovered while talking with you these last two days (which is something that applies to 99% of all Internet conspiracy theorists that I have conversed with) --- i.e., you do not reasonably and fairly and properly evaluate the sum total of evidence connected with the murder of President John F. Kennedy. (At least as far as this one particular sub-topic of "The Paper Bag" is concerned at any rate.)
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2022/01/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-1349.html
-
Bonus Link of Common Sense & Reasonable Inferences:
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/two-things-that-prove-oswalds-guilt.html
-
MARTIN WEIDMANN SAID:
Your level of arrogance is astounding.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
It certainly is no more astounding than your level of complete denial regarding Commission Exhibit No. 142.
A meaningless statement
MARTIN WEIDMANN SAID:
The answer to your pathetic question is that I don't need to have a theory about the bag Oswald brought in. And I couldn't care less what he did with [it]. I can speculate about it, but I don't play that game. Assumptions and speculation is for people who have no actual evidence to support their claim and then call it more logical than anything I can come up with.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Yeah. I didn't think you would dare answer my inquiry. What I got instead was the standard wishy-washy response from a conspiracist who probably knows the LN logic on this matter is perfectly sound and reasonable (and accurate), but can't admit it.
In your modest opinion, of course, right? :D
I can't say I blame you though for not wanting to answer my question. Because, as I said earlier, "whatever answer you dream up is not going to be nearly as logical as my October 2007 comment I posted earlier."
Completely delusional. I did not answer your question for 2 reasons; (1) you wouldn't accept it anyway and, more importantly (2) I don't have to prove you wrong. It's the other way around.
MARTIN WEIDMANN SAID:
In the real world, you need to prove that the bag found in the TSBD was in fact the same bag that Oswald brought in. And you can't! It really is as simple as that. That's why two eyewitness accounts, who basically said the same thing, were dismissed as "mistaken", because that's the best you can do.
You claim to be following the evidence, but that's not what you are doing at all. In fact, it seems you don't even understand what the meaning of following the evidence actually is. What you do is make assumptions and speculate and you know what, with enough assumptions and speculation you can "prove" anybody guilty of anything.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
And by the same token, with enough "assumptions and speculation", a conspiracy theorist can easily manage to get a double-murderer named Lee Oswald off the hook completely and pretend he was "just a patsy".
Thanks for the classic Pot/Kettle moment there, Martin.
Oh, poor boy did I hurt your feelings? The truth hurts... deal with it. I'm not defending Oswald. I couldn't care less if he did it or not. My only interest is finding out if the case against him as solid, and seeing what you have to offer, it's no way near conclusive, let alone beyond a reasonable doubt.
What you don't seem to understand is that I don't have to speculate about Oswald's guilt or innocence. I'm not his defense lawyer. But as you accuse him, you should at least be able to provide proof of his guilt. So far, however, all you seem to be doing is making baseless assumptions. Very weak indeed.
MARTIN WEIDMANN SAID:
Your childish insults only tell me that you foolishly think you are better and more knowledgeable than everybody else, which in my mind makes you a complete nobody with lots of bravado and nothing of substance to back it up. I'll be more than happy to discuss the details of the case with you, but I will not accept the patronizing BS you are posting right now.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
I don't think I insulted you, Martin. I merely pointed out a fact that I discovered while talking with you these last two days (which is something that applies to 99% of all Internet conspiracy theorists that I have conversed with) --- i.e., you do not reasonably and fairly and properly evaluate the sum total of evidence connected with the murder of President John F. Kennedy. (At least as far as this one particular sub-topic of "The Paper Bag" is concerned at any rate.)
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2022/01/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-1349.html
I don't think I insulted you, Martin.
Of course you did.
I merely pointed out a fact that I discovered while talking with you these last two days (which is something that applies to 99% of all Internet conspiracy theorists that I have conversed with) --- i.e., you do not reasonably and fairly and properly evaluate the sum total of evidence connected with the murder of President John F. Kennedy. (At least as far as this one particular sub-topic of "The Paper Bag" is concerned at any rate.)
Translation; you don't share my belief and I don't have the arguments to convince you and because of that you are not being reasonable, fair and can't evaluate evidence properly.
You've not only insulted me, but now you've also insulted my intelligence.
Btw, I notice this post is in the same format that you use on your blogs. I do not want my posts copied there, because I have noticed in the past that you have a habit of misrepresenting what was actually said and adding on comments to which I can not reply. I am not interested to be part of your propaganda and if I ever find any part of our discussion on your blog, I will take legal action against you.
PS. I've just checked, by the link you have provided, and found that you have already put parts of our conversation on your blog and you have edited my posts, without my knowledge or permission. I formally demand that you remove all those posts within 48 hours. Failure to do so will result in legal action against you.
-
Bonus Link of Common Sense & Reasonable Inferences:
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/two-things-that-prove-oswalds-guilt.html
Common sense and reasonable inferences is what LNs use when they don't have conclusive evidence to back up their theory.
-
Try something new for once. This BS is getting boring.
Says the guy who is here night and day for years on end. You should be embarrassed by the spanking you have taken on this thread. I almost feel bad for you myself. Almost.
-
Thanks for the follow-up info, Colin.
Montgomery doesn't have that window ledge in that CE142 paper bag, however.
But, then too, you don't believe for a second that the bag Leslie Montgomery is holding is CE142, do you?
And around we go again....
I don’t know what was holding the bag up David. Maybe Montgomery gave it viagra. The 30” strip fits as a possibility. Wondering where it was entered into evidence. It does seem that on the day of the assassination that the right (not left) strip was removed. The left one was removed at a later date.
I do believe the bag Montgomery is holding is CE142. Why would I not?
PS what are your thoughts on Frazier's movements that afternoon? How do you explain the 3 hour gap?
PPS good to be having dialogue with you again.
-
I do believe the bag Montgomery is holding is CE142. Why would I not?
Well, most CTers don't seem to think he's holding the CE142 bag.
PS what are your thoughts on Frazier's movements that afternoon? How do you explain the 3 hour gap?
Refresh my memory. What gap is that?
-
Refresh my memory. What gap is that?
Start at the 25 minute mark here for Frazier's timeline. He claims to have gone directly to the hospital. Contradicts his bizarre HSCA version(s).
https://www.c-span.org/video/?287933-101/kennedy-assassination-buell-wesley-frazier-part-2
Then go to the Rose Stovall report.
-
Says the guy who is here night and day for years on end. You should be embarrassed by the spanking you have taken on this thread. I almost feel bad for you myself. Almost.
Ah, the voice from the alternate reality, where black is white and up is down, is back again, exposing his total lack of neutrality.
-
If you copy another person’s original work, in writing or photography, you must pass the Fair Use test. Fair Use allows you to use another person’s work for the purpose of education, commentary or criticism. In a copyright lawsuit, to determine if the copied work was fair use, 4 items must be considered:
Purpose and character of the use (commercial vs. nonprofit/educational)
Was your writing or image an original work or a full copy?
Is your website for profit as a business or personal?
Nature of the copyrighted work
Is the original work a news story based on fact or is it theory, opinion, original thought?
Could the quoted work have been recreated with research on your own?
The closer the original work is to facts the more likely that fair use applies. Opinion however makes the work more original and more likely that you are in the wrong.
Amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to entire original work
Did you copy ALL of the work?
Did you copy MOST of the work?
The more you use, the more likely you are in the wrong. What is the right length? Many will say a couple paragraphs is fine. The AP specifically asks bloggers to pay for quotations more than 4 words. That is the extreme. The best rule of thumb here, as with most of copyright, is if you are unsure, just ask the copyright holder for permission.
Effect on the potential market/value of the copyrighted work
Are you producing a competing product by copying an original work?
Is there still a good reason for someone to go look at the original work?
Are you using an image that you would normally have to pay for?
If you are costing someone else money that they would normally receive, you are typically in the wrong.
I seem to remember reading that if something is placed on the internet where it is freely available, then it is fair game. Is this not correct?
-
I seem to remember reading that if something is placed on the internet where it is freely available, then it is fair game. Is this not correct?
Not when only parts of the conversation are quoted, without source, for the sole purpose of creating a different impression of the conversation and without the person involved even having the possibility to respond on the blog in which the information is published.
In any event, Mr. von Pein has 48 hours to remove it or I will instruct my lawyers to start proceedings without any further notice.
-
Your level of arrogance is astounding.
The answer to your pathetic question is that I don't need to have a theory about the bag Oswald brought in. And I couldn't care less what he did with it. I can speculate about it, but I don't play that game. Assumptions and speculation is for people who have no actual evidence to support their claim and then call it more logical than anything I can come up with.
An amazing example of the contrarian mindset. Martin goes on and on claiming that Frazier's estimate of the length of the bag must be correct. Therefore, by direct implication, Oswald must have carried a bag of that length into the TSBD. It didn't vanish into thin air. But Martin "couldn't care less what he did" with that bag! LOL. Why? Because no such bag was ever found in the TSBD or ever accounted for in any way. Oswald himself denied carrying any such bag. He says that he carried only his lunch sack. Something we know is a lie because Martin's own witness, Frazier, confirms that he specifically asked Oswald about his lunch that morning and Oswald confirmed he didn't bring it. In addition, no one else who had access to the 6th floor ever explained why the long bag was there. It appears to be a singular such bag in that building with no work-related purpose for being there. It has Oswald's prints on it. There is zero doubt that this is the bag Oswald carried into the building that morning but because we don't have a time machine to confirm it, Martin can play the endless contrarian. It's embarrassing. Like watching some UFO nut try to contrive a narrative that proves little green men visited Earth in Ancient times.
-
Not when only parts of the conversation are quoted, without source, for the sole purpose of creating a different impression of the conversation and without the person involved even having the possibility to respond on the blog in which the information is published.
In any event, Mr. von Pein has 48 hours to remove it or I will instruct my lawyers to start proceedings without any further notice.
Okay, then I suppose this would be based on something other than copyrights.
-
Not when only parts of the conversation are quoted, without source, for the sole purpose of creating a different impression of the conversation and without the person involved even having the possibility to respond on the blog in which the information is published.
In any event, Mr. von Pein has 48 hours to remove it or I will instruct my lawyers to start proceedings without any further notice.
Maybe contact Roger Collins. Didn't he claim to have a legal background? You are really losing it! One of the funniest posts since you ran scared from Bill Brown after he called yout bluff about debating him. "Instruct my lawyers. Comedy gold.
-
An amazing example of the contrarian mindset. Martin goes on and on claiming that Frazier's estimate of the length of the bag must be correct. Therefore, by direct implication, Oswald must have carried a bag of that length into the TSBD. It didn't vanish into thin air. But Martin "couldn't care less what he did" with that bag! LOL. Why? Because no such bag was ever found in the TSBD or ever accounted for in any way. Oswald himself denied carrying any such bag. He says that he carried only his lunch sack. Something we know is a lie because Martin's own witness, Frazier, confirms that he specifically asked Oswald about his lunch that morning and Oswald confirmed he didn't bring it. In addition, no one else who had access to the 6th floor ever explained why the long bag was there. It appears to be a singular such bag in that building with no work-related purpose for being there. It has Oswald's prints on it. There is zero doubt that this is the bag Oswald carried into the building that morning but because we don't have a time machine to confirm it, Martin can play the endless contrarian. It's embarrassing. Like watching some UFO nut try to contrive a narrative that proves little green men visited Earth in Ancient times.
Martin goes on and on claiming that Frazier's estimate of the length of the bag must be correct.
An amazing and typical LN misrepresentation of the facts.
Therefore, by direct implication, Oswald must have carried a bag of that length into the TSBD.
Indeed. A far better conclusion, supported by evidence, than the LN version, where because Oswald's print (amongst those of others) was found on a bag (made from TBSD materials) at he place where he worked, it means that must be the bag he brought into the building.
It didn't vanish into thin air. But Martin "couldn't care less what he did" with that bag! LOL. Why? Because no such bag was ever found in the TSBD or ever accounted for in any way.
No search for such a bag was ever conducted in the TSBD and if the bag did not contain the rifle (something which Richard and his ilk still can not prove it did) then it doesn't matter what he did with the bag he carried into the building.
Oswald himself denied carrying any such bag. He says that he carried only his lunch sack.
Which would mean that he most certainly didn't carry the bag found at the TSBD, but Richard prefers to ignore that.
In addition, no one else who had access to the 6th floor ever explained why the long bag was there.
More misrepresentation. There is no record of all the people who had access to the 6th floor ever being asked about the bag! Richard just makes up the claim as he goes along.
It appears to be a singular such bag in that building with no work-related purpose for being there.
It appears?.... Pffff
It has Oswald's prints on it. There is zero doubt that this is the bag Oswald carried into the building that morning
And there it is; Oswald's prints were on a bag found at his place of work and never mind there were other prints on it as well, this must be the bag Oswald carried into the building. Richard showing off his ever present propensity for jumping to conclusions based on absolutely nothing at all.
but because we don't have a time machine to confirm it, Martin can play the endless contrarian.
If you think we need a time machine to confirm it, then it's beyond obvious that you have understood fully that you do not have the evidence to confirm it in a normal way. Pathetic.
-
Maybe contact Roger Collins. Didn't he claim to have a legal background? You are really losing it! One of the funniest posts since you ran scared from Bill Brown after he called yout bluff about debating him. "Instruct my lawyers. Comedy gold.
You should really try to get your obsession with me under control. It has been getting out of hand for some time now.
-
I don't think I insulted you, Martin. I merely pointed out a fact that I discovered while talking with you these last two days (which is something that applies to 99% of all Internet conspiracy theorists that I have conversed with) --- i.e., you do not reasonably and fairly and properly evaluate the sum total of evidence connected with the murder of President John F. Kennedy. (At least as far as this one particular sub-topic of "The Paper Bag" is concerned at any rate.)
This is a common argument among the "Oswald did it" faithful. If you disagree with their speculative conclusions (which are designed to make the evidence fit their predetermined narrative), then you just don't know how to "properly" apply "logic" and "reason" (which means agreeing with their assumptions).
It's pure rhetoric in lieu of evidence, which is what their entire argument amounts to.
-
Btw, I notice this post is in the same format that you use on your blogs. I do not want my posts copied there, because I have noticed in the past that you have a habit of misrepresenting what was actually said and adding on comments to which I can not reply. I am not interested to be part of your propaganda and if I ever find any part of our discussion on your blog, I will take legal action against you.
PS. I've just checked, by the link you have provided, and found that you have already put parts of our conversation on your blog and you have edited my posts, without my knowledge or permission. I formally demand that you remove all those posts within 48 hours. Failure to do so will result in legal action against you.
This is the reason he was kicked out of the Education Forum. I see he has learned nothing.
-
Martin goes on and on claiming that Frazier's estimate of the length of the bag must be correct.
An amazing and typical LN misrepresentation of the facts.
Therefore, by direct implication, Oswald must have carried a bag of that length into the TSBD.
Indeed. A far better conclusion, supported by evidence, than the LN version, where because Oswald's print (amongst those of others) was found on a bag (made from TBSD materials) at he place where he worked, it means that must be the bag he brought into the building.
It didn't vanish into thin air. But Martin "couldn't care less what he did" with that bag! LOL. Why? Because no such bag was ever found in the TSBD or ever accounted for in any way.
No search for such a bag was ever conducted in the TSBD and if the bag did not contain the rifle (something which Richard and his ilk still can not prove it did) then it doesn't matter what he did with the bag he carried into the building.
Oswald himself denied carrying any such bag. He says that he carried only his lunch sack.
Which would mean that he most certainly didn't carry the bag found at the TSBD, but Richard prefers to ignore that.
In addition, no one else who had access to the 6th floor ever explained why the long bag was there.
More misrepresentation. There is no record of all the people who had access to the 6th floor ever being asked about the bag! Richard just makes up the claim as he goes along.
It appears to be a singular such bag in that building with no work-related purpose for being there.
It appears?.... Pffff
It has Oswald's prints on it. There is zero doubt that this is the bag Oswald carried into the building that morning
And there it is; Oswald's prints were on a bag found at his place of work and never mind there were other prints on it as well, this must be the bag Oswald carried into the building. Richard showing off his ever present propensity for jumping to conclusions based on absolutely nothing at all.
but because we don't have a time machine to confirm it, Martin can play the endless contrarian.
If you think we need a time machine to confirm it, then it's beyond obvious that you have understood fully that you do not have the evidence to confirm it in a normal way. Pathetic.
This gets better and better. No search was ever conducted for the bag on the 6th floor but it was found. The authorities searched the entire building for suspicious items. You also want us to believe that someone who worked in that building and could explain the bag found on the 6th floor for was used for a work-related purpose just remained silent about it forever because "they were not asked" about it? The bag the authorities indicated that the assassin used to carry the weapon that killed the President of the United States? Wow. No one would volunteer to say that was just a bag that was used for some work-related purpose? Unreal. Even your star witness Frazier to this day, who has been asked about the bag, never said that any such bag had a legitimate purpose for being in the building? And you have no interest in the fact that the bag you claim was carried into the building can't be accounted for in any way? Nothing to see there. How about this? It wasn't found not because no one searched for it, but because it wasn't there. The bag that Oswald carried is the one found on the 6th floor. That accounts for Oswald's bag. There was no bag along the size described by Frazier because he was wrong in his estimate of its size. End of story.
You also make a very silly comparison between Oswald denying that he carried a bag along the size estimated by Frazier and denying the one found on the 6th floor. Can you understand why these are different situations? Apparently not. If Oswald carried a shorter bag along the lines of the one estimated by Frazier that contained some non-incriminatory item like curtain rods, he would have every incentive to not only admit it but direct the authorities to its location. It would assist him to tell the truth in that situation. If, however, he carried a longer bag, such as the one found, and it contained the rifle, then he has every incentive to lie about it. Oswald lied about the bag. So figure out why that is important. And your star witness Frazier is the one who asked Oswald about his lunch. Oswald confirmed to Frazier that he did not have it that day, but later tells the DPD that he did. All of this aligns perfectly with Oswald attempting to cover up the fact that he carried the longer bag with the rifle into the building. It is entirely contrary to his interests to deny carrying a shorter bag that could assist him when found. Do you think a person typical acts in their own interest or contrary to their own interest?
-
DVP's "two things that prove Oswald's guilt":
1.) Lee Harvey Oswald's rifle was positively the weapon that was used to assassinate President Kennedy and wound Texas Governor John Connally.
Not only has he not proven beyond a reasonable doubt that CE139 was "Oswald's rifle", but there is no physical evidence whatsoever that CE139 was "used to assassinate President Kennedy and wound Texas Governor John Connally".
2.) Oswald was seen carrying a bulky paper package into his place of employment at the Texas School Book Depository Building on the morning of 11/22/63,
Who said it was "bulky"? And seen by whom? Jack Dougherty said he was empty handed when he entered the building. Frazier only saw him enter the north annex area, not the building and Frazier admitted to Tom Meros that he was far enough behind Oswald at the time that he couldn't actually see the package when Oswald entered the annex. See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ihrdJbwPbaw (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ihrdJbwPbaw) at timestamp 6:30.
and Oswald (beyond a reasonable doubt) lied about the contents of this package to a co-worker.
BS: There is no evidence whatsoever that would tell you what was in the package that Frazier saw, and certainly no evidence of it being CE139 or any other rifle. It's not a "lie" merely because you believe something else was in there.
-
Well, most CTers don't seem to think he's holding the CE142 bag.
Really? Where did you get this idea?
-
Well, most CTers don't seem to think he's holding the CE142 bag.
Really? Where did you get this idea?
You're right this time, John. I didn't write that correctly. I should have phrased it this way:
Most CTers think the bag that Det. Montgomery is holding IS, indeed, CE142, but those CTers think that bag is a "fake" bag created by the DPD, with the police deep-sixing the "real" 27-inch bag.
Of course, the above "deep-sixing" comment really doesn't apply to a lot of CTers, because the trend today is to pretend that NO BAG existed at all and to call both Frazier & Randle liars re: the bag. (Silly, isn't it?)
-
This is a common argument among the "Oswald did it" faithful. If you disagree with their speculative conclusions (which are designed to make the evidence fit their predetermined narrative), then you just don't know how to "properly" apply "logic" and "reason" (which means agreeing with their assumptions).
It's pure rhetoric in lieu of evidence, which is what their entire argument amounts to.
Another first-rate Pot/Kettle moment from the e-lips of a CT fantasist.
Thanks, John.
-
This gets better and better. No search was ever conducted for the bag on the 6th floor but it was found. The authorities searched the entire building for suspicious items.
Cite, please. Or an admission that you just made this up will also suffice. Have you figured out yet how Norman's lunch bag "vanished into thin air"? Maybe CE142 was Norman's lunch bag, because nobody ever found another one, so there is "no doubt" that it must be that. Do you realize how stupid your argument is?
You also want us to believe that someone who worked in that building and could explain the bag found on the 6th floor for was used for a work-related purpose just remained silent about it forever because "they were not asked" about it?
Do you want us to believe that your made-up "explanation" constitutes evidence? PS. how do you know where CE142 was found? Do you have any evidence besides "cop said so"?
The bag the authorities indicated that the assassin used to carry the weapon that killed the President of the United States?
"authorities indicated". Really? That's your evidence? :D
Wow. No one would volunteer to say that was just a bag that was used for some work-related purpose? Unreal. Even your star witness Frazier to this day, who has been asked about the bag, never said that any such bag had a legitimate purpose for being in the building?
Cite please. And why does it matter whether CE142 has a "work-related purpose"? What does that even mean? Did dominoes have a work-related purpose for being in the building?
And you have no interest in the fact that the bag you claim was carried into the building can't be accounted for in any way? Nothing to see there. How about this? It wasn't found not because no one searched for it, but because it wasn't there.
Argument from ignorance fallacy. Adding "end of story" to a conjecture doesn't actually turn it into a fact.
You also make a very silly comparison between Oswald denying that he carried a bag along the size estimated by Frazier and denying the one found on the 6th floor.
Where did you get the idea that Oswald "denied carried a bag along the size estimated by Frazier"? Fritz said nothing in his report written from memory several days after the fact that he said anything to Oswald about Frazier's size estimate. It's not even clear when Frazier was first asked to estimate the length.
Can you understand why these are different situations? Apparently not. If Oswald carried a shorter bag along the lines of the one estimated by Frazier that contained some non-incriminatory item like curtain rods, he would have every incentive to not only admit it but direct the authorities to its location.
First of all, you don't know what he did or did not say during interrogation. Secondly, what if he didn't know what "its location" was? Have you found Norman's lunch bag yet?
It would assist him to tell the truth in that situation. If, however, he carried a longer bag, such as the one found, and it contained the rifle, then he has every incentive to lie about it.
If, if, if. Argument from imagination.
-
You're right this time, John. I didn't write that correctly. I should have phrased it this way:
Most CTers think the bag that Det. Montgomery is holding IS, indeed, CE142, but that bag is a "fake" bag created by the DPD, with the police deep-sixing the "real" 27-inch bag.
I don't even think that's accurate. Maybe you should just stick to speaking for yourself.
-
Another first-rate Pot/Kettle moment from the e-lips of a CT fantasist.
Wrong on two counts. I'm not a CT, and I've never based an argument on the arrogant notion that my opinion constitutes evidence of anything, or that disagreeing with my conjectures is somehow a lack of "logic". It's lazy posturing. If you have evidence then present it or admit that you are making a rhetorical argument because that's all you have.
-
This gets better and better. No search was ever conducted for the bag on the 6th floor but it was found. The authorities searched the entire building for suspicious items. You also want us to believe that someone who worked in that building and could explain the bag found on the 6th floor for was used for a work-related purpose just remained silent about it forever because "they were not asked" about it? The bag the authorities indicated that the assassin used to carry the weapon that killed the President of the United States? Wow. No one would volunteer to say that was just a bag that was used for some work-related purpose? Unreal. Even your star witness Frazier to this day, who has been asked about the bag, never said that any such bag had a legitimate purpose for being in the building? And you have no interest in the fact that the bag you claim was carried into the building can't be accounted for in any way? Nothing to see there. How about this? It wasn't found not because no one searched for it, but because it wasn't there. The bag that Oswald carried is the one found on the 6th floor. That accounts for Oswald's bag. There was no bag along the size described by Frazier because he was wrong in his estimate of its size. End of story.
You also make a very silly comparison between Oswald denying that he carried a bag along the size estimated by Frazier and denying the one found on the 6th floor. Can you understand why these are different situations? Apparently not. If Oswald carried a shorter bag along the lines of the one estimated by Frazier that contained some non-incriminatory item like curtain rods, he would have every incentive to not only admit it but direct the authorities to its location. It would assist him to tell the truth in that situation. If, however, he carried a longer bag, such as the one found, and it contained the rifle, then he has every incentive to lie about it. Oswald lied about the bag. So figure out why that is important. And your star witness Frazier is the one who asked Oswald about his lunch. Oswald confirmed to Frazier that he did not have it that day, but later tells the DPD that he did. All of this aligns perfectly with Oswald attempting to cover up the fact that he carried the longer bag with the rifle into the building. It is entirely contrary to his interests to deny carrying a shorter bag that could assist him when found. Do you think a person typical acts in their own interest or contrary to their own interest?
No search was ever conducted for the bag on the 6th floor but it was found.
Stupid remark. So what?
The authorities searched the entire building for suspicious items.
So a flimsy bag, possibly in the trash somewhere, would be a suspicious item to you?
You also want us to believe that someone who worked in that building and could explain the bag found on the 6th floor for was used for a work-related purpose just remained silent about it forever because "they were not asked" about it?
Do you have any idea just how many people simply do not want to get involved in a murder case? Just how naive are you? Besides, how could all those other TSBD even have known that special interest that was given to a paper bag?
The bag the authorities indicated that the assassin used to carry the weapon that killed the President of the United States? Wow.
The bag the authorities indicated... about a year after the fact, in the WC report which hardly anybody in the TSBD probably would have read. Victoria Adams was unaware of the lies the WC told about her until Barry Ernest told her, decades later.
No one would volunteer to say that was just a bag that was used for some work-related purpose? Unreal.
Just like no one came forward to say they saw Oswald walking from the roominghouse to 10th street. Go figure!
And why did the bag even have to have a work related purpose?
Even your star witness Frazier to this day, who has been asked about the bag, never said that any such bag had a legitimate purpose for being in the building?
What bag are you babbling on about? If he was ever asked that particular question, which I doubt, how in the world would he even know. You really need to stop making up pathetic arguments to support your idiotic opinions.
And you have no interest in the fact that the bag you claim was carried into the building can't be accounted for in any way? Nothing to see there.
Indeed, nothing to see there. Oswald had all morning to dispose of the bag. Detective Lewis, who took Frazier's polygraph, speculated that Oswald might have simply thrown that bag away. Lt Day panicked instead and tried to argue that Oswald might have used an old bag (the one Frazier saw) to conceal the bag found at the 6th floor and it's content.
It wasn't found not because no one searched for it, but because it wasn't there.
Then show me the report which confirms that they searched for a bag? Btw, if they searched the building so thoroughly, how come they completely missed Oswald's jacket in the Domino room and the clipboard he left on the 6th floor? You are so all over the place, it's beyond ridiculous and embarrassing.
The bag that Oswald carried is the one found on the 6th floor. That accounts for Oswald's bag. There was no bag along the size described by Frazier because he was wrong in his estimate of its size. End of story.
As per usual an opinion expressed without a shred of evidence to support it, which ignores that two people who actually saw the bag Oswald carried said the 6th floor bag wasn't the one they saw.
You also make a very silly comparison between Oswald denying that he carried a bag along the size estimated by Frazier and denying the one found on the 6th floor. Can you understand why these are different situations? Apparently not.
Bla bla bla.... Oswald was never shown the 6th floor bag and he was only asked if he brought a long bag (whatever that means) to work. That could be either the bag he actually carried or the one found on the 6th floor. Can you comprehend that? Oswald simply denied that he brought a long bag to work. Period.
If Oswald carried a shorter bag along the lines of the one estimated by Frazier that contained some non-incriminatory item like curtain rods, he would have every incentive to not only admit it but direct the authorities to its location. It would assist him to tell the truth in that situation. If, however, he carried a longer bag, such as the one found, and it contained the rifle, then he has every incentive to lie about it.
So much BS speculation about Oswald saying that he did not bring a long bag to work. Pathetic!
Oswald lied about the bag. So figure out why that is important.
Just because you claim that he lied, doesn't make it true or important. Your opinion is not evidence.
And your star witness Frazier is the one who asked Oswald about his lunch. Oswald confirmed to Frazier that he did not have it that day, but later tells the DPD that he did.
Well, if he really told Frazier there were curtain rods in the bag then he could hardly tell him that the bag contained his lunch. Oswald may well have told Frazier the curtain rods story as a way to cover up his true reason for wanting a ride to Irving on Thursday, which was to reconcile with Marina (she and Ruth Paine both testified they believe that was the reason for the visit).
All of this aligns perfectly with Oswald attempting to cover up the fact that he carried the longer bag with the rifle into the building.
BS... With enough speculation and assumptions you can make everything align with anything, and you are constantly speculating and making assumptions. With you special brand of "logic" you could just as easily say that Oswald getting out of bed that morning aligns perfectly with his intention to kill Kennedy. Perhaps, for just once, you should try to deal with actual evidence instead of this crap.
It is entirely contrary to his interests to deny carrying a shorter bag that could assist him when found. Do you think a person typical acts in their own interest or contrary to their own interest?
When did Oswald deny carrying a shorter bag?
-
Maybe contact Roger Collins. Didn't he claim to have a legal background? You are really losing it! One of the funniest posts since you ran scared from Bill Brown after he called yout bluff about debating him. "Instruct my lawyers. Comedy gold.
Collins,Beam&Daniels
hahahahahaha
-
This is a common argument among the "Oswald did it" faithful. If you disagree with their speculative conclusions (which are designed to make the evidence fit their predetermined narrative), then you just don't know how to "properly" apply "logic" and "reason" (which means agreeing with their assumptions).
It's pure rhetoric in lieu of evidence, which is what their entire argument amounts to.
It amounts to Oswald killing Tippit
And your evidence amounts to CT noses jammed firmly — with glee — up Oswald's bony arse
-
Maybe you should stick to the memes. As stupid as they are, they are at least amusing whereas your "analysis" is just unintelligible.
Ah, another insult from the lunatic fringe
-
So! Mr Von Pein looks at the document below and 'solves' the problem of its dates and times in the following............ time-bending way:
The curtain rods were submitted by Agent Howlett to Lt. Day
-----------EITHER a good half a day BEFORE Agent Howlett extracted them from the Paine garage (=the 23 March option)
-----------OR nearly two hours AFTER they were released by Lt. Day back to Agent Howlett (=the 24 March option)
ALAN FORD SAID:
Is this really the best you can do, Mr Von Pein?
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
..................................................
(https://i.imgur.com/qBOkbcb.jpg)
-
@A. Ford....
Why are you so fascinated with that curtain rod document?
Regardless of the dates mentioned, it's a document that is obviously referring to the curtain rods that were taken down from a shelf (on the WC record) in Ruth Paine's garage on the evening of March 23, 1964 [see 9 H 424 (https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh9/html/WC_Vol9_0216b.htm)].
The document even mentions the exact Warren Commission exhibit numbers assigned to the 2 Paine rods (Ruth Paine Exhibit Nos. 275 & 276).
What is it you're trying to prove by bringing up that document anyway, Mr. Ford? You're not trying to imply that Ruth Paine's on-the-record 3/23/64 testimony from her garage is somehow phony, are you? Where are you attempting to go with it?
To complicate the document's dates even more, did you, Alan Ford, see my earlier post in this thread talking about the additional version of the document you have been fixated on? It seems the "March 24" date on the document is also dated "March 26" in the alternate version (seen at my post below):
https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,3326.msg122181.html#msg122181
-
Mr. DAY. There was a scar on the top of or the top side of this box that was sitting there. I noticed that at the time. I thought the recoil of the gun had caused that. I later decided that was in the wrong direction. It was not the recoil of the gun but I did notice this scar on the box.
Translation: upon arrival to the SN the box "scar", arrangement of shells and shooting "logic" would have had the assassin shooting as JFK approached on Houston. Therefore the right strip was removed for analysis. I believe this is the one that broke around the 30 inch mark.
Did Day ever say he initially thought the shooter might have fired some or all shots down on Houston? I don't see why Day would figure the shooter fired even one shot out of the right-side window if it was closed and the "gun rest" cartons were at the left-side window?
Note the missing strip on the right but not the left in the photo below.
(https://i.ibb.co/rmF9QcV/BFE4-B8-B7-3-CA2-4502-A889-B9181-EEBA0-F6.png)
I believe this piece is referenced below.
(https://i.ibb.co/tc63BsB/A13-B7588-3-B70-4-F52-93-E3-277-BF719-BA5-B.png)
I am still trying to locate the doc in my files that mentions two pieces indicating that a break occurred around a nail hole.
(https://images2.imgbox.com/7f/55/iibVDCh5_o.jpg)
I believe the weather strips were left alone until sometime between late-Saturday and the taking of the Nov. 25th pictures which appear to show the left-side strip having been removed.
-
Why are you so fascinated with that curtain rod document?
You don't find it odd that these curtain rods were submitted into evidence and checked for Oswald's (why just Oswald's?) prints 8 DAYS BEFORE they were officially "found" in Ruth's garage?
-
You don't find it odd that these curtain rods were submitted into evidence and checked for Oswald's (why just Oswald's?) prints 8 DAYS BEFORE they were officially "found" in Ruth's garage?
They weren't. They were submitted into evidence (and marked as Paine Exhibits 275/276) on March 23. We know that for a fact because we have the detailed word-for-word transcript of Ruth's testimony that I linked earlier (9 H 424). Therefore, the March 15th date is quite clearly an error.
-
Did Day ever say he initially thought the shooter might have fired some or all shots down on Houston? I don't see why Day would figure the shooter fired even one shot out of the right-side window if it was closed and the "gun rest" cartons were at the left-side window?
(https://images2.imgbox.com/7f/55/iibVDCh5_o.jpg)
I believe the weather strips were left alone until sometime between late-Saturday and the taking of the Nov. 25th pictures which appear to show the left-side strip having been removed.
Numerous officers felt that JFK had been shot while approaching the TSBD. Many thought that for years after. When the SN was originally discovered none there knew the position of the car at the time of the shooting. The position of the shells is consistent with shots towards Houston. I never said Day thought he shot out the right window. But maybe they felt the shooter was positioned behind the window and shooting out the left side. The "scar" indicated shots towards Houston from the right side. That's why he made the comment in his WC testimony. It was only later that they realised the scar was not consistent with the car position.
Your yellow lines are not indicative of the thin strip. There are thin strips that are positioned at the front of the frame. They are visible in both windows in the Studebaker photo taken on 11/22. The strip on the right is missing in the later photo.
-
They weren't. They were submitted into evidence (and marked as Paine Exhibits 275/276) on March 23. We know that for a fact because we have the detailed word-for-word transcript of Ruth's testimony that I linked earlier (9 H 424). Therefore, the March 15th date is quite clearly an error.
So you keep saying, Mr Von Pein. And yet when pressed to suggest what the 'correct date' might have been, you end up checkmated into the following absurd either/or 'solution':
The curtain rods were submitted by Agent Howlett to Lt. Day
-----------EITHER a good half a day BEFORE Agent Howlett extracted them from the Paine garage (=your 23 March option)
-----------OR nearly two hours AFTER they were released by Lt. Day back to Agent Howlett (=your 24 March option)
In other words, you tell us that the March 15th date is quite clearly an error.......only to hypothesize in its place
--------a March 23rd date that would quite clearly be an impossibility
--------a March 24th date that would quite clearly be an impossibility.
Do you believe in time travel, Mr Von Pein?
-
Numerous officers felt that JFK had been shot while approaching the TSBD. Many thought that for years after. When the SN was originally discovered none there knew the position of the car at the time of the shooting. The position of the shells is consistent with shots towards Houston. I never said Day thought he shot out the right window. But maybe they felt the shooter was positioned behind the window and shooting out the left side. The "scar" indicated shots towards Houston from the right side. That's why he made the comment in his WC testimony. It was only later that they realised the scar was not consistent with the car position.
The "scar" doesn't point down towards Houston. If the Carcano rifle caused the "scar" (while pointed down Elm), it might be from the forward corner of the trigger-guard housing resting on top of the box and somehow gouging the cardboard, possibly from steadying the rifle or the recoil. Later on, Day knew a direct backward recoil wouldn't account for the "scar". But the Carcano doesn't have much of a recoil and the rifle could have been moved a bit sideways when lifted.
Your yellow lines are not indicative of the thin strip. There are thin strips that are positioned at the front of the frame. They are visible in both windows in the Studebaker photo taken on 11/22. The strip on the right is missing in the later photo.
The only strips I'm aware are along the interior side of the base of the frame. That would be the "back" of the frame, the side visible to photographers standing inside.
-
Maybe you should stick to the memes. As stupid as they are, they are at least amusing whereas your "analysis" is just unintelligible.
Should read----Maybe you should stick to the memes. As stupid as they are, they are at least amusing whereas your "analysis" is just unintelligible anal.
-
The "scar" doesn't point down towards Houston. If the Carcano rifle caused the "scar" (while pointed down Elm), it might be from the forward corner of the trigger-guard housing resting on top of the box and somehow gouging the cardboard, possibly from steadying the rifle or the recoil. Later on, Day knew a direct backward recoil wouldn't account for the "scar". But the Carcano doesn't have much of a recoil and the rifle could have been moved a bit sideways when lifted.
The only strips I'm aware are along the interior side of the base of the frame. That would be the "back" of the frame, the side visible to photographers standing inside.
Would appreciate evidence that indicates the direction of the "scar". So, far all I can find is Day's quote that he considered it later to be in the wrong direction. Ie a shot inconsistent with a shot down Elm.
Please not the top of the strip indicated by the yellow line. Apologies for the bad drawing skills.
(https://i.ibb.co/bdvpRKR/E7110457-1-C78-4733-B07-E-51-D280-C80682.jpg)
The base of the frame is clearly different in the left and right windows.
-
@A. Ford....
Why are you so fascinated with that curtain rod document?
Regardless of the dates mentioned, it's a document that is obviously referring to the curtain rods that were unwrapped (on the WC record) in Ruth Paine's garage on the evening of March 23, 1964 [see 9 H 424 (https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh9/html/WC_Vol9_0216b.htm)].
The document even mentions the exact Warren Commission exhibit numbers assigned to the 2 Paine rods (Ruth Paine Exhibit Nos. 275 & 276).
What is it you're trying to prove by bringing up that document anyway, Mr. Ford? You're not trying to imply that Ruth Paine's on-the-record 3/23/64 testimony from her garage is somehow phony, are you? Where are you attempting to go with it?
To complicate the document's dates even more, did you, Alan Ford, see my earlier post in this thread talking about the additional version of the document you have been fixated on? It seems the "March 24" date on the document is also dated "March 26" in the alternate version (seen at my post below):
https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,3326.msg122181.html#msg122181
Alan apparently believes that someone in the TSBD found the curtain rods Oswald told Frazier that he carried that morning. And this document somehow proves it. In addition to being completely baseless, this fantasy narrative is full of outrageous logical inconsistencies. Why, for example, would the authorities who successfully suppressed these curtain rods as part of the official narrative that Oswald carried his rifle instead of any such curtain rods in his bag suddenly, months later, bring them to light on their own motion? And conveniently document the evidence that they were suppressing in a form! To test them for Oswald's prints. The same guy who they are framing by claiming he never had any curtain rods in the first place. HA HA HA. The last guy they would want to connect to any curtain rods. Then it gets even better. According to Alan, the "275" and "276" numbers on the form that match the WC exhibit numbers assigned to the curtain rods found in the Paine's garage are actually measurements of the lengths of these curtain rods. You can't make that up. A simple error in the date or some investigative process behind the scenes lends intends itself to this incredible, implausible fantasy.
-
Would appreciate evidence that indicates the direction of the "scar". So, far all I can find is Day's quote that he considered it later to be in the wrong direction. Ie a shot inconsistent with a shot down Elm.
(https://images2.imgbox.com/96/5a/jxMmrWZl_o.jpg)
There would be no reason for Day to associate the scar direction with a shot fired down Houston, so no reason for him to think the gunman was standing by the right-side window.
I think Day may have briefly looked at the scar without regard to the streets (they had just finished taking a few photographs, were setting up their kits and were called away to the rifle location). Maybe when Day returned that afternoon, he reconsidered the scar being caused by a recoil.
Please not the top of the strip indicated by the yellow line. Apologies for the bad drawing skills.
(https://i.ibb.co/bdvpRKR/E7110457-1-C78-4733-B07-E-51-D280-C80682.jpg)
The base of the frame is clearly different in the left and right windows.
(https://images2.imgbox.com/4e/79/owypjnR2_o.jpg)
Whatever is present on the left-side is present on the right.
-
Alan [Ford] apparently believes that someone in the TSBD found the curtain rods Oswald told Frazier that he carried that morning. And this document (https://i.imgur.com/qBOkbcb.jpeg) somehow proves it. .... Then it gets even better. According to Alan, the "275" and "276" numbers...are actually measurements of the lengths of these curtain rods. .... A simple error in the date or some investigative process behind the scenes lends itself to this incredible, implausible fantasy.
Thanks for the info, Richard.
If you're right and a CTer named Alan Ford believes all the fantastic things you just suggested, then Mr. Ford must be totally ignoring the word "marked" in CE1952. (We're supposed to believe "marked" indicates a unit of measurement, instead of marked as an exhibit by the Commission? That's a stretch.)
https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh23/html/WH_Vol23_0394b.htm
(That linked version of Exhibit 1952 is the other version of that document that I mentioned previously, which is the one that appears in WC Volume 23 and is dated March 26 at the bottom. And J.C. Day's signature is different from the March 24 version too, so Day must have signed two different variants of this same document.)
Plus, if any CTers believe the things Richard Smith posted above, it also would mean that those CTers believe Ruth Paine's unwrapping-the-curtain-rods-right-on-the-spot-in-her-own-garage-in-front-of-Warren-Commission-counsel testimony is a complete fraud and was manufactured by the WC and/or Ruth Paine from whole cloth.
Such a belief about Mrs. Paine is silly beyond tolerance.
But I've become accustomed to reading the many vile things that a lot of conspiracists have uttered about Mrs. Ruth Hyde Paine. And I'm always ready to defend her whenever I see such claptrap, such as these examples from 2013: http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2013/04/dvp-vs-dieugenio-part-87.html
-
Thanks for the info, Richard.
If you're right and a CTer named Alan Ford believes all the fantastic things you just suggested, then
Yikes, it seems Mr Von Pein really does wish to stand by his Soopah-Doopah-Time-Travel-Explanation-----------------
The curtain rods were submitted by Agent Howlett to Lt. Day
-----------EITHER a good half a day BEFORE Agent Howlett extracted them from the Paine garage (=the Von Pein 23 March Option)
-----------OR nearly two hours AFTER they were released by Lt. Day back to Agent Howlett (=the Von Pein 24 March Option)
???
-
Plus, if any CTers believe the things Richard Smith posted above, it also would mean that those CTers believe Ruth Paine's unwrapping-the-curtain-rods-right-on-the-spot-in-her-own-garage-in-front-of-Warren-Commission-counsel testimony is a complete fraud and was manufactured by the WC and/or Ruth Paine from whole cloth.
Such a belief about Mrs. Paine is silly beyond tolerance.
What's silly beyond tolerance is the automatic dismissal of any inconsistency of the evidence as "simple error - nothing to see here". Mrs. Paine wouldn't know what if anything was submitted for fingerprint testing on March 15. And why are there two versions of the CSSS to begin with?
-
What's silly beyond tolerance is the automatic dismissal of any inconsistency of the evidence as "simple error - nothing to see here". Mrs. Paine wouldn't know what if anything was submitted for fingerprint testing on March 15. And why are there two versions of the CSSS to begin with?
But by the same token, CTers love to paint each and every "inconsistency" with their conspiracy brush. No matter what it is. And, when combining the witness statements and the various official documents connected to the case, there were, indeed, a number of inconsistencies.
The "2-15-63" date written on the Klein's deposit ticket would be yet another one. But that was a KLEIN'S error, while the "inconsistency" relating to the CSSS document is an error made by the DALLAS POLICE. So when we discuss just those two items, how can anyone try to say those two "inconsistencies" are related in any way? Reasonably speaking, they can't.
I am kind of curious, though, as to why two different versions of that Crime Scene Search Section document exist.
-
What are the odds that everything the LNs don't like or can't explain in the evidence is an "error" or an "honest mistake" and everything they do like can never be questioned as it is "beyond doubt"?
-
(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-CNCMfjUpde8/UX7Xi_7AbUI/AAAAAAAAugE/GIwNFcIPvWY/s822/Buell+Wesley+Frazier+Logo.png) (http://dvp-video-audio-archive.blogspot.com/2012/03/buell-wesley-frazier.html)
-
What are the odds that everything the LNs don't like or can't explain in the evidence is an "error" or an "honest mistake" and everything they do like can never be questioned as it is "beyond doubt"?
I have asked that very same question more than twice. Hold not your breath.
-
Should read----Maybe you should stick to the memes. As stupid as they are, they are at least amusing whereas your "analysis" is just unintelligible anal.
Takeaway du jour: Two nerd heads are not better than one; rather, they are merely twice as dorky
Joke du jour
(Aka 'Birds of a Feather')
(https://i.postimg.cc/xdgTWFBK/LITTLE-CHICKEN.png)
billchapman_hunter of trolls_you_are_next
(https://i.postimg.cc/G3kVPQDn/YELLOW.png)
-
(https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-Ll6f-98OdaQ/WLTlzREs5dI/AAAAAAABLcI/vH8NWQen-REL0Xq61f7d8-iN7s1yWZQjwCLcB/s822/DVP-Audio-Video-Master-Index-Discussion-Logo.png) (http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2016/12/dvp-master-video-index.html)
-
I have asked that very same question more than twice. Hold not your breath.
I won't. They are pathetic propagandists who can not discuss the evidence honestly nor can they answer a question honestly.
Von Pein is the worst of them all, because when he fails to convince, which happens frequently, he, like a weasel, retreats to his own propaganda platform to distort and misrepresent the discussion and ridicule the people who do just want to have an honest and open discussion.
-
Von Pein...retreats to his own propaganda platform to distort and misrepresent the discussion...
This is total B.S., of course.
-
This is total B.S., of course.
We'll find out soon enough. You're messing with the wrong guy.
-
Dun, dun-dun-dunnnnnnnn..
(sinister music from '50s radio mysteries)
He blowed up good, he blowed up real good
hahahahahahahahaha
-
We'll find out soon enough. You're messing with the wrong guy.
Imagine posting something this childish. It's embarrassing. You should apologize to David for wasting his time and having this kind of childish fit. When you progress from endlessly insulting other members of this forum to actually threatening them, it's time for an intervention.
-
the "inconsistency" relating to the CSSS document is an error made by the DALLAS POLICE.
If it's just an error, Mr Von Pein, then how come you've been unable to suggest what the correct date might have been without entering the realms of complete absurdity?:
The curtain rods were submitted by Agent Howlett to Lt. Day
-----------EITHER a good half a day BEFORE Agent Howlett extracted them from the Paine garage (=the Von Pein 23 March Option)
-----------OR nearly two hours AFTER they were released by Lt. Day back to Agent Howlett (=the Von Pein 24 March Option)
Thumb1:
-
I've gave hundreds of lifts to workmates down the years, would I take note of the package they were carrying and shape etc, very likely not, however if he carried it cupped under his armpit as BWF stated he did then that's a pretty good observation that he's never waivered on, if so and as we know the rifle couldn't be disassembled to fit then you have an issue no ?
-
I've gave hundreds of lifts to workmates down the years, would I take note of the package they were carrying and shape etc, very likely not, however if he carried it cupped under his armpit as BWF stated he did then that's a pretty good observation that he's never waivered on, if so and as we know the rifle couldn't be disassembled to fit then you have an issue no ?
Perhaps you missed this part of post #35 by DVP in this thread:
Mr. Frazier is also on record as having said the following at the 1986 Oswald Mock Trial in London, England:
VINCENT T. BUGLIOSI -- "Mr. Frazier, is it true that you paid hardly any attention to this bag?"
BUELL WESLEY FRAZIER -- "That is true."
BUGLIOSI -- "So the bag could have been protruding out in front of his body, and you wouldn't have been able to see it, is that correct?"
FRAZIER -- "That is true."
-
Perhaps you missed this part of post #35 by DVP in this thread:
Mr. Frazier is also on record as having said the following at the 1986 Oswald Mock Trial in London, England:
VINCENT T. BUGLIOSI -- "Mr. Frazier, is it true that you paid hardly any attention to this bag?"
BUELL WESLEY FRAZIER -- "That is true."
BUGLIOSI -- "So the bag could have been protruding out in front of his body, and you wouldn't have been able to see it, is that correct?"
FRAZIER -- "That is true."
It's meaningless quote. Frazier answered the question honestly and his answer would be the same if the question had been; "If Oswald didn't bring a bag that day, you wouldn't be able to see it, is that correct?"
There is not a shred of evidence that Oswald carried the bag "protruding out in front of his body". It's just a desperate attempt by a prosecutor to somehow explain why Frazier couldn't see the bag as Oswald was walking away from him. The real reason why Frazier could not see the bag is, according to Frazier, that Oswald carried it in the cup of his hand and under his armpit.
-
It's meaningless quote. Frazier answered the question honestly and his answer would be the same if the question had been; "If Oswald didn't bring a bag that day, you wouldn't be able to see it, is that correct?"
There is not a shred of evidence that Oswald carried the bag "protruding out in front of his body". It's just a desperate attempt by a prosecutor to somehow explain why Frazier couldn't see the bag as Oswald was walking away from him. The real reason why Frazier could not see the bag is, according to Frazier, that Oswald carried it in the cup of his hand and under his armpit.
The man who saw LHO carrying the bag admits it is possible. Yet, you pathetically cling to your opinion that it is not. ::)
-
The man who saw LHO carrying the bag admits it is possible. Yet, you pathetically cling to your opinion that it is not. ::)
It's hopeless. The endless contrarian game. A long bag was found in the building. It had Oswald's prints on it. No bag matching Frazier's estimate was ever found or accounted for in any way. Oswald himself denied carrying such a bag. Instead he told the police that he had only his lunch sack. Martin doesn't understand why this is critical. If, as Martin is desperate to believe, Oswald carried a shorter bag along the lines estimated by Frazier, then Oswald has every incentive to admit such as it would assist to exonerate him. For example, if the bag contained curtain rods, then he would not only tell police that he carried such a bag but direct them to it. If, however, the bag he carried contained a rifle that was used to assassinate the president, then Oswald has every reason to deny carrying such a bag. What did Oswald do? He denied carrying a long bag. Case closed.
-
The man who saw LHO carrying the bag admits it is possible. Yet, you pathetically cling to your opinion that it is not. ::)
BS. Of course it's possible, but that doesn't mean it actually happened. There is not a shred of evidence that Oswald carried the bag "protruding out in front of his body". What there is evidence of is Frazier saying that Oswald carried the package in the cup of his hand and under his armpit, yet, you pathetically ignore that completely. ::)
-
It's hopeless. The endless contrarian game. A long bag was found in the building. It had Oswald's prints on it. No bag matching Frazier's estimate was ever found or accounted for in any way. Oswald himself denied carrying such a bag. Instead he told the police that he had only his lunch sack. Martin doesn't understand why this is critical. If, as Martin is desperate to believe, Oswald carried a shorter bag along the lines estimated by Frazier, then Oswald has every incentive to admit such as it would assist to exonerate him. For example, if the bag contained curtain rods, then he would not only tell police that he carried such a bag but direct them to it. If, however, the bag he carried contained a rifle that was used to assassinate the president, then Oswald has every reason to deny carrying such a bag. What did Oswald do? He denied carrying a long bag. Case closed.
Here's a suggestion. Why don't you write one master post that includes all your whining and complaining and refer to that every time you feel the need to post the same old crap again. It saves you time, because you don't have to type the same tripe over and over again and it saves us from being bored by the same old BS over and over again.
If, as Martin is desperate to believe, Oswald carried a shorter bag along the lines estimated by Frazier,
The problem is that Martin isn't desperate about that at all. There is no need for it. If Martin is desperate for something it is probably that you, if only for once, actually present some evidence to support your opinions....
-
BS. Of course it's possible, but that doesn't mean it actually happened. There is not a shred of evidence that Oswald carried the bag "protruding out in front of his body". What there is evidence of is Frazier saying that Oswald carried the package in the cup of his hand and under his armpit, yet, you pathetically ignore that completely. ::)
There is not a shred of evidence that Oswald carried the bag "protruding out in front of his body".
The evidence is the length of the bag with LHO’s fingerprint on it that was found in the TSBD. That length would require it.
What there is no evidence of is the actual existence of a bag the length that Frazier estimated. You completely ignore this fact.
-
There is not a shred of evidence that Oswald carried the bag "protruding out in front of his body".
The evidence is the length of the bag with LHO’s fingerprint on it that was found in the TSBD. That length would require it.
What there is no evidence of is the actual existence of a bag the length that Frazier estimated. You completely ignore this fact.
The evidence is the length of the bag with LHO’s fingerprint on it that was found in the TSBD. That length would require it.
That's not evidence, that's wishful thinking. The bag found at the TSBD had multiple prints on it which could not be identified (go figure) and that bag never fitted between the cup of Oswald's hand and his armpit. To argue that the length of the bag would require it to be carried differently as the witness said is simply trying to jam a square peg in a round hole.
It may be normal for you to make assumptions so that you can "prove" something which you would not be able to prove without those assumptions, but in the real world it doesn't work that way. There you need to prove that the bag (which was too large) was indeed protruding out before you can credibly claim that it was the bag Oswald carried.
The mere fact that Oswald print was on a bag that was found inside the TSBD and was made from materials common to the TSBD means very little. It's evidentiary value is even further reduced by the fact that the only two witnesses who saw the bag Oswald carried said that this wasn't that bag.
What there is no evidence of is the actual existence of a bag the length that Frazier estimated.
Actually, the evidence that a bag that Frazier described did exist is the corroboration by Randle.
-
I had no opportunity to read the whole book but reading the introduction makes me feel Buell wants to say something between the lines. Why was he afraid for himself and his family? Years of what emotional pain? Why he doubted whether he would be ever to hold his head up in public and see people who believed his story?
My impression is that he always wanted to tell the truth but was afraid and the truth is: Lee was standing on those steps next to him while the limo was passing by.
(https://i.postimg.cc/brwJQhNL/Buell.jpg)
-
The evidence is the length of the bag with LHO’s fingerprint on it that was found in the TSBD. That length would require it.
That's not evidence, that's wishful thinking. The bag found at the TSBD had multiple prints on it which could not be identified (go figure) and that bag never fitted between the cup of Oswald's hand and his armpit. To argue that the length of the bag would require it to be carried differently as the witness said is simply trying to jam a square peg in a round hole.
It may be normal for you to makes assumptions so that you can "prove" something which you would not be able to prove without those assumptions, but in the real world it doesn't work that way. There you need to prove that the bag (which was too large) was indeed protruding out before you can credibly claim that it was the bag Oswald carried.
The mere fact that Oswald print was on a bag that was found inside the TSBD and was made from materials common to the TSBD means very little. It's evidentiary value is even further reduced by the fact that the only two witnesses who saw the bag Oswald carried said that this wasn't that bag.
What there is no evidence of is the actual existence of a bag the length that Frazier estimated.
Actually, the evidence that a bag that Frazier described did exist is the corroboration by Randle.
Down the rabbit hole we go again! Here we learn that the fact that a long, brown bag was found inside the building in which Oswald carried a long, brown bag is not relevant. EVEN when it has Oswald's prints on it! EVEN when it's found next to the SN with fired bullet casings from Oswald's rifle nearby. EVEN when there is no other explanation for that bag's presence in the building. EVEN When no one else who worked there ever claims it or explains its presence on the 6th floor. And where is Martin's shorter bag? Let me guess. He doesn't care. It's of no apparent relevance to him that no bag along the lines of the one estimated by Frazier was ever found or accounted for in any way in the building into which it was carried. It just magically vanishes at that point. He is also not deterred by the denial of Oswald himself that he carried any bag other than his lunch. HA HA HA. The bag found on the 6th floor is not an "assumption" or anyone's "opinion." That bag, unlike Frazier's shorter bag, actually exists here on planet Earth. It is linked directly to Oswald by his prints and its location near the SN. It can be measured to avoid relying on estimates of its size by a witness who had no real cause to note it or estimate its length at the time he glimpsed it. That is what we call "evidence."
-
Down the rabbit hole we go again! Here we learn that the fact that a long, brown bag was found inside the building in which Oswald carried a long, brown bag is not relevant. EVEN when it has Oswald's prints on it! EVEN when it's found next to the SN with fired bullet casings from Oswald's rifle nearby. EVEN when there is no other explanation for that bag's presence in the building. EVEN When no one else who worked there ever claims it or explains its presence on the 6th floor. And where is Martin's shorter bag? Let me guess. He doesn't care. It's of no apparent relevance to him that no bag along the lines of the one estimated by Frazier was ever found or accounted for in any way in the building into which it was carried. It just magically vanishes at that point. He is also not deterred by the denial of Oswald himself that he carried any bag other than his lunch. HA HA HA. The bag found on the 6th floor is not an "assumption" or anyone's "opinion." That bag, unlike Frazier's shorter bag, actually exists here on planet Earth. It is linked directly to Oswald by his prints and its location near the SN. It can be measured to avoid relying on estimates of its size by a witness who had no real cause to note it or estimate its length at the time he glimpsed it. That is what we call "evidence."
That is what we call "evidence."
Yes I know, that's what is so sad about it. It shows us all that you confuse opinions, assumptions and speculation with actual evidence.
-
Mr. Frazier is also on record as having said the following at the 1986 Oswald Mock Trial in London, England:
A mock trial with a mock judge who mock presided and why was it in England?..another mockery.
Vinso got Frazier to renege on his own sworn WC testimony? :-\
There was no bag and therefore was no rifle in it.
Oswald entered the building and there were no other people around who saw anything noticeable in his hands.
Conclusion...some insider conspirator fabricated that bag on record.
Don't believe it? See if I care.
-
That is what we call "evidence."
Yes I know, that's what is so sad about it. It shows us all that you confuse opinions, assumptions and speculation with actual evidence.
The bottom line is that Frazier (who actually saw LHO carrying the bag) admits (under oath) that it is possible that it was carried in front of his body and Frazier wouldn’t have seen that aspect. Combine that fact with the physical evidence of the length of the bag and the logical conclusion is that he indeed carried the bag in front of him.
Frazier’s estimate of the length of the bag and his idea that it appeared to Frazier (from his viewpoint behind LHO) that LHO had it tucked under his armpit are questionable. He has repeatedly said that he wasn’t paying much attention to the bag. He admits under oath that it is possible that his idea of it tucked under the armpit could be wrong. But for some unknown reason you insist otherwise. That’s what is sad….
-
A mock trial with a mock judge who mock presided and why was it in England?..another mockery.
Vinso got Frazier to renege on his own sworn WC testimony? :-\
There was no bag and therefore was no rifle in it.
Oswald entered the building and there were no other people around who saw anything noticeable in his hands.
Conclusion...some insider conspirator fabricated that bag on record.
Don't believe it? See if I care.
The jury was picked from Dallas, Texas folks. Too bad you weren’t picked. You could have potentially hung the jury based on your nonsense ideas. Or, the other jurists could have laughed you out of the jury room.
-
Takeaway du jour: Two nerd heads are not better than one; rather, they are merely twice as dorky
I'm sure that there should be a name for the condition you must have.
They just haven't conceived one yet but it might be a painful description of some psychotic delusion.
You could have potentially hung the jury based on your nonsense ideas.
That sounds like a challenge. I graciously accept. However, I can guarantee a unanimous verdict.
Regarding that "trial"...Asked to consider whether Oswald had acted alone or with others, seven jurors decided he had done so, three said he acted with others and two were undecided.
https://apnews.com/article/5c77f0ddf56a8501410ae81a709adbba
Too bad Gerry Spence didn't know much about the case. Also that he couldn't call Lee Harvey Oswald to the stand to respond to the obviously hand-picked participants.
-
The bottom line is that Frazier (who actually saw LHO carrying the bag) admits (under oath) that it is possible that it was carried in front of his body and Frazier wouldn’t have seen that aspect. Combine that fact with the physical evidence of the length of the bag and the logical conclusion is that he indeed carried the bag in front of him.
Frazier’s estimate of the length of the bag and his idea that it appeared to Frazier (from his viewpoint behind LHO) that LHO had it tucked under his armpit are questionable. He has repeatedly said that he wasn’t paying much attention to the bag. He admits under oath that it is possible that his idea of it tucked under the armpit could be wrong. But for some unknown reason you insist otherwise. That’s what is sad….
The bottom line is that Frazier (who actually saw LHO carrying the bag) admits (under oath) that it is possible that it was carried in front of his body and Frazier wouldn’t have seen that aspect.
No he didn't admit that at all. He answered a hypothetical question truthfully. There is no evidence whatsoever that what Bugs asked him actually happened.
Combine that fact with the physical evidence of the length of the bag and the logical conclusion is that he indeed carried the bag in front of him.
No, that's not the logical conclusion, because Oswald could also have been carrying the flimsy bag Frazier saw that same way. You need to prove that it was the bag that was found on the 6th floor and you can't. You can only assume it was.
He admits under oath that it is possible that his idea of it tucked under the armpit could be wrong.
No he didn't admit that at all. He just agreed with Bugs that if Oswald had carried the bag protruding out he wouldn't have been able to see it. But in fact, just prior to that he reaffirmed that Oswald was carrying the bag in the cup of his hand and under his armpit.
But for some unknown reason you insist otherwise. That’s what is sad….
No, that's not sad. It just means I'm not as gullible as most LNs and can only be persuaded by actual evidence and not wishful thinking, misinterpretations, assumptions and speculation. But somehow I think you will never ever understand that.
-
Too bad Gerry Spence didn't know much about the case. Also that he couldn't call Lee Harvey Oswald to the stand to respond to the obviously hand-picked participants.
That "trial" wasn't a mock trial, it was a mockery. Prosecution and defense agreeing in advance (they call it "stipulation") what should be in the trail and what not. A minor selection of witnesses, some of them I don't understand to this day why they were there, and no possibility to investigate anything brought up during witness testimony. The mere fact that each witness was only on the stand for a couple of minutes, when in the real word sometimes questioning a witness goes on for days. is pathetic by itself. No physical evidence, no objections to a line of questioning, no discovery, no disclosure of exculparty evidence.
Hang on, as I think about it, it was not only a mockery, it was also a badly produced comedy of errors.
-
The jury was picked from Dallas, Texas folks. Too bad you weren’t picked. You could have potentially hung the jury based on your nonsense ideas. Or, the other jurists could have laughed you out of the jury room.
I will give you this. If I had been on that jury and a prosecutor had brought me such a weak, superficial case, the accused would have walked in the same way O.J. did; not because he was guilty or not but simply because the prosecutor failed to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt.
-
The bottom line is that Frazier (who actually saw LHO carrying the bag) admits (under oath) that it is possible that it was carried in front of his body and Frazier wouldn’t have seen that aspect.
No he didn't admit that at all. He answered a hypothetical question truthfully. There is no evidence whatsoever that what Bugs asked him actually happened.
Combine that fact with the physical evidence of the length of the bag and the logical conclusion is that he indeed carried the bag in front of him.
No, that's not the logical conclusion, because Oswald could also have been carrying the flimsy bag Frazier saw that same way. You need to prove that it was the bag that was found on the 6th floor and you can't. You can only assume it was.
He admits under oath that it is possible that his idea of it tucked under the armpit could be wrong.
No he didn't admit that at all. He just agreed with Bugs that if Oswald had carried the bag protruding out he wouldn't have been able to see it. But in fact, just prior to that he reaffirmed that Oswald was carrying the bag in the cup of his hand and under his armpit.
But for some unknown reason you insist otherwise. That’s what is sad….
No, that's not sad. It just means I'm not as gullible as most LNs and can only be persuaded by actual evidence and not wishful thinking, misinterpretations, assumptions and speculation. But somehow I think you will never ever understand that.
BUGLIOSI -- "So the bag could have been protruding out in front of his body, and you wouldn't have been able to see it, is that correct?"
FRAZIER -- "That is true."
That is not a hypothetical question. If it was, Jerry would have certainly objected to it being asked of a non-expert witness.
-
BUGLIOSI -- "So the bag could have been protruding out in front of his body, and you wouldn't have been able to see it, is that correct?"
FRAZIER -- "That is true."
That is not a hypothetical question. If it was, Jerry would have certainly objected to it being asked of a non-expert witness.
Which only tells me that you don't know what a hypothetical question is.
And please do not consider the mockery trial to be anything like the real thing
-
I will give you this. If I had been on that jury and a prosecutor had brought me such a weak, superficial case, the accused would have walked in the same way O.J. did; not because he was guilty or not but simply because the prosecutor failed to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt.
For Martin, "beyond a reasonable doubt" means LN evidence has to have been captured on Hollywood-quality movie stock, or it can be verified personally through time travel. Normal standards of evidence gathering and forensic evaluation are not adequate.
Meanwhile his own all-out-of-proportion extrapolation of a cherry-picked notebook passage and Comic Book Vision Specs Rowland's months-old memory reconstruction with over-the-top detail is supposed to be "proof" to some jury. Maybe plays to the Coast-to-Coast-AM audience.
-
For Martin, "beyond a reasonable doubt" means LN evidence has to have been captured on Hollywood-quality movie stock, or it can be verified personally through time travel. Normal standards of evidence gathering and forensic evaluation are not adequate.
Meanwhile his own all-out-of-proportion extrapolation of a cherry-picked notebook passage and Comic Book Vision Specs Rowland's months-old memory reconstruction with over-the-top detail is supposed to be "proof" to some jury. Maybe plays to the Coast-to-Coast-AM audience.
ChapSmithOrganitis...it's apparently quite contagious (http://www.russianwomendiscussion.com/Smileys/default2/popcorn_eating.gif)
-
Which only tells me that you don't know what a hypothetical question is.
And please do not consider the mockery trial to be anything like the real thing
If something is hypothetical, it is based on possible ideas or situations rather than actual ones. Bugs is asking about the actual situation, not a possible one.
-
For Martin, "beyond a reasonable doubt" means LN evidence has to have been captured on Hollywood-quality movie stock, or it can be verified personally through time travel. Normal standards of evidence gathering and forensic evaluation are not adequate.
Meanwhile his own all-out-of-proportion extrapolation of a cherry-picked notebook passage and Comic Book Vision Specs Rowland's months-old memory reconstruction with over-the-top detail is supposed to be "proof" to some jury. Maybe plays to the Coast-to-Coast-AM audience.
For Martin, "beyond a reasonable doubt" means LN evidence has to have been captured on Hollywood-quality movie stock, or it can be verified personally through time travel.
Those are your words and they are beyond idiotic. But then, I would not expect anything less from a die hard LN who can not produce any conclusive evidence and then whines about not being believed on his word alone.
Normal standards of evidence gathering and forensic evaluation are not adequate.
It seems you don't have a clue about the normal standards of evidence. OJ walked free for exactly the same reason that guys like you don't understand.
Meanwhile his own all-out-of-proportion extrapolation of a cherry-picked notebook passage and Comic Book Vision Specs Rowland's months-old memory reconstruction with over-the-top detail is supposed to be "proof" to some jury. Maybe plays to the Coast-to-Coast-AM audience.
I have no idea what the hell you are talking about. Maybe you're in the wrong movie..... or you're just confused.
-
If something is hypothetical, it is based on possible ideas or situations rather than actual ones. Bugs is asking about the actual situation, not a possible one.
So, Oswald carrying the bag protruding out is an actual situation?
OK, genius, prove it.
-
(https://i.imgur.com/CVkvufJ.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/U6nl4cp.jpg)
-
So, Oswald carrying the bag protruding out is an actual situation?
OK, genius, prove it.
Bugs was asking about the actual situation that Frazier was in. Specifically, what he couldn’t see or determine from his vantage point.
-
That is what we call "evidence."
Yes I know, that's what is so sad about it. It shows us all that you confuse opinions, assumptions and speculation with actual evidence.
The bag found on the 6th floor actually exists. It is a real thing. Not an assumption or speculation. Your shorter bag is the one that is missing. It can't be accounted for in any way except your imagination. The bag found on the 6th floor not only exists. It also has Oswald's prints on it. It was found next to the SN. The crime scene. There is no work-related purpose for it to be there. No one else who worked in that building ever explained why that bag was there or claimed it or explained its presence there. There is only one explanation for that bag. Only one. You know it. There is no debate outside nutty Internet forums that this bag contained Oswald's rifle.
-
The bag found on the 6th floor actually exists. It is a real thing. Not an assumption or speculation. Your shorter bag is the one that is missing. It can't be accounted for in any way except your imagination. The bag found on the 6th floor not only exists. It also has Oswald's prints on it.
We have documentary proof that two curtain rods existed that were submitted for testing for Mr Oswald's prints 8 days before two curtain rods were taken from the Paine garage. You and your Warren Gullible pals remain unable to account for this circumstance
Thumb1:
-
The bag found on the 6th floor actually exists. It is a real thing. Not an assumption or speculation. Your shorter bag is the one that is missing. It can't be accounted for in any way except your imagination. The bag found on the 6th floor not only exists. It also has Oswald's prints on it. It was found next to the SN. The crime scene. There is no work-related purpose for it to be there. No one else who worked in that building ever explained why that bag was there or claimed it or explained its presence there. There is only one explanation for that bag. Only one. You know it. There is no debate outside nutty Internet forums that this bag contained Oswald's rifle.
Your shorter bag is the one that is missing. It can't be accounted for in any way except your imagination.
In my imagination it's not accounted for either. The fact that nobody found such a bag, because they were not looking for it, doesn't prove it didn't exist. Nobody knows what Oswald did between 8 AM and 12:30.
The bag found on the 6th floor not only exists. It also has Oswald's prints on it.
Wow, stop the presses. A bag made from materials common to the TSBD was found inside the TSBD with several prints on it, of which only those of Oswald, an employee of the TSBD, could be identified. :D
There is no debate outside nutty Internet forums that this bag contained Oswald's rifle.
There's just a few minor problems with that "conclusion"; (1) you can't prove that this is the bag Oswald carried, (2) you can't even prove that bag ever left the TSBD or (3) that it ever contained a rifle.
So, all you've got is hot air and the usual LN assumptions.....
-
(https://i.imgur.com/CVkvufJ.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/U6nl4cp.jpg)
With respect to the brown paper package that Lee Harvey Oswald was said to have carried into the Texas School Book Depository on the morning of President Kennedy's assassination (November 22, 1963), CBS-TV reporter Dan Rather performed a very interesting re-enactment for the CBS viewing audience during the first segment of the four-hour TV special entitled "A CBS News Inquiry: The Warren Report".
Dan Rather shows the TV audience a brown homemade paper package, which Rather tells us contains a dismantled Mannlicher-Carcano rifle just like Lee Oswald's. Mr. Rather confirms the length of the rifle inside his re-created package as 34.8 inches, the exact length of Oswald's disassembled Carcano, which was a rifle found by police on the sixth floor of the Book Depository 52 minutes after JFK's assassination.
It's true that Rather could not put the re-created package under his armpit while it was also cupped in his hand. But it struck me as interesting that only a small portion of the bag (only a very few inches of the top of the bag) was sticking out above Rather's shoulder when he started to walk away from the CBS camera with the package cupped in his hand (the same way that witness Buell Wesley Frazier said Oswald had "cupped" the so-called "curtain rod" package in his hand back in 1963).
Unless someone was paying very close attention (which Frazier testified he wasn't), the few inches of that paper package sticking above the shoulder of the person carrying it could easily have gone unnoticed by a witness.
https://www.amazon.com/review/R3UUVFXJ2HAY01 (https://www.amazon.com/review/R3UUVFXJ2HAY01)
-
With respect to the brown paper package that Lee Harvey Oswald was said to have carried into the Texas School Book Depository on the morning of President Kennedy's assassination (November 22, 1963), CBS-TV reporter Dan Rather performed a very interesting re-enactment for the CBS viewing audience during the first segment of the four-hour TV special entitled "A CBS News Inquiry: The Warren Report".
Dan Rather shows the TV audience a brown homemade paper package, which Rather tells us contains a dismantled Mannlicher-Carcano rifle just like Lee Oswald's. Mr. Rather confirms the length of the rifle inside his re-created package as 34.8 inches, the exact length of Oswald's disassembled Carcano, which was a rifle found by police on the sixth floor of the Book Depository 52 minutes after JFK's assassination.
It's true that Rather could not put the re-created package under his armpit while it was also cupped in his hand. But it struck me as interesting that only a small portion of the bag (only a very few inches of the top of the bag) was sticking out above Rather's shoulder when he started to walk away from the CBS camera with the package cupped in his hand (the same way that witness Buell Wesley Frazier said Oswald had "cupped" the so-called "curtain rod" package in his hand back in 1963).
Unless someone was paying very close attention (which Frazier testified he wasn't), the few inches of that paper package sticking above the shoulder of the person carrying it could easily have gone unnoticed by a witness.
https://www.amazon.com/review/R3UUVFXJ2HAY01 (https://www.amazon.com/review/R3UUVFXJ2HAY01)
Did Mr Rather show this package lying across the back seat?
-
Did Mr Rather show this package lying across the back seat?
I don’t remember. But if you are interested, the video should be available on YouTube. Check it out and you can see what is described in the review that I quoted.
-
Did Mr Rather show this package lying across the back seat?
Who lays a "lunch bag" or even a bag with a few two-foot-long "curtain rods" across the back seat?
Either of those would normally be taken into the front seat. Now a concealed rifle in a paper bag that Oswald didn't want to be seen close up would naturally be placed on the back seat.
-
Perhaps you missed this part of post #35 by DVP in this thread:
Mr. Frazier is also on record as having said the following at the 1986 Oswald Mock Trial in London, England:
VINCENT T. BUGLIOSI -- "Mr. Frazier, is it true that you paid hardly any attention to this bag?"
BUELL WESLEY FRAZIER -- "That is true."
BUGLIOSI -- "So the bag could have been protruding out in front of his body, and you wouldn't have been able to see it, is that correct?"
FRAZIER -- "That is true."
It wouldn't have to protrude out in front at all. Just angled over a bit using his left hand
Oswald was trying to hide the profile of the bag
1) Beside his body as he made a beeline to his ride
2) Out front as he tried to leave Buell behind and make a beeline to get this party started
-
It wouldn't have to protrude out in front at all. Just angled over a bit using his left hand
Oswald was trying to hide the profile of the bag
1) Beside his body as he made a beeline to his ride
2) Out front as he tried to leave Buell behind and make a beeline to get this party started
Thumb1:
-
With respect to the brown paper package that Lee Harvey Oswald was said to have carried into the Texas School Book Depository on the morning of President Kennedy's assassination (November 22, 1963), CBS-TV reporter Dan Rather performed a very interesting re-enactment for the CBS viewing audience during the first segment of the four-hour TV special entitled "A CBS News Inquiry: The Warren Report".
Dan Rather shows the TV audience a brown homemade paper package, which Rather tells us contains a dismantled Mannlicher-Carcano rifle just like Lee Oswald's. Mr. Rather confirms the length of the rifle inside his re-created package as 34.8 inches, the exact length of Oswald's disassembled Carcano, which was a rifle found by police on the sixth floor of the Book Depository 52 minutes after JFK's assassination.
It's true that Rather could not put the re-created package under his armpit while it was also cupped in his hand. But it struck me as interesting that only a small portion of the bag (only a very few inches of the top of the bag) was sticking out above Rather's shoulder when he started to walk away from the CBS camera with the package cupped in his hand (the same way that witness Buell Wesley Frazier said Oswald had "cupped" the so-called "curtain rod" package in his hand back in 1963).
Unless someone was paying very close attention (which Frazier testified he wasn't), the few inches of that paper package sticking above the shoulder of the person carrying it could easily have gone unnoticed by a witness.
https://www.amazon.com/review/R3UUVFXJ2HAY01 (https://www.amazon.com/review/R3UUVFXJ2HAY01)
How tall is Rather compared to Oswald?
Rather wrapped the bag tightly around the barrel, to reduce the size of the visible part. There is no evidence that Oswald did the same. In fact, iirc Randle said Oswald was holding the top of the package which was folded.
Frazier could only have known that Oswald carried the package under his armpit if he actually saw Oswald put it there. If he had seen Oswald's back he couldn't know this detail.
-
All this "could have" stuff is pure speculation for which there isn't a shred of evidence.
It's circular logic of the worst kind.
Oswald carried a paper bag to work, so the bag found in the TSBD must be that bag.
Because the bag found at the TSBD is too long, Frazier must be mistaken about the way Oswald carried the bag.
An amazing example of desperately trying to make 'evidence' fit the narrative :D
-
How tall is Rather compared to Oswald?
Rather wrapped the bag tightly around the barrel, to reduce the size of the visible part. There is no evidence that Oswald did the same. In fact, iirc Randle said Oswald was holding the top of the package which was folded.
Frazier could only have known that Oswald carried the package under his armpit I he actually saw Oswald put it there. If he had seen Oswald's back he couldn't know this detail.
Rather was 5’10” and LHO was 5’9”, rather close don’t you think?
Frazier could only have known that Oswald carried the package under his armpit I he actually saw Oswald put it there. If he had seen Oswald's back he couldn't know this detail.
If Frazier actually saw LHO tuck the bag up under the armpit, I think that he would have answered Bug’s question by saying so. Instead, he agrees that LHO could have carried the bag in front him and Frazier wouldn’t have seen it. That tells me that Frazier assumed the bag was tucked under the armpit because that it how it appeared to him from behind LHO. Now, if you have any evidence that Frazier actually saw the rifle being tucked up under the armpit, please present it. Otherwise, you are the one making the assumptions.
-
How tall is Rather compared to Oswald?
Rather wrapped the bag tightly around the barrel, to reduce the size of the visible part. There is no evidence that Oswald did the same. In fact, iirc Randle said Oswald was holding the top of the package which was folded.
Frazier could only have known that Oswald carried the package under his armpit I he actually saw Oswald put it there. If he had seen Oswald's back he couldn't know this detail.
Q: Tell me, how was Lee Harvey Oswald carrying this package you described
as he was walking in front of you?
(http://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1j4PIpNCtZbphz0kmWxmCckNi3vDlG5He)
A: Parallel to his side, up and down. Like you stick it up under your armpit and
the other part cupped in his hand.
(http://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1j4PIpNCtZbphz0kmWxmCckNi3vDlG5He)
Q: Did you determine whether it was in his armpit or were you close enough to
see that?
(http://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1j4PIpNCtZbphz0kmWxmCckNi3vDlG5He)
A: No, sir, I was not close enough to see. I didn't pay attention to it particularly,
but as he was walking along in front of me naturally I looked in his direction
and that is what it appeared to be from what I saw.
-
Q: Tell me, how was Lee Harvey Oswald carrying this package you described
as he was walking in front of you?
(http://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1j4PIpNCtZbphz0kmWxmCckNi3vDlG5He)
A: Parallel to his side, up and down. Like you stick it up under your armpit and
the other part cupped in his hand.
(http://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1j4PIpNCtZbphz0kmWxmCckNi3vDlG5He)
Q: Did you determine whether it was in his armpit or were you close enough to
see that?
(http://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1j4PIpNCtZbphz0kmWxmCckNi3vDlG5He)
A: No, sir, I was not close enough to see. I didn't pay attention to it particularly,
but as he was walking along in front of me naturally I looked in his direction
and that is what it appeared to be from what I saw.
Thumb1:
-
Rather was 5’10” and LHO was 5’9”, rather close don’t you think?
Frazier could only have known that Oswald carried the package under his armpit I he actually saw Oswald put it there. If he had seen Oswald's back he couldn't know this detail.
If Frazier actually saw LHO tuck the bag up under the armpit, I think that he would have answered Bug’s question by saying so. Instead, he agrees that LHO could have carried the bag in front him and Frazier wouldn’t have seen it. That tells me that Frazier assumed the bag was tucked under the armpit because that it how it appeared to him from behind LHO. Now, if you have any evidence that Frazier actually saw the rifle being tucked up under the armpit, please present it. Otherwise, you are the one making the assumptions.
Oh boy...I have no intention to present anything to counter what you think/believe without anything substantive to back it up.
But I can also play this game. If Frazier really believed that Oswald carried the bag protruding out, he would have answered Bugs question by saying so. Instead he only agrees that if Oswald had carried the bag in front of him, he wouldn't have seen it. That tells me that he knew the bag was tucked under Oswald's armpit, because that's exactly what he said just prior to when "steamroller" Bugs asked that loaded question. Now, if you have any evidence that Oswald actually carried the TSBD bag protruding out, please present it. Otherwise, you are the one making the assumptions.
See how easy that is?
Now, if you have any evidence that Frazier actually saw the rifle being tucked up under the armpit, please present it.
Why don't you first prove conclusively that the bag Oswald carried contained a rifle, before you ask such a silly question? Frazier never saw the rifle, period!
-
Oh boy...I have no intention to present anything to counter what you think/believe without anything substantive to back it up.
But I can also play this game. If Frazier really believed that Oswald carried the bag protruding out, he would have answered Bugs question by saying so. Instead he only agrees that if Oswald had carried the bag in front of him, he wouldn't have seen it. That tells me that he knew the bag was tucked under Oswald's armpit, because that's exactly what he said just prior to when "steamroller" Bugs asked that loaded question. Now, if you have any evidence that Oswald actually carried the TSBD bag protruding out, please present it. Otherwise, you are the one making the assumptions.
See how easy that is?
Now, if you have any evidence that Frazier actually saw the rifle being tucked up under the armpit, please present it.
Why don't you first prove conclusively that the bag Oswald carried contained a rifle, before you ask such a silly question? Frazier never saw the rifle, period!
Such a mighty struggle against reality. You have to wonder why? Martin won't even acknowledge that he is a CTer. Again, the bag was found. It had Oswald's prints on it connecting him to it beyond any doubt. Oswald himself denied to the DPD carrying any bag except his lunch bag. Oswald either lies to the DPD or Frazier about carrying his lunch that day. No bag along the size estimated by Frazier was ever found or accounted for in any way. No one who worked in the TSBD ever claimed or explained the presence of the large empty bag next to the SN. It just magically appears there in Martin's fantasy. Just as his shorter bag magically vanishes.
-
Oh boy...I have no intention to present anything to counter what you think/believe without anything substantive to back it up.
But I can also play this game. If Frazier really believed that Oswald carried the bag protruding out, he would have answered Bugs question by saying so. Instead he only agrees that if Oswald had carried the bag in front of him, he wouldn't have seen it. That tells me that he knew the bag was tucked under Oswald's armpit, because that's exactly what he said just prior to when "steamroller" Bugs asked that loaded question. Now, if you have any evidence that Oswald actually carried the TSBD bag protruding out, please present it. Otherwise, you are the one making the assumptions.
See how easy that is?
Now, if you have any evidence that Frazier actually saw the rifle being tucked up under the armpit, please present it.
Why don't you first prove conclusively that the bag Oswald carried contained a rifle, before you ask such a silly question? Frazier never saw the rifle, period!
Bug’s question does not have the word “if” in it. Frazier didn’t agree to an “if” question. Your game playing sucks if you have to rely on changing the question.
I should have used the word bag or package instead of the word rifle. I stand corrected. Bugs succeeded in putting doubt in everyone’s mind (including Frazier) about whether or not the package was actually tucked under the armpit. Frazier himself (the one who actually saw LHO carrying the package) admitted this by answering that Bug’s statement was true.
-
Did the short bag get longer or did the long bag get shorter
-
Did the short bag get longer or did the long bag get shorter
What short bag? ;)
-
Bug’s question does not have the word “if” in it. Frazier didn’t agree to an “if” question. Your game playing sucks if you have to rely on changing the question.
I should have used the word bag or package instead of the word rifle. I stand corrected. Bugs succeeded in putting doubt in everyone’s mind (including Frazier) about whether or not the package was actually tucked under the armpit. Frazier himself (the one who actually saw LHO carrying the package) admitted this by answering that Bug’s statement was true.
Bug’s question does not have the word “if” in it.
Where did I say it did?
Frazier didn’t agree to an “if” question. Your game playing sucks if you have to rely on changing the question.
True, he answered an equally speculative "could have" question. As there is no proof whatsoever that Oswald carried a bag protruding out it's basically the same thing.
Bugs succeeded in putting doubt in everyone’s mind
Which was exactly the purpose of the loaded question. Bugs could not prove the bags protruded out, so he did the next best thing. A typical lawyers trick!
Frazier himself (the one who actually saw LHO carrying the package) admitted this by answering that Bug’s statement was true.
Only in your biased mind. Whenever a lawyer tries to discredit a witness, or, as in this case, create doubt, it is a clear sign that the lawyers knows the witness is actually telling the truth.
-
Bug’s question does not have the word “if” in it.
Where did I say it did?
Frazier didn’t agree to an “if” question. Your game playing sucks if you have to rely on changing the question.
True, he answered an equally speculative "could have" question. As there is no proof whatsoever that Oswald carried a bag protruding out it's basically the same thing.
Bugs succeeded in putting doubt in everyone’s mind
Which was exactly the purpose of the loaded question. Bugs could not prove the bags protruded out, so he did the next best thing. A typical lawyers trick!
Frazier himself (the one who actually saw LHO carrying the package) admitted this by answering that Bug’s statement was true.
Only in your biased mind. Whenever a lawyer tries to discredit a witness, or, as in this case, create doubt, it is a clear sign that the lawyers knows the witness is actually telling the truth.
Where did I say it did?
… Instead he only agrees that if Oswald had carried the bag in front of him, he wouldn't have seen it. …
That’s not what he agreed with. Bug’s statement does not include the word if. Yet Frazier answered that it is true that it is a correct statement.
As there is no proof whatsoever that Oswald carried a bag protruding out it's basically the same thing.
He did not ask Frazier whether or not LHO was holding the package out front. No proof is called for. But I believe that an unbiased person would conclude (based on the length of the bag discovered near the sniper’s nest with LHO’s fingerprint on it) that LHO did in fact have it in front and that Frazier couldn’t see it. Frazier himself admits that it is possible.
-
Where did I say it did?
That’s not what he agreed with. Bug’s statement does not include the word if. Yet Frazier answered that it is true that it is a correct statement.
Aha, so you are another one with a reading comprehension problem. I never said that Bugs used the word "if". It was merely my interpretation of what he meant
As there is no proof whatsoever that Oswald carried a bag protruding out it's basically the same thing.
He did not ask Frazier whether or not LHO was holding the package out front. No proof is called for. But I believe that an unbiased person would conclude (based on the length of the bag discovered near the sniper’s nest with LHO’s fingerprint on it) that LHO did in fact have it in front and that Frazier couldn’t see it. Frazier himself admits that it is possible.
He did not ask Frazier whether or not LHO was holding the package out front.
Exactly right. He only wanted to know if (there's that word again) Frazier would have been able to see it if (there it is again) it was indeed protruding out. And Frazier answered honestly.
But I believe that an unbiased person would conclude (based on the length of the bag discovered near the sniper’s nest with LHO’s fingerprint on it) that LHO did in fact have it in front and that Frazier couldn’t see it. Frazier himself admits that it is possible.
Hilarious. You actually consider yourself to be unbiased? Really?
One thing is for sure an unbiased and reasonable person would conclude that you are jumping to conclusions based on assumptions for which there is not a shred of credible evidence. The print on a bag, found at the TSBD, and made from materials common to the TSBD, of an employee of the TSBD could easily have another explanation. Frazier can admit all he wants that it is possible, but that does not constitute evidence that it did happen.
And BTW Frazier never admitted that LHO had that particular bag in front of him. You rather cheeky are misrepresenting the evidence again.
-
Aha, so you are another one with a reading comprehension problem. I never said that Bugs used the word "if". It was merely my interpretation of what he meant
He did not ask Frazier whether or not LHO was holding the package out front.
Exactly right. He only wanted to know if (there's that word again) Frazier would have been able to see it if (there it is again) it was indeed protruding out. And Frazier answered honestly.
But I believe that an unbiased person would conclude (based on the length of the bag discovered near the sniper’s nest with LHO’s fingerprint on it) that LHO did in fact have it in front and that Frazier couldn’t see it. Frazier himself admits that it is possible.
Hilarious. You actually consider yourself to be unbiased? Really?
One thing is for sure an unbiased and reasonable person would conclude that you are jumping to conclusions based on assumptions for which there is not a shred of credible evidence. The print on a bag, found at the TSBD, and made from materials common to the TSBD, of an employee of the TSBD could easily have another explanation. Frazier can admit all he wants that it is possible, but that does not constitute evidence that it did happen.
And BTW Frazier never admitted that LHO had that particular bag in front of him. You rather cheeky are misrepresenting the evidence again.
It was merely my interpretation of what he meant
Which you used as your argument. It is wrong. Frazier agreed that LHO could have had the bag in front of him. Not just that he couldn’t have seen it if it was. He agreed to the entire statement that Bugs made. That’s the difference that you refuse to accept.
If Frazier had seen the top of the bag tucked up under the armpit, he would have said so. Frazier had in fact earlier testified, to another investigation, that he did not see the top of the bag tucked up under the armpit (see Jerry’s post above). And that he only saw it from behind. I believe that Bugs knew this and worded his questioning accordingly.
You can believe in fairy tales about bags that never existed if you wish. I really don’t give a hoot.
-
Thumb1:
I don't think these dorks know what a Proof of Concept study consists of
-
It was merely my interpretation of what he meant
Which you used as your argument. It is wrong. Frazier agreed that LHO could have had the bag in front of him. Not just that he couldn’t have seen it if it was. He agreed to the entire statement that Bugs made. That’s the difference that you refuse to accept.
If Frazier had seen the top of the bag tucked up under the armpit, he would have said so. Frazier had in fact earlier testified, to another investigation, that he did not see the top of the bag tucked up under the armpit (see Jerry’s post above). And that he only saw it from behind. I believe that Bugs knew this and worded his questioning accordingly.
You can believe in fairy tales about bags that never existed if you wish. I really don’t give a hoot.
Frazier agreed that LHO could have had the bag in front of him. Not just that he couldn’t have seen it if it was. He agreed to the entire statement that Bugs made. That’s the difference that you refuse to accept.
Bugs didn't make a statement. He asked a question. What you fail to understand is that even if Frazier agreed that the bag could have been protruding out that still does not automatically mean that it was. And it most certainly doesn't mean that it was the bag that was found in the TSBD.
Frazier had in fact earlier testified, to another investigation, that he did not see the top of the bag tucked up under the armpit
What earlier investigation would that be?
You can believe in fairy tales about bags that never existed if you wish. I really don’t give a hoot.
What a silly comment. First of all, I don't believe in bags that never existed. I believe in credible evidence and two witnesses said that bag did exist. And as far as not giving a hoot, you sure reply a lot to my posts. Go figure
-
I don't think these dorks know what a Proof of Concept study consists of
Alright "genius", then why don't you tell us what the feasibility outcome of this "study" is and how it was derived at?
-
What short bag? ;)
The one that got ever shorter re Buell & Linnie as 'you-show-me yours, I'll-show-you-mine' time loomed ever nearer at the 'kiss my arse/kiss 'n tell' WC hearings
-
Alright "genius", then why don't you tell us what the feasibility outcome of this "study" is and how it was derived at?
Still a dork, I see
-
Frazier agreed that LHO could have had the bag in front of him. Not just that he couldn’t have seen it if it was. He agreed to the entire statement that Bugs made. That’s the difference that you refuse to accept.
Bugs didn't make a statement. He asked a question. What you fail to understand is that even if Frazier agreed that the bag could have been protruding out that still does not automatically mean that it was. And it most certainly doesn't mean that it was the bag that was found in the TSBD.
Frazier had in fact earlier testified, to another investigation, that he did not see the top of the bag tucked up under the armpit
What earlier investigation would that be?
You can believe in fairy tales about bags that never existed if you wish. I really don’t give a hoot.
What a silly comment. First of all, I don't believe in bags that never existed. I believe in credible evidence and two witnesses said that bag did exist. And as far as not giving a hoot, you sure reply a lot to my posts. Go figure
Bugs didn't make a statement.
Read it again. The first sentence is a statement. The second sentence is the question.
What earlier investigation would that be?
Ask Jerry, he posted it.
I believe in credible evidence…
Like ghost bags that vanish without a trace?
And as far as not giving a hoot, you sure reply a lot to my posts.
Not really, this started out as my response to another person. You interjected yourself into the conversation. I tend to ignore you whenever I can.
-
Still a dork, I see
So you can't explain it. Why am I not surprised.
-
Bugs didn't make a statement.
Read it again. The first sentence is a statement. The second sentence is the question.
:D
What earlier investigation would that be?
Ask Jerry, he posted it.
So, you don't know? I asked you because I was pretty sure you didn't know. It seems I was right.
I believe in credible evidence…
Like ghost bags that vanish without a trace?
You have a strange kind of understanding of what credible evidence is....
And as far as not giving a hoot, you sure reply a lot to my posts.
Not really, this started out as my response to another person. You interjected yourself into the conversation. I tend to ignore you whenever I can.
An understandable move on your part. Saves you from having to answer questions you can't answer and allows you to just run wild with self-serving assumptions and speculation, which you of course, rather foolishly, call 'evidence'.
-
:D
So, you don't know? I asked you because I was pretty sure you didn't know. It seems I was right.
You have a strange kind of understanding of what credible evidence is....
An understandable move on your part. Saves you from having to answer questions you can't answer and allows you to just run wild with self-serving assumptions and speculation, which you of course, rather foolishly, call 'evidence'.
A typical end to a discussion with you. You run out of relevant arguments and start attacking the messenger.
-
What prevented you this time?
Not a thing. I said that it was my tendency, not an ironclad rule.
-
A typical end to a discussion with you. You run out of relevant arguments and start attacking the messenger.
Is the discussion over then? Sorry, I wasn't aware of that.
And what makes you think I've run out of relevant arguments? Jumping to conclusions again?
How did I "attack" you?
-
So, what could prevent you?
If you want to discuss the JFK assassination case please do. Questions about other things are irrelevant.
-
The one that got ever shorter re Buell & Linnie as 'you-show-me yours, I'll-show-you-mine' time loomed ever nearer at the 'kiss my arse/kiss 'n tell' WC hearings
this was your best one heh heh heh
-
this was your best one heh heh heh
Good over-the shoulder-catch right there.
-
How tall is Rather compared to Oswald?
Rather wrapped the bag tightly around the barrel, to reduce the size of the visible part. There is no evidence that Oswald did the same. In fact, iirc Randle said Oswald was holding the top of the package which was folded.
Frazier could only have known that Oswald carried the package under his armpit if he actually saw Oswald put it there. If he had seen Oswald's back he couldn't know this detail.
(https://preview.ibb.co/mK3KUG/Slide119.jpg)
-
https://www.amazon.com/review/R3UUVFXJ2HAY01 (https://www.amazon.com/review/R3UUVFXJ2HAY01)
Eric Sevareid of CBS News provided a very interesting and insightful commentary near the end of Part 4 of "The Warren Report" documentary:
[Interesting and insightful to David Von Pein]
ERIC SEVAREID -- "What fed the conspiracy notion about the Kennedy assassination among many Americans was the sheer incongruity of the affair. All that power and majesty wiped out in an instant by one skinny, weak-chinned little character. It was like believing that the Queen Mary had sunk without a trace because of a log floating somewhere in the Atlantic. Or that AT&T stock had fallen to zero because a drunk somewhere tore out his telephone wires. ....
[Wrong. What fed the doubt was the complete lack of motive, method and opportunity of one ...yes insignificant individual who had no developed sniper skills to pull the job attributed to him]
"And so, three-and-a-half years later, there are people who still think some group of men are living somewhere carrying in their breasts the most explosive secret conceivable....knowledge of a plot to kill Mr. Kennedy.
[A plot to kill JFK was uncovered but not thanks to Eric Sevareid]
"These imagined men supposedly go about their lives under iron self-discipline, never falling out with each other, never giving out a hint of suspicion to anyone else.
[No longer alive I'm sure]
"And nearly three years after the Warren inquiry finished its painful and onerous work, there are not only the serious critics who point to the various mistakes of commission or omission....mistakes of a consequence one can only guess at, and of a kind that have probably plagued every lengthy, voluminous official investigation ever staged. There are also people who think the Commission itself was a conspiracy to cover up something.
"In the first place, it would be utterly impossible in the American arena of the fierce and free press and politics to conceal a conspiracy among so many individuals who live in the public eye.
"In the second place, the deepest allegiance of men like Chief Justice Warren, or of John McCloy, does not lie with any president, political party, or current cause. It lies with history....their name and place in history. That is all they live for in their later years.
"If they knowingly suppressed or distorted decisive evidence about such an event as a Presidential murder, their descendants would bear their cursed names forever. The notion that they would do such a thing is idiotic."
Well said, Mr. Sevareid. Very well said.
Huh? The sins of the fathers? Not today Mr Sevareid. Not today.
-
So you can't explain it. Why am I not surprised.
I'm not surprised that a 34.8" long package was able to have had its profile easily minimized
-
If any of you nerds have honestly tried a reconstruction you will find that the package is too heavy to carry strictly in the palm. It forces one to curve the wrist under the bag as Rather is seen doing here. Not an efficient carry method.
To say that Buell never saw Oswald use the left hand simply confirms that he did not possess Xray vision, since Buell was behind Oswald as the little prick hot-footed away to make sure his chauffeur didn't get a full-profile look at the gunbag.
-
If any of you nerds have honestly tried a reconstruction you will find that the package is too heavy to carry strictly in the palm. It forces one to curve the wrist under the bag as Rather is seen doing here. Not an efficient carry method.
To say that Buell never saw Oswald use the left hand simply confirms that he did not possess Xray vision, since Buell was behind Oswald as the little prick hot-footed away to make sure his chauffeur didn't get a full-profile look at the gunbag.
If any of you nerds have honestly tried a reconstruction you will find that the package is too heavy to carry strictly in the palm.
But tucked under the armpit it would fit perfectly. Go figure!
And how would you even know what the weight of the package was? In addition to being a pseudo "artist" and a wanna be psychoanalyst are you pretending to be a clairvoyant of sorts as well?
It forces one to curve the wrist under the bag as Rather is seen doing here. Not an efficient carry method.
So, if we assume that Rather did have a rifle in that bag, and Frazier said Oswald held the package in the cup of his hand (which you claim can't be done if there is a rifle in there) haven't you just confirmed that there couldn't have been a rifle in the package Oswald carried?
-
What Frazier likely didn't know when Bugliosi asked his leading question is that in order for a 34.8 inch object to not be sticking up over his shoulder, it would have to be sticking out in front of him at a 45 degree angle. Pretty hard to open a door that way.
Also, Frazier wasn't behind Oswald when he saw him put it up under his arm:
Mr. FRAZIER - He got out of the car and he was wearing the jacket that has the big sleeves in them and he put the package that he had, you know, that he told me was curtain rods up under his arm, you know, and so he walked down behind the car and standing over there at the end of the cyclone fence waiting for me to get out of the car, and so quick as I cut the engine off and started out of the car, shut the door just as I was starting out just like getting out of the car, he started walking off and so I followed him in.
Also, what is the evidence that the CE139 rifle was disassembled and reassembled? Or ever inside the CE142 bag that you can't even demonstrate was ever in the alleged "dotted-line" location.
-
What Frazier likely didn't know when Bugliosi asked his leading question is that in order for a 34.8 inch object to not be sticking up over his shoulder, it would have to be sticking out in front of him at a 45 degree angle. Pretty hard to open a door that way.
(http://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1fa6msoy-BUeEddfTyBEr4sGkkiIfXWZY)
Also, Frazier wasn't behind Oswald when he saw him put it up under his arm:
Your cherrypick seems to me to be describing Oswald lifting the package from the backseat.
Mr. FRAZIER - He got out of the car and he was wearing the jacket that has the big sleeves in them and he put the package that he had, you know, that he told me was curtain rods up under his arm,
Maybe when Oswald was reaching into the backseat. If so, then Frazier looked forward again ...
Mr. BALL - What did he do about the package in the back seat when he got out of the car?
Mr. FRAZIER - Like I say, I was watching the gauges and watched the car for a few minutes before I cut it off.
Frazier's Nov. 22 affidavit and Shaw trial testimony make no mention of seeing Oswald reach into the car, much less seeing Oswald position the package upright while facing Frazier.
"I parked the car and sit there awhile and run the motor to charge the battery,
and while I was doing that, Lee got out and opened the back door and got
the package out of the back seat and walked behind the car, then I got out
of the car and started walking toward the building where I work. I noticed
that Lee had the package in his right hand under his arm, and the package
was straight up and down, and he had his arm down, and you could not see
much of the package."
(http://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1j4PIpNCtZbphz0kmWxmCckNi3vDlG5He)
-- Affidavit
Q: Did you determine whether it was in his armpit or were you close enough
to see that?
(http://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1j4PIpNCtZbphz0kmWxmCckNi3vDlG5He)
A: No, sir, I was not close enough to see. I didn't pay attention to it particularly,
but as he was walking along in front of me naturally I looked in his direction
and that is what it appeared to be from what I saw.
(http://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1j4PIpNCtZbphz0kmWxmCckNi3vDlG5He)
-- Shaw Trial
you know, and so he walked down behind the car and standing over there at the end of the cyclone fence waiting for me to get out of the car, and so quick as I cut the engine off and started out of the car, shut the door just as I was starting out just like getting out of the car, he started walking off and so I followed him in.
Also, what is the evidence that the CE139 rifle was disassembled and reassembled? Or ever inside the CE142 bag that you can't even demonstrate was ever in the alleged "dotted-line" location.
Time travel hasn't been invented yet.
-
(http://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1fa6msoy-BUeEddfTyBEr4sGkkiIfXWZY)
Your cherrypick seems to me to be describing Oswald lifting the package from the backseat.
Maybe when Oswald was reaching into the backseat. If so, then Frazier looked forward again ...
Mr. BALL - What did he do about the package in the back seat when he got out of the car?
Mr. FRAZIER - Like I say, I was watching the gauges and watched the car for a few minutes before I cut it off.
Frazier's Nov. 22 affidavit and Shaw trial testimony make no mention of seeing Oswald reach into the car, much less seeing Oswald position the package upright while facing Frazier.
"I parked the car and sit there awhile and run the motor to charge the battery,
and while I was doing that, Lee got out and opened the back door and got
the package out of the back seat and walked behind the car, then I got out
of the car and started walking toward the building where I work. I noticed
that Lee had the package in his right hand under his arm, and the package
was straight up and down, and he had his arm down, and you could not see
much of the package."
(http://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1j4PIpNCtZbphz0kmWxmCckNi3vDlG5He)
-- Affidavit
Q: Did you determine whether it was in his armpit or were you close enough
to see that?
(http://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1j4PIpNCtZbphz0kmWxmCckNi3vDlG5He)
A: No, sir, I was not close enough to see. I didn't pay attention to it particularly,
but as he was walking along in front of me naturally I looked in his direction
and that is what it appeared to be from what I saw.
(http://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1j4PIpNCtZbphz0kmWxmCckNi3vDlG5He)
-- Shaw Trial
Time travel hasn't been invented yet.
Time travel hasn't been invented yet.
So, you need time travel to prove your case against Oswald? Can't do it here and now? That's very telling indeed.
-
Time travel hasn't been invented yet.
So, you need time travel to prove your case against Oswald? Can't do it here and now? That's very telling indeed.
What else is there that would help you attain some "beyond a reasonable doubt" pie-in-the-sky bar?
Traditional law/forensics investigation, reasonable sober assessment of evidence, and authoritative inquiries and panels are discarded in favor of Jim Garrison's Mardi Gras, "JFK Revisited" and pseudoscience websites.
-
Q: Tell me, how was Lee Harvey Oswald carrying this package you described
as he was walking in front of you?
(http://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1j4PIpNCtZbphz0kmWxmCckNi3vDlG5He)
A: Parallel to his side, up and down. Like you stick it up under your armpit and
the other part cupped in his hand.
(http://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1j4PIpNCtZbphz0kmWxmCckNi3vDlG5He)
Q: Did you determine whether it was in his armpit or were you close enough to
see that?
(http://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1j4PIpNCtZbphz0kmWxmCckNi3vDlG5He)
A: No, sir, I was not close enough to see. I didn't pay attention to it particularly,
but as he was walking along in front of me naturally I looked in his direction
and that is what it appeared to be from what I saw.
Q: Where was this package in the automobile?
A: Lying on the back seat on the side he sat on.
Q: How much of the back seat did the package occupy?
A: I would say roughly around two feet, give or take a few inches.
Q: When you say "give or take a few inches," could you approximate how many inches to give or take?
A: Like I said, the package was roughly around two feet.
(https://i.imgur.com/yzKBPQ1.jpg)
Thumb1:
-
What else is there that would help you attain some "beyond a reasonable doubt" pie-in-the-sky bar?
Traditional law/forensics investigation, reasonable sober assessment of evidence, and authoritative inquiries and panels are discarded in favor of Jim Garrison's Mardi Gras, "JFK Revisited" and pseudoscience websites.
What else is there that would help you attain some "beyond a reasonable doubt" pie-in-the-sky bar?
Perhaps you should try to present some actual conclusive evidence and not a load of assumptions and speculations combined with less than convincing claims based on cherry picked and misrepresented evidence.
It's just too bad that you clearly don't have sufficient faith in your own case and the credibility of the evidence, because if you had, you would simply present it without constantly whining about the fact that people don't instantly believe the BS you present to them.
-
If any of you nerds have honestly tried a reconstruction you will find that the package is too heavy to carry strictly in the palm.
But tucked under the armpit it would fit perfectly. Go figure!
And how would you even know what the weight of the package was? In addition to being a pseudo "artist" and a wanna be psychoanalyst are you pretending to be a clairvoyant of sorts as well?
It forces one to curve the wrist under the bag as Rather is seen doing here. Not an efficient carry method.
So, if we assume that Rather did have a rifle in that bag, and Frazier said Oswald held the package in the cup of his hand (which you claim can't be done if there is a rifle in there) haven't you just confirmed that there couldn't have been a rifle in the package Oswald carried?
Where did I say it couldn't be done
I said that it would not be as efficient
I'll go with Jerry's drawings as they comport with my own live test
-
Where did I say it couldn't be done
I said that it would not be as efficient
I'll go with Jerry's drawings as they comport with my own live test
Where did I say it couldn't be done
I said that it would not be as efficient
So, efficient or not, it can be done after all? If that's the case what is the point you're making?
I'll go with Jerry's drawings as they comport with my own live test
Which means that your "live test" is just as bogus as Jerry's drawing.
-
No 45-degree angle required: In my tests, the 34.8" package is easily held close to the
vest chest
You can bet on it..
-
Where did I say it couldn't be done
I said that it would not be as efficient
So, efficient or not, it can be done after all? If that's the case what is the point you're making?
I'll go with Jerry's drawings as they comport with my own live test
Which means that your "live test" is just as bogus as Jerry's drawing.
'Bogus' regarding what, exactly?
-
After looking at all of those silly drawings ~~~~~~
Let's forget about Wes Frazier for a second.
An honest investigation would have inquired of all employees checking in to work at the back entry....
-----Who saw Oswald come in with Frazier? Was Oswald carrying anything?-----
A 6 lb bag of bulky hardware would have been easy to spot.
Second's up.... Who else did Frazier see when he went into work following Oswald?
Simple as that.
I mean if truth was really their only client.
-
After looking at all of those silly drawings ~~~~~~
Let's forget about Wes Frazier for a second.
An honest investigation would have inquired of all employees checking in to work at the back entry....
-----Who saw Oswald come in with Frazier? Was Oswald carrying anything?-----
A 6 lb bag of bulky hardware would have been easy to spot.
Second's up.... Who else did Frazier see when he went into work following Oswald?
Simple as that.
I mean if truth was really their only client.
This gets to the CTs' expectation of absolute proof. As if a new eyewitness wouldn't be ripped a new one by the kooks if that witness said the paper bag package could have contained a rifle. Some won't accept anything LN unless it was captured on Hollywood movie film; that's why a good many of them believe their CT claims and "corrupt" officials because Oliver Stone made them appear "real" in his "JFK" reenactments.
It's extremely unlikely that anything new will appear in the case. LNers would welcome it more than CTs regardless of which way it went. Scientific advances in forensics ballistic reconstructions and 3D analysis by professionals and experts happened to support the LN findings. Naturally the CTs ignored that new data, so they're willingness to accept something new depends entirely on its value to assassination conspiracy theory.
-
The bulk of the Warren Commission and HSCA are compelling LN evidence to reasonable people. Check out:
- Case Closed (1993 book)
- Reclaiming History (2007 book)
- PBS TV shows about the assassination issues: Frontline, 1993; NOVA 2013
- McAdams website ( Link (https://www.jfk-assassination.net/home.htm) )
Hilarious
A person who declares himself to be reasonable is probably one of the most unreasonable of them all.
-
Right. Your source of information are the pseudoscience websites that lovingly embrace travesties like "JFK Revisited" (it's title a reference to the movie that celebrated Jim Garrison's abuse of office and his ruination of an innocent man, but, hey, in the CT world the end justifies any guttersnipe means).
Somehow you fail to consider the possibility that those who disagree with you get their information from the actual evidence itself, rather than your own favorite biased propaganda sources listed in an earlier post.
-
This gets to the CTs' expectation of absolute proof. As if a new eyewitness wouldn't be ripped a new one by the kooks if that witness said the paper bag package could have contained a rifle. Some won't accept anything LN unless it was captured on Hollywood movie film; that's why a good many of them believe their CT claims and "corrupt" officials because Oliver Stone made them appear "real" in his "JFK" reenactments.
Wrong. Stone could only dream of the questions I've asked and that you can't even try to answer without using words like kook. And why read all that other stuff like Case Closed? They just repeat the Warren Report only Vinso used 3 times as many pages to say it.
It's extremely unlikely that anything new will appear in the case. LNers would welcome it more than CTs regardless of which way it went. Scientific advances in forensics ballistic reconstructions and 3D analysis by professionals and experts happened to support the LN findings. Naturally the CTs ignored that new data, so they're willingness to accept something new depends entirely on its value to assassination conspiracy theory.
Blah blah...the old stuff was never really addressed and that's what I posted above. Carrying this rattling sack of alleged apparatus into the building ...Oswald presumably entered this void of some sort where he was not seen or heard by anyone.
Hide under your cloak of platitudes with your -could have beens, maybes, possiblys, woulda, coulda.
Face it---you can't straight answer the question. Why do you even try?
Go back to your silly pathetic doodling.
-
Somehow you fail to consider the possibility that those who disagree with you get their information from the actual evidence itself, rather than your own favorite biased propaganda sources listed in an earlier post.
I must have missed your posts where you utilized the evidence to present a viable non-LN JFK Assassination Theory.
-
This gets to the CTs' expectation of absolute proof. As if a new eyewitness wouldn't be ripped a new one by the kooks if that witness said the paper bag package could have contained a rifle. Some won't accept anything LN unless it was captured on Hollywood movie film; that's why a good many of them believe their CT claims and "corrupt" officials because Oliver Stone made them appear "real" in his "JFK" reenactments.
This gets to the LNs' resistance to evidence and logic. As if a third eyewitness wouldn't be ripped a new one by the kooks if that witness confirmed the paper bag package could not have contained a rifle. They won't accept anything unless it poses no threat to the official story; that's why a good many of them believe their LN claims because Dan Rather made them appear "real" in his "reenactments".
-
I must have missed your posts where you utilized the evidence to present a viable non-LN JFK Assassination Theory.
Why would I have to develop a theory about the assassination. That's just one of those classic LN's cop outs. You, foolishly, seem to think that I'm here to somehow "prove" an alternate theory or perhaps even to try and solve this case. It's one more thing you got wrong, but that's hardly a surprise. You are a die hard LN after all.
To determine if the LN case against Oswald has enough merit to be even remotely solid, all I need to do is look at the evidence and question LNs about the many assumptions, speculations and flawed conclusions it contains. Their response to those questions, or rather total lack of response, apart from regurgitating the same old questionable arguments, tells me all I need to know about the actual weakness of their case. For that I do not need a theory!
-
CT (shallow) claim: 'That's why a good many of them believe their LN claims because Dan Rather made them appear "real" in his "reenactments"
_The Rather demo inspired me to test for myself
Conclusion: Feasibility confirmed
-
Mr. BELIN - Then you went around to the back of the building?
Mr. HARKNESS [Dallas policeman] - Yes, sir.
Mr. BELIN - Was anyone around in the back when you got there?
Mr. HARKNESS - There were some Secret Service agents there. I didn't get them identified. They told me they were Secret Service.
Mr. BELIN - Then did you say around the back of the building?
Mr. HARKNESS - Yes; I stayed at the back until the squad got there.
https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/testimony/harkness.htm
Commission staff--- 'Let's not inquire about these agents any further. Oswald did it is our only client'
-
https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/testimony/harkness.htm
Commission staff--- 'Let's not inquire about these agents any further. Oswald did it is our only client'
"Significantly, most of the witnesses who made identifications of Secret Service personnel stated that they had surmised that any plainclothed individual in the company of uniformed police officers must have been a Secret Service agent. Because the Dallas Police Department had numerous plainclothes detectives on duty in the Dealey Plaza area, the committee considered it possible they were mistaken for Secret Service agents."
-- HSCA Report, USGPO, p. 184
-
"Significantly, most of the witnesses who made identifications of Secret Service personnel stated that they had surmised that any plainclothed individual in the company of uniformed police officers must have been a Secret Service agent. Because the Dallas Police Department had numerous plainclothes detectives on duty in the Dealey Plaza area, the committee considered it possible they were mistaken for Secret Service agents."
-- HSCA Report, USGPO, p. 184
:D
A good example of dealing with the evidence by not dealing with the evidence!
Mr. HARKNESS - There were some Secret Service agents there. I didn't get them identified. They told me they were Secret Service.
-
Why would I have to develop a theory about the assassination. That's just one of those classic LN's cop outs. You, foolishly, seem to think that I'm here to somehow "prove" an alternate theory or perhaps even to try and solve this case. It's one more thing you got wrong, but that's hardly a surprise. You are a die hard LN after all.
To determine if the LN case against Oswald has enough merit to be even remotely solid, all I need to do is look at the evidence and question LNs about the many assumptions, speculations and flawed conclusions it contains. Their response to those questions, or rather total lack of response, apart from regurgitating the same old questionable arguments, tells me all I need to know about the actual weakness of their case. For that I do not need a theory!
Martin Weidmann:
"Why would I have to develop a theory about the assassination. That's just one of those classic LN's cop outs. You, foolishly, seem to think that I'm here to somehow "prove" an alternate theory or perhaps even to try and solve this case. It's one more thing you got wrong, but that's hardly a surprise. You are a die hard LN after all."
"To determine if the LN case against Oswald has enough merit to be even remotely solid, all I need to do is look at the evidence and question LNs about the many assumptions, speculations and flawed conclusions it contains. Their response to those questions, or rather total lack of response, apart from regurgitating the same old questionable arguments, tells me all I need to know about the actual weakness of their case. For that I do not need a theory!"
WOW, Hard to believe Jerry, what self-disillusionment. Can't believe this is in print. This is what happens to a person when all of their ridiculous little pet theories get debunked. They have nothing to add to the conversation, so this is what they evolve into.
-
WOW, Hard to believe Jerry, what self-disillusionment. Can't believe this is in print. This is what happens to a person when all of their ridiculous little pet theories get debunked. They have nothing to add to the conversation, so this is what they evolve into.
:D
Also hard to believe that Ol' Man Weissman claims he utilizes all the evidence and considers all the possibilities, something he claims the Commission and FBI didn't do. Yet he hardly ever presents an alternative comprehensive CT scenario. I'm sure he knows none of them would have the validity of the official verdict that Oswald fired all shots that struck Kennedy, Connally and Tippit.
"When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains,
however improbable, must be the truth."
– Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, stated by Sherlock Holmes.
-
:D
Also hard to believe that Ol' Man Weissman claims he utilizes all the evidence and considers all the possibilities, something he claims the Commission and FBI didn't do. Yet he hardly ever presents an alternative comprehensive CT scenario. I'm sure he knows none of them would have the validity of the official verdict that Oswald fired all shots that struck Kennedy, Connally and Tippit.
"When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains,
however improbable, must be the truth."
– Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, stated by Sherlock Holmes.
Also hard to believe that Ol' Man Weissman claims he utilizes all the evidence and considers all the possibilities, something he claims the Commission and FBI didn't do.
Another classic LN misrepresentation. I made no such claim and actually said;
"To determine if the LN case against Oswald has enough merit to be even remotely solid, all I need to do is look at the evidence and question LNs about the many assumptions, speculations and flawed conclusions it contains."
But I have learned by now that I can't hold it against them. Misrepresenation is part of who they are. It's probably due to some sort of collective reading comprehension disorder.
Yet he hardly ever presents an alternative comprehensive CT scenario. I'm sure he knows none of them would have the validity of the official verdict that Oswald fired all shots that struck Kennedy, Connally and Tippit.
And there is the also classic strawman, being knocked down as soon as it it raised. None of it has anything to do with me. I can only laugh about the constant whining and the pitiful attacks by LNs on my person as some sort of substitute for presenting a halfway decent argument.
"When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains,
however improbable, must be the truth."
– Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, stated by Sherlock Holmes.
Perhaps you shouldn't quote Conan Doyle, when you are struggling as much as you are to put it in practice.
-
Why would I have to develop a theory about the assassination. That's just one of those classic LN's cop outs. You, foolishly, seem to think that I'm here to somehow "prove" an alternate theory or perhaps even to try and solve this case. It's one more thing you got wrong, but that's hardly a surprise. You are a die hard LN after all.
To determine if the LN case against Oswald has enough merit to be even remotely solid, all I need to do is look at the evidence and question LNs about the many assumptions, speculations and flawed conclusions it contains. Their response to those questions, or rather total lack of response, apart from regurgitating the same old questionable arguments, tells me all I need to know about the actual weakness of their case. For that I do not need a theory!
Imagine coming to a JFK assassination forum day after day to say that you have no theory about the JFK assassination and are not even interested in formulating a theory. It is just unsolvable. And then spend your time insulting and lecturing folks with endless commentary about why you are right. Of course, no one who reads this nonsense believes for a second that you are not a CTer. Rather, this is just the only way to avoid having to explain the implications of any of your concerns about the evidence having any validity. You can't have a theory because the standard of proof that you apply to Oswald's guilt is an impossible standard. No fact in human history could ever be proven applying that standard. As a result, any alternative theory - based on no evidence whatsoever and contrary to common sense - would be all the more absurd.
-
Imagine coming to a JFK assassination forum day after day to say that you have no theory about the JFK assassination and are not even interested in formulating a theory. It is just unsolvable. And then spend your time insulting and lecturing folks with endless commentary about why you are right. Of course, no one who reads this nonsense believes for a second that you are not a CTer. Rather, this is just the only way to avoid having to explain the implications of any of your concerns about the evidence having any validity. You can't have a theory because the standard of proof that you apply to Oswald's guilt is an impossible standard. No fact in human history could ever be proven applying that standard. As a result, any alternative theory - based on no evidence whatsoever and contrary to common sense - would be all the more absurd.
Imagine coming to a JFK assassination forum day after day to say that you have no theory about the JFK assassination and are not even interested in formulating a theory.
Something you don't understand?
Imagine coming to a JFK assassination forum day after day to say that Oswald was a lone gunman and not being able to provide even the beginning of some evidence to prove it.
And then spend your time insulting and lecturing folks with endless commentary about why you are right.
When exactly did I ever claim that I was right, Mr. Strawman?
Of course, no one who reads this nonsense believes for a second that you are not a CTer. Rather, this is just the only way to avoid having to explain the implications of any of your concerns about the evidence having any validity. You can't have a theory because the standard of proof that you apply to Oswald's guilt is an impossible standard. No fact in human history could ever be proven applying that standard.
Nurse, Richard is whining again....
Btw, the implication of the official narrative being a fraud and the evidence not "having any validity" is simple; it's a conspiracy of some kind. What you don't understand is that I don't care if it was a conspiracy or not. You and your ilk are the ones who are desperately fighting, for some unexplained reason, against the possibility of a conspiracy. I'll be more than happy to accept that Oswald was the lone nut gunman if you provide the proof. And that's where the whole thing goes wrong. You know that you can not provide the conclusive evidence so, instead, you whine like a cry baby about people not being persuaded by the crap you come up with. It's pathetic.
As a result, any alternative theory - based on no evidence whatsoever and contrary to common sense - would be all the more absurd.
More absurd as what? The offical narrative? There can never be anything more absurd as the offical narrative! Thumb1:
Btw, I'm sorry but I have lost count. Just how many posts have you written that actually have nothing to do with the case and the evidence? I lost count at 2340... Did I miss something?
-
Imagine coming to a JFK assassination forum day after day to say that you have no theory about the JFK assassination and are not even interested in formulating a theory.
Something you don't understand?
Imagine coming to a JFK assassination forum day after day to say that Oswald was a lone gunman and not being able to provide even the beginning of some evidence to prove it.
And then spend your time insulting and lecturing folks with endless commentary about why you are right.
When exactly did I ever claim that I was right, Mr. Strawman?
Of course, no one who reads this nonsense believes for a second that you are not a CTer. Rather, this is just the only way to avoid having to explain the implications of any of your concerns about the evidence having any validity. You can't have a theory because the standard of proof that you apply to Oswald's guilt is an impossible standard. No fact in human history could ever be proven applying that standard.
Nurse, Richard is whining again....
Btw, the implication of the official narrative being a fraud and the "evidence having any validity" is simple; it's a conspiracy of some kind. What you don't understand is that I don't care if it was a conspiracy or not. You and your ilk are the ones who are desperately fighting, for some unexplained reason, against the possibility of a conspiracy. I'll be more than happy to accept that Oswald was the lone nut gunman if you provide the proof. And that's where the whole thing goes wrong. You know that you can not provide the conclusive evidence so, instead, you whine like cry baby about people not being persuaded by the crap you come up with. It's pathetic.
As a result, any alternative theory - based on no evidence whatsoever and contrary to common sense - would be all the more absurd.
More absurd as what? The offical narrative? There can never be anything more absurd as the offical narrative! Thumb1:
Btw, I'm sorry but I have lost count. Just how many posts have you written that actually have nothing to do with the case and the evidence? I lost count at 2340... Did I miss something?
'Nurse, Richard is whining again....'
_I see you finally got yourself a nurse
Too late though
-
Says the fool who claims that he "knows" things, as if he was there at the time when it happened, but can not answer a simple question. In reality he should say he simply believes the crap called "the official narrative" without questioning any of it.
In any case, he fits the profile I described above to a tee.
Usually the profiles you ascribe to LNers in general usually fit yourself as well
-
Q: Tell me, how was Lee Harvey Oswald carrying this package you described
as he was walking in front of you?
(http://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1j4PIpNCtZbphz0kmWxmCckNi3vDlG5He)
A: Parallel to his side, up and down. Like you stick it up under your armpit and
the other part cupped in his hand.
(http://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1j4PIpNCtZbphz0kmWxmCckNi3vDlG5He)
Q: Did you determine whether it was in his armpit or were you close enough to
see that?
(http://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1j4PIpNCtZbphz0kmWxmCckNi3vDlG5He)
A: No, sir, I was not close enough to see. I didn't pay attention to it particularly,
but as he was walking along in front of me naturallyI looked in his direction
and that is what it appeared to be from what I saw.
"What it appeared to be" said Frazier. So, he isn't 100% certain it was. Then people try to call him a liar when he isn't certain.
"I didn't pay attention to it particularly" said Frazier. And why would he? It was a normal day for Frazier and he suspected nothing was amiss. But then people try to falsely claim he was "covering up for Oswald".
"I was not close enough to see" said Frazier. Which only makes what he did see an assumption and not a clear eyewitness testimony.
-
Imagine coming to a JFK assassination forum day after day to say that you have no theory about the JFK assassination and are not even interested in formulating a theory. It is just unsolvable. And then spend your time insulting and lecturing folks with endless commentary about why you are right. Of course, no one who reads this nonsense believes for a second that you are not a CTer. Rather, this is just the only way to avoid having to explain the implications of any of your concerns about the evidence having any validity. You can't have a theory because the standard of proof that you apply to Oswald's guilt is an impossible standard. No fact in human history could ever be proven applying that standard. As a result, any alternative theory - based on no evidence whatsoever and contrary to common sense - would be all the more absurd.
It is unbelievable he would post such a thing. When Martin is not here at the forum, he is probably at some sporting event with a painted face screaming at the refs and players. Telling the players they don't know how to play the game while accusing the refs of cheating.
In light of his post, it is best just to ignore him. He needs to take a stand, man up, and grow a pair or go home. Everyone else does. I noticed when he is getting one of his ridiculous thoughts dissected he is not nearly so aggressive. It is actually kind of amusing to watch, he usually manages to contradict himself about every fourth post then runs for cover and starts making accusations.
-
It is unbelievable he would post such a thing. When Martin is not here at the forum, he is probably at some sporting event with a painted face screaming at the refs and players. Telling the players they don't know how to play the game while accusing the refs of cheating.
In light of his post, it is best just to ignore him. He needs to take a stand, man up, and grow a pair or go home. Everyone else does. I noticed when he is getting one of his ridiculous thoughts dissected he is not nearly so aggressive. It is actually kind of amusing to watch, he usually manages to contradict himself about every fourth post then runs for cover and starts making accusations.
For somebody who said;
I guess this is Good Bye Martin.
and
Good bye again Martin.
you surely have an odd way of ignoring me.
It's not my fault, nor my problem, that all your pathetic claims have been debunked, without you even understanding that it actually happened. Your "I know Oswald killed Kennedy etc" arrogance combined with your reading comprehension disorder took care of that.
Did I strike I nerve when I destroyed your "arguments" in our last conversation, mr "I know things"? It certainly seems that way. And perhaps the best demonstration of that fact is that you have now come down to the level of Richard Smith, who hasn't been able to post a persuasive argument for a very long time and only whines about those nasty CT's he fails to convince of anything. Like you, he also confuses his opinion with actual evidence. Whining about CTs is just about the last resort for every LN who has no coherent arguments left..... Not a good place to be!
-
Imagine coming to a JFK assassination forum day after day to say that you have no theory about the JFK assassination and are not even interested in formulating a theory. It is just unsolvable. And then spend your time...
And then you spend waste your time...yakity yak.
There was a cover up. That is no theory.
-
It wasn't just a footnote to the WC, that's for sure -- LOL
But why don't you simply show us Frazier's polygraph test to eliminate possible memory loss?
Thanks in advance!
Another valuable contribution. Wow. A polygraph test doesn't prove whether something is true or not. At most, it tells us whether a person believes what they are saying. Frazier appears to believe his story. He thinks the bag was shorter than it actually was. But that don't make it so. It's possible to be honest but erroneous.
-
Another valuable contribution. Wow. A polygraph test doesn't prove whether something is true or not. At most, it tells us whether a person believes what they are saying. Frazier appears to believe his story. He thinks the bag was shorter than it actually was. But that don't make it so. It's possible to be honest but erroneous.
In other words, there is no evidence whatsoever that will ever convince you that your opinion is wrong. Got it! Thumb1:
Hey, wait a minute.... that sound familiar. Now, let me think, where did I hear/read this before......
-
In other words, there is no evidence whatsoever that will ever convince you that your opinion is wrong. Got it! Thumb1:
Hey, wait a minute.... that sound familiar. Now, let me think, where did I hear/read this before......
So that's what you consider "evidence"! At long last we have found something. You reject documents, prints, photographs as "assumptions" but a polygraph is evidence. But evidence of what? The polygraph would only tell us whether Frazier believes his own estimate. Assuming that is even what he was asked.
-
So that's what you consider "evidence"! At long last we have found something. You reject documents, prints, photographs as "assumptions" but a polygraph is evidence. But evidence of what? The polygraph would only tell us whether Frazier believes his own estimate. Assuming that is even what he was asked.
What documents, prints and photographes have I rejected as "assumptions"? Be specific....
I think you confuse the actual evidence with your far-fetched interpretations of that evidence, because the latter are indeed assumptions.
The polygraph would only tell us whether Frazier believes his own estimate. Assuming that is even what he was asked.
So, you dismiss something that you are not even sure about actually happened? Frazier was never asked for an estimate.
Detective R.D. Lewis, who ran the polygraph, told FBI agent Vincent Drain that, while he was being polygraphed Lt. Day showed Frazier a paper bag [the one found at the TSBD] and Frazier stated that it did not resemble the bag he had seen Oswald carry. And so, the polygraph confirmed that Frazier actually believed that the TSBD bag was not the bag Oswald had carried.
It's interesting to note that Lt Day had told Drain earlier that after the bag had been found he had locked it away and not exhibited it to anybody, which is an obviously lie as he had shown in to Frazier on Friday evening.
-
Another valuable contribution.
Thumb1:
Wow.
So you shouldn't be surprised -- LOL
A polygraph test doesn't prove whether something is true or not.
Never said it did, FAIL #1.
At most, it tells us whether a person believes what they are saying.
Really?
Frazier appears to believe his story.
"appears" -- LOL
He thinks the bag was shorter than it actually was.
You have no way of knowing what he thinks, FAIL #2.
Even if you did there's no evidence his estimate was shorter (or longer) than it actually was, FAIL #3.
But that don't make it so.
Nonsense, see above.
It's possible to be honest but erroneous.
Sure, despite this you scored another hat-trick in one sitting!
BTW,
Assuming that is even what he was asked.
Why don't you show us what he was asked instead of trying to BS your way out?
This is weird even by your standards. You raised Frazier's polygraph presumably to bolster his belief that he carried a shorter bag than the one found and then ask me what he was asked in the polygraph. Casting doubt on the subject that you raised. Unreal.
-
What documents, prints and photographes have I rejected as "assumptions"? Be specific....
I think you confuse the actual evidence with your far-fetched interpretations of that evidence, because the latter are indeed assumptions.
The polygraph would only tell us whether Frazier believes his own estimate. Assuming that is even what he was asked.
So, you dismiss something that you are not even sure about actually happened? Frazier was never asked for an estimate.
Detective R.D. Lewis, who ran the polygraph, told FBI agent Vincent Drain that, while he was being polygraphed Lt. Day showed Frazier a paper bag [the one found at the TSBD] and Frazier stated that it did not resemble the bag he had seen Oswald carry. And so, the polygraph confirmed that Frazier actually believed that the TSBD bag was not the bag Oswald had carried.
It's interesting to note that Lt Day had told Drain earlier that after the bag had been found he had locked it away and not exhibited it to anybody, which is an obviously lie as he had shown in to Frazier on Friday evening.
Marting begging for someone to go through all this again so that he can exercise his compulsion driven mania to dismiss the evidence as the product of "assumptions" or "speculation." And "chain of custody" nonsense. That's been done a million times with you. You reject all the evidence against Oswald. The Klein's documents because they are "photocopies." As though someone broke into Klein's and somehow manipulated their records and then forced them to lie about it. Down the rabbit hole we go. Weeeeee.
-
Marting begging for someone to go through all this again so that he can exercise his compulsion driven mania to dismiss the evidence as the product of "assumptions" or "speculation." And "chain of custody" nonsense. That's been done a million times with you. You reject all the evidence against Oswald. The Klein's documents because they are "photocopies." As though someone broke into Klein's and somehow manipulated their records and then forced them to lie about it. Down the rabbit hole we go. Weeeeee.
Marting begging for someone to go through all this again so that he can exercise his compulsion driven mania to dismiss the evidence as the product of "assumptions" or "speculation."
Translation: I can't give you an example of where you rejected evidence! Thumb1:
And "chain of custody" nonsense.
Translation: As long as a piece of evidence points to Oswald, I don't care where it came from or who handled it. Who cares about chain of custody rules that are in place to prevent evidence tampering by investigators?
That's been done a million times with you.
Yeah right, but you can't name one time, right? :D
You reject all the evidence against Oswald.
More whining....
The Klein's documents because they are "photocopies."
Telling lies is getting you nowhere. I don't reject the Klein's documents, which are indeed photocopies, but I do question your interpretation of them.
As though someone broke into Klein's and somehow manipulated their records and then forced them to lie about it.
Nobody I am aware of has claimed any of this. It's just another pathetic strawman.
Now let's get back to the polygraph matter. Having read what R.D. Lewis told Vincent Drain, do you accept that the polygraph confirms that Frazier believed that the TSBD bag was not the bag Oswald had carried and that it had nothing to do with an estimate?
-
[
You reject all the evidence against Oswald.
More whining....
The Klein's documents because they are "photocopies."
Telling lies is getting you nowhere. I don't reject the Klein's documents, which are indeed photocopies, but I do question your interpretation of them.
As though someone broke into Klein's and somehow manipulated their records and then forced them to lie about it.
Nobody I am aware of has claimed any of this. It's just another pathetic strawman.
Now let's get back to the polygraph matter. Having read what R.D. Lewis told Vincent Drain, do you accept that the polygraph confirms that Frazier believed that the TSBD bag was not the bag Oswald had carried and that it had nothing to do with an estimate?
My "interpretation" of the Klein's documents is based on contents of those documents. They confirm that a rifle, with a specific serial number was ordered by an individual using an alias associated with Oswald and requesting that it be sent to his PO Box. How else can you reconcile the contents of those documents? That is the same rifle found in the TSBD (Oswald's place of employment) but you reject the conclusion that this evidence proves that the rifle was sent to Oswald or possessed by him. Why even mention that these documents are photocopies unless you are alleging that they are faked or altered? If you accept that they are authentic, then whether they are photocopies is meaningless. If you don't accept that they are authentic, then by implication you are suggesting that they are fake or manipulated by someone. They can't be both.
In terms of the polygraph, what difference does it make - even assuming that you are correct - that it confirms that Frazier believes the bag was shorter than the one found? It just means he believes it. He may honestly but erroneously believe anything. He did indicate that it was "possible" that the bag he was shown was the bag carried that morning. He didn't rule it out. The obvious point, however, is that we do not have to rely on his belief based upon a glance because the bag was found. It has been measured. Therefore, there is no doubt that his estimate is incorrect.
-
My "interpretation" of the Klein's documents is based on contents of those documents. They confirm that a rifle, with a specific serial number was ordered by an individual using an alias associated with Oswald and requesting that it be sent to his PO Box. How else can you reconcile the contents of those documents? That is the same rifle found in the TSBD (Oswald's place of employment) but you reject the conclusion that this evidence proves that the rifle was sent to Oswald or possessed by him. Why even mention that these documents are photocopies unless you are alleging that they are faked or altered? If you accept that they are authentic, then whether they are photocopies is meaningless. If you don't accept that they are authentic, then by implication you are suggesting that they are fake or manipulated by someone. They can't be both.
In terms of the polygraph, what difference does it make - even assuming that you are correct - that it confirms that Frazier believes the bag was shorter than the one found? It just means he believes it. He may honestly but erroneously believe anything. He did indicate that it was "possible" that the bag he was shown was the bag carried that morning. He didn't rule it out. The obvious point, however, is that we do not have to rely on his belief based upon a glance because the bag was found. It has been measured. Therefore, there is no doubt that his estimate is incorrect.
My "interpretation" of the Klein's documents is based on contents of those documents.
That's exactly what I mean. A shallow, superficial, at first glance, interpretation.
They confirm that a rifle, with a specific serial number was ordered by an individual using an alias associated with Oswald and requesting that it be sent to his PO Box.
Wrong. At first glance, they appear to confirm that, but closer inspection raises questions you will never ask.
How else can you reconcile the contents of those documents?
If you have to ask..... The only documents that have a possible link to Oswald are the photocopies of the Hidell order form, the envelope and the money order. All the other documents in relation to the order are internal documents from Kleins' which are generated automatically when an order is received. The only document of those that provides a possible link to the rifle found at the TSBD is Waldman 7 and the only part of that entire document which provides that possible link is a handwritten serial and control number. So, to reconcile the order form with the alleged shipment of the rifle all that is required is simply to add a serial and control number to Waldman 7 and circle "PP". That's how flimsy the relationship of the various documents is.
Having said that, I'm fairly confident that you will dismiss this out of hand, simply because nobody in law enforcement would ever do such a thing to make sure a suspect already considered guilty (and now dead) would not get away with his crime, right?
That is the same rifle found in the TSBD (Oswald's place of employment) but you reject the conclusion that this evidence proves that the rifle was sent to Oswald or possessed by him.
It is your conclusion that the same rifle ordered with the Hidell order form is the one found at the TSBD, but there is no evidence to support that conclusion. The Hidell order was for a 36" rifle and the rifle found at the TSBD was 40,2". All you have is a theory that Kleins' simply shipped a 40,2" rifle instead of the 36" rifle that was ordered, but as there is no evidence to support that theory, it's merely an assumption which can not be reconciled with the fact that Kleins' gunsmith Mitchell Westra is on record saying that Kleins' did not sent out a 40,2" rifle with a mounted scope.
It is also an assumption that a 40,2" rifle was ever posted to Oswald's P.O. box. The only document that links the TSBD rifle to the Hidell order is Waldman 7, which is also the only document that is used to claim that the rifle was sent, simply because the letters "PP" were circled. Waldman 7 is an internal Kleins' document and apparently is a type of form which is automatically generated for each order that comes in. The most remarkable feature of the document (of which also only a photocopy is available, despite it being an internal document) is that all the order information on it is printed except for the serial and control number, which are handwritten and could have been written in at any time. As the micro-film itself is now lost, we can't even go back and look if this document was actually on the micro-film to begin with.
Why even mention that these documents are photocopies unless you are alleging that they are faked or altered?
Because it is relevant. I am not alleging that they are faked or altered but I also don't discard the possibility. You can not assume that photocopies have the same evidentiary value as originals. Even FBI expert Lyndal Shaneyfelt admitted during the mock trial that photocopies can be tampered with. Not to consider that possibility is the same as believing whatever you are told without ever asking a critical question.
If you accept that they are authentic, then whether they are photocopies is meaningless. If you don't accept that they are authentic, then by implication you are suggesting that they are fake or manipulated by someone. They can't be both.
True, so what's your point? Prove their authenticity to me and I will gladly accept it, which is exactly where the problem lies. You can not prove their authenticity without making a large number of assumptions.
In terms of the polygraph, what difference does it make - even assuming that you are correct - that it confirms that Frazier believes the bag was shorter than the one found? It just means he believes it. He may honestly but erroneously believe anything. He did indicate that it was "possible" that the bag he was shown was the bag carried that morning. He didn't rule it out. The obvious point, however, is that we do not have to rely on his belief based upon a glance because the bag was found. It has been measured. Therefore, there is no doubt that his estimate is incorrect.
Total and utter BS.
Frazier didn't say it wasn't the bag because the one he saw Oswald carry was shorter. He said (and he believed it) that the bag shown to him was not the same as flimsy bag he had seen Oswald carry.
It is your opinion that the bag was found. In reality a bag was found. You have no evidence whatsoever that Frazier was (and still is) wrong about the bag. You merely assume it because that fits your narrative. You desperately need that bag, because without it you have no explanation for how the rifle got into the TSBD and the entire "he went to Irving to collect the rifle" goes out of the window with it. You can measure any bag you like. It's meaningless unless you can place that bag between the cup of Oswald's hand and his armpit and that's something you can never do.
-
My "interpretation" of the Klein's documents is based on contents of those documents.
That's exactly what I mean. A shallow, superficial, at first glance, interpretation.
They confirm that a rifle, with a specific serial number was ordered by an individual using an alias associated with Oswald and requesting that it be sent to his PO Box.
Wrong. At first glance, they appear to confirm that, but closer inspection raises questions you will never ask.
How else can you reconcile the contents of those documents?
If you have to ask..... The only documents that have a possible link to Oswald are the photocopies of the Hidell order form, the envelope and the money order. All the other documents in relation to the order are internal documents from Kleins' which are generated automatically when an order is received. The only document of those that provides a possible link to the rifle found at the TSBD is Waldman 7 and the only part of that entire document which provides that possible link is a handwritten serial and control number. So, to reconcile the order form with the alleged shipment of the rifle all that is required is simply to add a serial and control number to Waldman 7 and circle "PP". That's how flimsy the relationship of the various documents is.
Having said that, I'm fairly confident that you will dismiss this out of hand, simply because nobody in law enforcement would ever do such a thing to make sure a suspect already considered guilty (and now dead) would not get away with his crime, right?
That is the same rifle found in the TSBD (Oswald's place of employment) but you reject the conclusion that this evidence proves that the rifle was sent to Oswald or possessed by him.
It is your conclusion that the same rifle ordered with the Hidell order form is the one found at the TSBD, but there is no evidence to support that conclusion. The Hidell order was for a 36" rifle and the rifle found at the TSBD was 40,2". All you have is a theory that Kleins' simply shipped a 40,2" rifle instead of the 36" rifle that was ordered, but as there is no evidence to support that theory, it's merely an assumption which can not be reconciled with the fact that Kleins' gunsmith Mitchell Westra is on record saying that Kleins' did not sent out a 40,2" rifle with a mounted scope.
It is also an assumption that a 40,2" rifle was ever posted to Oswald's P.O. box. The only document that links the TSBD rifle to the Hidell order is Waldman 7, which is also the only document that is used to claim that the rifle was sent, simply because the letters "PP" were circled. Waldman 7 is an internal Kleins' document and apparently is a type of form which is automatically generated for each order that comes in. The most remarkable feature of the document (of which also only a photocopy is available, despite it being an internal document) is that all the order information on it is printed except for the serial and control number, which are handwritten and could have been written in at any time. As the micro-film itself is now lost, we can't even go back and look if this document was actually on the micro-film to begin with.
Why even mention that these documents are photocopies unless you are alleging that they are faked or altered?
Because it is relevant. I am not alleging that they are faked or altered but I also don't discard the possibility. You can not assume that photocopies have the same evidentiary value as originals. Even FBI expert Lyndal Shaneyfelt admitted during the mock trial that photocopies can be tampered with. Not to consider that possibility is the same as believing whatever you are told without ever asking a critical question.
If you accept that they are authentic, then whether they are photocopies is meaningless. If you don't accept that they are authentic, then by implication you are suggesting that they are fake or manipulated by someone. They can't be both.
True, so what's your point? Prove their authenticity to me and I will gladly accept it, which is exactly where the problem lies. You can not prove their authenticity without making a large number of assumptions.
In terms of the polygraph, what difference does it make - even assuming that you are correct - that it confirms that Frazier believes the bag was shorter than the one found? It just means he believes it. He may honestly but erroneously believe anything. He did indicate that it was "possible" that the bag he was shown was the bag carried that morning. He didn't rule it out. The obvious point, however, is that we do not have to rely on his belief based upon a glance because the bag was found. It has been measured. Therefore, there is no doubt that his estimate is incorrect.
Total and utter BS.
Frazier didn't say it wasn't the bag because the one he saw Oswald carry was shorter. He said (and he believed it) that the bag shown to him was not the same as flimsy bag he had seen Oswald carry.
It is your opinion that the bag was found. In reality a bag was found. You have no evidence whatsoever that Frazier was (and still is) wrong about the bag. You merely assume it because that fits your narrative. You desperately need that bag, because without it you have no explanation for how the rifle got into the TSBD and the entire "he went to Irving to collect the rifle" goes out of the window with it. You can measure any bag you like. It's meaningless unless you can place that bag between the cup of Oswald's hand and his armpit and that's something you can never do.
So just to summarize this long-winded post. I noted that Martin dismisses the evidence of Oswald's guilt as the product of fakery or alteration. Martin has a hissy fit denying that he ever does this. Asks for examples. I note his dismissal of the documents relating to Oswald's purchase of the rifle because they are photocopies. Martin not only confirms that this is the case once again but adds the possibility that the police altered the document. Confirming beyond any doubt that he dismisses evidence of Oswald guilt as the product of fakery or alteration to frame him. My original point.
-
So just to summarize this long-winded post. I noted that Martin dismisses the evidence of Oswald's guilt as the product of fakery or alteration. Martin has a hissy fit denying that he ever does this. Asks for examples. I note his dismissal of the documents relating to Oswald's purchase of the rifle because they are photocopies. Martin not only confirms that this is the case once again but adds the possibility that the police altered the document. Confirming beyond any doubt that he dismisses evidence of Oswald guilt as the product of fakery or alteration to frame him. My original point.
It seems you are the one throwing the hissy fit because you can not produce the examples to back up your foolish claims.
If all you can do is misrepresent what I have said, you've only exposed yourself as a liar.
Not that I am surprised. Your "original point" is just as bogus as you are.
-
Here is an example, You are alleging that the handwritten serial number linking the rifle sent to Oswald was the potential product of fakery by the police. As a result, (or as Otto prefers) thus, you dismiss the evidence as conclusive of Oswald's ownership of the rifle. If you don't dismiss the evidence as fake, it proves beyond any doubt that a specific rifle was sent to Oswald's PO Box. The same rifle was found in his place of employment with his prints on it. You do not accept the conclusion that the evidence links Oswald to this rifle. So you have made a determination that this evidence is fake whether you want to acknowledge it or not. You are dishonestly suggesting that you are not claiming the evidence is fake but just might be fake. That is just playing the endless contrarian as any evidence could potentially be faked. There is no evidence that it was faked. That approach creates an impossible standard of proof on any issue that you do not want to accept.
And what do you mean by this is the "ONLY" evidence? Direct handwritten evidence from Oswald ordering a rifle to be sent to his PO Box, and internal documents from Klein's processing that order!!! You cite an order form, envelope, and money order but diminish the importance of that evidence by characterizing it as the "only" evidence. Good grief. That is compelling evidence. It is a miracle we have that much evidence. It would be difficult to envision how there even could be any MORE evidence of the matter. Unreal.
How else can you reconcile the contents of those documents?
If you have to ask..... The only documents that have a possible link to Oswald are the photocopies of the Hidell order form, the envelope and the money order. All the other documents in relation to the order are internal documents from Kleins' which are generated automatically when an order is received. The only document of those that provides a possible link to the rifle found at the TSBD is Waldman 7 and the only part of that entire document which provides that possible link is a handwritten serial and control number. So, to reconcile the order form with the alleged shipment of the rifle all that is required is simply to add a serial and control number to Waldman 7 and circle "PP". That's how flimsy the relationship of the various documents is.
Having said that, I'm fairly confident that you will dismiss this out of hand, simply because nobody in law enforcement would ever do such a thing to make sure a suspect already considered guilty (and now dead) would not get away with his crime, right?
-
"fakery by the police".
I don't recall seeing poor Richard so far out.
Does he share a room with Andrew Mason?
I'm having trouble translating your post into a coherent point. Are you saying that because there are some examples in history of police fakery or manipulation of evidence that it must be given credence in every situation? Even when there is no evidence of such fakery and, therefore, any evidence produced against a criminal defendant must be rejected simply because of the "possibility" that it was faked? Martin has produced no evidence that the serial number was written by the police or anyone else for the purpose of framing Oswald. He hasn't even tried. Instead, he has merely suggested that it was theoretically possible for someone to have done so. That approach to criminal culpability would come as great news to every criminal in prison. Not for dead guys like Oswald, though. His one successful accomplishment in life was pulling off the assassination, and you are trying to rob him even of that dubious credit.
-
Here is an example, You are alleging that the handwritten serial number linking the rifle sent to Oswald was the potential product of fakery by the police. As a result, (or as Otto prefers) thus, you dismiss the evidence as conclusive of Oswald's ownership of the rifle. If you don't dismiss the evidence as fake, it proves beyond any doubt that a specific rifle was sent to Oswald's PO Box. The same rifle was found in his place of employment with his prints on it. You do not accept the conclusion that the evidence links Oswald to this rifle. So you have made a determination that this evidence is fake whether you want to acknowledge it or not. You are dishonestly suggesting that you are not claiming the evidence is fake but just might be fake. That is just playing the endless contrarian as any evidence could potentially be faked. There is no evidence that it was faked. That approach creates an impossible standard of proof on any issue that you do not want to accept.
And what do you mean by this is the "ONLY" evidence? Direct handwritten evidence from Oswald ordering a rifle to be sent to his PO Box, and internal documents from Klein's processing that order!!! You cite an order form, envelope, and money order but diminish the importance of that evidence by characterizing it as the "only" evidence. Good grief. That is compelling evidence. It is a miracle we have that much evidence. It would be difficult to envision how there even could be any MORE evidence of the matter. Unreal.
You are alleging that the handwritten serial number linking the rifle sent to Oswald was the potential product of fakery by the police. As a result, (or as Otto prefers) thus, you dismiss the evidence as conclusive of Oswald's ownership of the rifle.
Complete and utter stupidity, which only demonstrates that you have a reading comprehension problem, resulting in a shallow, superficial interpretation of the evidence, with no critical questions asked.
I am not alleging anything, I am merely pointing out a fact. The serial number is handwritten on Waldman 7. I didn't say it was faked. It simply means that the document must be authenticated if it is to be used as conclusive proof of a link between the rifle and Oswald. And guess what... such an authentication would have been easy to produce. Just let the Kleins' employee who wrote the serial and control number on that form confirm that he wrote it, when he wrote it and when he actually sent out the 40.2" rifle. But the WC did not go that way and used Waldman, a VP of Kleins' who had nothing to do with gun sales, instead. One can only wonder why they did that.....
If you don't dismiss the evidence as fake, it proves beyond any doubt that a specific rifle was sent to Oswald's PO Box. The same rifle was found in his place of employment with his prints on it. You do not accept the conclusion that the evidence links Oswald to this rifle. So you have made a determination that this evidence is fake whether you want to acknowledge it or not.
The only determination I can make based on this drivel is that you are an even bigger fool than I took you for.
You are dishonestly suggesting that you are not claiming the evidence is fake but just might be fake. That is just playing the endless contrarian as any evidence could potentially be faked. There is no evidence that it was faked. That approach creates an impossible standard of proof on any issue that you do not want to accept.[
And here we go again....more whining. Wash, rinse and repeat. You only got one thing right;
any evidence could potentially be faked.
Which is exactly why authentication of that evidence is needed and important. So, authenticate it and I'll gladly accept it as valid, but don't give me this BS about a handwitten number on a photocopy of a lost microscope film that has to be assumed to be authentic, just because you can not imagine that any law enforcement officer would ever tamper with evidence.
And what do you mean by this is the "ONLY" evidence? Direct handwritten evidence from Oswald ordering a rifle to be sent to his PO Box, and internal documents from Klein's processing that order!!! You cite an order form, envelope, and money order but diminish the importance of that evidence by characterizing it as the "only" evidence. Good grief. That is compelling evidence. It is a miracle we have that much evidence. It would be difficult to envision how there even could be any MORE evidence of the matter. Unreal.
Oh boy, the hissy fit continues. It is not my problem that you don't understand what I have written. Stay stupid and superficial, see if I care. You are behaving like a 5 year old who is stamping his feet because he doesn't get his candy.
-
I'm having trouble translating your post into a coherent point. Are you saying that because there are some examples in history of police fakery or manipulation of evidence that it must be given credence in every situation? Even when there is no evidence of such fakery and, therefore, any evidence produced against a criminal defendant must be rejected simply because of the "possibility" that it was faked? Martin has produced no evidence that the serial number was written by the police or anyone else for the purpose of framing Oswald. He hasn't even tried. Instead, he has merely suggested that it was theoretically possible for someone to have done so. That approach to criminal culpability would come as great news to every criminal in prison. Not for dead guys like Oswald, though. His one successful accomplishment in life was pulling off the assassination, and you are trying to rob him even of that dubious credit.
Are you saying that because there are some examples in history of police fakery or manipulation of evidence that it must be given credence in every situation?
If you mean by "given credence" that all evidence against a defendant must be authenticated, the answer is; Yes
Would you want to be a defendant in a case where evidence is not authenticated?
Even when there is no evidence of such fakery and, therefore, any evidence produced against a criminal defendant must be rejected simply because of the "possibility" that it was faked?
There doesn't have to be evidence of fakery. No evidence that isn't authenticated should ever stand against a defendant.
Martin has produced no evidence that the serial number was written by the police or anyone else for the purpose of framing Oswald. He hasn't even tried.
Martin doesn't have to. The handwritten serial number on Waldman 7 is the only direct link to the MC rifle found at the TSBD. It is crucial evidence and here you come with a photocopy (which FBI expert Lyndal Shaneyfelt agrees can easily be tampered with) allegedly of a micro film that is lost and you expect people to just accept that it is an authentic document. You must be out of your mind!
Why would anybody have a problem with the authentication of evidence is a complete mystery to me, unless of course the objection against evidence authentication is the result of an understanding that a closer look at the evidence might reveal it's weakness.
That approach to criminal culpability would come as great news to every criminal in prison. Not for dead guys like Oswald, though. His one successful accomplishment in life was pulling off the assassination, and you are trying to rob him even of that dubious credit.
Any crappy argument will do, right?
What all this BS comes down to is that you can't handle it that I want proper authentication of evidence that you have accepted blindly as being valid. That's the whole problem you have in a nutshell. You can't handle that people are not convinced by something that you believe in.
You actually consider it to be unreasonable for anybody to ask for authentication of evidence. In your delusional mind asking for authentication of the evidence is the same as dismissing the evidence. It isn't, but that's how far removed from reality you are. Really bizarre!
-
You are alleging that the handwritten serial number linking the rifle sent to Oswald was the potential product of fakery by the police. As a result, (or as Otto prefers) thus, you dismiss the evidence as conclusive of Oswald's ownership of the rifle.
Complete and utter stupidity, which only demonstrates that you have a reading comprehension problem, resulting in a shallow, superficial interpretation of the evidence, with no critical questions asked.
I am not alleging anything, I am merely pointing out a fact. The serial number is handwritten on Waldman 7. I didn't say it was faked. It simply means that the document must be authenticated if it is to be used as conclusive proof of a link between the rifle and Oswald. And guess what... such an authentication would have been easy to produce. Just let the Kleins' employee who wrote the serial and control number on that form confirm that he wrote it, when he wrote it and when he actually sent out the 40.2" rifle. But the WC did not go that way and used Waldman, a VP of Kleins' who had nothing to do with gun sales, instead. One can only wonder why they did that.....
If you don't dismiss the evidence as fake, it proves beyond any doubt that a specific rifle was sent to Oswald's PO Box. The same rifle was found in his place of employment with his prints on it. You do not accept the conclusion that the evidence links Oswald to this rifle. So you have made a determination that this evidence is fake whether you want to acknowledge it or not.
The only determination I can make based on this drivel is that you are an even bigger fool than I took you for.
You are dishonestly suggesting that you are not claiming the evidence is fake but just might be fake. That is just playing the endless contrarian as any evidence could potentially be faked. There is no evidence that it was faked. That approach creates an impossible standard of proof on any issue that you do not want to accept.[
And here we go again....more whining. Wash, rinse and repeat. You only got one thing right;
any evidence could potentially be faked.
Which is exactly why authentication of that evidence is needed and important. So, authenticate it and I'll gladly accept it as valid, but don't give me this BS about a handwitten number on a photocopy of a lost microscope film that has to be assumed to be authentic, just because you can not imagine that any law enforcement officer would ever tamper with evidence.
And what do you mean by this is the "ONLY" evidence? Direct handwritten evidence from Oswald ordering a rifle to be sent to his PO Box, and internal documents from Klein's processing that order!!! You cite an order form, envelope, and money order but diminish the importance of that evidence by characterizing it as the "only" evidence. Good grief. That is compelling evidence. It is a miracle we have that much evidence. It would be difficult to envision how there even could be any MORE evidence of the matter. Unreal.
Oh boy, the hissy fit continues. It is not my problem that you don't understand what I have written. Stay stupid and superficial, see if I care. You are behaving like a 5 year old who is stamping his feet because he doesn't get his candy.
The document is either authentic or manipulated. If authentic, then it links Oswald to a specific rifle. The same one found on the 6th floor because of the serial number match. If that is the case end of discussion, but you don't accept this. Instead you cast doubt on the authenticity of that document by interjecting the possibility that because the serial number is handwritten that it could be faked by the authorities after the fact to frame Oswald. Presumably this would have been done by the FBI since they are present and obtain Waldman 7 from Klein's. You make the lazy argument - without any evidence whatsoever - to suggest that they simply could have written the serial number onto this document to cast doubt on its authenticity. As usual, however, you give no consideration to your theory having any validity or intentionally ignore the implications because it does not suit your desired outcome (i.e. to cast doubt on Oswald's guilt). So let's walk through this scenario in which the authorities add the serial number to the document to frame Oswald.
If Oswald was not sent the rifle with that serial number from Klein's, then obviously someone else would have been sent the rifle. Why wouldn't the FBI have any interest in this individual whose Klein's records confirm was sent the rifle found in the TSBD and used to assassinate the president? We are left to use our imagination. No explanation is given or even attempted. It is just possible. We know from other documentation that Klein's handled this particular rifle. So they sold it to someone. Any of their records relating to the sale of this rifle to another individual would have to be obtained and suppressed by the authorities. Klein's would have to be involved in that effort and any cover up.
Oswald would have been sent another rifle from Klein's when he orders his rifle from them. Any records linking Oswald to that second rifle would also have to be obtained and suppressed. This second rifle is never accounted for in any way or form. In fact, Oswald himself denies owning a rifle. Why would he do that if he had obtained a rifle from Klein's (as his order form and shipping form to his PO Box confirm) and would expect the DPD to find it in the Paine's garage (or he could account for it in some other way such as he sold it)? Oswald would have every incentive to direct the authorities to that rifle. Instead he lies.
Lastly, what a lucky coincidence for the authorities that of all the places that Oswald could have a bought a rifle, he does so from the very same mail order company in Chicago as whomever purchased the rifle left at the TSBD! Allowing the authorities to obtain his documentation from Klein's and then handwrite the serial number of the TSBD rifle on his order. HA HA HA. You should be ashamed to peddle this nonsense.
-
...you dismiss the evidence as conclusive of Oswald's ownership of the rifle.
The same rifle was found in his place of employment with his prints on it.
Hundreds of them!
Martin with club ------>>>(http://www.russianwomendiscussion.com/Smileys/default2/deadhorsebeat_2.gif)<<<<<<--------Richard [Shoulda written a book and called it Case Clogged]
-
The document is either authentic or manipulated. If authentic, then it links Oswald to a specific rifle. The same one found on the 6th floor because of the serial number match. If that is the case end of discussion, but you don't accept this. Instead you cast doubt on the authenticity of that document by interjecting the possibility that because the serial number is handwritten that it could be faked by the authorities after the fact to frame Oswald. Presumably this would have been done by the FBI since they are present and obtain Waldman 7 from Klein's. You make the lazy argument - without any evidence whatsoever - to suggest that they simply could have written the serial number onto this document to cast doubt on its authenticity. As usual, however, you give no consideration to your theory having any validity or intentionally ignore the implications because it does not suit your desired outcome (i.e. to cast doubt on Oswald's guilt). So let's walk through this scenario in which the authorities add the serial number to the document to frame Oswald.
Oh please, stop the whining. You sound just as bad as the WC counsel Ball and his mates sounded back in the 60's when, in public discussions, they couldn't deal with what Mark Lane was pointing out to them. I've never heard such a bunch of bumbling and stuttering old fools! The mere fact that they refused to enter into a debate and only wanted to "examine" Mark Lane's opinions is just as telling as your ramblings.
The document is either authentic or manipulated.
Indeed. So, show it's authenticity and be done with it.
If authentic, then it links Oswald to a specific rifle. The same one found on the 6th floor because of the serial number match.
To a certain degree, yes. Waldman 7, if authentic, would link the Hidell order to the rifle found at the 6th floor, provided the other documents are authentic as well.
If that is the case end of discussion, but you don't accept this.
Says who? But let's not get ahead of ourselves, shall we. Baby steps.... let's start with showing the documents are authethic.
If Oswald was not sent the rifle with that serial number from Klein's, then obviously someone else would have been sent the rifle. Why wouldn't the FBI have any interest in this individual whose Klein's records confirm was sent the rifle found in the TSBD and used to assassinate the president? We are left to use our imagination. No explanation is given or even attempted. It is just possible. We know from other documentation that Klein's handled this particular rifle. So they sold it to someone. Any of their records relating to the sale of this rifle to another individual would have to be obtained and suppressed by the authorities. Klein's would have to be involved in that effort and any cover up.
If Oswald was not sent the rifle with that serial number from Klein's, then obviously someone else would have been sent the rifle.
Possibly. Unless it was bought over the counter at Kleins'.
Why wouldn't the FBI have any interest in this individual whose Klein's records confirm was sent the rifle found in the TSBD and used to assassinate the president?
What makes you so sure there were records for the sending of a rifle, when there is no such document for the rifle found at the TSBD?
But the obvious answer to your question is, that, from day one, the FBI has never shown any interest in anybody except Oswald, after Hoover declared, before hardly any evidence had been collected and/or analyzed, that Oswald was the lone gunman.
The trouble is that there is absolutely nothing straight forward when it comes to the rifle that was found at the TSBD.
It's a 40.2" when a 36" was ordered by Hidell.
The authenticity of the bullet CE399 now in evidence, is in question because of a complete lack of chain of custody and the fact that nobody, who handled the Parkland bullet, could identify it, until after it arrived at the FBI lab in Washington.
Even the WC did not not accept the authenticity of the bullet, initially, which they never showed to Tomlinson for identification, during his testimony. This resulted in the false FBI claim that SA Odum had shown the bullet to Tomlinson and Wright, which is something Odum himself denied.
The two fragments that were allegedly taken from the limousine, were delivered to Frazier at the FBI lab and he was told they came from the limo, but no evidence was ever presented to confirm that.
The so-called Walker bullet, which the HSCA showed the public, was dismissed by General Walker as the bullet that had been taken out of the wall of his home.
That's a hell of a lot of evidentiary problems for just one rifle allegedly used by a lone nut!
We know from other documentation that Klein's handled this particular rifle. So they sold it to someone.
Likely
Any of their records relating to the sale of this rifle to another individual would have to be obtained and suppressed by the authorities. Klein's would have to be involved in that effort and any cover up.
Why would Klein's have to be involved? The FBI took the microfilm and then subsequently, rather conveniently, lost it.
Oswald would have been sent another rifle from Klein's when he orders his rifle from them. Any records linking Oswald to that second rifle would also have to be obtained and suppressed. This second rifle is never accounted for in any way or form. In fact, Oswald himself denies owning a rifle. Why would he do that if he had obtained a rifle from Klein's (as his order form and shipping form to his PO Box confirm) and would expect the DPD to find it in the Paine's garage (or he could account for it in some other way such as he sold it)? Oswald would have every incentive to direct the authorities to that rifle. Instead he lies.
Oswald would have been sent another rifle from Klein's when he orders his rifle from them.
If Oswald was indeed behind the Hidell order, they may not have sent him anything. Ever considered that possibility? The order was for a 36" rifle. The rifle found at the TSBD was 40.2". It could just as easily be that Kleins' was unable to deliver the 36" rifle, notified the client and the transaction was cancelled. You are assuming that the transaction went through, and that Kleins' just sent the wrong rifle, despite the fact that you have no evidence whatsoever that a rifle was ever sent out.
Lastly, what a lucky coincidence for the authorities that of all the places that Oswald could have a bought a rifle, he does so from the very same mail order company in Chicago as whomever purchased the rifle left at the TSBD! Allowing the authorities to obtain his documentation from Klein's and then handwrite the serial number of the TSBD rifle on his order. HA HA HA. You should be ashamed to peddle this nonsense.
The one peddling nonsense is you and you are doing it simply because you can not authenticate the Kleins' documents. None of your drivel comes anywhere close to authenticating the evidence. That's the elephant in the room and all you can do is dance around it.
I've said it before and I'll say it again;
Why would anybody have a problem with the authentication of evidence is a complete mystery to me, unless of course the objection against evidence authentication is the result of an understanding that a closer look at the evidence might reveal it's weakness.
You just wasted an entire post to get nowhere. It's pathetic!
-
Oh please, stop the whining. You sound just as bad as the WC counsel Ball and his mates sounded back in the 60's when, in public discussions, they couldn't deal with what Mark Lane was pointing out to them. I've never heard such a bunch of bumbling and stuttering old fools! The mere fact that they refused to enter into a debate and only wanted to "examine" Mark Lane's opinions is just as telling as your ramblings.
The document is either authentic or manipulated.
Indeed. So, show it's authenticity and be done with it.
If authentic, then it links Oswald to a specific rifle. The same one found on the 6th floor because of the serial number match.
To a certain degree, yes. Waldman 7, if authentic, would link the Hidell order to the rifle found at the 6th floor, provided the other documents are authentic as well.
If that is the case end of discussion, but you don't accept this.
Says who? But let's not get ahead of ourselves, shall we. Baby steps.... let's start with showing the documents are authethic.
If Oswald was not sent the rifle with that serial number from Klein's, then obviously someone else would have been sent the rifle.
Possibly. Unless it was bought over the counter at Kleins'.
Why wouldn't the FBI have any interest in this individual whose Klein's records confirm was sent the rifle found in the TSBD and used to assassinate the president?
What makes you so sure there were records for the sending of a rifle, when there is no such document for the rifle found at the TSBD?
But the obvious answer to your question is, that, from day one, the FBI has never shown any interest in anybody except Oswald, after Hoover declared, before hardly any evidence had been collected and/or analyzed, that Oswald was the lone gunman.
The trouble is that there is absolutely nothing straight forward when it comes to the rifle that was found at the TSBD.
It's a 40.2" when a 36" was ordered by Hidell.
The authenticity of the bullet CE399 now in evidence, is in question because of a complete lack of chain of custody and the fact that nobody, who handled the Parkland bullet, could identify it, until after it arrived at the FBI lab in Washington.
Even the WC did not not accept the authenticity of the bullet, initially, which they never showed to Tomlinson for identification, during his testimony. This resulted in the false FBI claim that SA Odum had shown the bullet to Tomlinson and Wright, which is something Odum himself denied.
The two fragments that were allegedly taken from the limousine, were delivered to Frazier at the FBI lab and he was told they came from the limo, but no evidence was ever presented to confirm that.
The so-called Walker bullet, which the HSCA showed the public, was dismissed by General Walker as the bullet that had been taken out of the wall of his home.
That's a hell of a lot of evidentiary problems for just one rifle allegedly used by a lone nut!
We know from other documentation that Klein's handled this particular rifle. So they sold it to someone.
Likely
Any of their records relating to the sale of this rifle to another individual would have to be obtained and suppressed by the authorities. Klein's would have to be involved in that effort and any cover up.
Why would Klein's have to be involved? The FBI took the microfilm and then subsequently, rather conveniently, lost it.
Oswald would have been sent another rifle from Klein's when he orders his rifle from them.
If Oswald was indeed behind the Hidell order, they may not have sent him anything. Ever considered that possibility? The order was for a 36" rifle. The rifle found at the TSBD was 40.2". It could just as easily be that Kleins' was unable to deliver the 36" rifle, notified the client and the transaction was cancelled. You are assuming that the transaction went through, and that Kleins' just sent the wrong rifle, despite the fact that you have no evidence whatsoever that a rifle was ever sent out.
The one peddling nonsense is you and you are doing it simply because you can not authenticate the Kleins' documents. None of your drivel comes anywhere close to authenticating the evidence. That's the elephant in the room and all you can do is dance around it.
I've said it before and I'll say it again;
Why would anybody have a problem with the authentication of evidence is a complete mystery to me, unless of course the objection against evidence authentication is the result of an understanding that a closer look at the evidence might reveal it's weakness.
You just wasted an entire post to get nowhere. It's pathetic!
LOL. No explanation for why the FBI would alter evidence to frame Oswald but allow the person who actually ordered the rifle from Klein's to go free. It just might be so. And Klein's wouldn't send Oswald any rifle even though he ordered it, paid for it, and they processed his order? It just mysteriously disappears into the ether. And it is just a coincidence that Oswald orders a rifle from the same company that sells the rifle found in the TSBD. Allowing the FBI the opportunity to modify his order to make it look like he was sent the TSBD rifle. Very silly. It just highlights the impossible standard of proof that you apply to evidence of Oswald's guilt. It's so silly that I can't really believe you are serious. Rather, this is just some hobby to pass the time by playing the contrarian. No one could possibly believe this nonsense.
-
LOL. No explanation for why the FBI would alter evidence to frame Oswald but allow the person who actually ordered the rifle from Klein's to go free. It just might be so. And Klein's wouldn't send Oswald any rifle even though he ordered it, paid for it, and they processed his order? It just mysteriously disappears into the ether. And it is just a coincidence that Oswald orders a rifle from the same company that sells the rifle found in the TSBD. Allowing the FBI the opportunity to modify his order to make it look like he was sent the TSBD rifle. Very silly. It just highlights the impossible standard of proof that you apply to evidence of Oswald's guilt. It's so silly that I can't really believe you are serious. Rather, this is just some hobby to pass the time by playing the contrarian. No one could possibly believe this nonsense.
Here we go again. Not a single reply to any of the points I have raised. It's no surprise though as you can never make a convincing argument about anything. Strawman, circular logic and misrepresentation combined with evasion and pathetic attempts of ridicule is you M.O.
I don't have to give you an explanation for why the FBI did or did not do something. I would only be able to speculate and I'd rather leave that to you, as that's about all you do.
The bottom line is that you, just like the WC before you, will use just about anything as evidence against Oswald, regardless if it can be authenticated or not. That's the laziest way to build a case against anybody. You haven't even come close to explaining why you feel - as you clearly do - that authentication of evidence isn't neccesary and why chains of custody are just a waste of time.
You can ramble on as much as you like, with questions based on speculation and assumptions, but you will never alter the fact that you place the bar so low that it is nearly below ground level.
And it is just a coincidence that Oswald orders a rifle from the same company that sells the rifle found in the TSBD.
If Oswald was set up, why would something like that even be a coincidence?
-
Here we go again. Not a single reply to any of the points I have raised. It's no surprise though as you can never make a convincing argument about anything. Strawman, circular logic and misrepresentation combined with evasion and pathetic attempts of ridicule is you M.O.
I don't have to give you an explanation for why the FBI did or did not do something. I would only be able to speculate and I'd rather leave that to you, as that's about all you do.
The bottom line is that you, just like the WC before you, will use just about anything as evidence against Oswald, regardless if it can be authenticated or not. That's the laziest way to build a case against anybody. You haven't even come close to explaining why you feel - as you clearly do - that authentication of evidence isn't neccesary and why chains of custody are just a waste of time.
You can ramble on as much as you like, with questions based on speculation and assumptions, but you will never alter the fact that you place the bar so low that it is nearly below ground level.
And it is just a coincidence that Oswald orders a rifle from the same company that sells the rifle found in the TSBD.
If Oswald was set up, why would something like that even be a coincidence?
You suggest that the FBI might have framed Oswald after the fact by writing the serial number onto Waldman 7. Then claim you don't have to give any explanation for this at all? Of course, an explanation is necessary to make an assessment of the validity of this theory. You apparently can't even speculate on why they did this, however. There is zero evidence anything like this happened. It is just possible. They were just out to get Oswald for some unknown reason. They didn't care who really ordered the rifle or assassinated the president. Or the risk entailed in faking evidence to frame an innocent person for the assassination within hours of the event while the investigation was still in the early stages. That is not a viable narrative because it defies all logic. What would the FBI do if someone from Klein's announced they actually found some document linking the TSBD rifle to another person and that they sent a different rifle to Oswald? What if another rifle from Klein's had been found among Oswald's possessions etc? Factors beyond the control of the FBI. We are left to our imagination.
In your scenario, the FBI is framing Oswald AFTER the fact. They are handwriting the serial number on a document after they obtain it from Klein's after Oswald has been arrested and the TSBD rifle is found. As a result, it has to be a coincidence that Oswald has ordered his rifle from the same company as whomever ordered the rifle left in the TSBD. His order is processed before the assassination. If you are suggesting that the FBI was involved in framing Oswald for the assassination both before and after the event, however, then that opens up a host of additional problems for your scenario. Why not just use the serial number of whatever rifle Klein's actually sent to Oswald's PO Box and leave that rifle in the TBSD instead of having to alter Waldman after the fact to make it look as though they had sent that rifle to him? It is not simply a matter of just obtaining the document from Klein's and writing the serial number on the form as you suggested to link Oswald to the rifle. That would invoke a number of risky complexities and implausible scenarios that would have to be accounted for. Your contrarian approach is simply to suggest something was possible, therefore there is doubt about the matter without any evidence or analysis of the event.
-
You suggest that the FBI might have framed Oswald after the fact by writing the serial number onto Waldman 7. Then claim you don't have to give any explanation for this at all? Of course, an explanation is necessary to make an assessment of the validity of this theory. You apparently can't even speculate on why they did this, however. There is zero evidence anything like this happened. It is just possible. They were just out to get Oswald for some unknown reason. They didn't care who really ordered the rifle or assassinated the president. Or the risk entailed in faking evidence to frame an innocent person for the assassination within hours of the event while the investigation was still in the early stages. That is not a viable narrative because it defies all logic. What would the FBI do if someone from Klein's announced they actually found some document linking the TSBD rifle to another person and that they sent a different rifle to Oswald? What if another rifle from Klein's had been found among Oswald's possessions etc? Factors beyond the control of the FBI. We are left to our imagination.
In your scenario, the FBI is framing Oswald AFTER the fact. They are handwriting the serial number on a document after they obtain it from Klein's after Oswald has been arrested and the TSBD rifle is found. As a result, it has to be a coincidence that Oswald has ordered his rifle from the same company as whomever ordered the rifle left in the TSBD. His order is processed before the assassination. If you are suggesting that the FBI was involved in framing Oswald for the assassination both before and after the event, however, then that opens up a host of additional problems for your scenario. Why not just use the serial number of whatever rifle Klein's actually sent to Oswald's PO Box and leave that rifle in the TBSD instead of having to alter Waldman after the fact to make it look as though they had sent that rifle to him? It is not simply a matter of just obtaining the document from Klein's and writing the serial number on the form as you suggested to link Oswald to the rifle. That would invoke a number of risky complexities and implausible scenarios that would have to be accounted for. Your contrarian approach is simply to suggest something was possible, therefore there is doubt about the matter without any evidence or analysis of the event.
I don't need you to tell me what I suggest or not nor do I need you to tell me what my scenario is, even when I have one.
As per usual you've got the whole thing backwards. I don't have to suggest anything, nor do I need any kind of theory for why the FBI did or did not do anything. None of that has anything to do with the basic fact that all evidence needs to be authenticated to be valid. Authentication eliminates the possibility of different interpretations of the evidence. We wouldn't be having this conversation if the evidence against Oswald was ever authenticated.
All your "what if" ramblings are insignificant. When a piece of evidence is to be used against a suspect/defendant it needs to be authenticated. Period. I am not interested in all your petty theories for why an unauthenticated piece of evidence should be considered authentic after all.
It's pretty obvious by now that you can not authenticate any document, which means that you just simply want those documents to be accepted at face value. Try to pull of a stunt like that in court.....
-
It just highlights the impossible standard of proof that you [Martin Weidmann] apply to evidence of Oswald's guilt. It's so silly that I can't really believe you are serious. Rather, this is just some hobby to pass the time by playing the contrarian. No one could possibly believe this nonsense.
Amen to that, Richard!!!
CTers have been in total denial concerning Oswald's rifle purchase for many years now, with that "denial" status reaching humongous proportions since the burgeoning of the Internet.
It's rather humorous to note that in the topsy-turvy world of Internet conspiracy fantasists, something that is (as Joseph Ball correctly pointed out to Mark Lane in December of 1964) "a conclusive fact" (that fact being: Lee Harvey Oswald ordered, paid for, and took possession of Mannlicher-Carcano Rifle No. C2766 in late March 1963) is considered by CTers to be something that has no evidence whatsoever to back up the claim.....but something else that relies on some of the flimsiest evidence in the whole case---such as the "Grassy Knoll Gunman" theory---is treated by conspiracy theorists as if it had the word of God Himself to back up its validity.
Topsy-turvy indeed.
Full Joe Ball quote regarding Oswald's rifle purchase:
"I've never heard such a major distortion of what is actually a conclusive fact." -- Joseph A. Ball; 12/4/64
(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-48WL55CDfUg/VcOke8kKgGI/AAAAAAABG3s/qPahA0oXQVs/s330/The-Oswald-Never-Ordered-The-Rifle-Myth-Logo.png) (http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2014/12/oswald-ordered-rifle.html) (https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-wYH02ewPBeo/V2FAODR2ZtI/AAAAAAABKCA/S9mbLywajqodMdI6jGKXMJlWfbxugUNOwCLcB/s330/The-Hidell-Money-Order-Logo.png) (http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/10/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-1058.html)
-
Oswald authenticated the entire assassination all by himself.
Easy as pie. Piece of cake. Slam dunk.
Booyah.
-
None of your click bait is verification of serial and control numbers supplied by Klein's/FBI.
You fail again since that's what you're best at.
Thumb1:
Just like I said ---
"CTers have been in total denial concerning Oswald's rifle purchase for many years now."
Thanks for confirming it, O.B. Thumb1:
-
At the link below, I have compiled a few questions for Buell Wesley Frazier. I would like it very much if Buell could some day answer these inquiries:
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2022/01/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-1349.html
From the link:
"#3. Don't you ever wonder, Buell, why Lee Oswald told you that big fat lie about the "curtain rods"? And he twice told that lie to you—once on Thursday morning (November 21st) and then again on the morning of November 22nd when you and he got into your car at your sister's house.
We know now that Lee's "curtain rods" story was definitely a lie. We know this because....
....No curtain rods were ever found inside the Book Depository after the assassination."
In the light of your calamitously unsuccessful attempts earlier in this thread to offer a convincing explanation of the document below, Mr Von Pein, you need to do the honorable thing and delete the above as an unsafe claim
(https://i.postimg.cc/FHmDDDp8/Curtain-Rods-Texas-History-guide.jpg) (https://postimg.cc/XpHfvKTk)
Thumb1:
-
A prosecutor [because that's what Ball was in this case] calling something a "conclusive fact" doesn't make it so. But there is no surprise that Ball would say that. He wrote the chapter on Oswald's guilt, so what else was he going to say? He also said that Oswald was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, yet he failed to convince the majority of the American people. So, Ball's opinion is just that; an opinion.
This is the same man who called Helen Markham an "utter screwball" yet at the same time considered her testimony to be reliable. That alone tells you all you need to know about Joseph Ball!
Btw LNs whining about a so-called "impossible standard of proof being applied to evidence of Oswald's guilt" is hilarious and sad at the same time. It's like a prosecutor complaining to the judge about the jury because his arguments (which he himself finds amazingly powerful) fail to convince the jurors. It is in fact an implicit recognition of the weakness of the prosecution's case.
The fact that those highly skilled lawyers of the WC were willing to blindly accept, without any kind of authentication, a couple of photocopies (which even Lyndal Shaneyfelt admitted, during the mock trial, can easilybe tampered with) taken from a microfilm that has since gone missing, as a so-called "conclusive fact" only exposes the desperation they had to wrap the case around Oswald as tight as they could. No competent prosecutor would have dared to present something as pathetic and weak as this in court.
-
[DVP asked...]
"#3. Don't you ever wonder, Buell, why Lee Oswald told you that big fat lie about the "curtain rods"? And he twice told that lie to you—once on Thursday morning (November 21st) and then again on the morning of November 22nd when you and he got into your car at your sister's house. We know now that Lee's "curtain rods" story was definitely a lie. We know this because....No curtain rods were ever found inside the Book Depository after the assassination."
In the light of your calamitously unsuccessful attempts earlier in this thread to offer a convincing explanation of the document below, Mr Von Pein, you need to do the honorable thing and delete the above as an unsafe claim
----img----
Thumb1:
Alan,
Please tell us what connection there is between the Ruth Paine curtain rods that you seem to be fixated on and the "curtain rods" that Lee Oswald lied about?
Even with a date discrepancy on the document you've posted many times now, tell us what the connection is.
Do you think Oswald DID take some rods into the TSBD and then the cops took them back to Ruth's garage?
Enlighten us all as you answer the proverbial question that can be asked of nearly all conspiracy theorists whenever they start talking about their murky theories----with that question being:
Where are you going with this?
-
There's no supporting evidence for the claim that Oswald lied about any curtain rods.
Classic CTer/Beck denial. As always.
-
Your claim remains unsupported.
It's supported by Buell Frazier.
Next?
-
How?
Why are you pretending you don't know?
Maybe this will help you....
-
Frazier, how?
Frazier has repeatedly said over the years, without deviation, that Oswald told him that the paper bag LHO took into the TSBD contained curtain rods. And we know that was a lie.
How do I know it was a lie?
Because if LHO really did carry curtain rods into the Depository Building on 11/22/63, Oswald would have told the police that fact after he was arrested, and Oswald would have certainly produced the curtain rods as well. But he said nothing of the kind. Instead, Oswald told Captain Fritz that he had never said a word to Frazier about any curtain rods and had only carried his lunch into the building on 11/22.
Reasonable inference = Oswald lied (twice). He lied to Buell Frazier when he told Frazier the bag contained curtain rods. And he lied to the police when he said that he (LHO) had never said anything about curtain rods to Frazier.
Otto Beck knows all this, of course. But he has to play his little CT games. I've played this same game with dozens of other CTers in the past.
Next up from Otto? Probably the old standard of: You've only got Frazier's word about the curtain rods. Why should I believe him?
-
I wonder if CTers think that Linnie Mae Randle was lying here too? ....
Mr. BALL. Do you remember anything about curtain rods?
Mrs. RANDLE. Yes.
Mr. BALL. What do you remember about that?
Mrs. RANDLE. He had told Wesley--
Mr. BALL. Tell me what Wesley told you.
Mrs. RANDLE. What Wesley told me. That Lee had rode home with him to get some curtain rods from Mrs. Paine to fix up his apartment.
Mr. BALL. When did Wesley tell you that?
Mrs. RANDLE. Well, that afternoon I suppose I would have had to ask him, he wouldn't have just told me.
Mr. BALL. You mean that night?
Mrs. RANDLE. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. After he came home?
Mrs. RANDLE. I was on my way to the store. So I probably asked him when I got back what he was doing riding home with him on Thursday afternoon.
Mr. BALL. You think that was the time that Wesley told you---
Mrs. RANDLE. Yes, sir; after I got back home.
Mr. BALL. ---that Lee had come home to get some curtain rods?
Mrs. RANDLE. Yes, I am sure he told me that.
-
As LNs claim that the documents for the rifle purchase provide conclusive proof that Oswald ordered, purchased and received the rifle from Kleins', let's examine that claim a little closer.
The only documents that tentatively link Oswald to the Kleins' rifle order are a photocopy of a filled out order form, in name of A. Hidell, a photocopy of an envelope and a photocopy of a money order that may or may not be linked to that particular order form. It should be noted that the only thing really linking any of these photocopies, taken from a microfilm which has since been lost, to Oswald is the opinion of FBI questioned documents experts, like Lyndal Shaneyfelt, who during Bugs' mock trial agreed with Gerry Spence that photocopies can easily be tampered with.
So, what exactly do LNs believe do these three documents conclusively prove?
-
For some silly reason, most CTers seem to think the original Klein's microfilm has been "lost". But it very likely was simply returned to Klein's Sporting Goods after the FBI copied the only documents it needed to copy--which were the various documents relating to the Hidell/Oswald rifle purchase. The authorities had no use at all for any of the other hundreds (or thousands) of documents on that microfilm roll. And Klein's would have almost certainly wanted it back.
-
Brutal fact: if Frazier lied Oswald didn't lie, game over.
Who had more of a reason to lie on 11/22/63, Otto? Buell Frazier or Lee Oswald?
If you say Frazier, I think you need to re-think a few things.
-
Yes, she was most likely lying her eyes out:
Mr. BALL. Did you talk to Wesley about the fact that he had brought Lee home on this night?
Mrs. RANDLE. No, sir.
Great. More liars who want to frame Oswald.
-
I've gave hundreds of lifts to workmates down the years, would I take note of the package they were carrying and shape etc, very likely not, however if he carried it cupped under his armpit as BWF stated he did then that's a pretty good observation that he's never waivered on, if so and as we know the rifle couldn't be disassembled to fit then you have an issue no ?
Exactly. Frazier had no reason to suspect Oswald was up to something sinister by placing a package on the back seat of the car, so there was no reason for him to scrutinize the package or paying close attention to how Oswald was carrying it. People are looking at this whole thing as after the fact about what Frazier should have done, but when in the moment, Frazier wasn't really paying much attention.
-
As LNs claim that the documents for the rifle purchase provide conclusive proof that Oswald ordered, purchased and received the rifle from Kleins', let's examine that claim a little closer.
The only documents that tentatively link Oswald to the Kleins' rifle order are a photocopy of a filled out order form, in name of A. Hidell, a photocopy of an envelope and a photocopy of a money order that may or may not be linked to that particular order form. It should be noted that the only thing really linking any of these photocopies, taken from a microfilm which has since been lost, to Oswald is the opinion of FBI questioned documents experts, like Lyndal Shaneyfelt, who during Bugs' mock trial agreed with Gerry Spence that photocopies can easily be tampered with.
So, what exactly do LNs believe do these three documents conclusively prove?
The "only" evidence is an order form in Oswald's handwriting, the envelope it came in, payment, the use of a known alias associated with Oswald, and confirmation from Klein's that they processed the order to send a rifle to his PO Box. LOL. And, of course, Oswald is pictured holding a rifle in the appropriate time frame, his wife confirms he had a rifle, a rifle is found at Oswald's place of employment with the SAME serial number as the rifle sent to him by Klein's and it has Oswald's prints on it, and no other rifle is ever found or accounted for to be connected to Oswald. But that is the "only" evidence that he have since the time machine has not been invented.
-
The "only" evidence is an order form in Oswald's handwriting, the envelope it came in, payment, the use of a known alias associated with Oswald, and confirmation from Klein's that they processed the order to send a rifle to his PO Box. LOL. And, of course, Oswald is pictured holding a rifle in the appropriate time frame, his wife confirms he had a rifle, a rifle is found at Oswald's place of employment with the SAME serial number as the rifle sent to him by Klein's and it has Oswald's prints on it, and no other rifle is ever found or accounted for to be connected to Oswald. But that is the "only" evidence that he have since the time machine has not been invented.
Not the answer to my question, but that's no surprise. So here is the question again;
The only documents that tentatively link Oswald to the Kleins' rifle order are a photocopy of a filled out order form, in name of A. Hidell, a photocopy of an envelope and a photocopy of a money order that may or may not be linked to that particular order form. It should be noted that the only thing really linking any of these photocopies, taken from a microfilm which has since been lost, to Oswald is the opinion of FBI questioned documents experts, like Lyndal Shaneyfelt, who during Bugs' mock trial agreed with Gerry Spence that photocopies can easily be tampered with.
We'll get to the other "evidence" you mention, later on. For now, what exactly do LNs believe do these three documents conclusively prove?
-
Not the answer to my question, but that's no surprise. So here is the question again;
The only documents that tentatively link Oswald to the Kleins' rifle order are a photocopy of a filled out order form, in name of A. Hidell, a photocopy of an envelope and a photocopy of a money order that may or may not be linked to that particular order form. It should be noted that the only thing really linking any of these photocopies, taken from a microfilm which has since been lost, to Oswald is the opinion of FBI questioned documents experts, like Lyndal Shaneyfelt, who during Bugs' mock trial agreed with Gerry Spence that photocopies can easily be tampered with.
We'll get to the other "evidence" you mention, later on. For now, what exactly do LNs believe do these three documents conclusively prove?
You have proven impervious to evidence, facts, and even common sense. Had these any influence on you there would be no doubt in your mind that the Oswald ordered, was sent, and possessed the rifle found in the TSBD. Absent a time machine, there could be no more proof than exists. We have already discussed why your baseless "possibility" that the photocopy was tampered with makes no sense and conflicts with other evidence and circumstances. Simply arguing over and over again that it is "possible" that any evidence of Oswald's guilt is the product of fakery is the old impossible standard of proof trick that is impermissible even in a criminal trial for obvious reasons. That approach is absurd.
-
You have proven impervious to evidence, facts, and even common sense. Had these any influence on you there would be no doubt in your mind that the Oswald ordered, was sent, and possessed the rifle found in the TSBD. Absent a time machine, there could be no more proof than exists. We have already discussed why your baseless "possibility" that the photocopy was tampered with makes no sense and conflicts with other evidence and circumstances. Simply arguing over and over again that it is "possible" that any evidence of Oswald's guilt is the product of fakery is the old impossible standard of proof trick that is impermissible even in a criminal trial for obvious reasons. That approach is absurd.
Yet another personal attack to obscure the fact that you can't (or don't want to) explain what those three documents conclusively prove.
It will probably be in vain, but let me try to explain the importance of those three documents; they are the only three documents relating to the rifle purchase that allegedly have Oswald's handwriting on them. That handwriting is the only potential link of Oswald with the rifle order.
Without those three documents, Waldman 7 would just be an internal Kleins' document showing that a particular rifle order was processed on behalf of A. Hidell and without that the BY photos would just be photos of a guy (in this case Oswald) holding a rifle.
Your circular logic crap is simply BS.
Simply arguing over and over again that it is "possible" that any evidence of Oswald's guilt is the product of fakery is the old impossible standard of proof trick that is impermissible even in a criminal trial for obvious reasons.
Really? I guess you must have missed the O.J. Simpson trial.
I must say that it is a complete mystery to me how impossible it is to get you to understand the difference between demanding authentication of pieces of evidence and claiming that those pieces of evidence are faked.
-
Alan,
Please tell us what connection there is between the Ruth Paine curtain rods that you seem to be fixated on and the "curtain rods" that Lee Oswald lied about?
Even with a date discrepancy on the document you've posted many times now, tell us what the connection is.
Do you think Oswald DID take some rods into the TSBD and then the cops took them back to Ruth's garage?
Enlighten us all as you answer the proverbial question that can be asked of nearly all conspiracy theorists whenever they start talking about their murky theories----with that question being:
Where are you going with this?
Well, Mr Von Pein, before I tell you that, let me tell you where I'm NOT going with it, which is to the hilariously absurd place YOU have gone with it.
Unlike you, I do NOT believe that the curtain rods were submitted by Agent Howlett to Lt. Day
-----------EITHER a good half a day BEFORE Agent Howlett extracted them from the Paine garage (=the Von Pein 23 March Option)
-----------OR nearly two hours AFTER they were released by Lt. Day back to Agent Howlett (=the Von Pein 24 March Option)
The reason I do NOT believe EITHER of these two Von Pein Options is possible is that, unlike you, I do not believe Agent Howlett owned a time machine.
Now! As for what I DO believe, it's that
-------------two curtain rods were found in the Depository at some point after the assassination
-------------two Ruth Paine Exhibits were contrived by the Warren Commission to neutralize the threat to the official story which the two curtain rods found in the Depository represented
Unlike your explanation, mine does NOT rely on the existence of a time machine in Dallas in March 1964!
Thumb1:
-
Well, Mr Von Pein, before I tell you that, let me tell you where I'm NOT going with it, which is to the hilariously absurd place YOU have gone with it.
Unlike you, I do NOT believe that the curtain rods were submitted by Agent Howlett to Lt. Day
-----------EITHER a good half a day BEFORE Agent Howlett extracted them from the Paine garage (=the Von Pein 23 March Option)
-----------OR nearly two hours AFTER they were released by Lt. Day back to Agent Howlett (=the Von Pein 24 March Option)
The reason I do NOT believe EITHER of these two Von Pein Options is possible is that, unlike you, I do not believe Agent Howlett owned a time machine.
Now! As for what I DO believe, it's that
-------------two curtain rods were found in the Depository at some point after the assassination
-------------two Ruth Paine Exhibits were contrived by the Warren Commission to neutralize the threat to the official story which the two curtain rods found in the Depository represented
Unlike your explanation, mine does NOT rely on the existence of a time machine in Dallas in March 1964!
Thumb1:
Suggested Extra Question To Mr Buell Wesley Frazier For Mr David Von Pein to Insert As An Honest Researcher Seeking Only The Truth:
#3b. UPDATE: Please ignore Questions 3 and 3a above, Buell, and address yourself instead to this question:
Are you aware of this document?
(https://i.postimg.cc/FHmDDDp8/Curtain-Rods-Texas-History-guide.jpg) (https://postimg.cc/XpHfvKTk)
When I first saw it myself, I assumed the submission date was simply an error and should have read 23 March.
But when I realized that this committed me to a totally kooky notion---------that two curtain rods were submitted by Agent Howlett to Lt. Day a good half a day BEFORE Agent Howlett extracted them from the Paine garage---------I opted for a different submission date: 24 March.
Now I realize that this would commit me to another totally kooky notion---------that two curtain rods were submitted by Agent Howlett to Lt. Day nearly two hours AFTER they were released by Lt. Day back to Agent Howlett----------I am completely stumped.
Can you help me with this so that together we can establish what the heck was going on here?
-
As for what I DO believe, it's that
-------------two curtain rods were found in the Depository at some point after the assassination
-------------two Ruth Paine Exhibits were contrived by the Warren Commission to neutralize the threat to the official story which the two curtain rods found in the Depository represented
Why didn't the authorities just simply ditch and destroy the TSBD rods?
Why go through that whole "Rods Found In Ruth's Garage" charade?
And then the WC somehow got Ruth Paine to just play along with this charade as well?
Your fantasy scenario concerning Ruth's curtain rods is utterly ridiculous....not to mention totally superfluous (even if people WERE trying to frame Oswald).
-
Why is it that LNs can always only ask questions but never answer one?
They constantly want definitive answers to the most silly questions to prove them wrong, but they will never try to prove themselves to be right by answering a question substantially.
It started with the WC in the sixties and hasn't changed since.
-
Why didn't the authorities just simply ditch and destroy the TSBD rods?
Why go through that whole "Rods Found In Ruth's Garage" charade?
And then the WC somehow got Ruth Paine to just play along with this charade as well?
If the authorities were attempting to frame Oswald, why would they "simply ditch" the incriminating evidence which is designed to implicate the individual they want to frame?
-
If the authorities were attempting to frame Oswald, why would they "simply ditch" the incriminating evidence which is designed to implicate the individual they want to frame?
You think President Kennedy was killed with a pair of curtain rods, do you?
-
You think President Kennedy was killed with a pair of curtain rods, do you?
:D :D :D
I said if, not that they did.
I answered your hypothetical question but you didn't answer my question to you.
If the authorities were attempting to frame Oswald, why would they "simply ditch" incriminating evidence designed to implicate him?
Have you ever seen a case where authorities "simply ditched" evidence when they wanted to implicate someone of a crime?
-
I think you're a bit lost, Rick.
The only thing I've been talking about in these last few posts are curtain rods, not a weapon of some kind.
So, how in any way could a pair of curtain rods be used to "implicate" Oswald in the President's murder?
-
Why didn't the authorities just simply ditch and destroy the TSBD rods?
Agent Howlett may well have done just that, at least eventually.
But first, the problem posed by whoever had found the rods in the Depository (two curtain rods, marked with the digits 2-7-5 and 2-7-6) needed to be addressed. This person, if they kicked up a fuss and went public with their description of the two curtain rods they had found, could destroy trust in the official claim that Mr Oswald had not brought curtain rods to work.
And so a scheme to----------------
a) generate paperwork that would satisfy this witness that the curtain rods had been thoroughly examined and shown not to have been handled by Mr Oswald
b) generate insurance against any potential future public claims by the pesky Depository employee by placing into the official record two curtain rods, marked (as Ruth Paine Exhibits) with the digits 2-7-5 and 2-7-6
---------------was hatched.
Why go through that whole "Rods Found In Ruth's Garage" charade?
And then the WC somehow got Ruth Paine to just play along with this charade as well?
Your fantasy scenario concerning Ruth's curtain rods is utterly ridiculous....not to mention totally superfluous (even if people WERE trying to frame Oswald).
~Grin~
Says the man with the following hilariously kooky explanation of the crime lab document:
Two curtain rods were submitted by Agent Howlett to Lt. Day EITHER a good half a day BEFORE Agent Howlett extracted them from the Paine garage (=the Von Pein 23 March Option); OR nearly two hours AFTER they were released by Lt. Day back to Agent Howlett (=the Von Pein 24 March Option)
Is the above time-bending fantasy still the best you can come up with, Mr Von Pein?
-
Why didn't the authorities just simply ditch and destroy the TSBD rods?
Why go through that whole "Rods Found In Ruth's Garage" charade?
And then the WC somehow got Ruth Paine to just play along with this charade as well?
Your fantasy scenario concerning Ruth's curtain rods is utterly ridiculous....not to mention totally superfluous (even if people WERE trying to frame Oswald).
Yes, imagine the narrative behind what Alan is suggesting. The authorities have framed Oswald by convincing the public that he carried his rifle to the TSBD in a package on the morning of the assassination. And that he lied to Frazier about this package containing curtain rods. Oswald is killed and most people are satisfied that he is the assassin. Mission accomplished. But wait. Months later, these same authorities, of their own volition, suddenly decide to bring to light the very curtain rods that they suppressed to frame Oswald! And they do this to check for Oswald's prints! And fill out a form to document this. HA HA HA. But now they need an excuse for this puzzling action that is contrary to their efforts to frame Oswald. So they convince Ruth Paine to go through a charade involved with taking them from her garage. But they can't get the dates right to pull this off. Makes a lot of sense - to Alan. CTers always grasped at any anomaly to suggest doubt without considering the implications of what they are suggesting.
-
Yes, imagine the narrative behind what Alan is suggesting. The authorities have framed Oswald by convincing the public that he carried his rifle to the TSBD in a package on the morning of the assassination. And that he lied to Frazier about this package containing curtain rods. Oswald is killed and most people are satisfied that he is the assassin. Mission accomplished. But wait. Months later, these same authorities, of their own volition, suddenly decide to bring to light the very curtain rods that they suppressed to frame Oswald! And they do this to check for Oswald's prints! And fill out a form to document this. HA HA HA. But now they need an excuse for this puzzling action that is contrary to their efforts to frame Oswald. So they convince Ruth Paine to go through a charade involved with taking them from her garage. But they can't get the dates right to pull this off. Makes a lot of sense - to Alan. CTers always grasped at any anomaly to suggest doubt without considering the implications of what they are suggesting.
If you begin with the dogmatic view (and it is dogmatic) that a conspiracy occurred and that Oswald was framed then you have to reverse engineer this evidence, these facts, these actions to fit into that conspiracy. So you have to have the CIA Sherlock Holmes joining up with the Dallas Police Department Keystone Cops. The conspirators are both brilliant and all powerful and resourceful and incompetent and illogical and neglectful. It has to be in order for your conspiracy to work, to make some sense.
You then have a type of conspiracy Rube Goldberg device or plan where a button is pushed and wheels turn and bells ring and balls roll down and fall and at the end of this long weird process JFK is dead and Oswald framed. But instead of bells and whistles and balls it's real human beings pulling this off. Now we know human beings don't operate like cogs or things; but the conspiracists think, indeed insist they do because this both all powerful and all incompetent "they" order them to do so. And these people, these cogs - unlike human beings in the real world - simply do what they are ordered to do. None objected to the plan, none refused to go along, none blew the whistle.
(https://i.pinimg.com/736x/b6/42/b0/b642b00bb4d4212b735711946711ee53.jpg)
-
Yes, imagine the narrative behind what Alan is suggesting. The authorities have framed Oswald by convincing the public that he carried his rifle to the TSBD in a package on the morning of the assassination. And that he lied to Frazier about this package containing curtain rods. Oswald is killed and most people are satisfied that he is the assassin. Mission accomplished. But wait. Months later, these same authorities, of their own volition, suddenly decide to bring to light the very curtain rods that they suppressed to frame Oswald! And they do this to check for Oswald's prints! And fill out a form to document this. HA HA HA. But now they need an excuse for this puzzling action that is contrary to their efforts to frame Oswald. So they convince Ruth Paine to go through a charade involved with taking them from her garage. But they can't get the dates right to pull this off. Makes a lot of sense - to Alan. CTers always grasped at any anomaly to suggest doubt without considering the implications of what they are suggesting.
Question! How do you when Warren Gullibles are sweating?
Answer! When they exchange insults with one another----about critics of the official story!
Now! The latest piece of strawman silliness above comes from a 'researcher' whose brilliant explanation for the document below was that (wait for it, folks..........)-------------they just so happened to get BOTH dates wrong....................
(https://i.postimg.cc/FHmDDDp8/Curtain-Rods-Texas-History-guide.jpg) (https://postimg.cc/XpHfvKTk)
:D
-
If you begin with the dogmatic view (and it is dogmatic) that a conspiracy occurred and that Oswald was framed then you have to reverse engineer this evidence, these facts, these actions to fit into that conspiracy. So you have to have the CIA Sherlock Holmes joining up with the Dallas Police Department Keystone Cops. The conspirators are both brilliant and all powerful and resourceful and incompetent and illogical and neglectful. It has to be in order for your conspiracy to work, to make some sense.
You then have a type of conspiracy Rube Goldberg device or plan where a button is pushed and wheels turn and bells ring and balls roll down and fall and at the end of this long weird process JFK is dead and Oswald framed. But instead of bells and whistles and balls it's real human beings pulling this off. Now we know human beings don't operate like cogs or things; but the conspiracists think, indeed insist they do because this both all powerful and all incompetent "they" order them to do so. And these people, these cogs - unlike human beings in the real world - simply do what they are ordered to do. None objected to the plan, none refused to go along, none blew the whistle.
(https://i.pinimg.com/736x/b6/42/b0/b642b00bb4d4212b735711946711ee53.jpg)
Superbly sophisticated stuff, Mr Galbraith! Thumb1:
Now----------let's get back on topic, shall we?
What is Mr Steve M. Galbraith's explanation for what's on the document below?
(https://i.postimg.cc/FHmDDDp8/Curtain-Rods-Texas-History-guide.jpg) (https://postimg.cc/XpHfvKTk)
Thumb1:
-
Question! How do you when Warren Gullibles are sweating?
Answer! When they exchange insults with one another----about critics of the official story!
Now! The latest piece of strawman silliness above comes from a 'researcher' whose brilliant explanation for the document below was that (wait for it, folks..........)-------------they just so happened to get BOTH dates wrong....................
Richard Smith is all over the place, once again. He seems, rather foolishly, to believe there could only have been a conspiracy if and when all the authorities were involved in framing Oswald. He then makes the mistake to believe that those same authorities were also the ones who "suddenly decide to bring to light the very curtain rods that they suppressed to frame Oswald!"
It's an idiotic opinion to begin another one of his strawman with. The irony is that he doesn't even understand the absurdity of his own opinion.
He also ignores the fact that the WC used a carbon copy of the document you are showing with a different date on it, rather than the original which, I assume, should never have seen the light of day again. Obviously the different date on the carbon copy was after the curtain rods were removed from Ruth Paine's garage. This by itself tells us conclusively that they were very much aware that they had a problem on their hands.
Question! How do you know [sic] when Warren Gullibles are sweating?
Answer! When they exchange insults with one another----about critics of the official story!
Amen to that!
-
Richard Smith is all over the place, once again. He seems, rather foolishly, to believe there could only have been a conspiracy if and when all the authorities were involved in framing Oswald. He then makes the mistake to believe that those same authorities were also the ones who "suddenly decide to bring to light the very curtain rods that they suppressed to frame Oswald!"
It's an idiotic opinion to begin a another one of his strawman with. The irony is that he doesn't even understand the absurdity of his own opinion.
He also ignores the fact that the WC used a carbon copy of the document you are showing with a different date on it, rather than the original which, I assume, should never have seen the light of day again. Obviously the different date on the carbon copy was after the curtain rods were removed from Ruth Paine's garage. This by itself tells us conclusively that they were very much aware that they had a problem on their hands.
Question! How do you know [sic] when Warren Gullibles are sweating?
Answer! When they exchange insults with one another----about critics of the official story!
Amen to that!
Excellent points, Mr Weidmann, thank you! Thumb1:
Mr Von Pein has gone awfully quiet. Let's give him a friendly little prompt, shall we?
ALAN FORD SAID:
Two curtain rods were submitted by Agent Howlett to Lt. Day EITHER a good half a day BEFORE Agent Howlett extracted them from the Paine garage (=the Von Pein 23 March Option); OR nearly two hours AFTER they were released by Lt. Day back to Agent Howlett (=the Von Pein 24 March Option)
Is the above time-bending fantasy still the best you can come up with, Mr Von Pein?
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
-
Richard Smith is all over the place, once again. He seems, rather foolishly, to believe there could only have been a conspiracy if and when all the authorities were involved in framing Oswald. He then makes the mistake to believe that those same authorities were also the ones who "suddenly decide to bring to light the very curtain rods that they suppressed to frame Oswald!"
It's an idiotic opinion to begin another one of his strawman with. The irony is that he doesn't even understand the absurdity of his own opinion.
He also ignores the fact that the WC used a carbon copy of the document you are showing with a different date on it, rather than the original which, I assume, should never have seen the light of day again. Obviously the different date on the carbon copy was after the curtain rods were removed from Ruth Paine's garage. This by itself tells us conclusively that they were very much aware that they had a problem on their hands.
Question! How do you know [sic] when Warren Gullibles are sweating?
Answer! When they exchange insults with one another----about critics of the official story!
Amen to that!
Stick to playing the contrarian. That does not require any thought. Is Day part of the fantasy conspiracy or not? Here you suggest he is not. But when he confirms that he finds Oswald's print on the rifle he is suspect. And on and on down the rabbit hole we go.
-
Stick to playing the contrarian. That does not require any thought. Is Day part of the fantasy conspiracy or not? Here you suggest he is not. But when he confirms that he finds Oswald's print on the rifle he is suspect. And on and on down the rabbit hole we go.
Stick to playing the contrarian. That does not require any thought.
You think, mr. Smarty pants?
Is Day part of the fantasy conspiracy or not? Here you suggest he is not.
Why would Day be part of the conspiracy? That he clearly was incompetent is another matter. When he produced a evidence card with allegedly Oswald's palm print on it, which he allegedly kept in his office without telling anybody for a week, in a case that involved the assassination of a President, he clearly demonstrated his incompetence.
But what Alan is showing you is a straight forward DPD document, on which Day signed for the receipt. He also signed for the release and confirmed his conclusion that the only print he found did not belong to Oswald. The real question that needs to be asked - and you won't be able to answer - is why the WC used a carbon copy of the receipt document with different release date on it.
So, mr Smarty pants, can you explain this?
-
Agent Howlett may well have done just that, at least eventually.
But first, the problem posed by whoever had found the rods in the Depository (two curtain rods, marked with the digits 2-7-5 and 2-7-6) needed to be addressed. This person, if they kicked up a fuss and went public with their description of the two curtain rods they had found, could destroy trust in the official claim that Mr Oswald had not brought curtain rods to work.
And so a scheme to----------------
a) generate paperwork that would satisfy this witness that the curtain rods had been thoroughly examined and shown not to have been handled by Mr Oswald
b) generate insurance against any potential future public claims by the pesky Depository employee by placing into the official record two curtain rods, marked (as Ruth Paine Exhibits) with the digits 2-7-5 and 2-7-6
---------------was hatched.
~Grin~
Says the man with the following hilariously kooky explanation of the crime lab document:
Two curtain rods were submitted by Agent Howlett to Lt. Day EITHER a good half a day BEFORE Agent Howlett extracted them from the Paine garage (=the Von Pein 23 March Option); OR nearly two hours AFTER they were released by Lt. Day back to Agent Howlett (=the Von Pein 24 March Option)
Is the above time-bending fantasy still the best you can come up with, Mr Von Pein?
The March 15 date at the top of the document is (quite obviously) merely a mistake.
The "mistake" theory is far more believable than your cloak-and-dagger alternative, that's for sure. Your scenario requires numerous liars, including civilian witness Ruth Hyde Paine. My "mistake" theory requires zero liars.
-
The March 15 date at the top of the document is (quite obviously) merely a mistake.
ALAN FORD SAID:
But a mistake for what date, Mr Von Pein? So far you have given us two different answers to this question, each of which has led you all the way into the realms of impossibility for the simple reason that the document contains not just dates but times also:
a) The Von Pein 23 March Option:
Two curtain rods were submitted by Agent Howlett to Lt. Day a good half a day BEFORE Agent Howlett extracted them from the Paine garage
b) The Von Pein 24 March Option:
Two curtain rods were submitted by Agent Howlett to Lt. Day nearly two hours AFTER they were released by Lt. Day back to Agent Howlett
Are these two time-bending fantasies still the best you can come up with, Mr Von Pein? If so, and if you cannot bring yourself to consider any scenario involving deception on the part of those charged with investigating the assassination, then you're going to need to pivot fast to the claim that the dates AND the times on the document are '(quite obviously) merely mistakes'....................
Do you wish to pivot to the claim that the dates AND the times on the document are '(quite obviously) merely mistakes', Mr Von Pein? Or do you perhaps wish instead to pivot to the honest admission that this document has left you and your Warren Gullible pals (quite obviously) totally stumped?
Thumb1:
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
-
Stick to playing the contrarian. That does not require any thought.
You think, mr. Smarty pants?
Is Day part of the fantasy conspiracy or not? Here you suggest he is not.
Why would Day be part of the conspiracy? That he clearly was incompetent is another matter. When he produced a evidence card with allegedly Oswald's palm print on it, which he allegedly kept in his office without telling anybody for a week, in a case that involved the assassination of a President, he clearly demonstrated his incompetence.
But what Alan is showing you is a straight forward DPD document, on which Day signed for the receipt. He also signed for the release and confirmed his conclusion that the only print he found did not belong to Oswald. The real question that needs to be asked - and you won't be able to answer - is why the WC used a carbon copy of the receipt document with different release date on it.
So, mr Smarty pants, can you explain this?
So you now accept that Day found Oswald's palmprint on the rifle since he was not part of the conspiracy? I have no idea what the background story is for this document. And neither do you or Alan. All we can do is speculate. And the explanation that the authorities brought Oswald's curtain rods to light of their own volition after suppressing those same curtain rods to frame him makes no sense for the reasons we have beaten to death. How do they get folks who were not involved with conspiracy/frame up to go along with a cover up of these curtain rods as the ones from Paine's garage? That doesn't add up. In addition, the document has the same WC numbers that were assigned to the curtain rods taken from the Paine's garage. That seems conclusive of which curtain rods are the subject of this document. Why would your non-conspirators put the WC numbers of the Paine curtain rods on any curtain rods that they believe came from Oswald/TSBD? Maybe Ruth Paine tells an WC investigator about the curtain rods. They send someone out before her interview to test them for prints and put them back in place for her WC testimony. When she says they have been there all along she means no one other than the investigators who are asking her about them have taken them from the garage. She knows they already know the rods were removed to be tested for prints. I can't prove it. Pure speculation but so is everything else absent some additional information. The default conclusion for any unexplained anomaly is not a vast conspiracy to assassinate JFK and frame Oswald as suggested by Alan. That is absurd.
If someone like Alan or yourself truly thought this document provided evidence that proves a conspiracy to frame Oswald for the assassination of JFK instead of being the product of a hopeful defense attorney fantasy, then you would pursue that with the NY Times or perhaps contact Ruth Paine herself. No such effort is ever taken, however. Alan just posts it here over and over again. What he expects to happen is unclear.
-
So you now accept that Day found Oswald's palmprint on the rifle since he was not part of the conspiracy? I have no idea what the background story is for this document. And neither do you or Alan. All we can do is speculate. And the explanation that the authorities brought Oswald's curtain rods to light of their own volition after suppressing those same curtain rods to frame him makes no sense for the reasons we have beaten to death. How do they get folks who were not involved with conspiracy/frame up to go along with a cover up of these curtain rods as the ones from Paine's garage? That doesn't add up. In addition, the document has the same WC numbers that were assigned to the curtain rods taken from the Paine's garage. That seems conclusive of which curtain rods are the subject of this document. Why would your non-conspirators put the WC numbers of the Paine curtain rods on any curtain rods that they believe came from Oswald/TSBD? Maybe Ruth Paine tells an WC investigator about the curtain rods. They send someone out before her interview to test them for prints and put them back in place for her WC testimony. When she says they have been there all along she means no one other than the investigators who are asking her about them have taken them from the garage. She knows they already know the rods were removed to be tested for prints. I can't prove it. Pure speculation but so is everything else absent some additional information. The default conclusion for any unexplained anomaly is not a vast conspiracy to assassinate JFK and frame Oswald as suggested by Alan. That is absurd.
If someone like Alan or yourself truly thought this document provided evidence that proves a conspiracy to frame Oswald for the assassination of JFK instead of being the product of a hopeful defense attorney fantasy, then you would pursue that with the NY Times or perhaps contact Ruth Paine herself. No such effort is ever taken, however. Alan just posts it here over and over again. What he expects to happen is unclear.
So you now accept that Day found Oswald's palmprint on the rifle since he was not part of the conspiracy?
Wow, that's one hell of a jump to a flawed conclusion. I'm beginning to understand what is must be like to be a LN.
Although I don't believe that Day was part of any kind of conspiracy, I do think that he was part of a highly questionable police department and may well have had a roll to play in wrapping the case around the already dead Oswald, by all means necessary.
I have no idea what the background story is for this document. And neither do you or Alan. All we can do is speculate.
Amazing, when it comes to photocopies of documents taken from a micro film you claim to know exactly what the background story is, and here you refuse to do the one thing you are good at; speculate!
Alan just posts it here over and over again. What he expects to happen is unclear.
I don't know what Alan expects, but I for one would love to have a plausible explanation for the fact that the WC used a carbon copy of that document with different information on it.
-
So you now accept that Day found Oswald's palmprint on the rifle since he was not part of the conspiracy?
Wow, that's one hell of a jump to a flawed conclusion. I'm beginning to understand what is must be like to be a LN.
Although I don't believe that Day was part of any kind of conspiracy, I do think that he was part of a highly questionable police department and may well have had a roll to play in wrapping the case around the already dead Oswald, by all means necessary.
LOL. So you entertain the possibility that Day lied about finding a crucial piece of evidence that links Oswald to the rifle. And you characterize this as "having a roll to play in wrapping the case around [Oswald]". Better known as framing him! But months later Day is suddenly assisting to bring to light the curtain rods that his "highly questionable police department" (what does that even mean?) suppressed to frame Oswald. Actions completely at odd with one another. And I'm the one with a flawed conclusion? HA HA HA. Keep them coming. You are twisting like a pretzel. The obvious difference between Alan's form and the Klein's documents is that we do have some insight into the Klein's documents from Waldman and others. And there are multiple documents relating to Oswald's purchase of the rifle.
-
I have no idea what the background story is for this document.
Actually, Mr Smith, what you have no idea of is how to explain away what's on this document---------------the pitiful best you've been able to come up with is 'Oh gee, they musta got both the dates wrong, but hey no biggie, muh NY Times' :D
-
As mentioned by Martin...
He also ignores the fact that the WC used a carbon copy of the document you are showing with a different date on it, rather than the original which, I assume, should never have seen the light of day again. Obviously the different date on the carbon copy was after the curtain rods were removed from Ruth Paine's garage. This by itself tells us conclusively that they were very much aware that they had a problem on their hands.
Worth noting is that on the copy Howlett's signature releasing the rods is missing.
Someone took the time to fake the date/time/signature of Day but forgot about Howlett.
Everything in read, probably done in one sitting by Day, from the original is perfectly copied along with Howlett's first signature.
Thumb1:
(https://i.postimg.cc/W1r7BVwp/Curtain-Rods-Mytton-Comp.gif) (https://postimages.org/)
-
Day noted: white enamel (4 pcs)
When picked up:
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.)
Thumb1:
And HOW exactly did those curtain rods end up being 'marked' with the digits 2-7-5 and 2-7-6?
(https://i.postimg.cc/4d5s4npJ/Paine-exhibit-numbering-270.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)
Pure shenanigans!
-
LOL. So you entertain the possibility that Day lied about finding a crucial piece of evidence that links Oswald to the rifle. And you characterize this as "having a roll to play in wrapping the case around [Oswald]". Better known as framing him! But months later Day is suddenly assisting to bring to light the curtain rods that his "highly questionable police department" (what does that even mean?) suppressed to frame Oswald. Actions completely at odd with one another. And I'm the one with a flawed conclusion? HA HA HA. Keep them coming. You are twisting like a pretzel. The obvious difference between Alan's form and the Klein's documents is that we do have some insight into the Klein's documents from Waldman and others. And there are multiple documents relating to Oswald's purchase of the rifle.
So you entertain the possibility that Day lied about finding a crucial piece of evidence that links Oswald to the rifle.
Given the reputation of the DPD in those days? Absolutely. If Fritz can put a pre-written "confession" before Buell Frazier and demand that he signs it, you're not dealing with a normal police department.
And you characterize this as "having a roll to play in wrapping the case around [Oswald]". Better known as framing him!
Once again you have it backwards. "Framing him" implies that Oswald was an innocent man, who was being set up, but he doesn't have to be to get a case wrapped around him after the fact. There have been cases where there was a lack of evidence against a guilty suspect, so that evidence was simply created. In this case, I have serious doubts about the fact that Oswald is supposed to have killed Kennedy (and possibly Tippit) but there is no doubt in my mind that it is simply impossible that he was just an innocent bystander. What I am also sure about is that Hoover declared him the sole gunman within 48 hours after the crime and he simply could not afford to be wrong.
But months later Day is suddenly assisting to bring to light the curtain rods that his "highly questionable police department" (what does that even mean?) suppressed to frame Oswald.
What are you babbling about? Where does it say that Day assisted in anything other than checking some curtain rods for Oswald's prints at the request of a Secret Service Agent. You seem to foolishly believe somehow that all the players in this massive case had instant 100% knowledge of everything that was going on, when in reality they had no idea about who was doing what and what for.
Actions completely at odd with one another. And I'm the one with a flawed conclusion?
Those actions are only completely at odd with one another, because you have a problem understanding even basic stuff. The DPD was pulled off the case when the FBI took over. I seriously doubt there was any significant and detailed information being exchanged between the FBI, the Secret Service and the DPD. For crying out loud, this whole palmprint mess began with Day not sharing information/evidence with the FBI (if he did indeed lift the print of the rifle on 11/22/63, as he later claimed).
The obvious difference between Alan's form and the Klein's documents is that we do have some insight into the Klein's documents from Waldman and others.
Who are those "others"? Was the owner himself called to testify? He wanted to, but they never called him. And what about Mitchell Westra, who told the HSCA that Klein's only mounted the scope on the 36 inch MC, (HSCA interview 2/20/78) and William Sharp, who confirmed what Westra testified to (HSCA interview 2/21/78)?
And there are multiple documents relating to Oswald's purchase of the rifle.
When you get vague, which happens a lot, it normally is because you have nothing of substance to offer. What "multiple documents" are there that link to Oswald? There are the photocopies of the order form, the envelope and the money order, which an FBI expert says had Oswald's handwriting on it, but during the mock trail he confirmed that photocopies could be easily manipulated. So, what else is there? The mere fact that you haven't already mentioned them is all the confirmation I need to know that you are blowing smoke.
-
Actually, Mr Smith, what you have no idea of is how to explain away what's on this document---------------the pitiful best you've been able to come up with is 'Oh gee, they musta got both the dates wrong, but hey no biggie, muh NY Times' :D
Try to focus. Ready? What do you expect to happen by posting this document over and over and over again on this forum? If you really believe it is evidence of a conspiracy to frame Oswald for the assassination, why not contact the NY Times or someone like that and provide them with the document? Why not even try to contact Ruth Paine to see if she has any recollection? If I thought that I had evidence that proved a conspiracy to kill the President, I wouldn't waste time on an Internet forum.
-
Try to focus. Ready? What do you expect to happen by posting this document over and over and over again on this forum? If you really believe it is evidence of a conspiracy to frame Oswald for the assassination, why not contact the NY Times or someone like that and provide them with the document? Why not even try to contact Ruth Paine to see if she has any recollection? If I thought that I had evidence that proved a conspiracy to kill the President, I wouldn't waste time on an Internet forum.
~Grin~
Poor Mr Smith's complete inability to come up with a convincing explanation for this document is once again noted
(https://i.postimg.cc/FHmDDDp8/Curtain-Rods-Texas-History-guide.jpg) (https://postimg.cc/XpHfvKTk)
Thumb1:
-
Bumped for Mr Galbraith! Thumb1:
Superbly sophisticated stuff, Mr Galbraith! Thumb1:
Now----------let's get back on topic, shall we?
What is Mr Steve M. Galbraith's explanation for what's on the document below?
(https://i.postimg.cc/FHmDDDp8/Curtain-Rods-Texas-History-guide.jpg) (https://postimg.cc/XpHfvKTk)
Thumb1:
-
ALAN FORD SAID:
Bumped for Mr Von Pein!
Thumb1:
Mr Von Pein has gone awfully quiet. Let's give him a friendly little prompt, shall we?
ALAN FORD SAID:
Two curtain rods were submitted by Agent Howlett to Lt. Day EITHER a good half a day BEFORE Agent Howlett extracted them from the Paine garage (=the Von Pein 23 March Option); OR nearly two hours AFTER they were released by Lt. Day back to Agent Howlett (=the Von Pein 24 March Option)
Is the above time-bending fantasy still the best you can come up with, Mr Von Pein?
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
-
Try to focus. Ready? What do you expect to happen by posting this document over and over and over again on this forum? If you really believe it is evidence of a conspiracy to frame Oswald for the assassination, why not contact the NY Times or someone like that and provide them with the document? Why not even try to contact Ruth Paine to see if she has any recollection? If I thought that I had evidence that proved a conspiracy to kill the President, I wouldn't waste time on an Internet forum.
If I thought that I had evidence that proved a conspiracy to kill the President, I wouldn't waste time on an Internet forum.
But you're happy to waste everybody's time by defending a fairytale? :D
-
There's no proof that the Carcano rifle was ever in Ruth Paine's garage
-
There's no proof that the Carcano rifle was ever in Ruth Paine's garage
The Klein's documents confirm Oswald was sent a rifle with a specific serial number. Oswald's wife confirms he received a rifle in this timeframe. He is pictured holding that rifle. It is the only rifle associated with Oswald during this timeframe. His prints are found on that rifle. Marina confirms he stored that rifle in the Paine's garage. That rifle is gone and can't be accounted for in any other manner except as the one found in the TSBD after the assassination. That rifle has the same serial numbers as the one sent to Oswald. Absent a time machine, it's difficult to understand how much more evidence there could be of the fact. What else could there be? But even if you want to come to that conclusion, there is absolutely no doubt that the rifle found in the TSBD belonged to Oswald - regardless of what defense attorney narrative you wish to entertain about where he kept the rifle.
-
The Klein's documents confirm Oswald was sent a rifle with a specific serial number. Oswald's wife confirms he received a rifle in this timeframe. He is pictured holding that rifle. It is the only rifle associated with Oswald during this timeframe. His prints are found on that rifle. Marina confirms he stored that rifle in the Paine's garage. That rifle is gone and can't be accounted for in any other manner except as the one found in the TSBD after the assassination. That rifle has the same serial numbers as the one sent to Oswald. Absent a time machine, it's difficult to understand how much more evidence there could be of the fact. What else could there be? But even if you want to come to that conclusion, there is absolutely no doubt that the rifle found in the TSBD belonged to Oswald - regardless of what defense attorney narrative you wish to entertain about where he kept the rifle.
The Klein's documents confirm Oswald was sent a rifle with a specific serial number.
No they don't
Oswald's wife confirms he received a rifle in this timeframe.
No she didn't
He is pictured holding that rifle.
Wrong. He's pictured holding a rifle. The serial number of the rifle can not be read.
His prints are found on that rifle.
There is no certainty this is actually true. The FBI found no prints on the rifle when they examined it only hours after the crime
Marina confirms he stored that rifle in the Paine's garage.
No she didn't
That rifle is gone and can't be accounted for in any other manner except as the one found in the TSBD after the assassination.
There is no proof that the MC rifle found at the TSBD (or any other rifle for that matter) was ever stored in Ruth Paine's garage.
That rifle has the same serial numbers as the one sent to Oswald.
There is no evidence that a rifle was actually sent to Oswald. All you can say is that the rifle found at the TSBD has the same serial number as the handwritten number on Waldman 7, which is proof of absolutely nothing as the document can not be authenticated.
But even if you want to come to that conclusion, there is absolutely no doubt that the rifle found in the TSBD belonged to Oswald - regardless of what defense attorney narrative you wish to entertain about where he kept the rifle.
Oh there is doubt alright. Just not in your mind, but that's just your opinion and the bad news for you is that your opinion is frequently wrong and nothing more than a premature conclusion based on speculation.
-
The question of whether any curtain rods were missing from the Paine garage would have been one of the most pressing, yet we find not a mention of this issue in any of the reports. One thing is for sure: if it had been established in the search(es) of the garage that no curtain rods were missing, that fact would have been given headline prominence in the reports. The fact that this dog doesn't bark is telling------------and all the more telling given the submission of two curtain rods for testing for Mr Oswald's prints, eight days BEFORE two curtain rods would finally be removed on the record from the Paine garage in March '64
-
Here's what Ms Ruth Paine told Secret Service on 26 November about blanket, package, rifle:
(https://i.postimg.cc/L8Krv5XT/RUTH-PAINE-BLANKET-NOV-26-TO-SS.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)
-
The Klein's documents confirm Oswald was sent a rifle with a specific serial number.
No they don't
Oswald's wife confirms he received a rifle in this timeframe.
No she didn't
He is pictured holding that rifle.
Wrong. He's pictured holding a rifle. The serial number of the rifle can not be read.
His prints are found on that rifle.
There is no certainty this is actually true. The FBI found no prints on the rifle when they examined it only hours after the crime
Marina confirms he stored that rifle in the Paine's garage.
No she didn't
That rifle is gone and can't be accounted for in any other manner except as the one found in the TSBD after the assassination.
There is no proof that the MC rifle found at the TSBD (or any other rifle for that matter) was ever stored in Ruth Paine's garage.
That rifle has the same serial numbers as the one sent to Oswald.
There is no evidence that a rifle was actually sent to Oswald. All you can say is that the rifle found at the TSBD has the same serial number as the handwritten number on Waldman 7, which is proof of absolutely nothing as the document can not be authenticated.
But even if you want to come to that conclusion, there is absolutely no doubt that the rifle found in the TSBD belonged to Oswald - regardless of what defense attorney narrative you wish to entertain about where he kept the rifle.
Oh there is doubt alright. Just not in your mind, but that's just your opinion and the bad news for you is that your opinion is frequently wrong and nothing more than a premature conclusion based on speculation.
Of all Martin's bizarre contrarian interpretations of the evidence, the most tortured is his desperate struggle against reality that Marina confirmed that Oswald stored a rifle in the Paine's garage. She unambiguously confirms this fact in her testimony. She responds to multiple questions about the "rifle" and confirms that she saw it in the blanket in the Paine's garage. In response to a question about the rifle, she in one instance notes that it was made of "wood." Which, of course, it was. As a result, however, Martin dishonestly suggests there is doubt about what she saw. Something made of wood. It's laughable. Of course, if there were any doubt about Marina's testimony confirming that Oswald kept his rifle in the Paine's garage (and there isn't), it goes out the window when she directs the DPD to the garage when they ask if Oswald owned a rifle expecting them to find it in the blanket. Why would she do that unless she believed Oswald kept a rifle in the blanket? Why would she come to that conclusion unless she had seen it there as her testimony confirmed? She is surprised when they don't find the rifle in the blanket. She hasn't changed her story about the rifle being in the Paine's garage in six decades but Martin dishonestly claims there is doubt as to her testimony on that matter. Unreal.
-
Of all Martin's bizarre contrarian interpretations of the evidence, the most tortured is his desperate struggle against reality that Marina confirmed that Oswald stored a rifle in the Paine's garage. She unambiguously confirms this fact in her testimony. She responds to multiple questions about the "rifle" and confirms that she saw it in the blanket in the Paine's garage. In response to a question about the rifle, she in one instance notes that it was made of "wood." Which, of course, it was. As a result, however, Martin dishonestly suggests there is doubt about what she saw. Something made of wood. It's laughable. Of course, if there were any doubt about Marina's testimony confirming that Oswald kept his rifle in the Paine's garage (and there isn't), it goes out the window when she directs the DPD to the garage when they ask if Oswald owned a rifle expecting them to find it in the blanket. Why would she do that unless she believed Oswald kept a rifle in the blanket? Why would she come to that conclusion unless she had seen it there as her testimony confirmed? She is surprised when they don't find the rifle in the blanket. She hasn't changed her story about the rifle being in the Paine's garage in six decades but Martin dishonestly claims there is doubt as to her testimony on that matter. Unreal.
his desperate struggle against reality that Marina confirmed that Oswald stored a rifle in the Paine's garage.
Yes, she did, eventually, say that Oswald stored a rifle in Ruth Paine's garage, but that's not what you claimed earlier.
She responds to multiple questions about the "rifle" and confirms that she saw it in the blanket in the Paine's garage.
No she didn't. Stop playing games! Marina said she saw what she believed to be the wooden stock of a rifle. By the time she testified before the WC she had been through an horrific ordeal of numerous interrogations which made her believe that she had seen a rifle. However, on Friday evening, only hours after the assassination, Marina was shown the MC rifle found at the TSBD and she could not identify it.
As a result, however, Martin dishonestly suggests there is doubt about what she saw.
I never suggested anything of the kind. Keep your delusions to yourself
I just have one question, which you probably will not answer, but here it is anyway;
show me where Marina actually identified the MC rifle found at the TSBD as the one she saw in Ruth Paine's garage?
-
Senator COOPER - Let me ask a question there. After the assassination, at anytime did you go into the garage and look to see if both of these packages (=curtain rods package + venetian blinds package, A.F.) were there?
Mrs. PAINE - A week and a half, or a week later.
Senator COOPER - At any time?
Mrs. PAINE - Did I, personally?
Senator COOPER - Have you seen these packages since the assassination?
Mrs. PAINE - It seems to me I recall seeing a package.
Senator COOPER - What?
Mrs. PAINE - I don't recall opening it up and looking in carefully. I seem to recall seeing the package
Senator COOPER - Both of them?
Mrs. PAINE - Yes.
Senator COOPER - Or just one?
Mrs. PAINE - Both.
Senator COOPER - Did you feel them to see if the rods were in there?
Mrs. PAINE - No. I think Michael did, but I am not certain.
Senator COOPER - But you never did, yourself?
Mrs. PAINE - It was not my most pressing--
Senator COOPER - What?
Mrs. PAINE - It was not the most pressing thing I had to do at that time.
Senator COOPER - I know that. But you must have read after the assassination the story about Lee Oswald saying, he told Mr. Frazier, I think, that he was carrying some curtain rods in the car?
Mrs. PAINE - Yes.
Senator COOPER - Do you remember reading that?
Mrs. PAINE - Yes; I remember reading that.
Senator COOPER - Didn't that lead you-Did it lead you then to go in and see if the curtain rods were there?
Mrs. PAINE - It was all I could do at that point to answer my door, answer my telephone, and take care of my children.
Senator COOPER - I understand you had many things to do.
Mrs. PAINE - So I did not.
Senator COOPER - You never did do it?
Mrs. PAINE - I am not certain whether I specifically went in and checked on that. I recall a conversation with Michael about it and, to the best of my recollection, things looked as I expected to find them looking out there. This package with brown paper was still there.
:D
Ms Paine is only willing to indicate that the PACKAGE was still there, not that the RODS were still there. This enables her to play dumb on 23 March when she gives on-the-record testimony at her home:
Mr. JENNER - Now, Mrs. Paine, one of the things we said we might see is a package that was in your garage containing curtain rods.
Mrs. PAINE - Yes--as you recall.
Mr. JENNER - You said you would leave that package in precisely the place wherever it was last week when you were in Washington, D.C., and have you touched it since you came home?
Mrs. PAINE - I have not touched it.
I.e.: Whatever you 'find' in that package now neither confirms nor denies anything I could know about what was in that package after Lee left my home the morning of the assassination. I am happy to talk about the presence in my garage of the package, but when it comes to its exact contents I know nothing.
Meanwhile, we have Mr Michael Paine saying this:
Mr. LIEBELER - Mr. Paine, you mentioned before these curtain rods that were in your garage. Can you tell us approximately how many curtain rods there were in the garage when you last saw them and tell us when you last saw them?
Mr. PAINE - I saw them quite recently, 2 weeks ago.
Mr. LIEBELER - How many curtain rods were there then?
Mr. PAINE - There might be as many as four.
Mr. LIEBELER - Were there ever any more than that?
Mr. PAINE - I don't believe so.
There might be as many as four curtain rods? Mr Paine shares his wife's allergy to non-declarative statements! Like her, he hedges carefully. There might be as many as four. Then again, there might be as few as two.
But! He may have let slip an important thought here: at some point there might have been as many as four curtain rods in the package in the garage.
Were there 4 curtain rods in that package before Mr Oswald's overnight at Irving (21-22 Nov), but only 2 after Mr Oswald left for work the morning of the assassination?
2 rods discovered in the Depository and tested for Mr Oswald's prints 15 March?
2 rods left in the Paine garage and removed from there on the record 23 March?
If so, then Agent Howlett and Lt. Day did a switcheroo: the two missing rods (which were found at the Depository, accurately length-marked with the digits 2-7-5 and 2-7-6) were magically turned into the two rods left behind in the garage (which needed to receive makey-uppey marking with the digits 2-7-5 and 2-7-6).
And how did they arrive at those makey-uppey markings? Why, by starting to count the Ruth Paine Exhibits at the makey-uppey number 270:
(https://i.postimg.cc/4d5s4npJ/Paine-exhibit-numbering-270.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)
-
Here's what Ms Ruth Paine told Secret Service on 26 November about blanket, package, rifle:
(https://i.postimg.cc/L8Krv5XT/RUTH-PAINE-BLANKET-NOV-26-TO-SS.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)
(https://i.postimg.cc/bJSzCPZp/Paine-blanket-2.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)
-
The Klein's documents confirm Oswald was sent a rifle with a specific serial number.
No they don't
Oswald's wife confirms he received a rifle in this timeframe.
No she didn't
He is pictured holding that rifle.
Wrong. He's pictured holding a rifle. The serial number of the rifle can not be read.
His prints are found on that rifle.
There is no certainty this is actually true. The FBI found no prints on the rifle when they examined it only hours after the crime
Marina confirms he stored that rifle in the Paine's garage.
No she didn't
That rifle is gone and can't be accounted for in any other manner except as the one found in the TSBD after the assassination.
There is no proof that the MC rifle found at the TSBD (or any other rifle for that matter) was ever stored in Ruth Paine's garage.
That rifle has the same serial numbers as the one sent to Oswald.
There is no evidence that a rifle was actually sent to Oswald. All you can say is that the rifle found at the TSBD has the same serial number as the handwritten number on Waldman 7, which is proof of absolutely nothing as the document can not be authenticated.
But even if you want to come to that conclusion, there is absolutely no doubt that the rifle found in the TSBD belonged to Oswald - regardless of what defense attorney narrative you wish to entertain about where he kept the rifle.
Oh there is doubt alright. Just not in your mind, but that's just your opinion and the bad news for you is that your opinion is frequently wrong and nothing more than a premature conclusion based on speculation.
Great post.
I'll add that no one knows where LHO acquired the bullets for the Carcano. The FBI did look into that issue but never identified where he might've gotten his bullets.
Also, are we to believe Oswald owned no more than three bullets by 11/22/63? Did anyone find the rest of the Carcano bullets he allegedly owned?
-
Great post.
I'll add that no one knows where LHO acquired the bullets for the Carcano. The FBI did look into that issue but never identified where he might've gotten his bullets.
Also, are we to believe Oswald owned no more than three bullets by 11/22/63? Did anyone find the rest of the Carcano bullets he allegedly owned?
This is rich. If someone in Texas had recalled selling some loose rounds or a box of cheap surplus ammunition to the lackluster Oswald, the loons would be asking how is it possible to remember back to such a nondescript mundane transaction? The sales clerk must be in on the conspiracy to frame 'Lil' Lee.
-
This is rich. If someone in Texas had recalled selling some loose rounds or a box of cheap surplus ammunition to the lackluster Oswald, the loons would be asking how is it possible to remember back to such a nondescript mundane transaction? The sales clerk must be in on the conspiracy to frame 'Lil' Lee.
argumentum ad absurdum
Classic LN, used every time they have nothing significant to say.
-
Great post.
I'll add that no one knows where LHO acquired the bullets for the Carcano. The FBI did look into that issue but never identified where he might've gotten his bullets.
Also, are we to believe Oswald owned no more than three bullets by 11/22/63? Did anyone find the rest of the Carcano bullets he allegedly owned?
You think the Klein's documents are manipulated to falsely indicate that Oswald was sent a rifle with a specific serial number, that the BY photos do not depict Oswald holding the rifle left at the TSBD (with that same serial number) as experts have confirmed, that the DPD lied about finding Oswald's palmprint on that rifle, that Marina's WC testimony does not indicate that Oswald kept his rifle in the Paine's garage (despite her saying so in her testimony and directing the DPD to the garage when they ask about Oswald owning a rifle), that there is no accounting for Oswald's rifle except as the one found in the TSBD (he clearly possessed a rifle as shown by the BY photos and confirmed by his wife). Oswald lies about his ownership of ANY rifle. No other rifle is ever associated with him or accounted for in any manner to explain the Klein's documents, photos, and Marina's testimony. It just vanishes into the ether if it is not the one found in the TSBD. Unreal.
-
You think the Klein's documents are manipulated to falsely indicate that Oswald was sent a rifle with a specific serial number, that the BY photos do not depict Oswald holding the rifle left at the TSBD (with that same serial number) as experts have confirmed, that the DPD lied about finding Oswald's palmprint on that rifle, that Marina's WC testimony does not indicate that Oswald kept his rifle in the Paine's garage (despite her saying so in her testimony and directing the DPD to the garage when they ask about Oswald owning a rifle), that there is no accounting for Oswald's rifle except as the one found in the TSBD (he clearly possessed a rifle as shown by the BY photos and confirmed by his wife). Oswald lies about his ownership of ANY rifle. No other rifle is ever associated with him or accounted for in any manner to explain the Klein's documents, photos, and Marina's testimony. It just vanishes into the ether if it is not the one found in the TSBD. Unreal.
Richard "Strawman" Smith strikes again by telling somebody else what [he believes] they think. Hilarious!
You think the Klein's documents are manipulated to falsely indicate that Oswald was sent a rifle with a specific serial number,
The Kleins'documents do not indicate anything of the kind.
that the BY photos do not depict Oswald holding the rifle left at the TSBD (with that same serial number) as experts have confirmed,
No expert has ever confirmed that the rifle Oswald is holding in the BY photos has the same serial number as the rifle found at the TSBD
that the DPD lied about finding Oswald's palmprint on that rifle,
Not the DPD, but Lt Day may well have. The FBI checked the rifle for prints within hours after the assassination and found no prints or even a trace of a print on it.
that Marina's WC testimony does not indicate that Oswald kept his rifle in the Paine's garage
The same Marina couldn't identify the MC rifle they found at the TSBD, as being "his rifle", when it was shown to her on Friday evening 11/22/63
that there is no accounting for Oswald's rifle except as the one found in the TSBD
Utter BS... Even if Marina did see a rifle wrapped in a blanket in Ruth Paine's garage, that happened in late September 1963. Nobody saw the rifle after that and it could have been removed weeks before the assassination without anyone knowing it. There is not a shred of evidence that the rifle found at the TSBD was ever in Ruth Paine's garage.
(he clearly possessed a rifle as shown by the BY photos and confirmed by his wife)
There is no evidence whatsoever that Oswald possessed a rifle in November 1963. The BY photos were taken in March 1963 and they do not show anything more than that he was holding a rifle when the photos were taken.
Oswald lies about his ownership of ANY rifle.
Your assumption that he lied isn't evidence of anything. He may well have told the truth.
No other rifle is ever associated with him or accounted for in any manner to explain the Klein's documents, photos, and Marina's testimony. It just vanishes into the ether if it is not the one found in the TSBD.
Is there a law that says that if you buy a rifle in March 1963, you can not dispose of it and have to keep it until at least 11/22/63?
It seems that the only way Richard Smith can even present a superficial case is by doing away with just about all the standard rules of evidence, misrepresenting the evidence and jumping to questionable conclusions that are not supported by the evidence.
-
Richard "Strawman" Smith strikes again by telling somebody else what [he believes] they think.
Thumb1: