JFK Assassination Forum
JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => Topic started by: Walt Cakebread on January 07, 2018, 02:07:13 PM
-
Since the tale of the paper bag rests on Buell Frazier's statement that Lee Oswald carried a paper bag on the back seat of the car when he drove them to work on the morning of the murder of President Kennedy. And since the Warren Commission ignored both Frazier and his sister when they testified that the bag they saw Lee Oswald carry was not long enough to have contained the Mannlicher Carcano rifle that was found where it had been carefully hidden beneath boxes of books. The key question becomes ...Was Buell Frazier telling the truth? Can we rely on Frazier's veracity?
-
Since the tale of the paper bag rests on Buell Frazier's statement that Lee Oswald carried a paper bag on the back seat of the car when he drove them to work on the morning of the murder of President Kennedy. And since the Warren Commission ignored both Frazier and his sister when they testified that the bag they saw Lee Oswald carry was not long enough to have contained the Mannlicher Carcano rifle that was found where it had been carefully hidden beneath boxes of books. The key question becomes ...Was Buell Frazier telling the truth? Can we rely on Frazier's veracity?
Actually, the record shows that Frazier was shown the paper bag from the TSBD while he was being polygraphed in the evening hours of 11/22/63. Frazier not only failed to identify the bag but also added that the bag Oswald had carried was "definitely a thin, flimsy sack like the one purchased in a dime store".
A memo from James Anderton to SAC Dallas, dated 11/29/63, reveals the desperation of Lt. Day after Frazier failed to identify the heavy bag found at the TSBD. Anderton writes;
"Lt. Day states that he and other officers have surmised that Oswald, by dismantling the rifle, could have placed it in the thick brown sack folder over, and then placed the entire package in the flimsy paper sack"
The obvious question is why Day was so desperate to explain the discrepancy between the heavy bag allegedly found on the 6th floor of the TSBD and the flimsy bag Frazier had seen that he would come up with this theory. Even more so, if he really had found Oswald's prints on the heavy bag and the MC rifle......
-
Someday, you will figure out that one. Maybe by 2039? Truth will set you free.
-
Since the tale of the paper bag rests on Buell Frazier's statement that Lee Oswald carried a paper bag on the back seat of the car when he drove them to work on the morning of the murder of President Kennedy. And since the Warren Commission ignored both Frazier and his sister when they testified that the bag they saw Lee Oswald carry was not long enough to have contained the Mannlicher Carcano rifle that was found where it had been carefully hidden beneath boxes of books. The key question becomes ...Was Buell Frazier telling the truth? Can we rely on Frazier's veracity?
If Buell Frazier was going to lie about the bag's existence, wouldn't he at least state that the bag was long enough to contain the rifle? Why introduce a bag into the folklore but state that it was not long enough?
Silly conspirators.
-
The bag that Buell Wesley Frazier and Linnie May Randle saw the bag Oswald had is a classic example of, when life hands you a lemon, make lemonade.
Buell and Linnie saw Oswald carrying a long bag to work on the morning of November 22. That is bad. This only makes Oswald look guilty. Why is he carrying a long package into work on that day, of all days?
But, the solution is the focus on some minutiae. Both witnesses remember the bag being a bit too short. If taken as the absolute truth, it means Oswald did not bring his rifle in to work that day.
But can we take this as the absolute truth? Couldn?t the witnesses have been off on the exact length of the bag. Particularly since neither had any reason at the time to carefully note the exact length of the bag?
Also, CTers ignore that both witnesses had reasons for underestimating the length of the bag. Buell was accused of being an accessory to a murder. Because he had driver the accused assassin and his rifle to the plaza. Neither Buell nor Linnie, his sister, wanted this to happen. So naturally, they both have an incentive to underestimate the length of the bag. If the bag is too short to hold the rifle, then Buell cannot be charged.
So, this argument by CTers ignores three points.
1. The witnesses could be off a bit on the exact length of the bag.
2. Both witnesses have an incentive to underestimate the length of the bag.
3. CTers see no need to explain what Oswald was carrying in his long bag, if not his rifle.
-
Actually, the record shows that Frazier was shown the paper bag from the TSBD while he was being polygraphed in the evening hours of 11/22/63. Frazier not only failed to identify the bag but also added that the bag Oswald had carried was "definitely a thin, flimsy sack like the one purchased in a dime store".
A memo from James Anderton to SAC Dallas, dated 11/29/63, reveals the desperation of Lt. Day after Frazier failed to identify the heavy bag found at the TSBD. Anderton writes;
"Lt. Day states that he and other officers have surmised that Oswald, by dismantling the rifle, could have placed it in the thick brown sack folder over, and then placed the entire package in the flimsy paper sack"
The obvious question is why Day was so desperate to explain the discrepancy between the heavy bag allegedly found on the 6th floor of the TSBD and the flimsy bag Frazier had seen that he would come up with this theory. Even more so, if he really had found Oswald's prints on the heavy bag and the MC rifle......
Since the tale of the paper bag rests on Buell Frazier's statement that Lee Oswald carried a paper bag on the back seat of the car when he drove them to work on the morning of the murder of President Kennedy. And since the Warren Commission ignored both Frazier and his sister when they testified that the bag they saw Lee Oswald carry was not long enough to have contained the Mannlicher Carcano rifle that was found where it had been carefully hidden beneath boxes of books. The key question becomes ...Was Buell Frazier telling the truth? Can we rely on Frazier's veracity?
[/quote]
In the book The Day Kennedy Was Shot ( page 432) the author Bishop says that DPD detective Gus Rose had been informed by Linnie Mae Randall that Lee Oswald was carrying a paper sack that contained curtain rods ...
Quote.."A woman neighbor of the Oswalds has said that her brother had driven Oswald to work with curtain rods." unquote This is completely at odds with the official tale in which Buell Frazier is credited with presenting the curtain rod tale at the police station on the night of the murder.
The question is: Who first mentioned the curtain rods ?? IMO It was the Dallas police who told Frazier that Lee claimed that the paper sack contained curtain rods, when in reality Lee Oswald had said nothing of the kind ( just as he denied)
The cops were desperate to present a method by which Lee could have smuggled the Carcano into the TSBD. They needed Frazier to confirm that Lee Oswald had carried a long paper sack that morning. Thus they told Frazier that Lee has admitted that he had carried a long paper sack that contained curtain rods. The police had already tried to implicate Frazier by saying they could charge him as an accessory because he had transported the murder weapon in his car that morning......So when they told Frazier that Lee Oswald had said that the sack contained curtain rods Frazier jumped at the opportunity to clear himself of the charge of being an accessory and said that yes It was true that lee had told him that there were curtain rods in the sack. The wily cops cemented the curtain rod story for all time when they said that Frazier was telling the truth about the curtain rod story because he had passed a lie detector test in which he was questioned about the curtain rods..... In reality any results of a "lie detector" test would have been completely worthless
under the conditions in which it was administered.
-
The bag that Buell Wesley Frazier and Linnie May Randle saw the bag Oswald had is a classic example of, when life hands you a lemon, make lemonade.
Buell and Linnie saw Oswald carrying a long bag to work on the morning of November 22. That is bad. This only makes Oswald look guilty. Why is he carrying a long package into work on that day, of all days?
But, the solution is the focus on some minutiae. Both witnesses remember the bag being a bit too short. If taken as the absolute truth, it means Oswald did not bring his rifle in to work that day.
But can we take this as the absolute truth? Couldn?t the witnesses have been off on the exact length of the bag. Particularly since neither had any reason at the time to carefully note the exact length of the bag?
Also, CTers ignore that both witnesses had reasons for underestimating the length of the bag. Buell was accused of being an accessory to a murder. Because he had driver the accused assassin and his rifle to the plaza. Neither Buell nor Linnie, his sister, wanted this to happen. So naturally, they both have an incentive to underestimate the length of the bag. If the bag is too short to hold the rifle, then Buell cannot be charged.
So, this argument by CTers ignores three points.
1. The witnesses could be off a bit on the exact length of the bag.
2. Both witnesses have an incentive to underestimate the length of the bag.
3. CTers see no need to explain what Oswald was carrying in his long bag, if not his rifle.
You are (perhaps on purpose) ignoring two crucial pieces of information;
1. Frazier was shown the TSBD bag on Friday evening (at around 11.30 pm). This was the first time Frazier was asked about the bag and he would IMO have no way of knowing anything about it's later significance. This was also before the bag was ruined with silver nitrate (by Latona) and thus still had it's original color. So, while he was being polygraphed, Frazier instantly dismissed the bag shown to him as the one he saw Oswald carry.
Are you claiming that Frazier, while being polygraphed, purposely lied about the size of a bag which more than likely was insignificant to him at that time?
2. Frazier told the DPD officers that same night that the bag he had seen Oswald carry was "definitely a thin, flimsy sack like the one purchased in a dime store".
You can believe and argue all you want that Frazier and Randle underestimated the size of the bag, but how do you explain the points I have raised?
Simply by ignoring them, perhaps?
-
The bag that Buell Wesley Frazier and Linnie May Randle saw the bag Oswald had is a classic example of, when life hands you a lemon, make lemonade.
Buell and Linnie saw Oswald carrying a long bag to work on the morning of November 22. That is bad. This only makes Oswald look guilty. Why is he carrying a long package into work on that day, of all days?
But, the solution is the focus on some minutiae. Both witnesses remember the bag being a bit too short. If taken as the absolute truth, it means Oswald did not bring his rifle in to work that day.
But can we take this as the absolute truth? Couldn?t the witnesses have been off on the exact length of the bag. Particularly since neither had any reason at the time to carefully note the exact length of the bag?
Also, CTers ignore that both witnesses had reasons for underestimating the length of the bag. Buell was accused of being an accessory to a murder. Because he had driver the accused assassin and his rifle to the plaza. Neither Buell nor Linnie, his sister, wanted this to happen. So naturally, they both have an incentive to underestimate the length of the bag. If the bag is too short to hold the rifle, then Buell cannot be charged.
So, this argument by CTers ignores three points.
1. The witnesses could be off a bit on the exact length of the bag.
2. Both witnesses have an incentive to underestimate the length of the bag.
3. CTers see no need to explain what Oswald was carrying in his long bag, if not his rifle.
3. CTers see no need to explain what Oswald was carrying in his long bag, if not his rifle.
That's right, Joe.
Also, according to Fritz, Oswald claimed that all he carried that morning was his lunch sack, a sack which in no way can be mistaken for anything described by Randle and Frazier.
-
Since the tale of the paper bag rests on Buell Frazier's statement that Lee Oswald carried a paper bag on the back seat of the car when he drove them to work on the morning of the murder of President Kennedy. And since the Warren Commission ignored both Frazier and his sister when they testified that the bag they saw Lee Oswald carry was not long enough to have contained the Mannlicher Carcano rifle that was found where it had been carefully hidden beneath boxes of books. The key question becomes ...Was Buell Frazier telling the truth? Can we rely on Frazier's veracity?
In the book The Day Kennedy Was Shot ( page 432) the author Bishop says that DPD detective Gus Rose had been informed by Linnie Mae Randall that Lee Oswald was carrying a paper sack that contained curtain rods ...
Quote.."A woman neighbor of the Oswalds has said that her brother had driven Oswald to work with curtain rods." unquote This is completely at odds with the official tale in which Buell Frazier is credited with presenting the curtain rod tale at the police station on the night of the murder.
The question is: Who first mentioned the curtain rods ?? IMO It was the Dallas police who told Frazier that Lee claimed that the paper sack contained curtain rods, when in reality Lee Oswald had said nothing of the kind ( just as he denied)
The cops were desperate to present a method by which Lee could have smuggled the Carcano into the TSBD. They needed Frazier to confirm that Lee Oswald had carried a long paper sack that morning. Thus they told Frazier that Lee has admitted that he had carried a long paper sack that contained curtain rods. The police had already tried to implicate Frazier by saying they could charge him as an accessory because he had transported the murder weapon in his car that morning......So when they told Frazier that Lee Oswald had said that the sack contained curtain rods Frazier jumped at the opportunity to clear himself of the charge of being an accessory and said that yes It was true that lee had told him that there were curtain rods in the sack. The wily cops cemented the curtain rod story for all time when they said that Frazier was telling the truth about the curtain rod story because he had passed a lie detector test in which he was questioned about the curtain rods..... In reality any results of a "lie detector" test would have been completely worthless
under the conditions in which it was administered.
So when they told Frazier that Lee Oswald had said that the sack contained curtain rods Frazier jumped at the opportunity to clear himself of the charge of being an accessory and said that yes It was true that lee had told him that there were curtain rods in the sack.
LOL
-
You are (perhaps on purpose) ignoring two crucial pieces of information;
1. Frazier was shown the TSBD bag on Friday evening (at around 11.30 pm). This was the first time Frazier was asked about the bag and he would IMO have no way of knowing anything about it's later significance. This was also before the bag was ruined with silver nitrate (by Latona) and thus still had it's original color. So, while he was being polygraphed, Frazier instantly dismissed the bag shown to him as the one he saw Oswald carry.
Are you claiming that Frazier, while being polygraphed, purposely lied about the size of a bag which more than likely was insignificant to him at that time?
2. Frazier told the DPD officers that same night that the bag he had seen Oswald carry was "definitely a thin, flimsy sack like the one purchased in a dime store".
You can believe and argue all you want that Frazier and Randle underestimated the size of the bag, but how do you explain the points I have raised?
Simply by ignoring them, perhaps?
Are you claiming that Frazier, while being polygraphed, purposely lied about the size of a bag which more than likely was insignificant to him at that time?
Frazier felt the bag was significant enough to mention it in his affidavit given a couple hours before the polygraph.
-
Addendum:
Michael Shermer has pointed out that the side that argues against the truth focuses on minutiae, whether it is 9/11 truthers, Scientific Creationists or Holocaust deniers. And don?t look at the overall picture.
Holocaust deniers claim presence of ?Prussian Blue? in the in the delousing stations but not in the gas chambers prove that the gas chambers were not used to kill people. Ignoring that insects require a much higher presence of cyanide is needed to kill insects (16,000 parts per million) than people (300 parts per million).
Scientific Creationists claiming human footprints besides dinosaur footprints disprove the Theory of Evolution. Ignoring the possibility of the ?human footprints? being chiseled into the rock by fakers.
9/11 Truthers pointing out that the fires could not have been hot enough to melt steel, and not considering that the steel doesn?t have to be melted, just heated to a high enough temperature long enough, to fail to support the tremendous weight of the building.
And just this weekend we see CTers doing the same thing.
1. The southwest corner of the sixth floor of the TSBD looks like a sniper?s nest, but it is claimed that it is just a bit too cramped to be used to shoot from.
2. The bag Oswald carried with him into work looked like it could have been used to carry his rifle into work that day, but it is claimed that it was just a bit too short to hold the rifle.
-
Re-ashing the old evidence and theories that have been discussed and debated to death. I'm sure you will bring a great contribution to the case.
-
You are (perhaps on purpose) ignoring two crucial pieces of information;
1. Frazier was shown the TSBD bag on Friday evening (at around 11.30 pm). This was the first time Frazier was asked about the bag and he would IMO have no way of knowing anything about it's later significance. This was also before the bag was ruined with silver nitrate (by Latona) and thus still had it's original color. So, while he was being polygraphed, Frazier instantly dismissed the bag shown to him as the one he saw Oswald carry.
Are you claiming that Frazier, while being polygraphed, purposely lied about the size of a bag which more than likely was insignificant to him at that time?
2. Frazier told the DPD officers that same night that the bag he had seen Oswald carry was "definitely a thin, flimsy sack like the one purchased in a dime store".
You can believe and argue all you want that Frazier and Randle underestimated the size of the bag, but how do you explain the points I have raised?
Simply by ignoring them, perhaps?
You wish.
Frazier that being threatened with being charged with being an accessory to the murder. By transporting the assassin and the rifle contained within a bag. This went on for many hours and was still going on at 11:30 pm.
Given this pressure, it is natural that Frazier would:
1. State the bag he saw with Oswald was too short to hold the rifle.
2. State that the bag he saw with Oswald bag was too flimsy to hold the rifle.
3. State that the bag presented to him, which was long enough and not too flimsy, was not the bag he saw Oswald with.
Given the pressure put on Frazier to confess, would it not be natural for Frazier to convince himself of this? If any of claims 1, 2 or 3 are true, the charges of the state against Frazier collapses.
Your airily claim that Frazier would not have known about the significance of the bag at 11:30 pm is false. He had already been questioned about it for hours and strongly urged to sign a written confession. Of course, he knew the significance of the bag presented to him at 11:30 pm.
-
Didn't they attach cables from a car battery to his testicles so he would say that the bag was only 2 feet long? You know, those dirty tactics that cops use.
I'm surprised that Frazier has not added this to his claim that Fritz was going to punch him.
-
That answers my question, I guess.... you deal with the facts by ignoring them!
YOU are ignoring the fact that Frazier felt the bag significant enough to be sure to mention it in his affidavit, which he gave a couple hours BEFORE the polygraph.
-
You wish.
Frazier that being threatened with being charged with being an accessory to the murder. By transporting the assassin and the rifle contained within a bag. This went on for many hours and was still going on at 11:30 pm.
Given this pressure, it is natural that Frazier would:
1. State the bag he saw with Oswald was too short to hold the rifle.
2. State that the bag he saw with Oswald bag was too flimsy to hold the rifle.
3. State that the bag presented to him, which was long enough and not too flimsy, was not the bag he saw Oswald with.
So, without any evidence for it, you are basically accusing Frazier of purposely outright lying about the size and nature of the bag....
That's a far cry from saying that Frazier wasn't paying attention and was simply mistaken.... but if that's the way you want to go....
Btw, for what it's worth, Lt Day clearly believed him, because on 11/29/63 Day was still developing his flawed theory that Oswald could have used the flimsy bag to conceal the heavy bag in which he carried the rifle....
Given the pressure put on Frazier to confess, would it not be natural for Frazier to convince himself of this? If any of claims 1, 2 or 3 are true, the charges of the state against Frazier collapses.
So, Frazier convinced himself that his lies are actually true, thus beating the polygraph.... Is that what you are saying?
Your airily claim that Frazier would not have known about the significance of the bag at 11:30 pm is false. He had already been questioned about it for hours and strongly urged to sign a written confession. Of course, he knew the significance of the bag presented to him at 11:30 pm.
The first question to be answered of course is; when exactly did Frazier give and sign the affidavit? Was it prior to him being polygraphed or after it?
Since when is it police procedure to let a potential suspect first give an affidavit and only then, maybe for the fun of it, apply pressure on him by having him polygraphed?
Secondly, the affidavit clearly shows that Frazier must have been questioned about the events of the day, including the bag, by then, but there is nothing in the affidavit that would suggest that he was made aware why the police was so interested in that bag. It's not normal procedure for police to volunteer information to potential suspects, is it?
-
His sister initially said it was about 3 feet by 6 inches. Then it shrunk.
-
His sister initially said it was about 3 feet by 6 inches. Then it shrunk.
You don't know this for a fact.
It was Bookhout who wrote that in an internal FBI report, which Linny Mae never read or signed.
-
You don't know this for a fact.
It was Bookhout who wrote that in an internal FBI report, which Linny Mae never read or signed.
Well it's unlikely she chose to reveal she had seen Oswald carrying a lunch sack that morning.
-
Well it's unlikely she chose to reveal she had seen Oswald carrying a lunch sack that morning.
It is not really of any importance what you consider to be unlikely....
By the time she testified before the WC Frazier was no longer in danger of being considered a suspect or co-conspirator.
Can you think of one reason for Linnie May to nevertheless lie in her testimony under oath about the size of a paper bag?
-
She lied to protect her brother. Then she lied for the rest of her life to protect her integrity.
-
She lied to protect her brother. Then she lied for the rest of her life to protect her integrity.
Really? And you know this how? You wouldn't just be giving us your biased opinion, would you?
And what about Buell Frazier.... he still stands by his first day testimony to this day. Is he lying also?
-
Call it biased opinion. Call it logic. Whatever. Makes no odds anyway. Unless one chooses to believe Oswald didn't take a rifle into the TSBD.
-
Call it biased opinion. Call it logic. Whatever. Makes no odds anyway. Unless one chooses to believe Oswald didn't take a rifle into the TSBD.
Oh but it makes odds. This is some logic for you;
Without the paper bag being big enough you have no way to demonstrate that Oswald ever took a rifle into the TSBD.
So I guess you just choose to believe that Oswald brought the rifle into the TSBD regardless of the fact that there isn't a shred of evidence for it...
-
Oh but it makes odds. This is some logic for you;
Without the paper bag being big enough you have no way to demonstrate that Oswald ever took a rifle into the TSBD.
So I guess you just choose to believe that Oswald brought the rifle into the TSBD regardless of the fact that there isn't a shred of evidence for it...
They're not allowed to believe otherwise, Martin. Haven't you figured them out yet?
-
They're not allowed to believe otherwise, Martin. Haven't you figured them out yet?
Well, it's surely remarkable how they "deal" with known facts.....
-
Oh but it makes odds. This is some logic for you;
Without the paper bag being big enough you have no way to demonstrate that Oswald ever took a rifle into the TSBD.
So I guess you just choose to believe that Oswald brought the rifle into the TSBD regardless of the fact that there isn't a shred of evidence for it...
I don't need to prove anything. He took it in and he used it. Proving it in a court of law isn't something I need to concern myself with.
OJ Simpson butchered two people. The prosecution didn't do enough to convince the jury but the defence did enough to introduce reasonable doubt in their minds. He still did it though, or at the very least he can be placed at the scene of the crime during or after the crime. Was anyone else involved? Who knows. LAPD didn't seem to consider that so we'll probably never know.
Oswald shot Kennedy and Tippit. Was anyone else involved? Who knows. If there ever was any evidence of that it was destroyed years ago but anyone still claiming Oswald was a Patsy after all these years has a screw loose or they are just misinformed.
-
I don't need to prove anything. He took it in and he used it. Proving it in a court of law isn't something I need to concern myself with.
OJ Simpson butchered two people. The prosecution didn't do enough to convince the jury but the defence did enough to introduce reasonable doubt in their minds. He still did it though, or at the very least he can be placed at the scene of the crime during or after the crime. Was anyone else involved? Who knows. LAPD didn't seem to consider that so we'll probably never know.
Oswald shot Kennedy and Tippit. Was anyone else involved? Who knows. If there ever was any evidence of that it was destroyed years ago but anyone still claiming Oswald was a Patsy after all these years has a screw loose or they are just misinformed.
I don't need to prove anything. He took it in and he used it.
Really?
Proving it in a court of law isn't something I need to concern myself with.
It is of course far easier to just make unsubstantiated claims based on bias....
OJ Simpson butchered two people. The prosecution didn't do enough to convince the jury but the defence did enough to introduce reasonable doubt in their minds. He still did it though, or at the very least he can be placed at the scene of the crime during or after the crime. Was anyone else involved? Who knows. LAPD didn't seem to consider that so we'll probably never know.
I agree with you. I too think he was guilty but I nevertheless agreed with the verdict of the jury because the prosecution failed to make it's case beyond a reasonable doubt.
The problem for you is that the Simpson case has nothing to do with the JFK murder, except of course for the comparison that the WC also failed to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt.
Oswald shot Kennedy and Tippit.
There is the biased opinion again.... Making such a claim without being able to back it up with even a shred of evidence makes you completely insignificant for this forum.
-
....Making such a claim without being able to back it up with even a shred of evidence...
LOL
-
So, without any evidence for it, you are basically accusing Frazier of purposely outright lying about the size and nature of the bag....
That's a far cry from saying that Frazier wasn't paying attention and was simply mistaken.... but if that's the way you want to go....
I do not know if Mr. Frazier was lying about the bag. I see no reason to believe he was lying. More likely, he was honestly mistaken. The threats the police made to him, of charging him with being an accessory to a murder, very likely would influence him into believing that the bag he saw Oswald with could not have contained the rifle. If this is true, Frazier is in the clear and it would be natural for him to fall into this belief.
Btw, for what it's worth, Lt Day clearly believed him, because on 11/29/63 Day was still developing his flawed theory that Oswald could have used the flimsy bag to conceal the heavy bag in which he carried the rifle....
A theory that pretty well falls apart with the failure to find the ?outer? bag. Did Oswald eat the outer bag?
So, Frazier convinced himself that his lies are actually true, thus beating the polygraph.... Is that what you are saying?
Under the best of conditions, the polygraph is not the most reliable way of telling the truth. Courts have found it to be not reliable. Hence, the results of polygraph tests are not allowed in court cases in most states in the country. While fingerprint evidence, which has with proven much more reliable, are allowed in all 50 states.
But if a polygraph test is reliable, it would be on questions the subject knows the answer to. ?Did you murder your wife?. ?Did you steal that man?s wallet?.
In Frazier?s case, his fears and hopes may very well of convinced him that the bag he saw was too short to hold a rifle, too flimsy to hold that rifle and that the bag the police was showing him was not the bag he saw Oswald with earlier in the day. It?s possible Frazier was lying. But it?s also possible he was being honest and thought he was telling the truth. If this is true, naturally we might expect him to pass a polygraph test that the bag he saw earlier was not the same bag the police showed him.
If a subject believes a falsehood, and he is questioned while being polygraphed about this falsehood, naturally the polygraph test will indicate that this statement is true. If a Scientific Creationist is questioned whether Theory of Evolution is true or not, the polygraph test will indicate that it is false. If a Holocaust Denier is question whether Holocaust really occurred or not, the polygraph test will indicate that it did not. Hence, we cannot conclude that the bag Oswald was carrying could not have contained a rifle because of a polygraph test.
In conclusion, I don?t know if Frazier was lying about the bag. I see no reason to believe he was lying, even if the bag presented to him was the same one he saw Oswald carrying. I see no reason not to give Mr. Frazier the benefit of the doubt. I believe that Mr. Frazier was probably honestly mistaken. His mistakes likely originated with the threats the police made to him.
The first question to be answered of course is; when exactly did Frazier give and sign the affidavit? Was it prior to him being polygraphed or after it?
Since when is it police procedure to let a potential suspect first give an affidavit and only then, maybe for the fun of it, apply pressure on him by having him polygraphed?
Secondly, the affidavit clearly shows that Frazier must have been questioned about the events of the day, including the bag, by then, but there is nothing in the affidavit that would suggest that he was made aware why the police was so interested in that bag. It's not normal procedure for police to volunteer information to potential suspects, is it?
I don?t know what police procedures were back then. I imagine it varied from office to office. Some police might use a polygraph test. Others might not. Let alone a standard procedure on the order affidavits are signed and polygraph tests are given. If they get a confession after the polygraph test, they can always have the subject sign a different affidavit.
-
Really? And you know this how? You wouldn't just be giving us your biased opinion, would you?
And what about Buell Frazier.... he still stands by his first day testimony to this day. Is he lying also?
Yes, I believe that Fazier is lying about Lee telling him that there were curtain rods in the bag.....
At the time he first told that lie ( the night of 11/22/63 ) he saw it as a way of supporting Lee Oswald , who the cops said had told them the paper sack contained curtain rods ( though Lee never made any such claim) Frazier saw it as a way of escaping the charge of being an accessory and at the same supporting Lee's alleged statement.
This is the prime reason that they called Frazier back to the police station to take a lie detector test....(a worthless test under the conditions that existed) They wanted Frazier to believe that the machine had supported him in saying that Lee told him that the bag contained curtain rods..... And Frazier still believes that the lie detector test was legitmate. So to this very day he spews the lie that Lee told him the bag held curtain rods.
-
I do not know if Mr. Frazier was lying about the bag. I see no reason to believe he was lying. More likely, he was honestly mistaken. The threats the police made to him, of charging him with being an accessory to a murder, very likely would influence him into believing that the bag he saw Oswald with could not have contained the rifle. If this is true, Frazier is in the clear and it would be natural for him to fall into this belief.
You don't know if Frazier was lying or not, but you make the case anyway that police threats could have influenced him to deviate from the truth and make an "honest mistake" altering not only the size of the bag but also the description of the type of bag.
Sounds like you want your cake and eat it too....
A theory that pretty well falls apart with the failure to find the ?outer? bag. Did Oswald eat the outer bag?
Oh I agree... Day's theory only shows his desperation to explain the large discrepancy between the heavy bag he had and the flimsy bag Frazier had described. But that wasn't the point.... Day took Frazier's description seriously enough to look for an explanation, no matter how silly... In other words; he believed Frazier. That was the point.
Under the best of conditions, the polygraph is not the most reliable way of telling the truth. Courts have found it to be not reliable. Hence, the results of polygraph tests are not allowed in court cases in most states in the country. While fingerprint evidence, which has with proven much more reliable, are allowed in all 50 states.
But if a polygraph test is reliable, it would be on questions the subject knows the answer to. ?Did you murder your wife?. ?Did you steal that man?s wallet?.
It is of little significance if the polygraph is actually reliable or not. Police know full well that polygraphs are not admissible in court, yet they still use them to intimidate suspects to this day. What would be significant is what Frazier, as a 19 year old, would know about polygraphs and if that knowledge would be sufficient to attempt to lie about the bag.
In Frazier?s case, his fears and hopes may very well of convinced him that the bag he saw was too short to hold a rifle, too flimsy to hold that rifle and that the bag the police was showing him was not the bag he saw Oswald with earlier in the day. It?s possible Frazier was lying. But it?s also possible he was being honest and thought he was telling the truth. If this is true, naturally we might expect him to pass a polygraph test that the bag he saw earlier was not the same bag the police showed him.
That's a highly convoluted, speculative, far reaching and self-serving assumption to make. I don't believe it for a second that Frazier convinced himself in only a few hours time that he saw something different from what he actually saw and thus in doing so fooled the polygraph. A far more logical and honest conclusion would be that he simply told the truth..... but I can understand why that would be a problem for you.
If a subject believes a falsehood, and he is questioned while being polygraphed about this falsehood, naturally the polygraph test will indicate that this statement is true. If a Scientific Creationist is questioned whether Theory of Evolution is true or not, the polygraph test will indicate that it is false. If a Holocaust Denier is question whether Holocaust really occurred or not, the polygraph test will indicate that it did not. Hence, we cannot conclude that the bag Oswald was carrying could not have contained a rifle because of a polygraph test.
You are giving over the top examples about the creation and holocaust involving die hard believers with deeply rooted convictions that have absolutely nothing to do with a polygraph test being taken from a 19 year old kid.
In conclusion, I don?t know if Frazier was lying about the bag. I see no reason to believe he was lying, even if the bag presented to him was the same one he saw Oswald carrying. I see no reason not to give Mr. Frazier the benefit of the doubt. I believe that Mr. Frazier was probably honestly mistaken. His mistakes likely originated with the threats the police made to him.
This is so funny... and sad at the same time. You are willing to give Frazier the benefit of the doubt and in the next sentence you proclaim that he was probably mistaken..... Sorry Joe, but you're all over the place on this one. Try telling this to your best friends and see how they react.
I don?t know what police procedures were back then. I imagine it varied from office to office. Some police might use a polygraph test. Others might not. Let alone a standard procedure on the order affidavits are signed and polygraph tests are given. If they get a confession after the polygraph test, they can always have the subject sign a different affidavit.
Let's for argument's sake assume that the DPD had indeed a procedure where they would let a suspect first give an affidavit and then question him.... then, where is Oswald's affidavit?
In any event, since you admit that you do not know, you are only speculating here. But I have to conceed that - unlike others - at least you are trying.
-
I don't need to prove anything. He took it in and he used it.
Really?
Proving it in a court of law isn't something I need to concern myself with.
It is of course far easier to just make unsubstantiated claims based on bias....
OJ Simpson butchered two people. The prosecution didn't do enough to convince the jury but the defence did enough to introduce reasonable doubt in their minds. He still did it though, or at the very least he can be placed at the scene of the crime during or after the crime. Was anyone else involved? Who knows. LAPD didn't seem to consider that so we'll probably never know.
I agree with you. I too think he was guilty but I nevertheless agreed with the verdict of the jury because the prosecution failed to make it's case beyond a reasonable doubt.
The problem for you is that the Simpson case has nothing to do with the JFK murder, except of course for the comparison that the WC also failed to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt.
Oswald shot Kennedy and Tippit.
There is the biased opinion again.... Making such a claim without being able to back it up with even a shred of evidence makes you completely insignificant for this forum.
All the evidence was contained within the archives of this Forum before they were recently lost. Shame you didn't bother to read through it all. I'm only insignificant to you because you'll never believe Oswald murdered two people.
-
That's a highly convoluted, speculative, far reaching and self-serving assumption to make. I don't believe it for a second that Frazier convinced himself in only a few hours time that he saw something different from what he actually saw and thus in doing so fooled the polygraph. A far more logical and honest conclusion would be that he simply told the truth..... but I can understand why that would be a problem for you.
I am not being highly speculative.
The evidence is clear that Oswald brought his rifle into work that day.
1. He got a ride to the Paine?s house on a Thursday night. He had never done that before. He always got a ride on a Friday night, so he can visit with his wife and children the whole weekend. Why come home on a Thursday night when he can only stay overnight? CTers don?t even try to answer that one.
2. He was seen by two witnesses bringing to work a long paper bag that seemed to contain something. CTers don?t even try to answer what could have been in that bag.
3. Oswald denied to the police bringing in a long bag with him at all that day.
The simple, straight forward, Occam?s Razor?s answer is, that Oswald was smuggling in his rifle.
Counter argument arguments require a lot of people lying, a Large-Secret-Enduring Conspiracy. Something that skeptics don?t believe in.
Your beliefs are highly speculative. And require a lot of unreasonable assumptions.
The police were lying when they said Oswald claimed he did not bring in a long package that day. The police made the package that could have contained a rifle and snuck the original out of the building.
Perhaps Mr. Frazier and Mrs. Randle were lying when they told the police that Oswald carried a long package into work that day. If so, the police repaid them in a funny way, threating Mr. Frazier with a charge of being an accessory to the murder. Getting his sister, Mrs. Randle, all upset.
Maybe the police are lying about Mr. Frazier and Mrs. Randle saying they saw Oswald with a long package. Maybe they both lied for the rest of their lives for fear of this Large-Secret-Enduring Conspiracy.
Maybe Mr. Frazier and the others are lying when they claim that Oswald never came to the Paine?s home on a Thursday night before. Or maybe they are all lying about him coming home that Thursday night at all.
The testimony of Mr. Frazier and Mrs. Randle ?proves? the bag could not have contained the rifle. Never mind the photographs of the police carrying a bag long enough to contain the rifle out of the building. They could have made that bag or tampered with the photographs and films since the news media was in on the conspiracy too.
The bottom line is not that I am being very speculative. I am following simple logical reasoning, coming to the most probable conclusion.
The only apart I am being speculative about, is assuming that Mr. Frazier and Mrs. Randle were honestly mistaken, influenced by their fears of what might happen to Mr. Frazier. Perhaps they were lying. But I see no reason to not give them the benefit of the doubt.
The evidence shows that Oswald did smuggle a rifle into work that day. Or pretended to. So that means that the details of the testimony that Mr. Frazier and Mrs. Randle gave testimony to are false. But there are insufficient reasons to conclude that either was lying.
-
I am not being highly speculative.
The evidence is clear that Oswald brought his rifle into work that day.
1. He got a ride to the Paine?s house on a Thursday night. He had never done that before. He always got a ride on a Friday night, so he can visit with his wife and children the whole weekend. Why come home on a Thursday night when he can only stay overnight? CTers don?t even try to answer that one.
2. He was seen by two witnesses bringing to work a long paper bag that seemed to contain something. CTers don?t even try to answer what could have been in that bag.
3. Oswald denied to the police bringing in a long bag with him at all that day.
The simple, straight forward, Occam?s Razor?s answer is, that Oswald was smuggling in his rifle.
Occam's Razor is about reasoning with as little as possible assumptions. This does not apply here. You can not conclude from a voluntary visit and two witnesses seeing Oswald carrying a paper bag that Oswald went to Irving to collect a rifle and brought it to the TSBD.
Instead, what you are saying is circular logic...based on the assumption that there was indeed a rifle in Ruth Paine's garage and that it was the MC rifle later found at the TSBD.
I am not being highly speculative.
You may have been so involved in this case for so long that you truly do realize that you are, but this doesn't alter the fact that you are being exactly that.
Counter argument arguments require a lot of people lying, a Large-Secret-Enduring Conspiracy. Something that skeptics don?t believe in.
That's a hyperbole
Your beliefs are highly speculative. And require a lot of unreasonable assumptions.
I have not told you what my beliefs are, so you don't know what (if any) my assumptions are and how reasonable or unreasonable they are.
The police were lying when they said Oswald claimed he did not bring in a long package that day. The police made the package that could have contained a rifle and snuck the original out of the building.
Who said that?
Perhaps Mr. Frazier and Mrs. Randle were lying when they told the police that Oswald carried a long package into work that day. If so, the police repaid them in a funny way, threating Mr. Frazier with a charge of being an accessory to the murder. Getting his sister, Mrs. Randle, all upset.
Maybe the police are lying about Mr. Frazier and Mrs. Randle saying they saw Oswald with a long package. Maybe they both lied for the rest of their lives for fear of this Large-Secret-Enduring Conspiracy.
Maybe Mr. Frazier and the others are lying when they claim that Oswald never came to the Paine?s home on a Thursday night before. Or maybe they are all lying about him coming home that Thursday night at all.
And maybe you are just hand waving
The testimony of Mr. Frazier and Mrs. Randle ?proves? the bag could not have contained the rifle. Never mind the photographs of the police carrying a bag long enough to contain the rifle out of the building. They could have made that bag or tampered with the photographs and films since the news media was in on the conspiracy too.
Nobody said that Frazier's and Randle's testimony "proved" that... The rest is more hand waving
The mere fact that a bag is large enough to possibly hold a rifle does not automatically mean that it did hold a rifle.
The bottom line is not that I am being very speculative. I am following simple logical reasoning, coming to the most probable conclusion.
I think you simply have convinced yourself that you are not being speculative. Instead of following "simple logical reasoning" why don't you try to look at the available evidence objectively and base your conclusion on that rather than concentrating on a possible non-related bag that was potentially big enough to possibly conceal a rifle?
The only apart I am being speculative about, is assuming that Mr. Frazier and Mrs. Randle were honestly mistaken, influenced by their fears of what might happen to Mr. Frazier. Perhaps they were lying. But I see no reason to not give them the benefit of the doubt.
Already answered.
The evidence shows that Oswald did smuggle a rifle into work that day. Or pretended to. So that means that the details of the testimony that Mr. Frazier and Mrs. Randle gave testimony to are false. But there are insufficient reasons to conclude that either was lying.
The evidence shows that Oswald did smuggle a rifle into work that day. Or pretended to.
Actually, as far as I can tell, the evidence does not show anything of the kind, but for argument's sake, why don't you produce that evidence so we can discuss it?
So that means that the details of the testimony that Mr. Frazier and Mrs. Randle gave testimony to are false.
There you go again basing a assumptive conclusion on another assumption.
-
If Buell Frazier was going to lie about the bag's existence, wouldn't he at least state that the bag was long enough to contain the rifle? Why introduce a bag into the folklore but state that it was not long enough?
Silly conspirators.
That's a great question. CTers deal in multiple and often mutually exclusive realities. One in which Frazier's estimate of the bag must be 100% accurate and others in which he is an outright liar trying to frame Oswald for some unspecified reason. It seems pretty obvious from the totality of facts what happened. Oswald carried a long bag that morning. Frazier honestly but ERRONEOUSLY estimated its length. We know he was incorrect on its length because the actual bag was found and measured. It had Oswald's prints on it, was found next to the SN (also with Oswald's prints and fired bullet casings from his rifle), the bag had no apparent work related purpose for being there, was never explained or claimed by anyone else who worked in the TSBD, and no bag matching Frazier's size estimate was ever found. If there were any doubt, Oswald himself denied carrying any bag the length estimated by Frazier. In effect, CTers are claiming Oswald is lying about the bag. This would be inexplicable if it contained some innocuous item like curtain rods. Oswald only has cause to deny carrying such a bag if it is in his self-interest to do so because it contained the rifle. This is all so simple and obvious to any person with a functioning brain that it humorous to see the lengths CTers will go to spin a contrarian fable.
-
That's a great question. CTers deal in multiple and often mutually exclusive realities. One in which Frazier's estimate of the bag must be 100% accurate and others in which he is an outright liar trying to frame Oswald for some unspecified reason. It seems pretty obvious from the totality of facts what happened. Oswald carried a long bag that morning. Frazier honestly but ERRONEOUSLY estimated its length. We know he was incorrect on its length because the actual bag was found and measured. It had Oswald's prints on it, was found next to the SN (also with Oswald's prints and fired bullet casings from his rifle), the bag had no apparent work related purpose for being there, was never explained or claimed by anyone else who worked in the TSBD, and no bag matching Frazier's size estimate was ever found. If there were any doubt, Oswald himself denied carrying any bag the length estimated by Frazier. In effect, CTers are claiming Oswald is lying about the bag. This would be inexplicable if it contained some innocuous item like curtain rods. Oswald only has cause to deny carrying such a bag if it is in his self-interest to do so because it contained the rifle. This is all so simple and obvious to any person with a functioning brain that it humorous to see the lengths CTers will go to spin a contrarian fable.
One in which Frazier's estimate of the bag must be 100% accurate and others in which he is an outright liar trying to frame Oswald for some unspecified reason.
Why are you jumping in with mindless comments without actually having read the thread?
Had you read the thread, you would have known that we are not talking about size estimates at all. And the only one who so far implied that Frazier (and Randle) could have been lying is Joe Elliott.
So all your hand waving is completely beside the point. It only reveals your inability to think beyond the borders of your own faith driven bias.
This is all so simple and obvious to any person with a functioning brain
This is all so simple and obvious to any person without a functioning brain.
There, I fixed it for you, Richard
-
One in which Frazier's estimate of the bag must be 100% accurate and others in which he is an outright liar trying to frame Oswald for some unspecified reason.
Why are you jumping in with mindless comments without actually having read the thread?
Had you read the thread, you would have known that we are not talking about size estimates at all. And the only one who so far implied that Frazier (and Randle) could have been lying is Joe Elliott.
So all your hand waving is completely beside the point. It only reveals your inability to think beyond the borders of your own faith driven bias.
Several CTers including the original OP in this thread have implied or questioned whether Frazier was lying about the bag (Walt: "The key question becomes ...Was Buell Frazier telling the truth? Can we rely on Frazier's veracity?"). So you might pay more attention before lecturing others on the topic under discussion and embarrassing yourself. If you are conceding the absurdity of that position, then congratulations. It is a rare, perhaps singular example that you have a functional brain. But don't blame me for the claims of your nutty kindred CTers. Also this may highlight an important distinction. I believe Frazier was telling the truth to the best of his ability about the bag. He honestly but erroneously thought that the bag was shorter than it was. He was wrong but not lying. CTers seem to believe that witnesses must either be absolutely correct in their testimony or intentionally lying. There is no room for honest but incorrect statements.
-
Several CTers including the original OP in this thread have implied or questioned whether Frazier was lying about the bag (Walt: "The key question becomes ...Was Buell Frazier telling the truth? Can we rely on Frazier's veracity?"). So you might pay more attention before lecturing others on the topic under discussion and embarrassing yourself. If you are conceding the absurdity of that position, then congratulations. It is a rare, perhaps singular example that you have a functional brain. But don't blame me for the claims of your nutty kindred CTers. Also this may highlight an important distinction. I believe Frazier was telling the truth to the best of his ability about the bag. He honestly but erroneously thought that the bag was shorter than it was. He was wrong but not lying. CTers seem to believe that witnesses must either be absolutely correct in their testimony or intentionally lying. There is no room for honest but incorrect statements.
Several CTers including the original OP in this thread have implied or questioned whether Frazier was lying about the bag (Walt: "The key question becomes ...Was Buell Frazier telling the truth? Can we rely on Frazier's veracity?"). So you might pay more attention before lecturing others on the topic under discussion and embarrassing yourself.
Had you read the entire thread you would have known that the question Walt asked in the opening post was not the topic of discussion in the remainder of the thread.
Also this may highlight an important distinction. I believe Frazier was telling the truth to the best of his ability about the bag. He honestly but erroneously thought that the bag was shorter than it was. He was wrong but not lying.
Ah.. the classic LN default position.... Frazier and Randle were simply mistaken about the size of the bag....
But what of the fact that Frazier was being polygraphed when he was shown the TSBD bag In it's original state) for the first time. The polygraph didn't register a lie, because we would have heard about if it did. Yet Frazier instantly dismissed the TSBD bag as the one he had seen Oswald carry that same morning. And not only that, but (according to James Anderson's memo to SAC Dallas) he also described Oswald's bag as "definitely a thin, flimsy sack like the one purchased in a dime store"..... and guess what Lt Day believed him!
None of this has anything to do whatsoever with size estimates... so how do you explain that, Richard?
-
Several CTers including the original OP in this thread have implied or questioned whether Frazier was lying about the bag (Walt: "The key question becomes ...Was Buell Frazier telling the truth? Can we rely on Frazier's veracity?"). So you might pay more attention before lecturing others on the topic under discussion and embarrassing yourself.
Had you read the entire thread you would have known that the question Walt asked in the opening post was not the topic of discussion in the remainder of the thread.
Also this may highlight an important distinction. I believe Frazier was telling the truth to the best of his ability about the bag. He honestly but erroneously thought that the bag was shorter than it was. He was wrong but not lying.
Ah.. the classic LN default position.... Frazier and Randle were simply mistaken about the size of the bag....
But what of the fact that Frazier was being polygraphed when he was shown the TSBD bag In it's original state) for the first time. The polygraph didn't register a lie, because we would have heard about if it did. Yet Frazier instantly dismissed the TSBD bag as the one he had seen Oswald carry that same morning. And not only that, but (according to James Anderson's memo to SAC Dallas) he also described Oswald's bag as "definitely a thin, flimsy sack like the one purchased in a dime store"..... and guess what Lt Day believed him!
None of this has anything to do whatsoever with size estimates... so how do you explain that, Richard?
I've been studying the paper bag aspect ( as it first emerged) pretty thoroughly recently.....
I am now of the opinion that It was Buell Frazier's sister Linnie Mae Randle who first mentioned "curtain rods"
Linnie Mae saw the police cars gathered around the Paine residence and by her own statement she said that she had been following evens on the TV and radio, when she heard that the suspect's name was Lee Harvey Oswald ... That's when she went the half block to the Paine residence and reported to Detective Adamcik that she had sen Lee Oswald carrying a long paper sack like the sacks that are used for curtain rods.....
-
If Buell Frazier was going to lie about the bag's existence, wouldn't he at least state that the bag was long enough to contain the rifle? Why introduce a bag into the folklore but state that it was not long enough?
Silly conspirators.
Frazier never lied about the bag's existence...... He knew hat his sister had told the police that lee was carrying a curtain rod type bag when she saw him walking i the rain that morning. Frazier wasn't about to cal his sister a liar... so he went along with that idea while having absolute knowledge that the bag could NOT have held that rifle. Frazier grossly underestimated the perfidy and treachery of the DPD..... He wasn't bright enough to understand that the were going to present the results of his so called "lie detector test" in which he said they had told him the test showed that he was telling the truth. Of course if Frazier was telling the truth then Lee Oswald had to be lying.....
The whole thing was a charade.....
-
Several CTers including the original OP in this thread have implied or questioned whether Frazier was lying about the bag (Walt: "The key question becomes ...Was Buell Frazier telling the truth? Can we rely on Frazier's veracity?"). So you might pay more attention before lecturing others on the topic under discussion and embarrassing yourself.
Had you read the entire thread you would have known that the question Walt asked in the opening post was not the topic of discussion in the remainder of the thread.
Also this may highlight an important distinction. I believe Frazier was telling the truth to the best of his ability about the bag. He honestly but erroneously thought that the bag was shorter than it was. He was wrong but not lying.
Ah.. the classic LN default position.... Frazier and Randle were simply mistaken about the size of the bag....
But what of the fact that Frazier was being polygraphed when he was shown the TSBD bag In it's original state) for the first time. The polygraph didn't register a lie, because we would have heard about if it did. Yet Frazier instantly dismissed the TSBD bag as the one he had seen Oswald carry that same morning. And not only that, but (according to James Anderson's memo to SAC Dallas) he also described Oswald's bag as "definitely a thin, flimsy sack like the one purchased in a dime store"..... and guess what Lt Day believed him!
None of this has anything to do whatsoever with size estimates... so how do you explain that, Richard?
The totality of evidence confirms that Frazier described the bag to the best of his ability but got it wrong. What is so difficult to understand about that? The bag was found. We therefore know exactly how long it was without estimates or speculation. You appear to suggest that it was somehow impossible for Frazier to get it wrong but imagine the counter narrative that you are implying in accepting that premise. You have a planted bag, Oswald denying for some inexplicable reason carrying a bag the size estimated by Frazier, the complete disappearance of the two foot long bag, the bizarre notion that the conspirators forgot to plant the bag found, the coincidence of Oswald making an unexpected trip to the Paine home on Thursday and then carrying a long bag to work on Friday (how did the fantasy conspirators depend upon that?), somehow getting Oswald's prints on the bag. It's very clear what happened from the facts and evidence. No serious historian disputes that the bag found on the 6th floor was used by Oswald to carry the rifle. Only in fantasy-land does this type of discussion happen. But if you disagree, please send your evidence of a conspiracy to the NY Times and ask for their opinion. Let us know how that works out.
-
The totality of evidence confirms that Frazier described the bag to the best of his ability but got it wrong. What is so difficult to understand about that? The bag was found. We therefore know exactly how long it was without estimates or speculation. You appear to suggest that it was somehow impossible for Frazier to get it wrong but imagine the counter narrative that you are implying in accepting that premise. You have a planted bag, Oswald denying for some inexplicable reason carrying a bag the size estimated by Frazier, the complete disappearance of the two foot long bag, the bizarre notion that the conspirators forgot to plant the bag found, the coincidence of Oswald making an unexpected trip to the Paine home on Thursday and then carrying a long bag to work on Friday (how did the fantasy conspirators depend upon that?), somehow getting Oswald's prints on the bag. It's very clear what happened from the facts and evidence. No serious historian disputes that the bag found on the 6th floor was used by Oswald to carry the rifle. Only in fantasy-land does this type of discussion happen. But if you disagree, please send your evidence of a conspiracy to the NY Times and ask for their opinion. Let us know how that works out.
So, you can not answer my questions.... I figured as much!
The totality of evidence confirms that Frazier described the bag to the best of his ability but got it wrong.
No.. The totality of the available evidence is partly based on the assumption that Oswald brought a rifle into the TSBD. Without that a large part of the case would instantly collapse. And so Frazier and Randle had to be "mistaken" as a matter of necessity.
Have you ever wondered why Frazier is today still saying the same thing as he was saying on day 1? He has nothing to gain or lose by saying that he could have been mistaken, but he never did. He always maintained that he did not see Oswald carry the bag that is now in evidence! The reason for that IMO is that he knows beyond any doubt that he is right!
The bag was found. We therefore know exactly how long it was without estimates or speculation.
No... A bag was found.... and as far as estimates go, you seem to have a reading problem because nobody is talking about that, except you of course.
You appear to suggest that it was somehow impossible for Frazier to get it wrong but imagine the counter narrative that you are implying in accepting that premise. You have a planted bag, Oswald denying for some inexplicable reason carrying a bag the size estimated by Frazier, the complete disappearance of the two foot long bag, the bizarre notion that the conspirators forgot to plant the bag found, the coincidence of Oswald making an unexpected trip to the Paine home on Thursday and then carrying a long bag to work on Friday (how did the fantasy conspirators depend upon that?), somehow getting Oswald's prints on the bag.
More hand waving! I don't suggest anything of the kind. That's just you looking for an argument you think you can crush with pathetic rhetoric.
I am saying that the record shows that Frazier was being polygraphed when he was shown the TSBD bag and he instantly denied that it was the bag he had seen Oswald carry. The polygraph did not prove him wrong! Frazier also told investigators, that the bag he had seen Oswald carry in the morning of the same day was "definitely a thin, flimsy sack like the one purchased in a dime store".
You seem to be unable or unwilling to deal with these facts... Why is that?
No serious historian disputes that the bag found on the 6th floor was used by Oswald to carry the rifle.
Pathetic argument to make. ... Let me guess; any historian who disagrees with you is not serious, right?
Only in fantasy-land does this type of discussion happen.
As you are taking part in the discussion, do you like being in fantasy-land by choice?
-
So, you can not answer my questions.... I figured as much!
The totality of evidence confirms that Frazier described the bag to the best of his ability but got it wrong.
No.. The totality of the available evidence is partly based on the assumption that Oswald brought a rifle into the TSBD. Without that a large part of the case would instantly collapse. And so Frazier and Randle had to be "mistaken" as a matter of necessity.
Have you ever wondered why Frazier is today still saying the same thing as he was saying on day 1? He has nothing to gain or lose by saying that he could have been mistaken, but he never did. He always maintained that he did not see Oswald carry the bag that is now in evidence! The reason for that IMO is that he knows beyond any doubt that he is right!
The bag was found. We therefore know exactly how long it was without estimates or speculation.
No... A bag was found.... and as far as estimates go, you seem to have a reading problem because nobody is talking about that, except you of course.
You appear to suggest that it was somehow impossible for Frazier to get it wrong but imagine the counter narrative that you are implying in accepting that premise. You have a planted bag, Oswald denying for some inexplicable reason carrying a bag the size estimated by Frazier, the complete disappearance of the two foot long bag, the bizarre notion that the conspirators forgot to plant the bag found, the coincidence of Oswald making an unexpected trip to the Paine home on Thursday and then carrying a long bag to work on Friday (how did the fantasy conspirators depend upon that?), somehow getting Oswald's prints on the bag.
More hand waving! I don't suggest anything of the kind. That's just you looking for an argument you think you can crush with pathetic rhetoric.
I am saying that the record shows that Frazier was being polygraphed when he was shown the TSBD bag and he instantly denied that it was the bag he had seen Oswald carry. The polygraph did not prove him wrong! Frazier also told investigators, that the bag he had seen Oswald carry in the morning of the same day was "definitely a thin, flimsy sack like the one purchased in a dime store".
You seem to be unable or unwilling to deal with these facts... Why is that?
No serious historian disputes that the bag found on the 6th floor was used by Oswald to carry the rifle.
Pathetic argument to make. ... Let me guess; any historian who disagrees with you is not serious, right?
Only in fantasy-land does this type of discussion happen.
As you are taking part in the discussion, do you like being in fantasy-land by choice?
Painful. Doesn't it bother you that no bag matching Frazier's size estimate was ever found or accounted for in any way? And that your hero Oswald himself denied carrying such a bag? That's a rhetorical question since I know the answer. Why would a polygraph matter if Frazier was honestly answering the question but got it wrong? LOL Good grief. You can't possibly be that dense. Frazier was being honest but got it wrong. He did not lie. Whew. This goes back to the CTer inability to distinguish a lie from an honest mistake. Very humorous. Of course if the polygraph had suggested that Frazier was lying then you would be lecturing us on how they are unreliable. Like handwriting analysis or any evidence that links Oswald to this crime.
-
Painful. Doesn't it bother you that no bag matching Frazier's size estimate was ever found or accounted for in any way? And that your hero Oswald himself denied carrying such a bag? That's a rhetorical question since I know the answer. Why would a polygraph matter if Frazier was honestly answering the question but got it wrong? LOL Good grief. You can't possibly be that dense. I was trying to have some mercy on you but you are too stupid to understand. Frazier was being honest but got it wrong. He did not lie. Whew. This goes back to the CTer inability to distinguish a lie from an honest mistake. Very humorous. Of course if the polygraph had suggested that Frazier was lying then you would be lecturing us on how they are unreliable. Like handwriting analysis or any evidence that links Oswald to this crime.
Doesn't it bother you that no bag matching Frazier's size estimate was ever found or accounted for in any way?
No... because there is no record of anybody ever looking for such a bag or that Oswald was even asked where he left the bag he had brought his lunch in. And absence of evidence is no evidence of absence! All there is, is a comment by R.D. Lewis, who took Frazier's polygraph, that Oswald could simply have thrown away such a flimsy bag and he was right.
Doesn't it bother you that Fritz told Detective Montgomery to guard the sniper's nest until the Crime Scene officers (Day and Studebaker) arrived, yet when these men got there the bag was not in the position it allegedly was found in? It was never photographed in situ and according to Montgomery the paper bag was actually sitting on a box in folded up condition?
And that your hero Oswald himself denied carrying such a bag?
Oswald is not my hero, so cut the pathetic dramatics. And we don't know what Oswald really said, do we now?
Why would a polygraph matter if Frazier was honestly answering the question but got it wrong?
What did Frazier get wrong? That the heavy bag shown to him was not the "thin, flimsy sack like the one purchased in a dime store" he had seen Oswald carry?
Good grief. You can't possibly be that dense. I was trying to have some mercy on you but you are too stupid to understand.Frazier was being honest but got it wrong. He did not lie. Whew. This goes back to the CTer inability to distinguish a lie from an honest mistake. Very humorous. Of course if the polygraph had suggested that Frazier was lying then you would be lecturing us on how they are unreliable. Like handwriting analysis or any evidence that links Oswald to this crime.
.
Ah... here come the usual insults and more hand waving.... Always a sign of weakness!
What exactly did Frazier get wrong?
Frazier saw Oswald carry a thin, flimsy dime store bag and when he was shown a heavy bag made from wrapping materials he denied that this was Oswald's bag.
Can you imagine how this would play out in a court with Frazier on the stand as a witness?
Prosecutor: Mr. Frazier I show you a paper bag found at the TSBD. Do you recognize this bag?
Frazier: No, I had never seen it before until DPD officers showed it to me on 11/22/63
Prosecutor: Are you absolutely sure you have never seen this bag before?
Frazier: Yes
Prosecutor: Let me ask you in a different way; Did you see Lee Harvey Oswald carry this bag at any time?
Frazier: No
Prosecutor: How can you be so sure?
Frazier: Well, for one, this bag is too large to be the bag I saw Oswald carry. His bag was much smaller. It was so small that he could carry it in the palm of his hand and tucked under his armpit. But that's not all. The bag I saw Oswald carry was definitely a thin, flimsy sack like the one purchased in a dime store. The bag you show me is made of heavy duty wrapping paper. There is no way this is the bag I saw Oswald carry....
Prosecutor: No further questions....
-
The bag that Buell Wesley Frazier and Linnie May Randle saw the bag Oswald had is a classic example of, when life hands you a lemon, make lemonade.
Buell and Linnie saw Oswald carrying a long bag to work on the morning of November 22. That is bad. This only makes Oswald look guilty. Why is he carrying a long package into work on that day, of all days?
But, the solution is the focus on some minutiae. Both witnesses remember the bag being a bit too short. If taken as the absolute truth, it means Oswald did not bring his rifle in to work that day.
But can we take this as the absolute truth? Couldn?t the witnesses have been off on the exact length of the bag. Particularly since neither had any reason at the time to carefully note the exact length of the bag?
Also, CTers ignore that both witnesses had reasons for underestimating the length of the bag. Buell was accused of being an accessory to a murder. Because he had driver the accused assassin and his rifle to the plaza. Neither Buell nor Linnie, his sister, wanted this to happen. So naturally, they both have an incentive to underestimate the length of the bag. If the bag is too short to hold the rifle, then Buell cannot be charged.
So, this argument by CTers ignores three points.
1. The witnesses could be off a bit on the exact length of the bag.
2. Both witnesses have an incentive to underestimate the length of the bag.
3. CTers see no need to explain what Oswald was carrying in his long bag, if not his rifle.
Which rifle was in the bag though? The 7.62 Mauser several police officers saw or the MC held up barehanded for the cameras?
-
I mentioned this before but it looks like a case of people ignoring it or they didn't see it.
Harold Weisburg, who is held in high esteem in the CT community, gave this presentation below on the Church Committee.
At around the 1 hour and 20 second mark Weisburg makes a statement that the reason that the DPD gave Frazier a polygraph
test was to see if Frazier was, as Weisburg puts it, laying Marina Oswald. Weisburg goes on to state that Frazier said yes and
the polygraph proved him as telling the truth. Any comments?
Any comments?
Yes.....You've clearly got some weird obsession with sex..... Many of your posts contain sex ....
-
Which rifle was in the bag though? The 7.62 Mauser several police officers saw or the MC held up barehanded for the cameras?
Neither.....Buell Frazier and Linnie Mae Randall said that the paper sack that Lee carried was too small......
-
Doesn't it bother you that no bag matching Frazier's size estimate was ever found or accounted for in any way?
No... because there is no record of anybody ever looking for such a bag or that Oswald was even asked where he left the bag he had brought his lunch in. And absence of evidence is no evidence of absence! All there is, is a comment by R.D. Lewis, who took Frazier's polygraph, that Oswald could simply have thrown away such a flimsy bag and he was right.
Doesn't it bother you that Fritz told Detective Montgomery to guard the sniper's nest until the Crime Scene officers (Day and Studebaker) arrived, yet when these men got there the bag was not in the position it allegedly was found in? It was never photographed in situ and according to Montgomery the paper bag was actually sitting on a box in folded up condition?
And that your hero Oswald himself denied carrying such a bag?
Oswald is not my hero, so cut the pathetic dramatics. And we don't know what Oswald really said, do we now?
Why would a polygraph matter if Frazier was honestly answering the question but got it wrong?
What did Frazier get wrong? That the heavy bag shown to him was not the "thin, flimsy sack like the one purchased in a dime store" he had seen Oswald carry?
Good grief. You can't possibly be that dense. I was trying to have some mercy on you but you are too stupid to understand.Frazier was being honest but got it wrong. He did not lie. Whew. This goes back to the CTer inability to distinguish a lie from an honest mistake. Very humorous. Of course if the polygraph had suggested that Frazier was lying then you would be lecturing us on how they are unreliable. Like handwriting analysis or any evidence that links Oswald to this crime.
.
Ah... here come the usual insults and more hand waving.... Always a sign of weakness!
What exactly did Frazier get wrong?
Frazier saw Oswald carry a thin, flimsy dime store bag and when he was shown a heavy bag made from wrapping materials he denied that this was Oswald's bag.
Can you imagine how this would play out in a court with Frazier on the stand as a witness?
Prosecutor: Mr. Frazier I show you a paper bag found at the TSBD. Do you recognize this bag?
Frazier: No, I had never seen it before until DPD officers showed it to me on 11/22/63
Prosecutor: Are you absolutely sure you have never seen this bag before?
Frazier: Yes
Prosecutor: Let me ask you in a different way; Did you see Lee Harvey Oswald carry this bag at any time?
Frazier: No
Prosecutor: How can you be so sure?
Frazier: Well, for one, this bag is too large to be the bag I saw Oswald carry. His bag was much smaller. It was so small that he could carry it in the palm of his hand and tucked under his armpit. But that's not all. The bag I saw Oswald carry was definitely a thin, flimsy sack like the one purchased in a dime store. The bag you show me is made of heavy duty wrapping paper. There is no way this is the bag I saw Oswald carry....
Prosecutor: No further questions....
Ugh. So many wasted words. You have suggested that Frazier must be correct in his estimate of the bag's length citing the polygraph that he did not indicate lie. As though the polygraph is the hand of God determining the truth. This is simple. Pay attention for once. If Frazier truly believed the bag he was shown was not the bag, then the polygraph would indicate he was not lying EVEN if he was wrong. It determines - when accurate - whether a person is lying not whether what they are saying is accurate. Thus, if Frazier believed it, then it would not register as a "lie" in the polygraph even if he was wrong. A person can testify honestly but erroneously. So if you believe that little green men are visiting you and take a polygraph test to that effect it will show that you are not lying. That does not mean that little green mean are visiting you though. Can you comprehend that obvious distinction? I have never disputed that Frazier believed it was a shorter bag. That is his testimony. But the totality of evidence proves he is wrong.
-
Ugh. So many wasted words. You have suggested that Frazier must be correct in his estimate of the bag's length citing the polygraph that he did not indicate lie. As though the polygraph is the hand of God determining the truth. This is simple. Pay attention for once. If Frazier truly believed the bag he was shown was not the bag, then the polygraph would indicate he was not lying EVEN if he was wrong. It determines - when accurate - whether a person is lying not whether what they are saying is accurate. Thus, if Frazier believed it, then it would not register as a "lie" in the polygraph even if he was wrong. A person can testify honestly but erroneously. So if you believe that little green men are visiting you and take a polygraph test to that effect it will show that you are not lying. That does not mean that little green mean are visiting you though. Can you comprehend that obvious distinction? I have never disputed that Frazier believed it was a shorter bag. That is his testimony. But the totality of evidence proves he is wrong.
And more ramblings about the size estimate of the bag..... Try reading the post first before you reply with your standard crap!
-
Frazier that being threatened with being charged with being an accessory to the murder. By transporting the assassin and the rifle contained within a bag. This went on for many hours and was still going on at 11:30 pm.
Given this pressure, it is natural that Frazier would:
1. State the bag he saw with Oswald was too short to hold the rifle.
If he fudged his story to avoid being pegged as an accomplice, why would he mention the bag at all?
-
I don't need to prove anything. He took it in and he used it.
So says John Anderson's crystal ball.
-
We know he was incorrect on its length because the actual bag was found and measured.
This relies on the assumption (with absolutely no evidence whatsoever to support it) that the bag allegedly found near the 6th floor SE window was the same bag that Frazier and Randle saw.
-
If he was worried about being pegged as an accomplice, why would he mention the bag at all?
Well duh, if somebody else saw Oswald carrying an excessively large bag and Buell failed to mention the obviously excessive large bag then even Frazier would realize that would be suspicious.
JohnM
-
Like his sister for example.
3 feet by 6 inches.
-
Well duh, if somebody else saw Oswald carrying an excessively large bag and Buell failed to mention the obviously excessive large bag then even Frazier would realize that would be suspicious.
You mean like Dougherty? Oh wait...
"excessively large". LOL.
-
Like his sister for example.
3 feet by 6 inches.
James Bookhout is the one who said that.
-
FBI Report, 11/23/63
by Special Agent James Bookhout
"RANDLE stated that about 7:15 a.m., November 22, 1963, she looked out of a window of her residence and observed LEE HARVEY OSWALD walking up her driveway and saw him put a long brown package, approximately 3 feet by 6 inches, in the back seat area of WESLEY FRAZIER's 1954 black Chevrolet four door automobile."
Can anyone provide any sort of proof that Bookhout lied about what Randle told him?
-
FBI Report, 11/23/63
by Special Agent James Bookhout
"RANDLE stated that about 7:15 a.m., November 22, 1963, she looked out of a window of her residence and observed LEE HARVEY OSWALD walking up her driveway and saw him put a long brown package, approximately 3 feet by 6 inches, in the back seat area of WESLEY FRAZIER's 1954 black Chevrolet four door automobile."
Can anyone provide any sort of proof that Bookhout lied about what Randle told him?
"Can anyone provide any sort of proof that Bookhout lied about what Randle told him?"
(http://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/rifle2713.jpg)
(http://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/rifle27.jpg)
-
"Can anyone provide any sort of proof that Bookhout lied about what Randle told him?"
(http://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/rifle2713.jpg)
(http://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/rifle27.jpg)
Explain how Randle's later estimation is supposed to prove that Bookhout lied about Randle originally telling him that the bag was three feet long?
-
This relies on the assumption (with absolutely no evidence whatsoever to support it) that the bag allegedly found near the 6th floor SE window was the same bag that Frazier and Randle saw.
Again with wildly overstating your nutty claims - "no evidence whatsover"! LOL Well, except for Oswald's prints being found on that bag. The location of the bag next to bullet casings fired from his rifle. No accounting for this bag except as the bag Oswald carried the rifle in that morning. No other bag matching the size estimate of Frazier ever being found or accounted for in any way. And Oswald himself denying he carried any bag as described by Frazier. It's amusing that you dismiss all evidence against Oswald as the product of "assumptions" which implies outlandish baseless counter-possibilities like this bag being planted and all the implications that entails none of which are supported by any evidence at all. Very humorous.
-
FBI Report, 11/23/63
by Special Agent James Bookhout
"RANDLE stated that about 7:15 a.m., November 22, 1963, she looked out of a window of her residence and observed LEE HARVEY OSWALD walking up her driveway and saw him put a long brown package, approximately 3 feet by 6 inches, in the back seat area of WESLEY FRAZIER's 1954 black Chevrolet four door automobile."
Can anyone provide any sort of proof that Bookhout lied about what Randle told him?
There are many versions of what LM Randle said.....The version that you have posted is 90% BS....Perhaps you should do a little research.
-
Again with wildly overstating your nutty claims - "no evidence whatsover"! LOL Well, except for Oswald's prints being found on that bag. The location of the bag next to bullet casings fired from his rifle. No accounting for this bag except as the bag Oswald carried the rifle in that morning. No other bag matching the size estimate of Frazier ever being found or accounted for in any way. And Oswald himself denying he carried any bag as described by Frazier. It's amusing that you dismiss all evidence against Oswald as the product of "assumptions" which implies outlandish baseless counter-possibilities like this bag being planted and all the implications that entails none of which are supported by any evidence at all. Very humorous.
Well, except for Oswald's prints being found on that bag.
According to Latona, a parcial palm print and a parcial finger print on the bag could be identified as belonging to Oswald. Other prints, also on the bag and thus potentially belonging to others, could not be identified. Unfortunately, as so often in this case, we have to take the word of one person for it, since the silver nitrate used on the bag destroyed the evidence to the extend that no second opinion could even be obtained.
Having said that, the presence of two parcial prints of a TSBD employee on a bag made from TSBD materials and found inside the TSBD does not even begin to prove that this was the bag Oswald carried that morning.
Even worse for your narrative, which is why you have ignored it so far, is that Wesley Buell Frazier was shown the TSBD bag the same day and he, while being polygraphed, denied that it was the bag he had seen Oswald carry that morning. He added that the bag he had actually seen was "definitely a thin, flimsy sack like the one purchased in a dime store".
The location of the bag next to bullet casings fired from his rifle.
Wrong again. The devil is, as always, in the details! Fritz told Detective Montgomery to guard and preserve the sniper's nest until Day and Studebaker got there. Montgomery is on record as saying that the bag he saw was sitting on top of a box, which contradicts completely where Studebaker claimed it was.
And as far as "fired from his rifle" goes; "wildly overstating your nutty claims" decribes it well!
No accounting for this bag except as the bag Oswald carried the rifle in that morning.
BS. What is this self serving speculation supposed to prove, other than your own narrowmindedness?
No other bag matching the size estimate of Frazier ever being found or accounted for in any way.
Proves nothing. Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence. Besides, there is no evidence whatsoever that they actually ever searched for another bag to begin with. They already had a bag, simply looked no further and just jumped to a conclusion....
And Oswald himself denying he carried any bag as described by Frazier.
This is simply not true. It is at best a misrepresentation of the facts. Frazier described the bag to DPD officers as "definitely a thin, flimsy sack like the one purchased in a dime store". Can you show me where and when Oswald was asked about such a flimsy bag? I know that it is reported that they asked him about a long or large bag, but that is clearly not how Frazier described it.
It's amusing that you dismiss all evidence against Oswald as the product of "assumptions" which implies outlandish baseless counter-possibilities like this bag being planted
So, basically what you are saying is that your assumption must be correct simply because you dismiss all other possibilities as "outlandish" and "baseless"..... Now that's really funny!
Btw why would that bag have been planted? It was made of TSBD materials and allegedly found at the TSBD!
-
"Can anyone provide any sort of proof that Bookhout lied about what Randle told him?"
(http://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/rifle2713.jpg)
(http://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/rifle27.jpg)
Recently a poster mentioned a book entitled The Assassination Tapes by George O'Toole ....I had read that book several years ago but after i was reminded of the book I read it again. The book is based on subjecting taped conversation to a machine that can detect when a speaker voice is stressed due to lying....
O'Toole used tape recordings from radio and TV broadcasts and presented the sound of the speaker's voice to stress analysis.... It probably sounds like witch craft to some .....but I believe that PSE is a real way to detect stress in the voice of a speaker.
O'Toole subjected a TV interview of Buell Frazier telling a newsman about the morning of 11/22/63 and what Frazier had seen and heard that morning.
When Frazier talked about going to the car and starting it .....O'Toole reported that Frazier's voice revealed little stress as would be expected....But when Frazier told the newsman about seeing a paper sack on the rear seat of the car....The stress in Frazier's voice went to maximum..... Which indicates that Frazier probably was lying about some aspect of that paper sack.
(http://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/rifle27.jpg)
"He stated that he only glanced at this package, at the time, over his shoulder, and said something to Oswald about the package, and Oswald explained that it was curtain rods"
In some reports Frazier says that when he saw the paper sack he simply asked..."What's that?"
But in other versions Frazier says he asked "What's in the sack, Lee?" ...
But no matter which version was subjected to PSE evaluation Frazier's voice indicated severe stress .....
At one point O'Toole wanted to get a second opinion about Frazier's recorded casual conversation with newsmen ao he sent the tape recording to an expert for his opinion .....
After evaluating the tape the expert reported that Frazier's chart was a text book example of a person lying...He said that on a scale of one to ten.... Frazier was at eleven.....
-
Can anyone provide any sort of proof that Bookhout lied about what Randle told him?
Can anyone provide any sort of proof that Randle actually said that?
-
Again with wildly overstating your nutty claims - "no evidence whatsover"! LOL Well, except for Oswald's prints being found on that bag.
Oswald's prints being on a bag somehow equates to it being the same bag in your mind? Not suprising, given your usual process of "logic".
The location of the bag next to bullet casings fired from his rifle.
"his rifle". LOL. What evidence do you have that CE142 was "next to bullet casings"?
No accounting for this bag except as the bag Oswald carried the rifle in that morning.
What evidence do you have that there was a rifle in the bag that Oswald carried. Or in CE142 for that matter?
No other bag matching the size estimate of Frazier ever being found or accounted for in any way.
You're like a broken record. For the umpteenth time, when was there ever a search done for a bag matching the size estimate of Frazier?
And Oswald himself denying he carried any bag as described by Frazier.
Please cite.
It's amusing that you dismiss all evidence against Oswald as the product of "assumptions"
It's amusing that you consider assumptions to be evidence.
-
Recently a poster mentioned a book entitled The Assassination Tapes by George O'Toole ....I had read that book several years ago but after i was reminded of the book I read it again. The book is based on subjecting taped conversation to a machine that can detect when a speaker voice is stressed due to lying....
O'Toole used tape recordings from radio and TV broadcasts and presented the sound of the speaker's voice to stress analysis.... It probably sounds like witch craft to some .....but I believe that PSE is a real way to detect stress in the voice of a speaker.
O'Toole subjected a TV interview of Buell Frazier telling a newsman about the morning of 11/22/63 and what Frazier had seen and heard that morning.
When Frazier talked about going to the car and starting it .....O'Toole reported that Frazier's voice revealed little stress as would be expected....But when Frazier told the newsman about seeing a paper sack on the rear seat of the car....The stress in Frazier's voice went to maximum..... Which indicates that Frazier probably was lying about some aspect of that paper sack.
(http://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/rifle27.jpg)
"He stated that he only glanced at this package, at the time, over his shoulder, and said something to Oswald about the package, and Oswald explained that it was curtain rods"
In some reports Frazier says that when he saw the paper sack he simply asked..."What's that?"
But in other versions Frazier says he asked "What's in the sack, Lee?" ...
But no matter which version was subjected to PSE evaluation Frazier's voice indicated severe stress .....
At one point O'Toole wanted to get a second opinion about Frazier's recorded casual conversation with newsmen ao he sent the tape recording to an expert for his opinion .....
After evaluating the tape the expert reported that Frazier's chart was a text book example of a person lying...He said that on a scale of one to ten.... Frazier was at eleven.....
Frazier was given the choice of being charged as an accomplice of LHO or conveying a
recollection that tended to put a Carcano in a sack in a dead man's hands on 11/22/63.
His story was full of holes. Once Ozzie was murdered by Ruby it didn't matter. Frazier's story
gave LE and the WC what they needed at the time. IMO of course
-
(http://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/down%20the%20rabbit%20hole.jpg)
-
O'Toole used tape recordings from radio and TV broadcasts and presented the sound of the speaker's voice to stress analysis.... It probably sounds like witch craft to some .....but I believe that PSE is a real way to detect stress in the voice of a speaker.
Not any more witchy than handwriting "analysis" and identifying unique rifle gouges via moon craters.
-
At around the 1 hour and 20 second mark Weisburg makes a statement that the reason that the DPD gave Frazier a polygraph test was to see if Frazier was, as Weisburg puts it, laying Marina Oswald.
Interesting. What is Weisberg's source for this?
-
Oswald's prints being on a bag somehow equates to it being the same bag in your mind? Not suprising, given your usual process of "logic".
"his rifle". LOL. What evidence do you have that CE142 was "next to bullet casings"?
What evidence do you have that there was a rifle in the bag that Oswald carried. Or in CE142 for that matter?
You're like a broken record. For the umpteenth time, when was there ever a search done for a bag matching the size estimate of Frazier?
Please cite.
It's amusing that you consider assumptions to be evidence.
It amuses me no end that you claim Oswald carried a bag the size estimated by Frazier into the TSBD but then dismiss as unimportant that no such bag was ever found or accounted for in any manner as though that is not important. Dismissing this on the basis that there is no evidence that anyone search for it. LOL. Don't you believe the DPD searched that building? The most logical explanation for such a bag never being found is that it wasn't there because - as Oswald himself confirmed - he never carried a bag the size estimated by Frazier. Why would Oswald lie if he carried some shorter bag that contained a non-incriminatory item like curtain rods? He would seemingly have every incentive not only to admit that but direct the DPD to it to exonerate himself. But here we are supposed to believe he lied against his own self interest.
Mr. BALL. Now, did you tell him what Frazier had told you?
Mr. FRITZ. I don't know that I told him what Frazier had told me but I told him someone had told me.
Mr. BALL. What did you tell him?
Mr. FRITZ. I told him he had a package and put it in the back seat and it was a package about that long and it was curtain rods. He said he didn't have any kind of a package but his lunch. He said he had his lunch and that is all he had, and Mr. Frazier told me that he got out of the car with that package, he saw him go toward the building with this long package.
I asked him, I said, "Did you go toward the building carrying a long package?"
He said, "No. I didn't carry anything but my lunch."
There is further confirmation in Fritz's notes (which I assume you believe are the product of lies and fakery like all evidence against Oswald).
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=29103#relPageId=7&tab=page
-
Frazier was given the choice of being charged as an accomplice of LHO or conveying a
recollection that tended to put a Carcano in a sack in a dead man's hands on 11/22/63.
His story was full of holes. Once Ozzie was murdered by Ruby it didn't matter. Frazier's story
gave LE and the WC what they needed at the time. IMO of course
Frazier was given the choice of being charged as an accomplice of LHO or conveying a
recollection that tended to put a Carcano in a sack in a dead man's hands on 11/22/63.
On Friday 11/22/63 Buell Frazier told the DPD that he had seen a paper sack on the back seat of his car that Lee had placed there. Frazier said that Lee told him the sack contained curtain rods.
About 14 hours later on Saturday afternoon, 11/23/63, Lee was asked if he has placed a long paper sack on the rear seat of Frazier's car and told Frazier that the package contained curtain rods. Lee denied that he ever said anything to Frazier about curtain rods.
Since the DPD said that Frazier told them that Lee had carried a long paper sack and Lee had stated that the sack contained curtain rods on Friday evening ( about 9:00pm) why wasn't Lee confronted with Frazier's statement until Saturday afternoon?
Did either Linnie Randle or Frazier say anything about curtain rods in their affidavits?
Lee had been asked if he told anybody that the sack he carried that morning contained curtain rods.....
-
Frazier was given the choice of being charged as an accomplice of LHO or conveying a
recollection that tended to put a Carcano in a sack in a dead man's hands on 11/22/63.
His story was full of holes. Once Ozzie was murdered by Ruby it didn't matter. Frazier's story
gave LE and the WC what they needed at the time. IMO of course
Good grief. Do you not see the enormous flaw in that absurd narrative which has been pointed out several times? If Frazier were somehow coerced to lie about the long bag, then he would obviously be told to estimate its size as long enough to carry the rifle. That being the entire objective of such a lie to put the rifle in Oswald's hands that morning. It would make absolutely no sense for the fantasy conspirators to coerce Frazier into lying about a bag that he would claim is too short to contain the rifle. Whew.
-
Good grief. Do you not see the enormous flaw in that absurd narrative which has been pointed out several times? If Frazier were somehow coerced to lie about the long bag, then he would obviously be told to estimate its size as long enough to carry the rifle. That being the entire objective of such a lie to put the rifle in Oswald's hands that morning. It would make absolutely no sense for the fantasy conspirators to coerce Frazier into lying about a bag that he would claim is too short to contain the rifle. Whew.
They tried!
FBI Report, 11/23/63
by Special Agent James Bookhout
"RANDLE stated that about 7:15 a.m., November 22, 1963, she looked out of a window of her residence and observed LEE HARVEY OSWALD walking up her driveway and saw him put a long brown package, approximately 3 feet by 6 inches, in the back seat area of WESLEY FRAZIER's 1954 black Chevrolet four door automobile."
Once Ozzie was murdered by Ruby, since there would be no trial, the details weren't important.
2 witnesses saw the perp with a bag that the cops said he used to carry the rifle to work on
11/22/63. And we all know cops don't lie or fudge evidence.
-
They tried!
FBI Report, 11/23/63
by Special Agent James Bookhout
"RANDLE stated that about 7:15 a.m., November 22, 1963, she looked out of a window of her residence and observed LEE HARVEY OSWALD walking up her driveway and saw him put a long brown package, approximately 3 feet by 6 inches, in the back seat area of WESLEY FRAZIER's 1954 black Chevrolet four door automobile."
Once Ozzie was murdered by Ruby, since there would be no trial, the details weren't important.
2 witnesses saw the perp with a bag that the cops said he used to carry the rifle to work on
11/22/63. And we all know cops don't lie or fudge evidence.
Try to follow along. If the fantasy conspirators had some power over Frazier to coerce him to lie about the long bag, then they would force him to say it was long enough to carry the rifle. That would be the entire point of such a lie. Having him claim the bag was too short to carry the rifle would actually be counter-productive to that objective as shown by decades of CTers who cite this as evidence that Oswald did not carry the rifle that morning. Frazier's testimony, therefore, makes absolutely no sense as the product of a lie to frame Oswald as you imply. Oswald carried a long bag that morning and it was either the size estimated by Frazier or he was honestly but erroneously off in his estimate and it was the bag found on the 6th floor.
-
It amuses me no end that you claim Oswald carried a bag the size estimated by Frazier into the TSBD but then dismiss as unimportant that no such bag was ever found or accounted for in any manner as though that is not important.
It amuses me no end that you think that it's significant that a bag that was never looked for was never found.
Dismissing this on the basis that there is no evidence that anyone search for it. LOL. Don't you believe the DPD searched that building?
They searched the upper floors for a rifle. Do you have some reason to believe that they searched anywhere for a bag?
The most logical explanation for such a bag never being found is that it wasn't there
Only in Richard-land where handwaving is called "logic".
because - as Oswald himself confirmed - he never carried a bag the size estimated by Frazier.
You still haven't substantiated this. Nowhere in your excerpt of Fritz's testimony does he say that Oswald denied carrying a bag the size estimated by Frazier.
Why would Oswald lie if he carried some shorter bag that contained a non-incriminatory item like curtain rods? He would seemingly have every incentive not only to admit that but direct the DPD to it to exonerate himself. But here we are supposed to believe he lied against his own self interest.
On what basis do you assume he lied?
There is further confirmation in Fritz's notes
You're a hoot. If Oswald really "denied bringing a package to work" then that would include a lunch package. So what did Oswald actually say? The notes don't say "size estimated by Frazier". Maybe writing one's interrogation notes several days later isn't the best way to ensure accuracy...
-
Good grief. Do you not see the enormous flaw in that absurd narrative which has been pointed out several times? If Frazier were somehow coerced to lie about the long bag, then he would obviously be told to estimate its size as long enough to carry the rifle.
When did Gary ever say anything about Frazier being "coerced to lie about the long bag", Mr. Strawman?
-
Try to follow along. If the fantasy conspirators had some power over Frazier to coerce him to lie about the long bag, then they would force him to say it was long enough to carry the rifle. That would be the entire point of such a lie. Having him claim the bag was too short to carry the rifle would actually be counter-productive to that objective as shown by decades of CTers who cite this as evidence that Oswald did not carry the rifle that morning. Frazier's testimony, therefore, makes absolutely no sense as the product of a lie to frame Oswald as you imply. Oswald carried a long bag that morning and it was either the size estimated by Frazier or he was honestly but erroneously off in his estimate and it was the bag found on the 6th floor.
Once Ozzie's dead and there is no trial the details don't really matter.
All they needed was a witness or two who could verify that he was carrying a bag to work on
11/22/63. The cops and the WC provided the rest.
You catching on yet?
-
Good grief. Do you not see the enormous flaw in that absurd narrative which has been pointed out several times? If Frazier were somehow coerced to lie about the long bag, then he would obviously be told to estimate its size as long enough to carry the rifle. That being the entire objective of such a lie to put the rifle in Oswald's hands that morning. It would make absolutely no sense for the fantasy conspirators to coerce Frazier into lying about a bag that he would claim is too short to contain the rifle. Whew.
If Frazier were somehow coerced to lie about the long bag, then he would obviously be told to estimate its size as long enough to carry the rifle.
Who says that Frazier was " coerced"..... Perhaps his sister had got herself involved by telling Adamcik that Lee carried a paper sack like those curtain rod sacks....... ( IMO this is exactly what happened)
Frazier would have wanted to support his sister and saw no harm in confirming what she had said.
-
It amuses me no end that you claim Oswald carried a bag the size estimated by Frazier into the TSBD but then dismiss as unimportant that no such bag was ever found or accounted for in any manner as though that is not important. Dismissing this on the basis that there is no evidence that anyone search for it. LOL. Don't you believe the DPD searched that building? The most logical explanation for such a bag never being found is that it wasn't there because - as Oswald himself confirmed - he never carried a bag the size estimated by Frazier. Why would Oswald lie if he carried some shorter bag that contained a non-incriminatory item like curtain rods? He would seemingly have every incentive not only to admit that but direct the DPD to it to exonerate himself. But here we are supposed to believe he lied against his own self interest.
Mr. BALL. Now, did you tell him what Frazier had told you?
Mr. FRITZ. I don't know that I told him what Frazier had told me but I told him someone had told me.
Mr. BALL. What did you tell him?
Mr. FRITZ. I told him he had a package and put it in the back seat and it was a package about that long and it was curtain rods. He said he didn't have any kind of a package but his lunch. He said he had his lunch and that is all he had, and Mr. Frazier told me that he got out of the car with that package, he saw him go toward the building with this long package.
I asked him, I said, "Did you go toward the building carrying a long package?"
He said, "No. I didn't carry anything but my lunch."
There is further confirmation in Fritz's notes (which I assume you believe are the product of lies and fakery like all evidence against Oswald).
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=29103#relPageId=7&tab=page
Mr. FRITZ. I don't know that I told him what Frazier had told me but I told him someone had told me.
On page 604 of WR Captain Fritz writes.....
Quote..."I asked him if he had told Buell Wesley Frazier why he had gone home a different night, and if he had told him anything about bringing back some curtain rods. He denied it." ...unquote
Looks like Ol Cap was a damned liar!......
-
When did Gary ever say anything about Frazier being "coerced to lie about the long bag", Mr. Strawman?
Notice that Frazier's affidavit is almost entirely about the paper bag.....( Strange!) I believe that someone wrote this affidavit for Frazier..... He was not this articulate...
BEFORE ME, Mary Rattan, a Notary Public in and for said County, State of Texas, on this day personally appeared Buell Wesley Frazier, Age 19, 2439 West 5th Street, Irving, Texas WE 3-8965 who, after being by me duly sworn, on oath deposes and says:
I work at Texas School Book Depository, Corner Elm and Houston. I have worked there since September 13, 1963. I fill orders. About a month ago, I met Lee Harvey Oswald at work. I saw that he was a new man, and I walked up to him and asked him if he was Lee. I figured he must be Lee as my sister had told me about him. I asked him if he would like to ride back and forth with me as I knew his wife lived with Ruth Paine near my house, and he said he would, but only on week ends as he had an apartment of his own in Oak Cliff. After that every Friday evening Lee would ride home with me and then ride back to work with me on Monday morning. He has only rode home from work with me on Fridays, but yesterday morning, Thursday, November 21, 1963, Lee told me that he wanted to ride home with me that evening. I was surprised, and I asked him if he was going with me Friday also, and he said, "No". He told me that he was going home to get some curtain rods. Thursday afternoon Lee rode to Irving with me to Ruth Paine's house, where his wife is staying. I let him out of my car in front of Ruth's house, then I went on. This morning, Friday, November 22, 1963, I got up between 6:00 - 6:30 AM, and got ready to go to work, and then sit down to eat breakfast, about 7:15 AM, me, my mother, and my two little neices [sic] were at the table, and my sister was at the sink. My mother looked up and said, "Who is that looking in the window?" I looked up and said, "That's Lee." I got up and finished getting ready and got my lunch and went to the door and met Lee on the car port. We then walked to my car, it was parked backed up at the side of the car port. Before I got in the car, I glanced in the back seat, and saw a big sack. It must have been about 2' long, and the top of the sack was sort of folded up, and the rest of the sack had been kind of folded under. I asked Lee what was in the sack, and he said "curtain rods", and I remembered that he had told me the day before that he was going to bring some curtain rods. We drove to work the same way that I usually go. We came into town on Stemmons Freeway to Main and Main to Record, and then on across the McKinney and by the warehouse to the parking lot. I parked the car and sit there awhile and run the motor to charge the battery, and while I was doing that, Lee got out and opened the back door and got the package out of the back seat and walked behind the car, then I got out of the car and started walking toward the building where I work. I noticed that Lee had the package in his right hand under his arm, and the package was straight up and down, and he had his arm down, and you could not see much of the package. When we started walking, Lee was just a few feet ahead of me, but he kept waking faster than me, and finally got way ahead of me. I saw him go in the back door at the Loading Dock of the building that we work in, and he still had the package under his arm. I did not see him anymore for about 30 minutes, and then we were both working. Lee did not carry his lunch today. He told me this morning he was going to buy his lunch today. I was standing on the front steps of the building when the Parade came by, and I watched the Parade go by. After President Kennedy had got out of my sight, I heard three shots. I stood there, then people started running by, and I turned, and went back in the building and got my lunch and eat it. I did not see Lee anymore after about 11:00 AM today, and at that time, we were both working, and we were on the first floor.
Wesley Frazier
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN BEFORE ME THIS 22 DAY OF November A.D. 1963
/s/Mary Rattan
Notary Public, Dallas County, Texas
-
Notice that Frazier's affidavit is almost entirely about the paper bag.....( Strange!) I believe that someone wrote this affidavit for Frazier..... He was not this articulate...
BEFORE ME, Mary Rattan, a Notary Public in and for said County, State of Texas, on this day personally appeared Buell Wesley Frazier, Age 19, 2439 West 5th Street, Irving, Texas WE 3-8965 who, after being by me duly sworn, on oath deposes and says:
I work at Texas School Book Depository, Corner Elm and Houston. I have worked there since September 13, 1963. I fill orders. About a month ago, I met Lee Harvey Oswald at work. I saw that he was a new man, and I walked up to him and asked him if he was Lee. I figured he must be Lee as my sister had told me about him. I asked him if he would like to ride back and forth with me as I knew his wife lived with Ruth Paine near my house, and he said he would, but only on week ends as he had an apartment of his own in Oak Cliff. After that every Friday evening Lee would ride home with me and then ride back to work with me on Monday morning. He has only rode home from work with me on Fridays, but yesterday morning, Thursday, November 21, 1963, Lee told me that he wanted to ride home with me that evening. I was surprised, and I asked him if he was going with me Friday also, and he said, "No". He told me that he was going home to get some curtain rods. Thursday afternoon Lee rode to Irving with me to Ruth Paine's house, where his wife is staying. I let him out of my car in front of Ruth's house, then I went on. This morning, Friday, November 22, 1963, I got up between 6:00 - 6:30 AM, and got ready to go to work, and then sit down to eat breakfast, about 7:15 AM, me, my mother, and my two little neices [sic] were at the table, and my sister was at the sink. My mother looked up and said, "Who is that looking in the window?" I looked up and said, "That's Lee." I got up and finished getting ready and got my lunch and went to the door and met Lee on the car port. We then walked to my car, it was parked backed up at the side of the car port. Before I got in the car, I glanced in the back seat, and saw a big sack. It must have been about 2' long, and the top of the sack was sort of folded up, and the rest of the sack had been kind of folded under. I asked Lee what was in the sack, and he said "curtain rods", and I remembered that he had told me the day before that he was going to bring some curtain rods. We drove to work the same way that I usually go. We came into town on Stemmons Freeway to Main and Main to Record, and then on across the McKinney and by the warehouse to the parking lot. I parked the car and sit there awhile and run the motor to charge the battery, and while I was doing that, Lee got out and opened the back door and got the package out of the back seat and walked behind the car, then I got out of the car and started walking toward the building where I work. I noticed that Lee had the package in his right hand under his arm, and the package was straight up and down, and he had his arm down, and you could not see much of the package. When we started walking, Lee was just a few feet ahead of me, but he kept waking faster than me, and finally got way ahead of me. I saw him go in the back door at the Loading Dock of the building that we work in, and he still had the package under his arm. I did not see him anymore for about 30 minutes, and then we were both working. Lee did not carry his lunch today. He told me this morning he was going to buy his lunch today. I was standing on the front steps of the building when the Parade came by, and I watched the Parade go by. After President Kennedy had got out of my sight, I heard three shots. I stood there, then people started running by, and I turned, and went back in the building and got my lunch and eat it. I did not see Lee anymore after about 11:00 AM today, and at that time, we were both working, and we were on the first floor.
Wesley Frazier
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN BEFORE ME THIS 22 DAY OF November A.D. 1963
/s/Mary Rattan
Notary Public, Dallas County, Texas
The Assassination Tapes
In 1975 Penthouse Press published George O?Toole?s The Assassination Tapes. Douglas Horne praised this volume as ?a delightful gem of a book? and ?the evidence he presented is just as relevant?and just as valid?today, as it was in 1975.?(40) Harold Weisberg criticized the book for two reasons: (a) He felt O?Toole had borrowed way too much from Whitewash IV (bordering on plagiarism) without giving him credit, and (b) he thought some of his wild speculation was too much for him to handle. Weisberg did not impugn the actual technology and methodology O?Toole had used, however.(41) Mark Lane totally embraced the technology and wished he had it when he was seeing and recording witnesses in Dallas. It would have sent him in other directions of investigation.(42)
Despite the controversy, O?Toole?s investigation, which is based upon voice stress analysis, is full of intrigue. The Psychological Stress Evaluator was invented in 1971 (43) and patented in 1976 by Bell, McQuiston and Ford.(44) Their model PSE 1000 was marketed by the Dektor Counterintelligence and Security Co.(45) According to O?Toole, this device opened up a whole new playing field for investigators. He was now able to use recorded exchanges to chart the degree of stress in voice recordings no matter how old or far away.(46) O?Toole went back and retroactively analyzed voice recordings of Oswald and determined he had been telling the truth about ?not shooting anyone.?(47)
Next, O?Toole also analyzed Frazier?s CBS interview (YouTube video below) shortly after the assassination, however, and determined his degree of deception had gone through the roof during the entire 42 second exchange: (48)
?Judging from the PSE charts, when Buell Wesley Frazier made that statement, he was in a condition of sheer terror.?(49)
Now O?Toole was ready to deal with Frazier by interviewing him himself. His first order of business was, of course, to find him. After failing to find him in Dallas he visited Linnie Mae who quickly brushed him off. The only thing he could get out of her was the fact that Frazier was in the Army and could not be contacted.(50)
While in Dallas he called Paul Bentley, senior polygraph examiner at the time (of the assassination). Bentley claimed not to have been on duty that night because of a sprained ankle that was in a cast. (He detected hard stress in his voice.)(51) Next, he decided to talk to R.D. Lewis, who, according to DPD documents, was the technician who administered the polygraph to Frazier. Lewis denied administering any polygraph ?connected to Oswald? that night (hard stress).(52) Furthermore, O?Toole established that R.D. Lewis never signed the DPD report, which had Rose and Stovall?s name on it, and ?Lewis had not gone on record anywhere to the effect that Frazier had passed the test.?(53) Lewis would not testify before the Warren Commission.
For his next interview, he spoke to Detective Gerald Hill at his home. Hill advised O?Toole that Fritz could not have ordered the polygraph: ? ?cause Fritz didn?t believe in polygraphs. He wouldn?t use ?em ? (near maximum stress).(54) He returned and spoke to Bentley again, who told him that was not true, he had run ?many, many? examinations for Captain Fritz.(55)
He decided to see Detective Richard Stovall, who was with Frazier most of the early evening and night of 11/22 until he dropped him off after midnight.(56) The first thing he found out from Stovall was that he had not been present for Frazier?s polygraph. (Hard stress appeared.)(57) This directly contradicted his WCVIIH192 testimony.(58)
He also spoke to Guy F. Rose, the detective who was with Stovall and Adamcik that day. Rose now contradicted Hill regarding Fritz?s confidence in the polygraph test.(59)
O?Toole then contacted R.D. Lewis again, armed with information contained in Jim Bishop?s 1967 book, The Day Kennedy was Shot, and Warren Commission references that mentioned the polygraph. He now started to vaguely remember maybe giving Frazier a polygraph test that night. Finally, O?Toole concluded that there was no credibility to Frazier having passed the polygraph test.(60)
It was now time to get serious about finding Frazier. He checked with an Army contact and was told there had never been anyone by that name in the Army.(61) From there, he heard from another contact with ?very good FBI connections? that Frazier was working at the Boeing Corporation, in Renton, who was not the only source. Then he went chasing him through most of the bases he had been in the south, sometimes just missing him.(62)
On a visit to Dektor, he happened to meet Tony Pellicano, an expert at finding people.(63) With the help of Pellicano, O?Toole at last located Frazier in December 1973 in Texas, stationed at Fort Hood, only 100 miles south of Dallas. Frazier was living on the base and commuting back and forth to Irving on weekends.(64) When he finally recorded his interview with Frazier, it was no less than stunning. Pellicano caught Frazier repeatedly lying about just about everything. The following questions produced maximum hard stress or good to hard stress:(65)
1. Did he (Oswald) take that package up with him into the building?
2. Did he tell you he was going to go home with you that night?
3. There was nobody else in the (polygraph) room with you?
4. Did he (the examiner) tell you that you passed the test?
5. Do you know Paul Bently?
6. You never knew he (Oswald) had this gun then?
In closing this chapter, O?Toole wrote:
?The midnight polygraph examination of Buel Wesley Frazier lies at the very heart of the mystery of November 22, 1963. Why does it provoke hard stress, false statements, and curious lapses of memory among the Dallas police officers who should be the most familiar with it? ?the answer to these questions can only be the darkest speculation.? (66)
Frazier and the HSCA
While he was being discharged from the Army in 1977, the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) was forming to reinvestigate the JFK and MLK assassinations. Again, Frazier offered stiff opposition to testifying. ?Frazier continues to procrastinate. Definite resistance.?(67) Frazier was finally interviewed by Investigators Moriarity and Day of the HSCA, but never testified under oath. The reason is pretty obvious when one reads the transcripts. Four audio tapes were made of these interviews, which lingered in oblivion at the National Archives until Greg Parker decided to transcribe them. Tapes one and two were useless because of time deterioration.(68)
Tape number three described how he stayed put on the steps:
?I continued to stay right on the steps where I was. I didn?t move from there, I didn?t talk with someone who was sitting there that, uh, was ? was on the stairs, as I said earlier. With the same two people. And the shots came from ? apparently now ? they came from around in a group of people scrambling.? Later on the same topic, ?And I moved to the right. ?Cause I was very interested in staying ? there is no way to get caught. Standing there in the middle.?(69)
Then Day asked him a very simple, important and relevant question:
DAY: Are you in any pictures?
FRAZIER: No ? I don?t remember. What, uh-what I was gonna say is that it sounded ? sounded like they were taken in the fall. It was then that was, you know, perfect. But being there at that time I didn?t know.(70)
This tape also contains what seem to be other incoherent statements from Frazier. However, they seem incoherent if you do not know about his induction into the Army. His references to ?military? and ?Seattle? are not a coincidence. Had this man been mentally tormented, with the spectre of being sent to Vietnam at the whim of the people who were running this operation? It was crucial that they keep a lid on Frazier. This was the star witness who helped to ?convict? Lee Oswald in the public eye.
Consider the following exchange from page six:
?And anyways they terminated asking questions and when I answered back I tried to?I tried to tell them the truth. And that made them very angry.?(71) The only thing we can think of that could elicit this type of reaction would have been that he told them that perhaps his friend Lee Oswald was right next to him at the front entrance.
On tape four he talked about the advantage the TSBD employees had being on the steps at a higher level and in the sunlight to avoid the crowded curbs, and how he kept going from the doorway to the sunshine and again, confirming his position when the motorcade drove by, next to the ?big heavy set lady?.(72) These details are very important because they refute the argument that he was in the shadows of the doorway when the motorcade drove by:(73)
?So we stepped back out then down on?out on to the steps. ?so we stepped back into the sunlight then where actually we could see better. Because that?s you know its not every day that you can see the President of the United States come by in a motorcade a few feet away.?
FRAZIER: OK, I know some of the girls that worked in the uh offices above and they stepped out into the sunlight with me there and I know the big heavy set woman she was right there.(74)
Take a look at the same area, but from the angle of Dave Weigman, who was traveling in a press cars, the 7th car in the motorcade, 1 or 2 seconds after the last shots. The three people shielding their eyes are still there, right? Now focus on the man sandwiched in between these three.
These images confirm this is a young, tall, slim, long-limbed man with long neck, black hair, triangular shaped combination of head and hair. He is wearing a long sleeved dark colored shirt rolled up right below the elbow.Why is this man not seen in Altgens6? The three people in Altgens6 who are shielding their eyes with their hands are accounted for. Doorman is also accounted for as well as the black man who is at his lower right.
When we flip the 11/22/63 photograph taken of Buell Frazier and compare it to the figure in Weigman, we get a perfect match. He happens to be standing exactly on the stairs where he said he was in his own hand written statement the night of 11/22/63.(75)
His Warren Commission testimony was taken 3/11/64 by Mr. Joseph (?I won?t drop the ball?) Ball. In his testimony, Frazier confirmed his position stating he was ?one step down from the top there?, and ?Yes sir, standing by the rail.? He was shown CE-362, which is a only a schematic drawing of the first floor as seen from above to establish his position at the time.(76)
Down the road of deception, lies and duress
Here is where things get dicey. We just proved Frazier was standing on the steps, which was documented as early as the night of the assassination. (77) In his Warren Commission testimony, he was asked if he would take a look at CE-369, a version of Altgens6 that is severely cropped. Quoting from page 242 of his testimony:
BALL. We have got a picture taken the day of the parade and it shows the President?s car going by. Now, take a look at that picture. Can you see your picture any place there?
Mr. FRAZIER. No, sir; I don?t, because I was back up in this more or less black area here.
Mr. BALL. I see.
Mr. FRAZIER. Because Billy, like I say, is two or three steps down in front of me.
Mr. BALL. Do you recognize this fellow?
Mr. FRAZIER. That is Billy, that is Billy Lovelady.
Mr. BALL. Billy?
Mr. FRAZIER. Right
Mr. BALL. Let?s take a marker and make an arrow down that way. That mark is Billy Lovelady?
Mr. FRAZIER. Right.
Mr. BALL. That is where you told us you were standing a moment ago.
Mr. FRAZIER. Right.
Mr. BALL. In front of you to the right over to the wall?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes.
Changes at the Entrance
These images are from the Warren Commission. Below left is a schematic drawing of the first floor of the building, the area where Lee Oswald and Wesley Frazier worked side by side filling orders. According to Frazier?s testimony, the only reason for order fillers to have gone up to the sixth floor would have been to process book returns. This was a very simple procedure which required very little time. That morning it was Frazier who had been to the sixth floor at least once. When asked if he had seen Oswald on the sixth floor of the building at any time that morning, he answered, ?No?.(78)
The second image below is the Elm Street main entrance of the building as seen from inside. Notice how restricted the top landing of the entrance was in those days?it could not have been more than 3 feet of horizontal space towards Elm Street, which probably could only accommodate one row of people. Moreover, the radiator against the wall allows us to estimate the space on the other side of the door. The schematic drawing also confirms the door opened both ways and was right in the middle of the landing. This is where Frazier supposedly was, ?in the shadows more or less?.
Years later the entire doorway was replaced with thick, ornate wooden frames, and the door itself pushed further inside the entrance, which greatly increased the area of the landing as we see today at right.
In 1986, Frazier testified at Lee Oswald?s mock trial. At 9:57 into his testimony:
SPENCE: You recall these 23 years later that Mr. Lovelady was standing in front of you at that precise moment ? about 4 steps in front of you, is that correct?
FRAZIER: Yes sir, that is.
SPENCE: Have you ever said that to anybody in the world prior to today?
FRAZIER: I don?t know whether anyone asked me that or not.
SPENCE: But my question is did you ever tell that to anyone in the world ? prior to today?
FRAZIER: Not that I know of, sir.
SPENCE: But you did tell that to Mr. Bugliosi, with the ?g? silent, didn?t you.
FRAZIER: Well I asked this question, awhile ago sir. (nervously chewing gum)
There are major problems with this. Again, Frazier was right in the middle of the group that was on the stairs, one or two steps from the top. The deception orchestrated by Joseph Ball in his Warren Commission testimony is pathetic. It is rife with contradictions. Every time Frazier testified about his position at the stairs of the entrance of the TSBD, no matter in which forum, he gave a different story. In his WC testimony, he gave two different positions (as seen above) within the same session! Doorman is obviously above him, not 2, 3 or 4 steps in front of him! Thanks to Gerry Spence, we have videotaped testimony which shows Frazier lying with impunity under oath. By 1986 he had apparently gotten used to the libretto and did not need any more coaching.
The image to the right is from Ralph Cinque?s Altgens6 re-enactment conducted on 11/7/12 and 11/13/12, the first time this was ever done. It is presented here to confirm the position of doorman at the top step of the stairway. Again, this is also confirmed by Altgens6 and Weigman 658. This image only shows the top 3 of the 7 steps that comprise the stairway itself.
YouTube - Veterans Today -
Alterations of our own
Using 21st century technology, when we reverse engineer the alterations of the doorway of Altgens6 we come up with this. Once we match Frazier?s head size, rotate him, blur him up a bit and transfer him back to where he used to be, it is a perfect fit! Even Special Agent Jack Ready returns to his original, correct size, as seen when compared to his partner right next to him and this inset.
After careful analysis of all of the evidence presented here, there is an extremely high probability that Buell Wesley Frazier and possibly Sarah Stanton were both removed from the Altgens6 photograph. Once we come to terms with this concept, we begin to understand the terrible life of duress Buell Wesley Frazier has lived. He may live well and comfortable today, but he will always know in the back of his mind what really happened and how he helped frame an innocent man
Discussion
Why was Frazier removed from Altgens6? That?s a very good question. Until he and his sister Linnie Mae come clean, all we can do is speculate. When Altgens6 was viewed on 11/22 at 1:00PM, there was a group of TSBD employees spilling out from the top landing area down into the seven doorway steps as seen in Weigman 658, including Frazier and possibly Sarah Stanton. Both were in Altgens line of sight. Thanks to the Warren Commission we know the landing area of the doorway was much smaller then than it is today. Despite the difference in distance, and much like we see in this Skaggs image at right, Hughes right below, and very faintly in Weigman 658, part of the glass divider and silver metal frame should have been visible in the background of Altgens6. Today, this area is mostly obscured. Years later the entrance was retrofitted and remodeled to match Frazier?s ?back in the shadows? story.
Notice how faint the light fixture and the horizontal frame seem in Altgens6 when compared to this Hughes image.
The fact that Lee Oswald and Buell Wesley Frazier knew each other (albeit for only a couple of months), worked side by side filling orders, and car pooled on weekends was too clear and solid a connection. Once the legend of Oswald as a loner, communist and malcontent was established immediately after the assassination, Oswald being with Frazier at the doorway could not be permitted.
Over the years Frazier has misstated his position on at least five or six different occasions, sometimes under oath. He was caught lying by O?Toole quite a few times and the results of his supposed ?midnight polygraph test? have never surfaced.
If Frazier was complicit in setting up Oswald, even in a passive way, his role could have been to deliver the rifle from the Paine?s garage. This could easily have been accomplished by putting the Carcano in the trunk of his car in the early hours of 11/22 or the night before. Being only half a block away either of the Paines could have facilitated this exchange and, with a spare copy of Frazier?s car key, he would not even have had to get out of the couch he slept in. Perhaps the true reason for Frazier lagging behind was to make sure Oswald did not see him bringing a rifle into the TSBD. If he was passively involved, he may have left the rifle in the trunk of his car and allowed others to retrieve it.
They would have had all morning to plant it. Notice on page one how far and isolated from the TSBD his car was parked. Those three blocks seem to be close to half a mile distance to the building as shown in CE-361 below. The distance from his car to the TSBD, according to the scale shown was approximately 2,250 feet. While we are on this topic, another unmentioned possibility, if he was actively involved, could have been used as a chauffeur or a getaway driver for any one of the real participants. His five to six hour absence now starts to look pretty suspicious. By taking McKinney Avenue or Munger Street, he could have left the scene of the crime without being noticed.
When we consider Frazier?s comment about remaining at the steps, ?Cause I was very interested in staying ? there is no way to get caught. Standing there in the middle?, this scenario now takes on new meaning. It was imperative that Frazier be erased from his actual location to the shadows of the doorway, where?by insisting he say, ?I was back up in this more or less black area here? and the power of suggestion?he could become Black Hole Man. Instead of Tinkers to Evers to Chance, we have Frazier to Lovelady to Oswald.
We now present the entire Altgens6, rendered with the person we believe was removed from the photo the day of the assassination, Buell Wesley Frazier.
Larry Rivera, the son of a career military man who served as CID officer in the Army and a Certified Network Engineer, has made a lifelong study of the JFK assassination. He has given interviews on the assassination to Spanish media and has the most complete dossier on Billy Nolan Lovelady ever done.
References:
1. CE 1381, NPRC report
2. WC2H211
3. Ibid
4. Dallas Morning News 11/16/08 Aynesworth, ?Oswald co-worker no longer silent about JFK assassination role?
5. WC2H212
6. Ibid
7. WC2H246 ?When you live in a place you know some places that someone with, you know, not much of an education can find work?
8. DMN 11/16/08 Aynesworth, ?Oswald co-worker no longer silent about JFK assassination role?
9. DPD handwritten statement pg 1 and affidavit 11/22/63
10. WC2H214
11. WC2H227
12. WC2H228
13. DPD Affidavit 11/22/63 p2 by Mary Rattan
14. DPD handwritten statement and affidavit 11/22/63
15. WC2H235
16. CE 1381 1:00-2:00PM was quite a generous time frame
17. Greg Parker article,9/22/09 ?Whose line is it anyhow?? Buell Wesley Frazier, Linnie Mae and Bill Randle
18. DMN 11/16/08 Aynesworth, ?Oswald co-worker no longer silent about JFK assassination role?
19. DPD Rose/Stovall/Adamcik
20. Ibid
21. DPD 148-001
22. DPD Rose/Stovall/Adamcik
23. DPD Rose/Stovall/Adamcik Report and Cover-Up, Shaw 90-91
24. DPD Rose/Stovall/Adamcik pg 4
25. HSCA Tape 4 pg, 2 NPRC report
26. NPRC FOIA report pg 2
27. Ibid
28. GI?s Diary http://www.174ahc.org/diary01.htm by SP4 Horace Cassels
29. NPRC report pg 2
30. NPRC, HSCA Tape 4 pg 2
31. HSCA tape 4 pg 2
32. GI?s Diary http://www.174ahc.org/diary01.htm by SP4 Horace Cassels
33. Armstrong Box 16 Notebook 3, Tab 28 pg 7
34. Shaw trial 1969 BWF pg 26
35. NPRC pg 3
36. NPRC pg 4
37. Ibid
38. Ibid pg 1
39. Ibid
40.Horne, Inside the ARRB Vol V, pg 1654
41. Weisberg letter 7/28/75 (Example: Oswald to buy car and meet FBI in Texas Theater to collect the $200.00)
42. Weisberg photocopy ?forward? of The Assassination Tapes paperback edition
43. Horne, Inside the ARRB Vol V, pg 1655
44. Copy of patent available.
45. http://vsa-avsa.blogspot.com/ The first supplier of VSA technology was Dektor. Dektor manufactured the PSE 1000, an analogue machine, that was later replaced by the PSE 2000
46. The Assassination Tapes (TAT) pg 83-84
47. Ibid pg 125
48. Ibid 171
49. Ibid 172
50. Ibid
51. Ibid 173
52. Ibid 174
53. Ibid 181
54. Ibid 175
55. Ibid 177
56. Ibid 177-179, DPD Report, and WCVIIH192
57. Ibid 178
58. WCVIIH192
59. TAT pg 183-184
60. Ibid 187
61. Ibid 190
62. Ibid 196
63. Ibid
64. Ibid 197
65. Ibid 201-203
66. Ibid 206
67. Armstrong HSCA RG233 hand written notes
68. Greg Parker?s web site. www.ReopenKennedyCase.com
69. Tape III-2
70. Ibid
71. Tape III-6
72 Ibid
73. Ibid
74. Tape IV-14
75. DPD handwritten statement and affidavit 11/22/63
76. WC2H233
77. Op Cit
78. WC2H232
79. WC2H244, despite Ball trying his best to confuse him.
80. DMN 11/16/08 Aynesworth, ?Oswald co-worker no longer silent about JFK assassination role? pg 4
81. ?The Trial of Lee Harvey Oswald? Posted by MinM Fri Nov 21st 2008, http://journals.democraticunderground.com/MinM/109 ?Mark Lane would have been a better choice? Spence allowed Bugliosi to lead witnesses at will.
Share this on del.icio.us
Digg this!
Stumble upon something good? Share it on StumbleUpon
Share this on Reddit
Add this to Google Bookmarks
Tweet This!
Share this on Facebook
Share this on Mixx
Subscribe
Buzz up!
Share this on Linkedin
Submit this to DesignFloat
Share this on Technorati
Submit this to Script & Style
Post this to MySpace
Share this on Blinklist
Share this on FriendFeed
Seed this on Newsvine
POSTED BY JIM FETZER AT 12:20 PM
1 COMMENT:
Dubai EscortsAugust 21, 2017 at 3:25 AM
Dubai Escorts
Indian Escorts in Dubai
Pakistani Escorts in Dubai
Call Girls in Dubai
Malaysia Escorts
VIP Dubai Escorts
Reply
Newer Post Older Post Home
Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)
FOLLOWERS
ABOUT ME
My photo
JIM FETZER
McKnight Professor of Philosophy Emeritus, University of Minnesota Duluth; Founder, Scholars for 9/11 Truth; Editor, Assassination Science; Co-Editor, Assassination Research
VIEW MY COMPLETE PROFILE
BLOG ARCHIVE
► 2018 (7)
► 2017 (266)
► 2016 (151)
▼ 2015 (162)
► December (6)
► November (14)
► October (14)
▼ September (78)
► Sep 30 (20)
▼ Sep 29 (30)
JFK at 50: The Assassination of America
Jim Garrison, The Warren Report and the End of the...
The Missing Bullet chicanery of Joseph Ball, Attor...
JFK, the CIA and The New York Times
Did George H.W. Bush coordinate a JFK hit team?
JFK Conspiracy: The Bullet Hole in the Windshield
What happened to JFK's body? A cover-up "on the fl...
Reason and Rationality in Public Debate: The Case ...
Tampering with the JFK Limo in the Altgens6
The James "Ike" Altgens JFK photo timeline
The second JFK limo stop / Holding back the Altgen...
The "grassy knoll" rider and JFK limo back seat
JFK en route to Parkland: Unpacking the Miller pho...
JFK Escort Officers Speak: The Fred Newcomb Interv...
Nix film contradicts Zapruder: More Proof of Faker...
Did Zapruder film "the Zapruder film"?
Two NPIC Zapruder Film Events: Analysis and Implic...
Two NPIC Zapruder Film Events Pointing to its Alte...
Who's telling the truth: Clint Hill or the Zaprude...
US Government Official: JFK Cover-Up, Film Fabrica...
49 years in the Offing: The Altgens Reenactment
Judyth Vary Baker cements Oswald in the Doorway
Lovelady's "arrow" points to conspiracy and cover-...
Why Buell Wesley Frazier was erased from the Altge...
The JFK Altgens6: Bill Shelley's Shrunken Head
Believe it or not: Oswald wasn't even a shooter!
Faking Oswald at the DPD with Ralph Cinque
Oswald Was In Doorway After All! with Richard Hook...
JFK Special: Oswald was in the doorway, after all!...
JFK: What We Know Now that We didn?t Know Then
► Sep 28 (20)
► Sep 21 (1)
► Sep 17 (1)
► Sep 12 (2)
► Sep 11 (1)
► Sep 08 (1)
► Sep 05 (1)
► Sep 01 (1)
► August (11)
► July (12)
► June (11)
► May (10)
► April (6)
► 2013 (30)
► 2012 (24)
► 2011 (50)
► 2010 (79)
► 2009 (18)
SUPPORT US WITH YOUR PURCHASE
GOOGLE VIDEOS
Search
JFKAssasssination ZapruderFakery TheMenWhoKilledKennedy LeeHarveyOswald Falseflags WarOnTerror JamesFetzer 9/11 WTC-7 TwinTowers Pentagon SouthTower NorthTower Guantanamo Bagram Afghanistan Cageprisoners AafiaSiddiqui
upload your own video
-
Can anyone provide any sort of proof that Randle actually said that?
Translation: I cannot prove that Bookhout was lying when he wrote in his report that Randle stated that the bag was three feet long.
It's one thing to run around blowing hot air claiming that evidence is manipulated and FBI reports are lies. Anybody can do that; it takes no special talent. It's another thing entirely to actually prove it.
-
Translation: I cannot prove that Bookhout was lying when he wrote in his report that Randle stated that the bag was three feet long.
I never claimed that Bookhout was lying. What is it with Nutters and their strawman arguments?
You can either prove that Randle told Bookhout that the bag she saw was "approximately 3 feet by 6 inches" or you cannot. Bookhout's account is in direct conflict with Randle's testimony.
-
I never claimed that Bookhout was lying. What is it with Nutters and their strawman arguments?
You can either prove that Randle told Bookhout that the bag she saw was "approximately 3 feet by 6 inches" or you cannot. Bookhout's account is in direct conflict with Randle's testimony.
I've not stated that you claimed Bookhout was lying. I have not made a straw man argument; you simply misunderstood what you read.
I wonder why you always feel the need to point out the very obvious. I asked if anyone can show that Bookhout was lying when he stated (in his report) that Randle told him the bag was three feet long.
All you did was chime in with something insignificant to my question and then later point out what everyone already knows, that Randle's testimony differs with what Bookhout stated she told him.
Bookhout's report states that Randle told him the bag was three feet long. I'll ask again, can anyone prove that Bookhout was lying in his report about what he says Randle told him?
-
I've not stated that you claimed Bookhout was lying. I have not made a straw man argument; you simply misunderstood what you read.
I wonder why you always feel the need to point out the very obvious. I asked if anyone can show that Bookhout was lying when he stated (in his report) that Randle told him the bag was three feet long.
Why are you asking for "anyone" to prove a claim that nobody made? That's exactly what a strawman is, whether you understand it or not.
-
It amuses me no end that you think that it's significant that a bag that was never looked for was never found.
They searched the upper floors for a rifle. Do you have some reason to believe that they searched anywhere for a bag?
Only in Richard-land where handwaving is called "logic".
You still haven't substantiated this. Nowhere in your excerpt of Fritz's testimony does he say that Oswald denied carrying a bag the size estimated by Frazier.
On what basis do you assume he lied?
You're a hoot. If Oswald really "denied bringing a package to work" then that would include a lunch package. So what did Oswald actually say? The notes don't say "size estimated by Frazier". Maybe writing one's interrogation notes several days later isn't the best way to ensure accuracy...
You truly can't be for real. How do I know that they searched the TSBD and would have found any such bag? Wait for it...keep waiting...because they found such a bag. Only it was a bit longer than the one estimated by Frazier. LOL. How about you explain to us why Oswald would not have directed them to any such bag had it existed. It's not being found is not evidence it was there as you stupidly imply but the opposite. Only a CTer would make that insane suggestion.
Nowhere in Fritz's testimony does he say that Oswald denied carrying a bag the size estimated by Frazier? Huh. He very clearly says that Oswald denied carrying a long bag and that he only carried his lunch. Are you claiming Oswald carried a two-foot plus sized lunch bag?
I asked him, I said, "Did you go toward the building carrying a long package?"
He said, "No. I didn't carry anything but my lunch."
-
You truly can't be for real. How do I know that they searched the TSBD and would have found any such bag? Wait for it...keep waiting...because they found such a bag.
It's truly sad and scary what you think passes for logic. You assume that "they" didn't find any other bag than CE142 (even though there's no evidence that they ever looked for one and even though there is no crime scene photo showing such a bag on the 6th floor in the SE corner and even though the first 5 or 6 officers on the scene didn't see such a bag there), so therefore CE142 must have been the bag that Oswald carried, even though the only two people to see the bag that Oswald carried said that it was not.
Nowhere in Fritz's testimony does he say that Oswald denied carrying a bag the size estimated by Frazier? Huh. He very clearly says that Oswald denied carrying a long bag and that he only carried his lunch. Are you claiming Oswald carried a two-foot plus sized lunch bag?
I asked him, I said, "Did you go toward the building carrying a long package?"
He said, "No. I didn't carry anything but my lunch."
Thank you for demonstrating that when you said "Oswald denied carrying a bag the size estimated by Frazier", you just made that part up. You don't know what was in the bag that Frazier saw. You don't even know what if anything was ever in CE142. You just pretend like you do.
-
It's truly sad and scary what you think passes for logic. You assume that "they" didn't find any other bag than CE142 (even though there's no evidence that they ever looked for one and even though there is no crime scene photo showing such a bag on the 6th floor in the SE corner and even though the first 5 or 6 officers on the scene didn't see such a bag there), so therefore CE142 must have been the bag that Oswald carried, even though the only two people to see the bag that Oswald carried said that it was not.
Thank you for demonstrating that when you said "Oswald denied carrying a bag the size estimated by Frazier", you just made that part up. You don't know what was in the bag that Frazier saw. You don't even know what if anything was ever in CE142. You just pretend like you do.
How exactly am I making that up? You are either dishonest or a complete loon. According to Fritz, Oswald said he did not carry a long package but only his lunch sack. There is no way to interpret that in any way to be consist with Frazier's two-foot long package, In fact, Frazier himself indicated that he asked Oswald about his lunch because he noticed that he was not carrying a lunch bag. You should be ashamed for peddling this nonsense.
-
Oswald lied Frazier about what was in the sack and Oswald lied about where is package was in Fraziers car.
(https://s17.postimg.org/q0cf3404v/buellbagest.jpg)
JohnM
-
How exactly am I making that up? You are either dishonest or a complete loon. According to Fritz, Oswald said he did not carry a long package but only his lunch sack.
I thought the bold type would clue you in, but apparently not.
"Oswald denied carrying a bag THE SIZE ESTIMATED BY FRAZIER"
The part you made up was "THE SIZE ESTIMATED BY FRAZIER". Fritz never said that.
Once again:
The part you made up was "THE SIZE ESTIMATED BY FRAZIER"
I hope that clears it up for you.
There is no way to interpret that in any way to be consist with Frazier's two-foot long package
You're a hoot. It's somehow impossible to carry a lunch in a two-foot long package, so therefore it was a rifle? The twisted logic never ends.
-
Oswald lied Frazier about what was in the sack and Oswald lied about where is package was in Fraziers car.
So you claim. Proving that is another matter.
-
So you claim. Proving that is another matter.
Not my claim and if Frazier's word isn't good enough for you then yeah sure throw him under the bus too, that seems to be your modus operandi!
JohnM
-
Not my claim and if Frazier's word isn't good enough for you then yeah sure throw him under the bus too, that seems to be your modus operandi!
I didn't throw Frazier under the bus. Frazier never said Oswald lied, you did. You're the one throwing him under the bus with your "mistaken" song and dance. He said it wasn't the same bag.
And you're a hypocrite too, given the cavalcade of witnesses that you and your ilk regularly throw under the bus:
Arnold Rowland
Roger Craig
Carolyn Walther
Jean Hill
Vickie Adams
Julia Ann Mercer
Acquilla Clemons
Bernard Haire
Sylvia Odio
O.P. Wright
Bardwell Odum
Seth Kantor
Butch Burroughs
W.R. (Dub) Stark
Louis Cortinas
Tom Mullins, Emmett Hollingshead, and J.B. "Shorty" Lewis
James A. Andrews
T. F. White
Fred Moore
John Elrod
Jack Davis
Paul O?Connor
Floyd Riebe
Jerrol Custer
James Curtis Jenkins
Dennis David
Saundra Spencer
Dean Andrews
Carolyn Arnold
Janet Conforto
Charles Crenshaw
Marita Lorenz
Nelson Delgado
Edwin Walker
Nancy Lee Fenner
Albert Bogard
Richard Randolph Carr
Waggoner Carr
Kenneth Croy
John Manchester
Perry Russo
Edith Whitworth
Esther Mash
Delphine Roberts
Roy Eugene Vaughn
Just to name a few.
-
Why are you asking for "anyone" to prove a claim that nobody made? That's exactly what a strawman is, whether you understand it or not.
I asked if anyone can show that Bookhout was lying when he stated (in his report) that Randle told him the bag was three feet long. That is a question and is far from a straw man argument.
-
It's truly sad and scary what you think passes for logic.
Logic, as in... your claim that the "click" that was heard by many during the theater scuffle... could have been a theater seat?
-
Why are you asking for "anyone" to prove a claim that nobody made? That's exactly what a strawman is, whether you understand it or not.
Precisely, because if nobody can prove that Bookhout was lying (the only person who actually could have done that was the late Linnie Mae Randle) the silly argument would be that Bookhout must have been telling the truth because nobody can prove he didn't.
That is the only plausible reason for asking such a pathetic question in the first place.
-
Precisely, because if nobody can prove that Bookhout was lying (the only person who actually could have done that was the late Linnie Mae Randle) the silly argument would be that Bookhout must have been telling the truth because nobody can prove he didn't.
That is the only plausible reason for asking such a pathetic question in the first place.
Speaking of straw man...
I have never stated that Bookhout must be telling the truth since no one can prove he was lying in his report.
I have asked if anyone can prove that Bookhout was lying. Since you obviously cannot, it must be taken into consideration that his report stated that Randle estimated that the bag was three feet long. THAT is the reason for me asking my "pathetic" question in the first place.
-
I asked if anyone can show that Bookhout was lying when he stated (in his report) that Randle told him the bag was three feet long. That is a question and is far from a straw man argument.
...and if nobody can show that Bookhout was lying, then what?
-
Logic, as in... your claim that the "click" that was heard by many during the theater scuffle... could have been a theater seat?
It could have been a lot of things. Hawkins wasn't sure what it was, but somehow you are? If this is such a ridiculous notion then why did Belin ask Walker if the sound he heard was the click of a seat? I guess Belin didn't take the Bill Brown correspondence course in logic either.
-
it must be taken into consideration that his report stated that Randle estimated that the bag was three feet long.
Sure. Taken into consideration and then rejected because it conflicts with what Randle said directly.
-
I thought the bold type would clue you in, but apparently not.
"Oswald denied carrying a bag THE SIZE ESTIMATED BY FRAZIER"
The part you made up was "THE SIZE ESTIMATED BY FRAZIER". Fritz never said that.
Once again:
The part you made up was "THE SIZE ESTIMATED BY FRAZIER"
I hope that clears it up for you.
You're a hoot. It's somehow impossible to carry a lunch in a two-foot long package, so therefore it was a rifle? The twisted logic never ends.
What dishonest, kooky nonsense. Oswald denied carrying a long package but only his lunch sack. Frazier testified that Oswald was carrying a long package and not his lunch. So Oswald denied carrying a bag the size estimated by Frazier. Whew:
Mr. BALL. What did you tell him?
Mr. FRITZ. I told him he had a package and put it in the back seat and it was a package about that long and it was curtain rods. He said he didn't have any kind of a package but his lunch. He said he had his lunch and that is all he had, and Mr. Frazier told me that he got out of the car with that package, he saw him go toward the building with this long package.
I asked him, I said, "Did you go toward the building carrying a long package?"
He said, "No. I didn't carry anything but my lunch."
Mr. BALL - Do you remember whether or not when Oswald came back with you on any Monday morning or any weekend did he pack his lunch?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir; he did.
Mr. BALL - He did?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir. When he rode with me, I say he always brought lunch except that one day on November 22 he didn't bring his lunch that day.
-
What dishonest, kooky nonsense. Oswald denied carrying a long package but only his lunch sack. Frazier testified that Oswald was carrying a long package and not his lunch. So Oswald denied carrying a bag the size estimated by Frazier. Whew:
Mr. BALL. What did you tell him?
Mr. FRITZ. I told him he had a package and put it in the back seat and it was a package about that long and it was curtain rods. He said he didn't have any kind of a package but his lunch. He said he had his lunch and that is all he had, and Mr. Frazier told me that he got out of the car with that package, he saw him go toward the building with this long package.
I asked him, I said, "Did you go toward the building carrying a long package?"
He said, "No. I didn't carry anything but my lunch."
Mr. BALL - Do you remember whether or not when Oswald came back with you on any Monday morning or any weekend did he pack his lunch?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir; he did.
Mr. BALL - He did?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir. When he rode with me, I say he always brought lunch except that one day on November 22 he didn't bring his lunch that day.
I asked him, I said, "Did you go toward the building carrying a long package?"
He said, "No. I didn't carry anything but my lunch."
This statement by lee Oswald does not deny the fact that he was carrying a paper sack..... He said the sack held his lunch.....
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir. When he rode with me, I say he always brought lunch except that one day on November 22 he didn't bring his lunch that day.
Frazier acknowledges that Lee always carried his lunch ..but then acts as if he's Superman with X-ray vision and can see that the paper sack doesn't hold Lee's lunch....incredible!!
Even if Lee had told Frazier that the sack contained curtain rods ( doubtful) it also could have contained his sandwich and fruit....So there is no way that Frazier could know that Lee wasn't carrying a lunch as Fazier himself acknowledged he routinely did .
-
I asked him, I said, "Did you go toward the building carrying a long package?"
He said, "No. I didn't carry anything but my lunch."
This statement by lee Oswald does not deny the fact that he was carrying a paper sack..... He said the sack held his lunch.....
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir. When he rode with me, I say he always brought lunch except that one day on November 22 he didn't bring his lunch that day.
Frazier acknowledges that Lee always carried his lunch ..but then acts as if he's Superman with X-ray vision and can see that the paper sack doesn't hold Lee's lunch....incredible!!
Even if Lee had told Frazier that the sack contained curtain rods ( doubtful) it also could have contained his sandwich and fruit....So there is no way that Frazier could know that Lee wasn't carrying a lunch as Fazier himself acknowledged he routinely did .
Wrong:
Mr. BALL - Did you notice whether or not Lee had a package that looked like a lunch package that morning?
Mr. FRAZIER - You know like I told you earlier, I say, he didn't take his lunch because I remember right when I got in the car I asked him where was his lunch and he said he was going to buy his lunch that day.
Mr. BALL - He told you that that day, did he?
Mr. FRAZIER - Right. That is right. So, I assumed he was going to buy it, you know, from that catering service man like a lot of the boys do. They don't bring their lunch but they go out and buy their lunch there.
-
Wrong:
Mr. BALL - Did you notice whether or not Lee had a package that looked like a lunch package that morning?
Mr. FRAZIER - You know like I told you earlier, I say, he didn't take his lunch because I remember right when I got in the car I asked him where was his lunch and he said he was going to buy his lunch that day.
Mr. BALL - He told you that that day, did he?
Mr. FRAZIER - Right. That is right. So, I assumed he was going to buy it, you know, from that catering service man like a lot of the boys do. They don't bring their lunch but they go out and buy their lunch there.
Frazier states that Lee told him that he was going to buy his lunch......
Frazier....'I remember right when I got in the car I asked him where was his lunch and he said he was going to buy his lunch that day. "
But in the next breath Frazier says that he ASSUMED that lee was going to buy his lunch....
Frazier...I assumed he was going to buy it,
-
What dishonest, kooky nonsense. Oswald denied carrying a long package but only his lunch sack. Frazier testified that Oswald was carrying a long package and not his lunch. So Oswald denied carrying a bag the size estimated by Frazier. Whew:
More Richard Smith twisted logic. How do you know how Fritz described the bag to Oswald? You think he told Oswald about Frazier's estimate? Maybe Oswald didn't consider a 20-inch package to be "long".
-
But in the next breath Frazier says that he ASSUMED that lee was going to buy his lunch....
Frazier...I assumed he was going to buy it,
"I assumed he was going to buy it, you know, from that catering service man like a lot of the boys do."
-
"I assumed he was going to buy it, you know, from that catering service man like a lot of the boys do."
That's not what Frazier said.....He said that Lee told him that he was going to buy his lunch, so he didn't need to ASSUME that Lee was going to buy his lunch....
Mr. FRAZIER - You know like I told you earlier, I say, he didn't take his lunch because I remember right when I got in the car I asked him where was his lunch and he said he was going to buy his lunch that day.
Mr. BALL - He told you that that day, did he?
Mr. FRAZIER - Right. That is right.
-
He didn't assume that Lee was going to buy his lunch. He assumed that Lee was going to buy his lunch from that catering service man.
-
He didn't assume that Lee was going to buy his lunch. He assumed that Lee was going to buy his lunch from that catering service man.
How so you know that is what Frazier ASSUMED??
-
How so you know that is what Frazier ASSUMED??
Because that's what he said.
"So, I assumed he was going to buy it, you know, from that catering service man like a lot of the boys do."
-
Well, Buell is a friend and I know him very well. That being said, friends can lie. Friends can "conveniently" forget. I don't think he's a liar nor has he forgotten anything. He had no reason to lie about anything at all. He was 19. He was threatened with a Decker Hold. He stood up for himself and he told the truth. He has never believed Oswald took a shot.
-
He didn't assume that Lee was going to buy his lunch. He assumed that Lee was going to buy his lunch from that catering service man.
Ok, I dig.... Frazier said that Lee told him that he was going to buy his lunch ......
Mr. BALL - Did you notice whether or not Lee had a package that looked like a lunch package that morning?
Mr. FRAZIER - You know like I told you earlier, I say, he didn't take his lunch because I remember right when I got in the car I asked him where was his lunch and he said he was going to buy his lunch that day.
Mr. BALL - He told you that that day, did he?
Mr. FRAZIER - Right. That is right. So, I assumed he was going to buy it, you know, from that catering service man like a lot of the boys do. They don't bring their lunch but they go out and buy their lunch there.
BUT... This is Warren Commission crap.... In other statements Frazier never mentions anything about Lee saying he was going to buy his lunch.... Initially Frazier said that he noticed the flimsy brown paper sack on the seat and asked "what's that?" Later Frazier changed that to "What's in the sack Lee ?" Frazier said that Lee told him the sack contained curtain rods. Initially Frazier said that he dismissed the sack from his mind when Lee said it was curtain rods, but when he was telling the Warren Commission what they wanted him to say he then says that it wasn't he sack that first caught his attention it was the absence of a lunch .....I remember right when I got in the car I asked him where was his lunch and he said he was going to buy his lunch that day.
Captain Fritz said that on Saturday 11 /23/63 he asked Lee if he had told Frazier that there were curtain rod in the sack and Lee said that he never said anything like that to Frazier.
Fritz had ordered Frazier to return to the police station at about 9:00pm 11/22/63 to take a polygraph test which focused on the curtain rods....And yet Fritz never asked Lee about curtain rods until Saturday afternoon????
-
Well, Buell is a friend and I know him very well. That being said, friends can lie. Friends can "conveniently" forget. I don't think he's a liar nor has he forgotten anything. He had no reason to lie about anything at all. He was 19. He was threatened with a Decker Hold. He stood up for himself and he told the truth. He has never believed Oswald took a shot.
I believe that Wes Frazier is human..... He was a frightened kid manipulated by unscrupulous ruthless men when this mess was thrust upon him.
He lied....It's as simple as that. Lee never told him that the flimsy paper sack contained curtain rods.....But the cops DID tell him that Lee had denied carrying a rifle in that paper sack, and Lee had claimed that the bag contained curtain rods. Buell being a scared kid saw no harm in supporting Lee so he said that Yes lee had told him that there were curtain rods in that 28 inch long sack. Then the wily conspirators pretended to administer polygraph in which they said that the lie detector showed that he was telling the truth about the curtain rod story....
-
I believe that Wes Frazier is human..... He was a frighten kid manipulated by unscrupulous ruthless men when this mess was thrust upon him.
He lied....It's as simple as that. Lee never told him that the flimsy paper sack contained curtain rods.....But the cops DID tell him that Lee had denied carrying a rifle in that paper sack, and Lee had claimed that the bag contained curtain rods. Buell being a scared kid saw no harm in supporting Lee so he said that Yes lee had told him that there were curtain rods in that 28 inch long sack. Then the wily conspirators pretended to administer polygraph in which they said that the lie detector showed that he was telling the truth about the curtain rod story....
Walt, I really don't understand why you present this as if it is fact, when it is clearly only what you think happened.
-
Walt, I really don't understand why you present this as if it is fact, when it is clearly only what you think happened.
You know it's plausible and that bothers you.... If you think your going to find the truth stamped and certified, you're delusional.... A person has have the ability to sort out the plausible from the implausible....
Most of the Warren Report is implausible and yet many cite the information as if it is the gospel.....
-
You know it's plausible and that bothers you.... If you think your going to find the truth stamped and certified, you're delusional.... A person has have the ability to sort out the plausible from the implausible....
Most of the Warren Report is implausible and yet many cite the information as if it is the gospel.....
No, it doesn't bother me at all that it is plausible in your opinion and by all means try to sort out the plausible from the implausible, but perhaps it would be wise to remember that even if something seems plausible it doesn't mean it is what really happened.
Too many LNs make that mistake constantly. For instance, they can not think of any other way the rifle could have gotten into the TSBD and they think it is plossible that Frazier was mistaken or even lied about the bag, so for them it is plausible that Oswald used that bag to conceal the rifle, when in fact there isn't a shred of evidence for it and it most likely did not happen.
Something being plausible doesn't make it a fact. Mixing up the two only complicates matters IMO
-
(https://preview.ibb.co/njeUsR/Slide121.jpg) (https://ibb.co/mqejRm)
Seems to be paper crunching on the right end of CE 142 (above) ...
(http://i62.tinypic.com/mk9p37.jpg)
... and on the bottom end (above). Of course, you CTs are always re-defining real world conditions. so ...
-
Can we believe Fraziers story about his battery being low, for his reason as to why he did not walk from his car to the TSBD with Oswald, would the journey from his house have put a charge on it, I think it would have,
During the trip into Dallas, the car has its headlamps, wipers and maybe radio on at various times.
unless the altenator was faulty, but lets consider if it was really so low, then how did he start the engine before he began the trip to work.
He ran the car for awhile when he arrived home from work?
-
If the battery was low, then he would have had trouble starting it on Friday morning FACT, and if the altenator was ok then whatever power the battery was using on his trip to Dallas would not have mattered as the trip there would have recharged the battery FACT, to keep the car running after the drive to the TSBD does not make one bit of sence FACT.
(http://i67.tinypic.com/2r6pd1s.jpg)
-
Quote from: Jerry Organ on January 14, 2018, 10:46:15 PM
During the trip into Dallas, the car has its headlamps, wipers and maybe radio on at various times.
He ran the car for awhile when he arrived home from work?
Organ while I know you are a bit stupid, but I did not expect such a reply, as he ran the car for a bit, when he arrived home from work, where did he run it? into the sitting room of the house, you wally, take note
If the battery was low on Thursday, then he would have had trouble starting it on Friday morning FACT, and if the altenator was ok then whatever power the battery was using on his trip to Dallas would not have mattered as the trip there would have recharged the battery FACT, to keep the car running after the drive to the TSBD does not make one bit of sense FACT.
Using accessories (lights, wipers, radio) will drain a weak battery even when the car is running. If the battery is gone far enough, the headlights could weaken, dim and go out with the car running.
Turning off all accessories and keeping the car running for a few minutes will leave at least some amount of charge in a weak battery, hopefully enough to get the car to start again.
-
Well, Buell is a friend and I know him very well. That being said, friends can lie. Friends can "conveniently" forget. I don't think he's a liar nor has he forgotten anything. He had no reason to lie about anything at all. He was 19. He was threatened with a Decker Hold. He stood up for himself and he told the truth. He has never believed Oswald took a shot.
Buell Frasier suffers a similar guilt complex as Marina Oswald.
Marina refused Lee Oswald's plea (the evening of 21 November 1963) for her and the children to live with him in an apartment near Dallas. Marina intended to agree eventually, but was making Lee suffer a little for the argument (by telephone) they had earlier in the week. She knows that an agreement to reconcile with Lee might have prevented the assassination of President Kennedy.
Buell unknowingly drove the alleged assassin of President Kennedy to work on 22 November 1963. Although Frasier claims the package Oswald carried into the TSBD was too short to contain the Carcano rifle disassembled: This can be seen to be an opinion developed to avoid accepting that he inadvertently and innocently assisted the assassin of JFK. Hence ... Buell Frazier declares that he "believes" that Oswald "never took a shot". He bases that opinion on his perception of Lee Harvey Oswald's personality which he has stated as "nice".
-
I asked him, I said, "Did you go toward the building carrying a long package?"
He said, "No. I didn't carry anything but my lunch."
This statement by lee Oswald does not deny the fact that he was carrying a paper sack..... He said the sack held his lunch.....
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir. When he rode with me, I say he always brought lunch except that one day on November 22 he didn't bring his lunch that day.
Frazier acknowledges that Lee always carried his lunch ..but then acts as if he's Superman with X-ray vision and can see that the paper sack doesn't hold Lee's lunch....incredible!!
Even if Lee had told Frazier that the sack contained curtain rods ( doubtful) it also could have contained his sandwich and fruit....So there is no way that Frazier could know that Lee wasn't carrying a lunch as Fazier himself acknowledged he routinely did .
Frazier acknowledges that Lee always carried his lunch ..but then acts as if he's Superman with X-ray vision and can see that the paper sack doesn't hold Lee's lunch....incredible!!
Buell Frazier estimated the package--that Oswald carried into the TSBD--was 2 feet give or take a few inches. That means a package 21 to 27 inches long. That's a long package to contain lunch.
Tell me: What was the lunch? Celery sticks or french bread?
-
Frazier acknowledges that Lee always carried his lunch ..but then acts as if he's Superman with X-ray vision and can see that the paper sack doesn't hold Lee's lunch....incredible!!
Buell Frazier estimated the package--that Oswald carried into the TSBD--was 2 feet give or take a few inches. That means a package 21 to 27 inches long. That's a long package to contain lunch.
Tell me: What was the lunch? Celery sticks or french bread?
Maybe it contained his lunch and laundry. After all he regularly collected his laundry after visiting Marina. Yet Buell only remembered Oswald carrying his lunch.....a dual purpose bag....there's an option.
-
Maybe it contained his lunch and laundry. After all he regularly collected his laundry after visiting Marina. Yet Buell only remembered Oswald carrying his lunch.....a dual purpose bag....there's an option.
Maybe it contained his lunch and laundry. After all he regularly collected his laundry after visiting Marina.
Marina mentioned nothing about Lee's laundry (on 21/22 November 1963) in her testimony before the Warren Commission. Same goes for the House Select Committee on Assassinations.
Yet Buell only remembered Oswald carrying his lunch.....a dual purpose bag....there's an option.
Maybes are not evidence. Options are not evidence.
-
Maybes are not evidence. Options are not evidence.
I was engaging in justified speculation ... based on an assessment of Marina Oswald's and Buell Frazier's illogical reasons for believing Lee Oswald was not involved willingly and knowingly in the assassination of President Kennedy.
-
Maybe it contained his lunch and laundry. After all he regularly collected his laundry after visiting Marina.
Marina mentioned nothing about Lee's laundry (on 21/22 November 1963) in her testimony before the Warren Commission. Same goes for the House Select Committee on Assassinations.
Yet Buell only remembered Oswald carrying his lunch.....a dual purpose bag....there's an option.
Maybes are not evidence. Options are not evidence.
Lee used to regularly get his laundry done at the Paine's. Yet Buell only ever noticed his lunch. How else might Oswald have transported his laundry then? Seems logical that he used one bag to contain both lunch and laundry then.
-
Maybe it contained his lunch and laundry. After all he regularly collected his laundry after visiting Marina.
Marina mentioned nothing about Lee's laundry (on 21/22 November 1963) in her testimony before the Warren Commission. Same goes for the House Select Committee on Assassinations.
Yet Buell only remembered Oswald carrying his lunch.....a dual purpose bag....there's an option.
Maybes are not evidence. Options are not evidence.
Absence of a statement in her testimony is not evidence either.
Earlier today I had to testify in a case as a witness. I wanted to tell the court about a particular observation, which I thought was relevant, but I never got to say it.... why? Because they did not ask me!
-
Frazier acknowledges that Lee always carried his lunch ..but then acts as if he's Superman with X-ray vision and can see that the paper sack doesn't hold Lee's lunch....incredible!!
Buell Frazier estimated the package--that Oswald carried into the TSBD--was 2 feet give or take a few inches. That means a package 21 to 27 inches long. That's a long package to contain lunch.
Tell me: What was the lunch? Celery sticks or french bread?
I simply used the available facts to provide you with an option that you requested.
Oswald regularly took his laundry. Oswald regularly took his lunch. Frazier only remembers Oswald carrying his lunch......ergo the bag regularly contained his laundry and lunch.
-
Frazier acknowledges that Lee always carried his lunch ..but then acts as if he's Superman with X-ray vision and can see that the paper sack doesn't hold Lee's lunch....incredible!!
Buell Frazier estimated the package--that Oswald carried into the TSBD--was 2 feet give or take a few inches. That means a package 21 to 27 inches long. That's a long package to contain lunch.
Tell me: What was the lunch? Celery sticks or french bread?
Tell me: What was the lunch? Celery sticks or french bread?
Nobody could apprise you about anything Mr Lidell..... Clearly you believe that an object in a paper sack must fill the dimensions of the sack. Clearly you are too obtuse to understand that a two foot long sack can be used to carry a sandwich and an orange or apple.....
-
Tell me: What was the lunch? Celery sticks or french bread?
Nobody could apprise you about anything Mr Lidell..... Clearly you believe that an object in a paper sack must fill the dimensions of the sack. Clearly you are too obtuse to understand that a two foot long sack can be used to carry a sandwich and an orange or apple.....
Or a broken down rifle. Oh wait.........
-
Or a broken down rifle. Oh wait.........
A 35 inch long rifle stock in a 27 inch sack??..... How's that possible?
-
Buell Frasier suffers a similar guilt complex as Marina Oswald.
Marina refused Lee Oswald's plea (the evening of 21 November 1963) for her and the children to live with him in an apartment near Dallas. Marina intended to agree eventually, but was making Lee suffer a little for the argument (by telephone) they had earlier in the week. She knows that an agreement to reconcile with Lee might have prevented the assassination of President Kennedy.
Buell unknowingly drove the alleged assassin of President Kennedy to work on 22 November 1963. Although Frasier claims the package Oswald carried into the TSBD was too short to contain the Carcano rifle disassembled: This can be seen to be an opinion developed to avoid accepting that he inadvertently and innocently assisted the assassin of JFK. Hence ... Buell Frazier declares that he "believes" that Oswald "never took a shot". He bases that opinion on his perception of Lee Harvey Oswald's personality which he has stated as "nice".
I saw Frazier speak at the TSBD a couple years ago. He said something along the lines that Oswald couldn't have done it because he often played with the neighborhood kids and they liked him. He said kids have a special sense about people and apparently wouldn't have liked Oswald if he had been capable of murder. I sort of felt sorry for him because he clearly does not want to be remembered as the guy who drove the assassin and his rifle on that day.
-
I saw Frazier speak at the TSBD a couple years ago. He said something along the lines that Oswald couldn't have done it because he often played with the neighborhood kids and they liked him. He said kids have a special sense about people and apparently wouldn't have liked Oswald if he had been capable of murder. I sort of felt sorry for him because he clearly does not want to be remembered as the guy who drove the assassin and his rifle on that day.
You should feel sorry for yourself..... They have played you for a gullible sucker.....
-
Maybe it contained his lunch and laundry. After all he regularly collected his laundry after visiting Marina. Yet Buell only remembered Oswald carrying his lunch.....a dual purpose bag....there's an option.
Well, it's lucky for the conspirators that their patsy, on the day of the events, just happened to decide to place his lunch inside a twenty-four inch long bag that contained his laundry. This fit perfectly with their need to have it appear that the patsy carried his rifle into the building.
I'd rather be lucky than good.
-
I simply used the available facts to provide you with an option that you requested.
Oswald regularly took his laundry. Oswald regularly took his lunch. Frazier only remembers Oswald carrying his lunch......ergo the bag regularly contained his laundry and lunch.
Fritz said that Oswald stated that he carried only his lunch.
Frazier said that Oswald stated that he didn't have his lunch, that he was just going to buy lunch that day.
Who's lying? Fritz? Frazier? Oswald?
-
Buell Frasier suffers a similar guilt complex as Marina Oswald.
Marina refused Lee Oswald's plea (the evening of 21 November 1963) for her and the children to live with him in an apartment near Dallas. Marina intended to agree eventually, but was making Lee suffer a little for the argument (by telephone) they had earlier in the week. She knows that an agreement to reconcile with Lee might have prevented the assassination of President Kennedy.
Buell unknowingly drove the alleged assassin of President Kennedy to work on 22 November 1963. Although Frasier claims the package Oswald carried into the TSBD was too short to contain the Carcano rifle disassembled: This can be seen to be an opinion developed to avoid accepting that he inadvertently and innocently assisted the assassin of JFK. Hence ... Buell Frazier declares that he "believes" that Oswald "never took a shot". He bases that opinion on his perception of Lee Harvey Oswald's personality which he has stated as "nice".
I saw Frazier speak at the TSBD a couple years ago. He said something along the lines that Oswald couldn't have done it because he often played with the neighborhood kids and they liked him. He said kids have a special sense about people and apparently wouldn't have liked Oswald if he had been capable of murder. I sort of felt sorry for him because he clearly does not want to be remembered as the guy who drove the assassin and his rifle on that day.
(https://i.imgur.com/7Fp3t2Q.jpg)
-
(http://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/grocerysack.jpg)
(http://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/grocerysack1.jpg)
(http://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/grocerysack2.png)
-
Oswald never had lunch, so he was "hangry" when he went so out-of-character and shot Tippit.
-
Fritz said that Oswald stated that he carried only his lunch.
Frazier said that Oswald stated that he didn't have his lunch, that he was just going to buy lunch that day.
Who's lying? Fritz? Frazier? Oswald?
Buell Frazier....after being coercered by Fritz....
-
Fritz said that Oswald stated that he carried only his lunch.
Frazier said that Oswald stated that he didn't have his lunch, that he was just going to buy lunch that day.
Who's lying? Fritz? Frazier? Oswald?
Ruth said Oswald took his laundry after visiting on weekends. Frazier said Oswald only ever took his lunch except for the 22nd.
Who?s lying Ruth or Buell? Your call.
-
I simply used the available facts to provide you with an option that you requested.
Oswald regularly took his laundry. Oswald regularly took his lunch. Frazier only remembers Oswald carrying his lunch......ergo the bag regularly contained his laundry and lunch.
Fritz said that Oswald stated that he carried only his lunch.
Frazier said that Oswald stated that he didn't have his lunch, that he was just going to buy lunch that day.
Who's lying? Fritz? Frazier? Oswald?
Ruth said Oswald took his laundry after visiting on weekends. Frazier said Oswald only ever took his lunch except for the 22nd.
Who?s lying Ruth or Buell? Your call.
Your point is completely invalid. This Thursday night visit was not on a weekend; it was out of the norm. Therefore, Lee could have visited without taking his laundry afterwards.
I ask again, who's lying? Fritz? Frazier? Oswald?
-
Your point is completely invalid. This Thursday night visit was not on a weekend; it was out of the norm. Therefore, Lee could have visited without taking his laundry afterwards.
I ask again, who's lying? Fritz? Frazier? Oswald?
I am talking about any of the previous visits. Lee took laundry......Ruth. Lee only took his lunch.....Buell.
Who is right?
-
I am talking about any of the previous visits. Lee took laundry......Ruth. Lee only took his lunch.....Buell.
Who is right?
Unless you have a statement by Ruth or Marina saying that Lee's laundry was tended to on that Thursday night and he left with the laundry on Friday morning, then again, you're going off into la-la land.
This Thursday night visit (one night) does NOT fall into the category of Ruth's statement that Lee left with his laundry after visiting on weekends (three nights).
-
I am talking about any of the previous visits. Lee took laundry......Ruth. Lee only took his lunch.....Buell.
Who is right?
On any previous Monday did Ruth Paine ever see Oswald leave her house carrying a bag of laundry? A simple yes or no will suffice?
Who knows, Oswald may have only washed the clothes he was wearing?
Mr. JENNER - Now, the same question with respect to laundry. That would be laundry largely. I take it from your telling us about you and Marina hanging up clothes in your backyard on the 22d of November that neither you nor she ever sent any laundry out for cleaning or washing.
Mrs. PAINE - No; and Lee brought his underwear and shirts to be washed at my house, and then Marina ironed his things and he would take clean things with him on Monday.
JohnM
-
I am talking about any of the previous visits. Lee took laundry......Ruth. Lee only took his lunch.....Buell.
Who is right?
Your (plural) inability to answer the question raised is obvious. I feel your pain in trying to twist the argument. The issue here is simple.
Ruth testified that Oswald took his fresh laundry when leaving the house after the weekend. This is a fact.
Buell testified that Oswald only ever took a package that contained his lunch. This is a fact.
Please reconcile.
-
Your (plural) inability to answer the question raised is obvious. I feel your pain in trying to twist the argument. The issue here is simple.
Ruth testified that Ruth took his fresh laundry when leaving the house after the weekend. This is a fact.
Buell testified that Oswald only ever took a package that contained his lunch. This is a fact.
Please reconcile.
Who's twisting anything, it seems you have no proof that Ruth Paine saw Oswald carry any laundry on any Monday? Who knows, Oswald may have only washed the clothes he was wearing and this is what Ruth saw being washed?
Mr. JENNER - Now, the same question with respect to laundry. That would be laundry largely. I take it from your telling us about you and Marina hanging up clothes in your backyard on the 22d of November that neither you nor she ever sent any laundry out for cleaning or washing.
Mrs. PAINE - No; and Lee brought his underwear and shirts to be washed at my house, and then Marina ironed his things and he would take clean things with him on Monday.
Btw wasn't there a laundromat close to the Beckley Street Rooming house and wasn't Oswald reported to be there at least on one occasion?
JohnM
-
Your (plural) inability to answer the question raised is obvious. I feel your pain in trying to twist the argument. The issue here is simple.
Ruth testified that Ruth took his fresh laundry when leaving the house after the weekend. This is a fact.
Buell testified that Oswald only ever took a package that contained his lunch. This is a fact.
Please reconcile.
Ruth testified that Ruth took his fresh laundry when leaving the house after the weekend. This is a fact.
What don't you understand about this? Lee's Thursday night visit was not on a weekend. This does not qualify for Ruth's statement that Lee left with his laundry after weekend visits. This is a fact.
-
Who's twisting anything, it seems you have no proof that Ruth Paine saw Oswald carry any laundry on any Monday? Who knows, Oswald may have only washed the clothes he was wearing and this is what Ruth saw being washed?
Mr. JENNER - Now, the same question with respect to laundry. That would be laundry largely. I take it from your telling us about you and Marina hanging up clothes in your backyard on the 22d of November that neither you nor she ever sent any laundry out for cleaning or washing.
Mrs. PAINE - No; and Lee brought his underwear and shirts to be washed at my house, and then Marina ironed his things and he would take clean things with him on Monday.
Btw wasn't there a laundromat close to the Beckley Street Rooming house and wasn't Oswald reported to be there at least on one occasion?
JohnM
So we have established that the "low-life" Oswald would bring his underwear and shirts for the week to be washed and ironed by Marina. He took them with him on Mondays and presumably on the one Tuesday when he stayed an extra day for the holiday weekend.
There certainly was a washateria across the street from his roominghouse. He was seen there until closing on Wed 20th. Probably as he had not been able to go to the Paine?s to get his washing done for the 10 days or so since he had been there. From memory Bertha Cheek also thought he went on a Saturday. Likely the weekend he did not visit the Paine?s.
So it would appear that he liked his clothes laundered and not to be in a state of uncleanliness.
Perhaps he wore all his weekly freshly laundered clothing on the trip to the TSBD. Wore it all day and then took it off until he got home. Maybe he put it in some package or bag and Frazier just didn?t ever notice it.
-
What don't you understand about this? Lee's Thursday night visit was not on a weekend. This does not qualify for Ruth's statement that Lee left with his laundry after weekend visits. This is a fact.
I understand exactly Bill. step back and look at the statements. I am not referring at this point at the Thursday visit. We will get back to that later. Frazier said that Oswald never had anything but his lunch. Correct? Where was the laundry secreted from his gaze after any visit?
-
So we have established that the "low-life" Oswald would bring his underwear and shirts for the week to be washed and ironed by Marina. He took them with him on Mondays and presumably on the one Tuesday when he stayed an extra day for the holiday weekend.
There certainly was a washateria across the street from his roominghouse. He was seen there until closing on Wed 20th. Probably as he had not been able to go to the Paine?s to get his washing done for the 10 days or so since he had been there. From memory Bertha Cheek also thought he went on a Saturday. Likely the weekend he did not visit the Paine?s.
So it would appear that he liked his clothes laundered and not to be in a state of uncleanliness.
Perhaps he wore all his weekly freshly laundered clothing on the trip to the TSBD. Wore it all day and then took it off until he got home. Maybe he put it in some package or bag and Frazier just didn?t ever notice it.
Colin, did Ruth Paine ever see Oswald carry anything on any Monday morning that wasn't his lunch?
Perhaps he wore all his weekly freshly laundered clothing on the trip to the TSBD
Exactly, Oswald may have just washed the work clothes off his back and wore the same clothes back to work after they were washed.
And I'm sure Oswald had something nice he could wear from his stuff in Ruth's garage.
Btw Ruth said underwear and shirts, what sort of wash is that??? Where's the socks, shorts, pants, etc etc????
JohnM
-
I am talking about any of the previous visits. Lee took laundry......Ruth. Lee only took his lunch.....Buell.
Who is right?
Who is right?
Why can't they both be right?
Ruth saw Marina do Oswald's laundry that seems to be quite small, which was clearly just the clothes he was wearing.
Frazier only saw a small standard sandwich bag because Oswald was wearing his laundry.
JohnM
-
Ruth testified that Ruth took his fresh laundry when leaving the house after the weekend. This is a fact.
Cite?
JohnM
-
Cite?
JohnM
Of course the second Ruth above should be Oswald.
Mrs. PAINE - No; and Lee brought his underwear and shirts to be washed at my house, and then Marina ironed his things and he would take clean things with him on Monday
Ruth who seemed to be very careful with her words with regards to accuracy when testifying tells us that "Lee brought his underwear and shirts". To me that implies his weekly requirements, not just the clothes for the Friday. Seems that Marina ironed more than one shirt.
"He would take things with him on Monday" indicates exactly that. A bit pointless otherwise. If it was just the clothing he arrived in I think Ruth would have specified that. Ie .....Marina washed his work clothes that he came in on Friday and he left with them on the Monday...
-
Of course the second Ruth above should be Oswald.
Mrs. PAINE - No; and Lee brought his underwear and shirts to be washed at my house, and then Marina ironed his things and he would take clean things with him on Monday
Ruth who seemed to be very careful with her words with regards to accuracy when testifying tells us that "Lee brought his underwear and shirts". To me that implies his weekly requirements, not just the clothes for the Friday. Seems that Marina ironed more than one shirt.
"He would take things with him on Monday" indicates exactly that. A bit pointless otherwise. If it was just the clothing he arrived in I think Ruth would have specified that. Ie .....Marina washed his work clothes that he came in on Friday and he left with them on the Monday...
Yes you're right, Ruth was very specific and if she saw Oswald carrying laundry surely she would provide some sort of description of how it was carried? I can't find any words from Ruth where she ever saw Oswald carry anything on any of the respective Monday mornings. Ruth simply saw Marina do a small wash for Oswald which must have been his current work clothes, which leads to Frazier having nothing to see, so your original premise that one of them must be lying is a provable unjust accusation.
Seems that Marina ironed more than one shirt.
Yeah, his singlet, his t shirt, his button up shirt and maybe even his jacket.
Oswald's work shirt shows heavy signs of wear and was worn a lot perhaps multiple times a week.
(https://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/The-Oswald-shirt.jpg)
Btw Ruth said that Oswald took his clean clothes with him on a Monday and she was right.
JohnM
-
Yes you're right, Ruth was very specific and if she saw Oswald carrying laundry surely she would provide some sort of description of how it was carried? I can't find any words from Ruth where she ever saw Oswald carry anything on any of the respective Monday mornings. Ruth simply saw Marina do a small wash for Oswald which must have been his current work clothes, which leads to Frazier having nothing to see, so your original premise that one of them must be lying is a provable unjust accusation.
Yeah, his singlet, his t shirt, his button up shirt and maybe even his jacket.
Oswald's work shirt shows heavy signs of wear and was worn a lot perhaps multiple times a week.
(https://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/The-Oswald-shirt.jpg)
Btw Ruth said that Oswald took his clean clothes with him on a Monday and she was right.
JohnM
There is nothing that would make us believe the was was "small". As I said Ruth was clear with her words and if Marina merely washed the clothes he was wearing when he arrived I believe she would have said that.
Packages were a matter of interest to the commission and Ruth and Marina should have been quizzed further.
My original premise was that neither were lying.....but provided an answer that accommodated both for those days excluding the 22nd.
-
There is nothing that would make us believe the was was "small". As I said Ruth was clear with her words and if Marina merely washed the clothes he was wearing when he arrived I believe she would have said that.
Packages were a matter of interest to the commission and Ruth and Marina should have been quizzed further.
My original premise was that neither were lying.....but provided an answer that accommodated both for those days excluding the 22nd.
There is nothing that would make us believe the was was "small".
"Underwear and shirts" sounds like what Oswald would be wearing, a possible singlet, a t shirt, a button shirt, a jacket, pants, undies and socks.
Packages were a matter of interest to the commission and Ruth and Marina should have been quizzed further.
No, packages are a disproportionate matter of interest to CTs. ;D
JohnM
-
"Underwear and shirts" sounds like what Oswald would be wearing, a possible singlet, a t shirt, a button shirt, a jacket, pants, undies and socks.
No, packages are a disproportionate matter of interest to CTs. ;D
JohnM
As I said Ruth was clear with her words and if Marina merely washed only the clothes he was wearing when he arrived I believe she would have said that. She would not likely have used "shirts".
Packages were certainly of interest to the WC.....Frazier was quizzed regarding Oswald's habits when leaving and going to the Paine's. Unfortunately we can add that question to the many that were unasked.
-
As I said Ruth was clear with her words and if Marina merely washed only the clothes he was wearing when he arrived I believe she would have said that. She would not likely have used "shirts".
Packages were certainly of interest to the WC.....Frazier was quizzed regarding Oswald's habits when leaving and going to the Paine's. Unfortunately we can add that question to the many that were unasked.
As I said Ruth was clear with her words
And as you have been told, Oswald's t shirt, button shirt and jacket can certainly be defined as multiple and thus satisfies Ruth's observation of "shirts".
and if Marina merely washed only the clothes he was wearing when he arrived I believe she would have said that.
Why?
She would not likely have used "shirts".
Oswald was known to wear multiple "shirts" simultaneously, how about that!.
(http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/07/22/article-2373793-1AED2DED000005DC-431_634x541.jpg)
JohnM
-
Walt, I really don't understand why you present this as if it is fact, when it is clearly only what you think happened.
Because that's what Walt does.
Walt's Fabrications (https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,99.0.html)
-
Maybes are not evidence. Options are not evidence.
You mean like the position that maybe the bag Frazier saw contained a rifle?
-
Wesley said that the bag he saw Oswald carry was not CE 142.
CE 142 was touched by Oswald.
CE 142 was found in the sniper's nest.
Oswald denied carrying a long package, Frazier and Linnie confirm Oswald carried a long package.
Oswald denied carrying curtain rods, Frazier says Oswald told him the bag contained curtain rods.
JohnM
-
CE 142 was touched by Oswald.
So?
CE 142 was found in the sniper's nest.
Arguable. The first 5 or 6 officers on the scene didn't see it, it doesn't show in any crime scene photographs and Day, Studebaker, Johnson, and Montgomery didn't agree on where it was found, who found it, or how it was folded.
Oswald denied carrying a long package, Frazier and Linnie confirm Oswald carried a long package.
How does that prove that CE 142 was the bag that Frazier saw?
Oswald denied carrying curtain rods, Frazier says Oswald told him the bag contained curtain rods.
How does that prove that CE 142 was the bag that Frazier saw?
-
Since the tale of the paper bag rests on Buell Frazier's statement that Lee Oswald carried a paper bag on the back seat of the car when he drove them to work on the morning of the murder of President Kennedy. And since the Warren Commission ignored both Frazier and his sister when they testified that the bag they saw Lee Oswald carry was not long enough to have contained the Mannlicher Carcano rifle that was found where it had been carefully hidden beneath boxes of books. The key question becomes ...Was Buell Frazier telling the truth? Can we rely on Frazier's veracity?
Does anybody know how to contact Wes Frazier? I'd like to talk to him.... Perhaps he could contact me through a message on this forum.
-
Wesley said that the bag he saw Oswald carry was not CE 142. Do you see a reason for him (then or now) to lie about that?
Yes. To avoid being prosecuted as an accessory to murder.
The Dallas Police spent hours grilling Frazier, trying to get him to confess to knowingly transporting Oswald and his rifle, in that bag.
Under the circumstances, it was natural for Frazier to convince himself that the bag he was presented with could not have been the bag he saw earlier that day. That indeed, the bag he saw was actually too short to carry a rifle at all.
Of course, I don?t think that Frazier was lying. But it would be natural for someone in his position to convince himself that this was not the bag and the bag he saw was too short. And the same goes for his sister who was, I imagine, upset to learn that the information she provided to the police was now being used to try to get her brother to confess.
If this does not count as a reason, what would count as a reason?
-
Walt, I really don't understand why you present this as if it is fact, when it is clearly only what you think happened.
it is clearly only what you think happened.
You and most readers understand that.....So why do I have to post a disclaimer??
When you get to the bottom line ....EVERYTHING in this case is based on what someone accepts as a fact.....
Unfortunately..... Far too many believe that simply because someone has the badge of authority pinned on their lapel, then that persons word is the gospel truth.
Time after time folks post information that is verified in the WC testimony.... The problem is: The Warren Commission was created by LBJ ....and he intended for it to be a cover up committee.
This is a KNOWN FACT!
-
Interesting to reread this thread. The beatdown of the strawman brothers was merciless. There are a couple of options here:
1) Buell and his sister made up the long bag story. Oswald told the truth that he carried only his lunch sack.
Problems: no logical explanation for Buell and his sister to intentionally lie about Oswald carrying a long bag and the curtain rod story. If anything, this makes Buell look like he might have some reason to be suspicious of a guy making an unexpected trip and carrying a long, rifle shaped bag to his workplace on the morning that the president was going to drive by his building. A bag would also have to be planted and Oswald's prints somehow added to it. Odds of this scenario = zero.
2) Oswald carried a long bag along the size estimated by Buell.
Problems: Oswald denied this. If this long bag had contained something exculpatory, then Oswald would have had every incentive to direct the DPD to his bag. He didn't. No bag matching Buell's estimate was ever found or otherwise accounted for in the TSBD. The longer bag would have to be planted etc. Odds of this = near zero.
3) Oswald carried the long bag found on the 6th floor. His prints are on that bag, it is found next to the SN where Oswald's prints were found along with fired bullet casings from his rifle. There is no other accounting for that bag being on the 6th floor except in association with the assassination.
Problems: Oswald denied carrying such a bag. But he has every reason to lie if it contained the rifle. Buell and his sister indicated the bag was too short to contain the rifle. But they didn't have a great look or any reason to take much notice. They made an honest but erroneous estimate. The bag itself is the best evidence of its length. Odds = 99.99 percent that the bag found on the 6th floor is the one Oswald carried to work that morning.
-
Interesting to reread this thread. The beatdown of the strawman brothers was merciless. There are a couple of options here:
1) Buell and his sister made up the long bag story. Oswald told the truth that he carried only his lunch sack.
Problems: no logical explanation for Buell and his sister to intentionally lie about Oswald carrying a long bag and the curtain rod story. If anything, this makes Buell look like he might have some reason to be suspicious of a guy making an unexpected trip and carrying a long, rifle shaped bag to his workplace on the morning that the president was going to drive by his building. A bag would also have to be planted and Oswald's prints somehow added to it. Odds of this scenario = zero.
2) Oswald carried a long bag along the size estimated by Buell.
Problems: Oswald denied this. If this long bag had contained something exculpatory, then Oswald would have had every incentive to direct the DPD to his bag. He didn't. No bag matching Buell's estimate was ever found or otherwise accounted for in the TSBD. The longer bag would have to be planted etc. Odds of this = near zero.
3) Oswald carried the long bag found on the 6th floor. His prints are on that bag, it is found next to the SN where Oswald's prints were found along with fired bullet casings from his rifle. There is no other accounting for that bag being on the 6th floor except in association with the assassination.
Problems: Oswald denied carrying such a bag. But he has every reason to lie if it contained the rifle. Buell and his sister indicated the bag was too short to contain the rifle. But they didn't have a great look or any reason to take much notice. They made an honest but erroneous estimate. The bag itself is the best evidence of its length. Odds = 99.99 percent that the bag found on the 6th floor is the one Oswald carried to work that morning.
Richard,
1) LHO's lunch sack may have been the sack described by Buell and his sister. Oswald was poor, staying at some else house. He would have grabbed anything available to reuse. As I have previously pointed out, the sack may have been one that orignally contained curtain rods, which Oswald reused for his lunch. When asked about the lunch sack, he may have responded to Buell with an answer as to its origins (explaining the unusual length) not its current contents.
2) Beull saw the bag on multile occassions, not a single glance. Oswald waited, not far from he car, whilst Buell charged the battery and only proceeded to the TSBD once Buell was on his way. Buell description of Oswald's method of carying the bag does not match either a longer bag nor a bag with the elongated weight distribution of a hidden rifle.
3) You ignored the failure of the DPD to photograph the bag in situ at the crime scene, along with the failure of the earliest DPD members to notice the bag. Surely that warrants a greater degree of uncertainty greater than the 0.01% that you have speculated.
-
Richard,
1) LHO's lunch sack may have been the sack described by Buell and his sister. Oswald was poor, staying at some else house. He would have grabbed anything available to reuse. As I have previously pointed out, the sack may have been one that orignally contained curtain rods, which Oswald reused for his lunch. When asked about the lunch sack, he may have responded to Buell with an answer as to its origins (explaining the unusual length) not its current contents.
Frazier's testimony is clear. He asked Oswald about his lunch. Oswald indicated to him that he was going to buy it that day. Oswald did not carry his lunch that morning. He certainly did not carry his lunch that morning in a two-foot plus long bag.
Mr. BALL - Did you notice whether or not Lee had a package that looked like a lunch package that morning?
Mr. FRAZIER - You know like I told you earlier, I say, he didn't take his lunch because I remember right when I got in the car I asked him where was his lunch and he said he was going to buy his lunch that day.
Mr. BALL - He told you that that day, did he?
Mr. FRAZIER - Right. That is right. So, I assumed he was going to buy it, you know, from that catering service man like a lot of the boys do. They don't bring their lunch but they go out and buy their lunch there.
-
Frazier's testimony is clear. He asked Oswald about his lunch. Oswald indicated to him that he was going to buy it that day. Oswald did not carry his lunch that morning. He certainly did not carry his lunch that morning in a two-foot plus long bag.
Mr. BALL - Did you notice whether or not Lee had a package that looked like a lunch package that morning?
Mr. FRAZIER - You know like I told you earlier, I say, he didn't take his lunch because I remember right when I got in the car I asked him where was his lunch and he said he was going to buy his lunch that day.
Mr. BALL - He told you that that day, did he?
Mr. FRAZIER - Right. That is right. So, I assumed he was going to buy it, you know, from that catering service man like a lot of the boys do. They don't bring their lunch but they go out and buy their lunch there.
Strange you believe Frazier when he talks about his lunch but not when he describes the length of the bag.
-
Strange you believe Frazier when he talks about his lunch but not when he describes the length of the bag.
That's because there is an obvious distinction between estimating the size of an object with specificity and a general matter like whether he asked Oswald about his lunch. I think Frazier was telling the truth to the best of his abilities in both instances but simply got his estimate off. But if you find something odd in this, then how would you reconcile believing Frazier about the size of the bag but not his discussion of Oswald's lunch? Or do you not apply the same "logic" to conspiracy theories?
-
That's because there is an obvious distinction between estimating the size of an object with specificity and a general matter like whether he asked Oswald about his lunch. I think Frazier was telling the truth to the best of his abilities in both instances but simply got his estimate off. But if you find something odd in this, then how would you reconcile believing Frazier about the size of the bag but not his discussion of Oswald's lunch? Or do you not apply the same "logic" to conspiracy theories?
When Frazier said the bag he saw fitted between the cup of Oswald?s hand and his armpit, there is no estimate. It?s merely a statement of fact about what he observed. So, Richard... tell us, did he tell the truth?
-
When Frazier said the bag he saw fitted between the cup of Oswald?s hand and his armpit, there is no estimate. It?s merely a statement of fact about what he observed. So, Richard... tell us, did he tell the truth?
His estimate was honest but erroneous. I think he believes his estimate is correct, but we have the bag. So there is no need to speculate on its size. It can be measured. If Oswald carried a long bag along the size estimated by Frazier, then why would he deny that? He would have every incentive to not only acknowledge it, but direct the police to it to show that it contained something other than a rifle. Instead he lies about it and says he carried only his lunch in direct contradiction of Frazier's testimony. That tells us all we need to know. Oswald's prints are found on such a long bag. No bag matching Frazier's estimate was ever found or otherwise accounted for because no such bag existed. End of story.
-
His estimate was honest but erroneous. I think he believes his estimate is correct, but we have the bag.
Note the circular argument here. It's the same bag because it's the same bag.
Also note that "Richard" invents completely fabricated odds that favor his speculated version of events and actually considers that a compelling argument.
If we are going to just invoke "honest but erroneous" when it's convenient then how about Frazier being "honest but erroneous" when he thought that Oswald said he was going to buy his lunch that day?
-
Frazier's testimony is clear. He asked Oswald about his lunch. Oswald indicated to him that he was going to buy it that day. Oswald did not carry his lunch that morning. He certainly did not carry his lunch that morning in a two-foot plus long bag.
Mr. BALL - Did you notice whether or not Lee had a package that looked like a lunch package that morning?
Mr. FRAZIER - You know like I told you earlier, I say, he didn't take his lunch because I remember right when I got in the car I asked him where was his lunch and he said he was going to buy his lunch that day.
Mr. BALL - He told you that that day, did he?
Mr. FRAZIER - Right. That is right. So, I assumed he was going to buy it, you know, from that catering service man like a lot of the boys do. They don't bring their lunch but they go out and buy their lunch there.
Richard,
Maybe Oswald only bought some things in the bag and was going to buy the rest of his lunch (we know he purchased at least 1 coke),
-
Richard,
Maybe Oswald only bought some things in the bag and was going to buy the rest of his lunch (we know he purchased at least 1 coke),
So he didn't even have his full lunch in a two-foot plus long bag? You can't really believe that. Oswald denied carrying any long bag that morning.
-
LOL, concluding that 2+2=4 because 4 equals 2+2 is a circular argument. So I guess we can discount it and conclude that 2+2 could be equal to anything. Of course the bag found in the TSBD is relevant to the issue. It has Oswald's prints on it. It is found in a location that associates it with the assassination. It is a long, brown paper bag of the type described by Frazier. It exists. Conversely, no bag matching Frazier's size estimate is ever found. It can't be accounted for in any way. Oswald denied carrying it. Something he only has an incentive to do if the bag contains something incriminatory. I wonder what that might be?
-
So he didn't even have his full lunch in a two-foot plus long bag? You can't really believe that. Oswald denied carrying any long bag that morning.
Oswald denied carrying any long bag that morning.
Perhaps you should review the interrogation reports.... Lee DID NOT deny carrying a long bag that morning. Because...
He wasn't asked about the LENGTH ...He was told that he'd been seen carrying a large bag, and Lee replied that He didn't remember the size of his lunch sack...He said that it might have been larger than necessary to hold his lunch and he elaborated..." ya know you can't always find a sack that is just the right size for your lunch." ( paraphrased)
-
Oswald denied carrying any long bag that morning.
Perhaps you should review the interrogation reports.... Lee DID NOT deny carrying a long bag that morning. Because...
He wasn't asked about the LENGTH ...He was told that he'd been seen carrying a large bag, and Lee replied that He didn't remember the size of his lunch sack...He said that it might have been larger than necessary to hold his lunch and he elaborated..." ya know you can't always find a sack that is just the right size for your lunch." ( paraphrased)
Mr. BALL. What did you tell him?
Mr. FRITZ. I told him he had a package and put it in the back seat and it was a package about that long and it was curtain rods. He said he didn't have any kind of a package but his lunch. He said he had his lunch and that is all he had, and Mr. Frazier told me that he got out of the car with that package, he saw him go toward the building with this long package.
I asked him, I said, "Did you go toward the building carrying a long package?"
He said, "No. I didn't carry anything but my lunch."
-
Mr. BALL. What did you tell him?
Mr. FRITZ. I told him he had a package and put it in the back seat and it was a package about that long and it was curtain rods. He said he didn't have any kind of a package but his lunch. He said he had his lunch and that is all he had, and Mr. Frazier told me that he got out of the car with that package, he saw him go toward the building with this long package.
I asked him, I said, "Did you go toward the building carrying a long package?"
He said, "No. I didn't carry anything but my lunch."
If you've read the reports that were written at the time . you'd then know that what was pulled from the witnesses mouths by the LBJ's cover up committee lawyers often conflicts with what the witness said in the 48 hours following the coup d e'tat.
What you've posted is an excellent example of one of those lawyers leading the witness.
-
Mr. BALL. What did you tell him?
Mr. FRITZ. I told him he had a package and put it in the back seat and it was a package about that long and it was curtain rods. He said he didn't have any kind of a package but his lunch. He said he had his lunch and that is all he had, and Mr. Frazier told me that he got out of the car with that package, he saw him go toward the building with this long package.
I asked him, I said, "Did you go toward the building carrying a long package?"
He said, "No. I didn't carry anything but my lunch."
Richard,
Firstly these answers are not from recordings or accurate at the time transcriptions but the memories of officers, who were keen to defend the built case.
He answered that he carried his lunch, but his lunch was in something, he may have had the lunch in a large sack not when asked about package thought they meant something more substantive.
As to what he brought, he may have put a piece of fruit or cake for morning tea or as part of his lunch but planned get something more. You always assume that Wesley and Linnie under estimated the length, they may have over estimated it.
-
His estimate was honest but erroneous. I think he believes his estimate is correct, but we have the bag. So there is no need to speculate on its size. It can be measured. If Oswald carried a long bag along the size estimated by Frazier, then why would he deny that? He would have every incentive to not only acknowledge it, but direct the police to it to show that it contained something other than a rifle. Instead he lies about it and says he carried only his lunch in direct contradiction of Frazier's testimony. That tells us all we need to know. Oswald's prints are found on such a long bag. No bag matching Frazier's estimate was ever found or otherwise accounted for because no such bag existed. End of story.
Where in this rant do you address the point I raised about Frazier stating that the package fitted between Oswald's cupped hand and his armpit?
-
Mr. BALL. What did you tell him?
Mr. FRITZ. I told him he had a package and put it in the back seat and it was a package about that long and it was curtain rods. He said he didn't have any kind of a package but his lunch. He said he had his lunch and that is all he had, and Mr. Frazier told me that he got out of the car with that package, he saw him go toward the building with this long package.
I asked him, I said, "Did you go toward the building carrying a long package?"
He said, "No. I didn't carry anything but my lunch."
Mr Smith, You seem to be unable to understand a simple point that an elementary school kid can understand...
The Warren Commission was nothing but a white wash, cover up committee.....
Your citing of the testimony that the shyster lawyers drew from the witnesses is worthless. Often the testimony is completely contradictory to the witnesses sworn affidavit.
-
Mr Smith, You seem to be unable to understand a simple point that an elementary school kid can understand...
The Warren Commission was nothing but a white wash, cover up committee.....
Your citing of the testimony that the shyster lawyers drew from the witnesses is worthless. Often the testimony is completely contradictory to the witnesses sworn affidavit.
Let's revisit. You stated: "Lee DID NOT deny carrying a long bag that morning." Here is the testimony:
I asked him, I said, "Did you go toward the building carrying a long package?"
He said, "No. I didn't carry anything but my lunch."
Instead of doing the honest thing and acknowledging your error, we get this silly nonsense.
-
Richard,
Firstly these answers are not from recordings or accurate at the time transcriptions but the memories of officers, who were keen to defend the built case.
He answered that he carried his lunch, but his lunch was in something, he may have had the lunch in a large sack not when asked about package thought they meant something more substantive.
As to what he brought, he may have put a piece of fruit or cake for morning tea or as part of his lunch but planned get something more. You always assume that Wesley and Linnie under estimated the length, they may have over estimated it.
Oswald denied carrying a long bag that morning. Frazier asked him about his lunch and he said he intended to buy it that day (i.e. he was not carrying a lunch). Those are just facts. There is zero possibility of the scenario that you are suggesting in which Oswald carries a partial lunch in a two-foot plus long bag, tells Frazier it is curtain rods, lies to Frazier for some unknown reason about buying his lunch that day, and then lies to the police about carrying a long bag. Particularly when Oswald would have every incentive to direct the police to this long bag if it contained something non-incriminatory. Add on that no bag matching Frazier's size estimate was ever found in the TSBD while a bag with Oswald's prints was found and it is a slam dunk. No serious historian entertains even the possibility that the bag found on the 6th floor was not the one used by Oswald to carry his rifle.
-
Let's revisit. You stated: "Lee DID NOT deny carrying a long bag that morning." Here is the testimony:
I asked him, I said, "Did you go toward the building carrying a long package?"
He said, "No. I didn't carry anything but my lunch."
Instead of doing the honest thing and acknowledging your error, we get this silly nonsense.
Mr Smith....On page 626 of the WR there is a copy of FBI agent James Bookhout report of the 10:30 am 11/23/63.interrogation of Lee Oswald. This is the first time a package was mentioned to Lee Oswald. Bookhout wrote:...
"He denied that he had brought a package to work on that day and he denied that he ever had any conversation about curtain rods with this boy named Wesley who drove him to his employment."
On December 17th Postal Inspector ( And FBI informant) Harry Holmes wrote a memo ( page 636) in which he mentions the paper sack....
Holmes wrote:......Quote... "When asked if he didn't bring a sack with him the next morning to work, he stated that he did , and when asked as to the contents of the sack, he stated that it contained his lunch. Then, when asked on the size or shape of the sack, he said "Oh I don't recall it may have been a small sack or a large sack, you don't always find one that just fits your sandwiches" ...unquote
Referring to the paper sack .....Do you see the word LONG in either of the reports , Mr Smith.....??
-
Mr Smith....On page 626 of the WR there is a copy of FBI agent James Bookhout report of the 10:30 am 11/23/63.interrogation of Lee Oswald. This is the first time a package was mentioned to Lee Oswald. Bookhout wrote:...
"He denied that he had brought a package to work on that day and he denied that he ever had any conversation about curtain rods with this boy named Wesley who drove him to his employment."
On December 17th Postal Inspector ( And FBI informant) Harry Holmes wrote a memo ( page 636) in which he mentions the paper sack....
Holmes wrote:......Quote... "When asked if he didn't bring a sack with him the next morning to work, he stated that he did , and when asked as to the contents of the sack, he stated that it contained his lunch. Then, when asked on the size or shape of the sack, he said "Oh I don't recall it may have been a small sack or a large sack, you don't always find one that just fits your sandwiches" ...unquote
Referring to the paper sack .....Do you see the word LONG in either of the reports , Mr Smith.....??
I asked him, I said, "Did you go toward the building carrying a long package?"
He said, "No. I didn't carry anything but my lunch."
-
I asked him, I said, "Did you go toward the building carrying a long package?"
He said, "No. I didn't carry anything but my lunch."
If you've read the reports that were written at the time . you'd then know that what was pulled from the witnesses mouths by the LBJ's cover up committee lawyers often conflicts with what the witness said in the 48 hours following the coup d e'tat.
What you've posted is an excellent example of one of those lawyers leading the witness.
What was the purpose of the Warren Commission?.....
LBJ created the WC to convince the American suckers that Lee Harrrrrrvey Osssssswald was the arch villain who murdered President Kennedy for no reason and he had no accomplices.
IOW... The WC was a whitewash and a cover up.... Isn't that true Mr Smith? So why do you persist in citing that BS.
-
I asked him, I said, "Did you go toward the building carrying a long package?"
He said, "No. I didn't carry anything but my lunch."
If Oswald was telling the truth, then Frazier was lying.
-
If Oswald was telling the truth, then Frazier was lying.
Let's see if we can shed a little light on this aspect....
First of... Was Lee ever asked if he carried the rifle in a paper sack?
I have found NOTHING to indicate that the authorities suggested or even hinted to Lee that he carried the rifle in a paper sack.
If the cops had found a paper sack that was large enough to carry the rifle why wouldn't they have said..."We found the sack that you used to smuggle the rifle into the building.... It has your palm print on it. What we want to know is how did you manage to handle and carry that package without leaving more prints on it?
No wait..... I'm being sarcastic and factitious ... But the fact is, they never suggested to Lee that he'd carried a rifle in a paper sack.
If Oswald was telling the truth, then Frazier was lying.
I believe Lee was telling the truth.....
-
If Oswald was telling the truth, then Frazier was lying.
I believe that Frazier was lying..... And I don't blame him.
He was caught in a quicksand that he'd been lured into by the Dallas Police. The police told him that Lee had admitted carrying a large paper sack in which Lee had said contained curtain rods. Wes Frazier could see no harm in verifing Lee's story so he acknowledged that lee was carrying a sack that was made from flimsy brown paper like the paper that he seen curtain rods wrapped in.
The police then pretended to give him a polygraph test and they said that he passed... so based on Frazier's story Lee was carrying a large paper sack.
The so called lie detector test was a total sham....They could not have obtained any useful results from Frazier because he was in a highly agitated and nervous state at the time....... Frazier being a dumb kid, wouldn't have known that the lie detector test was a sham..... He thought he was on record as telling the truth and he's stood his ground on that idea ......
-
So he didn't even have his full lunch in a two-foot plus long bag? You can't really believe that.
Appeal to personal incredulity fallacy.
Oswald denied carrying any long bag that morning.
False. Fritz said "denied that he had brought the long package described by Mr. Frazier and his sister", not any long bag.
Fritz probably handed CE142 to Oswald and told him that Frazier and his sister said he was carrying this bag.
-
LOL, concluding that 2+2=4 because 4 equals 2+2 is a circular argument. So I guess we can discount it and conclude that 2+2 could be equal to anything. Of course the bag found in the TSBD is relevant to the issue. It has Oswald's prints on it. It is found in a location that associates it with the assassination.
And there is no reason to think a rifle was ever inside it.
It is a long, brown paper bag of the type described by Frazier.
No, Frazier described a shorter bag made out of flimsier paper.
It exists.
So does the soda bottle. Just because something was found on the 6th floor doesn't mean that it's automatically connected to the assassination.
Conversely, no bag matching Frazier's size estimate is ever found.
Was one ever looked for? Was Harold Norman's lunch bag ever found?
It can't be accounted for in any way. Oswald denied carrying it.
False again. Oswald (according to Fritz and Holmes) said he carried some kind of package.
-
I asked him, I said, "Did you go toward the building carrying a long package?"
He said, "No. I didn't carry anything but my lunch."
Oswald denied carrying ANY long package that morning. He claimed that he did carry his lunch. Therefore, Oswald distinguished between the LONG package and his lunch. If there were any doubt about this, Frazier asked Oswald about his LUNCH. Oswald told him he was going to buy it. Good grief. There is zero doubt that the 6th floor bag is the one Oswald carried that morning. It is simply playing the contrarian to suggest there is any doubt about this. Not even most fringe kooks deny this. Comparing a long, narrow rifle shaped bag with Oswald's prints on it and no work-related purpose for being left next to the SN when Oswald is reported to have carried such a bag that morning to a coke bottle is the height of absurdity and a great example of how a dishonest contrarian attempts to discredit the evidence like a disbarred attorney defending a client that he knows is guilty.
-
I asked him, I said, "Did you go toward the building carrying a long package?"
He said, "No. I didn't carry anything but my lunch."
Oswald denied carrying ANY long package that morning. He claimed that he did carry his lunch. Therefore, Oswald distinguished between the LONG package and his lunch. If there were any doubt about this, Frazier asked Oswald about his LUNCH. Oswald told him he was going to buy it. Good grief. There is zero doubt that the 6th floor bag is the one Oswald carried that morning. It is simply playing the contrarian to suggest there is any doubt about this. Not even most fringe kooks deny this. Comparing a long, narrow rifle shaped bag with Oswald's prints on it and no work-related purpose for being left next to the SN when Oswald is reported to have carried such a bag that morning to a coke bottle is the height of absurdity and a great example of how a dishonest contrarian attempts to discredit the evidence like a disbarred attorney defending a client that he knows is guilty.
"If there were any doubt about this, Frazier asked Oswald about his LUNCH. Oswald told him he was going to buy it."
There's your problem, Richard. Good grief, you believe Frazier.
-
If Oswald was telling the truth, then Frazier was lying.
You are on the verge of learning something! So now ask yourself who has the greater incentive to lie about Oswald carrying a long bag that morning? It boils down to this. If the bag contained a rifle used to assassinate the president, then Oswald has every incentive to lie about it. If it contained curtain rods or some non-incriminatory item, then Oswald had every incentive to confirm that he carried such a bag and direct the police to it to clear himself. Good so far? Seems like common sense. Now if Frazier is lying and made up the bag story, what are his incentives? They seem to be non-existent and even contrary to his own interests. If he is somehow being coerced into lying by the authorities to put the rifle in Oswald's hands, then why doesn't he say the bag is long enough to contain the rifle? The entire purpose of such a lie in that scenario. What good would it do the fantasy conspirators to put a bag too short to carry the rifle in Oswald's possession? None. It doesn't add up. So the only other option is that Frazier just made the entire story up. There is no good narrative to explain that. If anything, his incentives would be to distance himself from having driven the assassin and his rifle not make up a story in which Oswald has a long, unexplained package with him that morning. Connect the dots and there is one logical scenario as supported by the evidence. Oswald carried a long package that morning as witnessed by Frazier. Frazier honestly but erroneously estimated its length. We know that because the bag was found. It was used by Oswald to carry the rifle. That is why Oswald lies about it. All the stars align.
-
"If there were any doubt about this, Frazier asked Oswald about his LUNCH. Oswald told him he was going to buy it."
There's your problem, Richard. Good grief, you believe Frazier.
I thought CTers believed Frazier? Are you saying his estimate of the bag's length can't be trusted?
-
I thought CTers believed Frazier? Are you saying his estimate of the bag's length can't be trusted?
Mr "Smith" Why do you hide behind an alias? It simply verifies that you're not an honest person......
I thought CTers believed Frazier? Are you saying his estimate of the bag's length can't be trusted?
I thought CTers believed Frazier?
This statement simply proves that your reasoning is flawed....( Which is something that any intelligent person following these debates is acutely aware of) Ct's are NOT of one accord on every aspect of this case....However I believe that all CT's are bonded together under the knowledge that the Warren report is a CROCK!!.
Are you saying his estimate of the bag's length can't be trusted?
Frazier's estimate of the bag length ( approximately 27 inches) does not have to be "trusted" or accepted without verification. Linnie Mae Randle corroborated the length of the sack that she and Frazier said they saw....Both of them said the sack was no longer than 28 inches long.
You really don't know much about this case do you Mr "Smith" ?
-
I asked him, I said, "Did you go toward the building carrying a long package?"
He said, "No. I didn't carry anything but my lunch."
So you're cherry picking what Fritz recalled 8 months later over what he recalled a few days later. Because of course you are.
There is zero doubt that the 6th floor bag is the one Oswald carried that morning.
This is just your usual false bravado. There is no evidence that CE142 is the bag that Frazier or Randle saw. They said it was not.
Comparing a long, narrow rifle shaped bag with Oswald's prints on it and no work-related purpose for being left next to the SN when Oswald is reported to have carried such a bag that morning to a coke bottle is the height of absurdity and a great example of how a dishonest contrarian attempts to discredit the evidence like a disbarred attorney defending a client that he knows is guilty.
No, it's just another example of how bogus your reasoning is. Some object is found (eventually) on the 6th floor and from that you leap to Oswald carried it in that morning and it had a rifle in it. It's special pleading because you don't leap to the conclusion that other objects on the 6th floor were related to the assassination, just because they were found on the 6th floor.
There's no need to discredit anything since your "evidence" is not actually evidence of anything at all. You have a bag that nobody ever said they saw in Oswald's possession with no sign of a rifle ever having been in it. So what?
-
There's no reason to assume that either Frazier was lying or Oswald was lying. Frazier saw a package. Fritz reported that Oswald said he had a package. The only thing that doesn't align here is that "Richard" wants to just assume that the package was 38 inches long and contained a rifle, despite there being ZERO evidence for that.
-
And there is no reason to think a rifle was ever inside it.
No, Frazier described a shorter bag made out of flimsier paper.
So does the soda bottle. Just because something was found on the 6th floor doesn't mean that it's automatically connected to the assassination.
Was one ever looked for? Was Harold Norman's lunch bag ever found?
False again. Oswald (according to Fritz and Holmes) said he carried some kind of package.
Mr "Smith"... Conversely, no bag matching Frazier's size estimate is ever found.
Mr Iacoletti... Was one ever looked for? Was Harold Norman's lunch bag ever found?
I believe that Detective Day DID find a brown paper sack that was "SHAPED like a gun case".... He said that he folded that sack up and put it in his pocket and only Roy truly had seen the gun case shaped sack.... Where is that sack??
-
When Frazier said the bag he saw fitted between the cup of Oswald?s hand and his armpit, there is no estimate. It?s merely a statement of fact about what he observed. So, Richard... tell us, did he tell the truth?
At what angle did Buell view Oswald with the bag (aside from the back, where he started out before Buell caught up with him and marched along ---and at speed, I might add--- with Buell lollygagging along, well to the rear)... front, side. or both?
Not to forget sis stating, first-day, that the bag was about 3 feet long*
(Sure shrunk real quick after the implications sunk in, huh)
*Thought I'd bring that up, given the CTroll penchant for grasping onto first-day evidence. Except when it's inconvenient to do so, of course.
-
At what angle did Buell view Oswald with the bag (aside from the back, where he started out before Buell caught up with him and marched along at speed, I might add, with Buell lollygagging along, well to the rear)... front, side. or both?
If your goal is to demonstrate that the bags are the same, then it's not sufficient to just postulate that he could have been mistaken. That doesn't actually demonstrate that they were the same.
Not to forget sis stating, first-day, that the bag was about 3 feet long*
Correction: Bookhout recorded (after the fact) a second hand account of her saying that the bag was about 3 feet long.
-
At what angle did Buell view Oswald with the bag (aside from the back, where he started out before Buell caught up with him and marched along at speed, I might add, with Buell lollygagging along, well to the rear)... front, side. or both?
Not to forget sis stating, first-day, that the bag was about 3 feet long*
(Sure shrunk real quick after the implications sunk in, huh)
*Thought I'd bring that up, given the CTroll penchant for grasping onto first-day evidence. Except when it's inconvenient to do so, of course.
Not to forget sis stating, first-day, that the bag was about 3 feet long*
So you think Lee was about 7 foot tall? I'd hasten to remind you Billy Bob that Linnie Mae said that Lee was carrying the sack in his right hand and it nearly touched the ground.....If the sack had been three feet long Lee would have been draggin it behind him....unless you think he was about seven feet tall......
You probably should THINK before you post .....Billy Bob......
-
Addendum:
Michael Shermer has pointed out that the side that argues against the truth focuses on minutiae, whether it is 9/11 truthers, Scientific Creationists or Holocaust deniers. And don?t look at the overall picture.
Holocaust deniers claim presence of ?Prussian Blue? in the in the delousing stations but not in the gas chambers prove that the gas chambers were not used to kill people. Ignoring that insects require a much higher presence of cyanide is needed to kill insects (16,000 parts per million) than people (300 parts per million).
Scientific Creationists claiming human footprints besides dinosaur footprints disprove the Theory of Evolution. Ignoring the possibility of the ?human footprints? being chiseled into the rock by fakers.
9/11 Truthers pointing out that the fires could not have been hot enough to melt steel, and not considering that the steel doesn?t have to be melted, just heated to a high enough temperature long enough, to fail to support the tremendous weight of the building.
And just this weekend we see CTers doing the same thing.
1. The southwest corner of the sixth floor of the TSBD looks like a sniper?s nest, but it is claimed that it is just a bit too cramped to be used to shoot from.
2. The bag Oswald carried with him into work looked like it could have been used to carry his rifle into work that day, but it is claimed that it was just a bit too short to hold the rifle.
Sadly for you, no one ever saw LHO with a bag inside the TSBD. Furthermore, no bag was ever shown to be in the alleged SN either.
-
Only in John's Alice-in-Wonderland world could two people both be telling the truth when one says that the other was carrying a long package and the other says he was not. LOL.
Fritz - "He said he had a cheese sandwich and some fruit and that was the only package he had brought with him to work and denied that he had brought the long package described by Mr. Frazier and his sister"
Holmes - "When asked if he didn't bring a sack with him the next morning to work, he stated that he did, and when asked as to the contents of the sack, he stated that it contained his lunch. Then, when asked as to the size or shape of the sack, he said 'Oh, I don't recall, it may have a small sack or a large sack, you don't always find one that just fits your sandwiches.'"
The claim that Oswald denied carrying any kind of long package is just flat out false.
That one is a keeper. It highlights John's dishonest approach to the evidence. You can't have it both ways simply because there is no other way to reconcile the facts to his desired outcome. Either Oswald or Frazier is lying about the long package.
No, you're being dishonest. Not only by cherry-picking your interpretation of Fritz's testimony from 8 months later and ignoring everything else, but by also imposing your own biased standard of what "long package" does and does not mean. The bottom line is that Frazier said that Oswald carried a bag that was not CE142. Randle said that Oswald carried a bag that was not CE142. Oswald said he carried a bag that could have been small or large.
The choice then becomes whether to accept the obvious, common sense interpretation as supported by the evidence (i.e. the long bag found with Oswald's prints on it is the long bag he carried that morning) or entertain baseless alternative fantasies that make no narrative sense (the bag found was planted, no one "looked" for Frazier's bag even though they searched the building and found a similar long bag, and Frazier acted contrary to his own self interest etc). This is just a devil's advocate game to see how long a contrarian can extend a discussion with his intellectual superiors to feel relevant.
...and it's back to the fantasy conspirators strawman again. Bottom line again: you can't show that Oswald carried in CE 142 that morning, you can't show that CE 142 ever had C2766 (or any rifle) inside it, and you can't even show that CE 142 was in the alleged sniper's nest when it was first discovered.
In addition, John, yet again, dishonestly cites the evidence. Per Dishonest John: "Frazier saw a package. Fritz reported that Oswald said he had a package." John is implying that the long package Frazier saw is the same one Oswald acknowledged carrying (i.e his lunch). But that is not what the evidence suggests.
I think you're confusing your assumptions ("long package") with evidence.
In fact, it is completely to the contrary and excludes this possibility. What Frazier "reported" was a long package over two feet long which he specifically indicated was not Oswald's lunch.
Frazier also reported that CE 142 was not that bag. Cherry-picking again? Frazier's recall is 100% accurate except when you don't want it to be?
Why can't a lunch be in a 2 foot (give or take a few inches) package? Just because you want it to be a rifle?
Thus, there is no possibility whatsoever, as John dishonestly suggests with his selective omissions, that Frazier's package and Oswald's lunch could be one and the same package.
Why? You can't put more than one thing in a package now?
Both Frazier and Oswald confirmed they were two distinct items being discussed - a long package and Oswald's lunch. Common sense also lends itself to the conclusion that no one other than perhaps Fred Flintstone has ever carried his lunch in such a large package.
"Common sense" again. The last refuge of somebody without evidence.
-
If your goal is to demonstrate that the bags are the same, then it's not sufficient to just postulate that he could have been mistaken. That doesn't actually demonstrate that they were the same.
Correction: Bookhout recorded (after the fact) a second hand account of her saying that the bag was about 3 feet long.
Is her affidavit a second-hand account, John?
I didn't say anything here about Buell being mistaken. I asked if Buell had seen Oswald from the front while carrying the bag at any point.
-
Is her affidavit a second-hand account, John?
Interesting. Have you seen an affidavit that mentions the length of the bag she saw?
I didn't say anything here about Buell being mistaken. I asked if Buell had seen Oswald from the front while carrying the bag at any point.
Difficult to say for sure, but possibly when he first got the package out of the car or while he was waiting over by the cyclone fence. Relevance?
-
Is her affidavit a second-hand account, John?
I didn't say anything here about Buell being mistaken. I asked if Buell had seen Oswald from the front while carrying the bag at any point.
That would be question to ask Buell, luckily he is stll alive.
However from the way he described Oswald's action, it would appear likely to me. It would be very odd and memorable, if somebody waited for you and looked away the whole time whilst they did it.
Buell Wesley 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.
-
Richard,
Issues with the gun being in the bag Oswald took.
1) Length of gun compared to the length as reported by 2 witnesses
2) Dougherty not seeing it when Oswald entered.
3) Assembling the gun at work during the day (what tool, why connect sling and scope when neither would have helped
Now you seem stuck on defending the WC storyline, but there are other ways to put the story together. How about....
Oswald has moved the gun and has it hidden at his boarding room well before the assassination week. (How else does he practice with it in the tme leading up to the assassination.)
Oswald by himself takes the gun to work (covered in anything handy) and hides in back shed area on Wednesday evening.
Thursday evening trip is not to pick up the gun but to see his kids for possibly last time and give his wife money.
Oswald takes CE142 but folded to work with Buell (thus explaning the length issue) and covers the gun with it and leaves the gun outside. Going inside with nothing in his hands. (Dougherty sees him with nothing)
Oswald was aware that walking in before work with a large packages would look odd, but his job required hm to carry packages during the day, so once working, no one would be suspicious of him with a package. As gun is already assembled, no need for assembling at work, or question of whay attach a useless sling and scope. CE142 was made to look like just another package being moved at TSBD.
Oswald goes back during the work day, and takes the gun to the 6th floor.
I'm sure you wll point out the issues with this, but it covers many of known challenges of the WC story. Unapproveable of course but still a possibility.
-
Interesting. Have you seen an affidavit that mentions the length of the bag she saw?
>>> As it turns out, no.
This will do:
FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION
Date 11/23/63
LINNIE MAE RANDLE, 2439 West Fifth Street, Irving, Texas, phone Blackburn 3-8965, was interviewed at the Dallas Police Department.
RANDLE advised that she is the sister of BUELL WESLEY FRAZIER, who is employed by the Texas School Book Depository and resides at her residence, stated that she met LEE HARVEY OSWALD through her brother, and has known OSWALD and his wife for about six weeks. RANDLE advised that OSWALD's wife is MARINA OSWALD, who resides at 2515 W. Fifth, Irving, Texas, and that OSWALD spends the weekends with his wife at the above mentioned address. Her brother, WESLEY FRAZIER, customarily drives LEE HARVEY OSWALD to 2515 West Fifth, Irving, Texas, on Friday night, and takes him back to work on Monday morning. He stated that OSWALD is also employed at the Texas School Book Depository.
On the night of November 21, 1963, she observed FRAZIER letting LEE HARVEY OSWALD out of FRAZIER's car at 2515 West Fifth. Subsequently, she asked FRAZIER why OSWALD was visiting his wife on Thursday evening, as he usually did not visit her until Friday evening each week. FRAZIER told her that OSWALD claimed he was visiting his wife the night of November 21, 1963, because he is fixing up his apartment and RUTH PAINE, with whom his wife resides at 2515 West Fifth, Irving, was going to give him some curtain rods.
RANDLE stated that about 7:15 a.m., November 22, 1963, she looked out of a window of her residence and observed LEE HARVEY OSWALD walking up her driveway and saw him put a long brown package, approximately 3 feet by 6 inches, in the back seat area of WESLEY FRAZIER's 1954 black Chevrolet four door automobile. Thereafter, she observed OSWALD walk to the front, or entrance area, of her residence where he waited for FRAZIER to come out of the house and give him a ride to work.
RANDLE stated while at the Dallas Police Department on the evening of November 22, 1963, officers of the Dallas Police Department had exhibited to her some brown package paper, however she had not been able to positively identify it as being identical with the above-mentioned brown package, due to the fact she had only observed the brown package from her residence window at a distance.
on 11/22/63 at Dallas, Texas File # DL 89-43
by Special Agent JAMES W. BOOKHOUT/cah/tjd
Date dictated 11/23/63
------------------------------------------------
Difficult to say for sure, but possibly when he first got the package out of the car or while he was waiting over by the cyclone fence. Relevance?
Buell seemed more concerned about his car battery at that point
The relevance of a Buell frontal/non-frontal view of the package being carried is abundantly clear
-
Not forgetting Buell is quite a bit taller than LO.
Or he might have used the left hand to angle the bag over in front of his head
-
Interesting. Have you seen an affidavit that mentions the length of the bag she saw?
>>> As it turns out, no.
This will do:
FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION
Date 11/23/63
LINNIE MAE RANDLE, 2439 West Fifth Street, Irving, Texas, phone Blackburn 3-8965, was interviewed at the Dallas Police Department.
RANDLE advised that she is the sister of BUELL WESLEY FRAZIER, who is employed by the Texas School Book Depository and resides at her residence, stated that she met LEE HARVEY OSWALD through her brother, and has known OSWALD and his wife for about six weeks. RANDLE advised that OSWALD's wife is MARINA OSWALD, who resides at 2515 W. Fifth, Irving, Texas, and that OSWALD spends the weekends with his wife at the above mentioned address. Her brother, WESLEY FRAZIER, customarily drives LEE HARVEY OSWALD to 2515 West Fifth, Irving, Texas, on Friday night, and takes him back to work on Monday morning. He stated that OSWALD is also employed at the Texas School Book Depository.
On the night of November 21, 1963, she observed FRAZIER letting LEE HARVEY OSWALD out of FRAZIER's car at 2515 West Fifth. Subsequently, she asked FRAZIER why OSWALD was visiting his wife on Thursday evening, as he usually did not visit her until Friday evening each week. FRAZIER told her that OSWALD claimed he was visiting his wife the night of November 21, 1963, because he is fixing up his apartment and RUTH PAINE, with whom his wife resides at 2515 West Fifth, Irving, was going to give him some curtain rods.
RANDLE stated that about 7:15 a.m., November 22, 1963, she looked out of a window of her residence and observed LEE HARVEY OSWALD walking up her driveway and saw him put a long brown package, approximately 3 feet by 6 inches, in the back seat area of WESLEY FRAZIER's 1954 black Chevrolet four door automobile. Thereafter, she observed OSWALD walk to the front, or entrance area, of her residence where he waited for FRAZIER to come out of the house and give him a ride to work.
RANDLE stated while at the Dallas Police Department on the evening of November 22, 1963, officers of the Dallas Police Department had exhibited to her some brown package paper, however she had not been able to positively identify it as being identical with the above-mentioned brown package, due to the fact she had only observed the brown package from her residence window at a distance.
on 11/22/63 at Dallas, Texas File # DL 89-43
by Special Agent JAMES W. BOOKHOUT/cah/tjd
Date dictated 11/23/63
------------------------------------------------
Difficult to say for sure, but possibly when he first got the package out of the car or while he was waiting over by the cyclone fence. Relevance?
Buell seemed more concerned about his car battery at that point
The relevance of a Buell frontal/non-frontal view of the package being carried is abundantly clear
RANDLE stated that about 7:15 a.m., November 22, 1963, she looked out of a window of her residence and observed LEE HARVEY OSWALD walking up her driveway and saw him put a long brown package, approximately 3 feet by 6 inches, in the back seat area of WESLEY FRAZIER's 1954 black Chevrolet four door automobile.
What a silly thing to post..... It's obviously totally inaccurate.... A THREE FOOT LONG paper sack??
I would hasten to point out that Mrs Randle DESCRIBED the manner in which Lee carried the paper sack.... She said that Lee had the sack down beside his right leg and his right arm was extended down at his side as he walked along with the sack it nearly touched the ground. ( What was the distance from the sack to the ground.....6 inches? A subjective distance) At any rate Lee was 5'9" and his hand would have been about 26 inches from the ground with his arm down at his side. So the sack could not have been anywhere near 3 foot long.... It was probably about 2 feet long, but it might have been less than 2 feet If "Randle's idea of "nearly touched the ground" was 8 to 10 inches.
-
Or he might have used the left hand to angle the bag over in front of his head
Does the package that Danny The Rat is holding look like CE 142??
LBJ's "Special Blue Ribbon Committee " Told us that CE 142 was the sack that Lee used to carry the rifle .......( of course there wasn't a iota of physical evidence that any rifle had ever been in CE 142 , (but what hell.....They didn't need no stinkin physical evidence)
Danny obviously ignores the WC theory (twisted though it be) and presents the viewers with his idea of the paper sack...
-
Interesting. Have you seen an affidavit that mentions the length of the bag she saw?
>>> As it turns out, no.
This will do:
No, I don't think it will. Linnie Mae always maintained that the bag he saw was shorter. During her testimony they measured how long she estimated it to be with a mockup and came up with 27 inches one time and 28 1/2 inches the other time. FBI agents would conduct their interviews and not take contemporaneous notes. They would finish the interview and then go off and transcribe what they heard. The WC should have asked her about this discrepancy because it very possible that Bookhout misunderstood her or didn't transcribe what she said properly. We also don't know if she gave Bookhout a length herself or if Bookhout estimated it himself from her holding her hands apart or whatever.
-
RANDLE stated that about 7:15 a.m., November 22, 1963, she looked out of a window of her residence and observed LEE HARVEY OSWALD walking up her driveway and saw him put a long brown package, approximately 3 feet by 6 inches, in the back seat area of WESLEY FRAZIER's 1954 black Chevrolet four door automobile.
What a silly thing to post..... It's obviously totally inaccurate.... A THREE FOOT LONG paper sack??
I would hasten to point out that Mrs Randle DESCRIBED the manner in which Lee carried the paper sack.... She said that Lee had the sack down beside his right leg and his right arm was extended down at his side as he walked along with the sack it nearly touched the ground. ( What was the distance from the sack to the ground.....6 inches? A subjective distance) At any rate Lee was 5'9" and his hand would have been about 26 inches from the ground with his arm down at his side. So the sack could not have been anywhere near 3 foot long.... It was probably about 2 feet long, but it might have been less than 2 feet If "Randle's idea of "nearly touched the ground" was 8 to 10 inches.
::)
Only in WallyWorld is 10 inches 'nearly touching' the ground.
-
::)
Only in WallyWorld is 10 inches 'nearly touching' the ground.
On a dark and rainy morning who can say what Mrs Randle saw..... I'll grant you that 10 inches would be the extreme, but I'd hasten to point out that many boots are 10 inches tall......
-
No, I don't think it will. Linnie Mae always maintained that the bag he saw was shorter. During her testimony they measured how long she estimated it to be with a mockup and came up with 27 inches one time and 28 1/2 inches the other time. FBI agents would conduct their interviews and not take contemporaneous notes. They would finish the interview and then go off and transcribe what they heard. The WC should have asked her about this discrepancy because it very possible that Bookhout misunderstood her or didn't transcribe what she said properly. We also don't know if she gave Bookhout a length herself or if Bookhout estimated it himself from her holding her hands apart or whatever.
Show us where the FBI didn't have Randle read over her 11.22.63 statement to confirm her statement as being accurate. And do you have a later denial of that initial bag length? And her later---conveniently, one might argue--- somewhat shrunken bag size appeared after the situation had grown rather onerous for the 'bro.
-
No, I don't think it will. Linnie Mae always maintained that the bag he saw was shorter. During her testimony they measured how long she estimated it to be with a mockup and came up with 27 inches one time and 28 1/2 inches the other time. FBI agents would conduct their interviews and not take contemporaneous notes. They would finish the interview and then go off and transcribe what they heard. The WC should have asked her about this discrepancy because it very possible that Bookhout misunderstood her or didn't transcribe what she said properly. We also don't know if she gave Bookhout a length herself or if Bookhout estimated it himself from her holding her hands apart or whatever.
The WC should have asked her about this discrepancy because it very possible that Bookhout misunderstood her or didn't transcribe what she said properly. We also don't know if she gave Bookhout a length herself or if Bookhout estimated it himself from her holding her hands apart or whatever.
it very possible that Bookhout misunderstood her or didn't transcribe what she said properly.
You're being waaaaay too magnanimous ...... Bookhout is one of Hoover's agents who created a "replica bag" and then took it to the Randle residence in a transparent attempt to confuse Linnie Mae and her brother BWF and get them on record as confirming the "replica bag" was exactly like the bag that Lee carried that morning.
We also don't know if she gave Bookhout a length herself or if Bookhout estimated it himself from her holding her hands apart
THINK about that.....Linnie held up her hands and indicated a length of about two feet..... Three feet is considerably greater than two feet. Bookhout could not have thought the distance between her hands was thee feet
-
Show us where the FBI didn't have Randle read over her 11.22.63 statement to confirm her statement as being accurate.
Really, Bill?
Show us where they did.
-
Really, Bill?
Show us where they did.
I wonder if Bill even knows what a FD 302 is, so perhaps this is useful?.
What is a 302?
FBI form FD-302 has space to list the name of the agents, the date of the interview, the name of the interviewee, the place of the interview and so forth. Then it allows the agent to draft a memo?in paragraph form?of what the witness said. It can be one page long or twenty pages long, depending on the length of the interview.
The memo section of a 302 is the key part. This is a combination of what the agent was able to write down during the interview and his recollection. It may list the questions and the answers or simply be a narrative of what the witness said.
The witness generally doesn?t see the 302 or get a chance to correct any mistakes he thinks are in it before it is finalized.
https://grandjurytarget.com/2017/05/18/what-is-an-fbi-302-the-problematic-nature-of-fbi-agents-interview-memos/
-
Does the package that Danny The Rat is holding look like CE 142??
LBJ's "Special Blue Ribbon Committee " Told us that CE 142 was the sack that Lee used to carry the rifle .......( of course there wasn't a iota of physical evidence that any rifle had ever been in CE 142 , (but what hell.....They didn't need no stinkin physical evidence)
Danny obviously ignores the WC theory (twisted though it be) and presents the viewers with his idea of the paper sack...
Try to follow along. Rather is demonstrating the 34.8" size, not the exact look of the bag.
I maintain that at that size, the bag wouldn't be all that difficult to fool someone who thinks it contained curtain rods, and another who saw Oswald only out of the corner of his eye... especially wearing a baggy-sleeved jacket, allowing for extra concealment.
-
Really, Bill?
Show us where they did.
Seems Randle stated the size was 3ft long, given that Bookout didn't say anything about her physically indicating the size of the bag.
-
Seems Randle stated the size was 3ft long, given that Bookout didn't say anything about her physically indicating the size of the bag.
No. It seems that Bookhout wrote in his FD 302 that Randle had stated that. There is a difference!
-
Randle "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. "
If it the package had been 3.6" long, he would have to been holding the package in the middle not at the top as she says he was.
-
Try to follow along. Rather is demonstrating the 34.8" size, not the exact look of the bag.
I maintain that at that size, the bag wouldn't be all that difficult to fool someone who thinks it contained curtain rods, and another who saw Oswald only out of the corner of his eye... especially wearing a baggy-sleeved jacket, allowing for extra concealment.
Try to follow along. Rather is demonstrating the 34.8" size, not the exact look of the bag.
Yes, he knew that he was talking to suckers who wouldn't know that the sack he was showing them was NOT like the bag in evidence ( CE 142) He knew he could dupe fools...... And it looks like he succeeded. He duped at least one fool, didn't he Chappie?
-
No, I don't think it will. Linnie Mae always maintained that the bag he saw was shorter. During her testimony they measured how long she estimated it to be with a mockup and came up with 27 inches one time and 28 1/2 inches the other time. FBI agents would conduct their interviews and not take contemporaneous notes. They would finish the interview and then go off and transcribe what they heard. The WC should have asked her about this discrepancy because it very possible that Bookhout misunderstood her or didn't transcribe what she said properly. We also don't know if she gave Bookhout a length herself or if Bookhout estimated it himself from her holding her hands apart or whatever.
What we do know is that Bookout reported that Randle stated the bag was approximately 3', no matter how many Bookout-might-have-done-this, Bookout-might-have-done-thatisms you lot can cook up.
-
Try to follow along. Rather is demonstrating the 34.8" size, not the exact look of the bag.
Yes, he knew that he was talking to suckers who wouldn't know that the sack he was showing them was NOT like the bag in evidence ( CE 142) He knew he could dupe fools...... And it looks like he succeeded. He duped at least one fool, didn't he Chappie?
The whole point is to first demonstrate that the bag profile (at 34.8") was small enough to be concealed. Tony and others always used CE142 in its flattened, spread out version, so as to make the profile appear as large as possible.
The real dupes are you lot.
-
What we do know is that Bookout reported that Randle stated the bag was approximately 3', no matter how many Bookout-might-have-done-this, Bookout-might-have-done-thatisms you lot can cook up.
What is also known is that Randle never stated that size whenever we heard from her directly?...
-
What is also known is that Randle never stated that size whenever we heard from her directly?...
Smart lady...
;)
-
(http://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/rifle27.jpg)
(http://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/rifle2713.jpg)
-
(http://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/rifle27.jpg)
(http://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/rifle2713.jpg)
He said. She said. People think the assassination included a conspiracy. People think Oswald the killer. Buell is forever remembered as the driver of the car that delivered Oswald to work.
BSing about the bag size would be the smart move.
I'm 6' tall. I can hold a 35" pole by my side, grasped as described by Randle. The bottom of the pole reaches to just above my ankle bone. Including my shoes, that leaves 5" to the ground. Knock 3.5" off my height and one finds a match for the Randle near-the-ground description. One is left with the possibility of the package carrying a broken-down, to a 34.8" length, Mannlicher Carcano.
-
I'm 6' tall. I can hold a 35" pole by my side, grasped as described by Randle. The bottom of the pole reaches to just above my ankle bone. Including my shoes, that leaves 5" to the ground. Knock 3.5" off my height and one finds a match for the Randle near-the-ground description. One is left with the possibility of the package carrying a broken-down, to a 34.8" length, Mannlicher Carcano.
I'm the same height as Oswald and I can hold a 27" stick between my armpit and my cupped hand. When holding it the bottom of the stick is about four inches above the ground.
-
I'm the same height as Oswald and I can hold a 27" stick between my armpit and my cupped hand. When holding it the bottom of the stick is about four inches above the ground.
Is 4" 'almost touching the ground' to you? Not to me.
Randle: "He was carrying a package in a sort of a heavy brown bag, heavier than a grocery bag it looked to me. It was about, if I might measure, about this long, I suppose, and he carried it in his right hand, had the top sort of folded down and had a grip like this, and the bottom, he carried it this way, you know, and it almost touched the ground as he carried it."
-
I'm the same height as Oswald and I can hold a 27" stick between my armpit and my cupped hand.
Are you sure Ray? I'm 6'2" and a 27" stick goes from my armpit down past my cupped hand?
JohnM
-
Is 4" 'almost touching the ground' to you? Not to me.
Randle: "He was carrying a package in a sort of a heavy brown bag, heavier than a grocery bag it looked to me. It was about, if I might measure, about this long, I suppose, and he carried it in his right hand, had the top sort of folded down and had a grip like this, and the bottom, he carried it this way, you know, and it almost touched the ground as he carried it."
What a pity we don't have photos or drawing to show what she meant. Seems that, like me, you disbelieve what she said. Difference is I believe Linnie and Buell were lying about the bag. You seem to believe that they both saw the bag but don't believe their estimates of the size.
-
Are you sure Ray? I'm 6'2" and a 27" stick goes from my armpit down past my cupped hand?
JohnM
Tell you what, I'll try to post a photo tomorrow. Too busy to sort it tonight.
Just thought on, though, you probably won't think that the stick is 27", and that I'm cheating. You'll just have to take my word for it. I've actually tried this before so I'm not inventing it.
-
Isn't there a photo of Buell holding the package like he said Oswald held it? I'm sure I've see one somewhere.
Just remembered, it's on a previous page.
-
Tell you what, I'll try to post a photo tomorrow. Too busy to sort it tonight.
Just thought on, though, you probably won't think that the stick is 27", and that I'm cheating. You'll just have to take my word for it. I've actually tried this before so I'm not inventing it.
Huh? How about you use a tape measure and then the dimensions will be beyond dispute.
JohnM
-
What a pity we don't have photos or drawing to show what she meant. Seems that, like me, you disbelieve what she said. Difference is I believe Linnie and Buell were lying about the bag. You seem to believe that they both saw the bag but don't believe their estimates of the size.
Oswald put his long package on the back seat and lied to the DP when he said his rifle lunch was on his lap.
Oswald told the DP that his long package contained his lunch.
Buell said that Oswald told him that the package contained curtain rods.
Here's Linnie and Buell demonstrating their guesstimates for Oswald's "lunch" package.
(https://i.postimg.cc/xj7s18fK/buell_linnie_est.jpg)
JohnM
-
What a pity we don't have photos or drawing to show what she meant. Seems that, like me, you disbelieve what she said. Difference is I believe Linnie and Buell were lying about the bag. You seem to believe that they both saw the bag but don't believe their estimates of the size.
Actually it's easy to understand what Randle meant, at least with how the bag was gripped. A few months ago I thought the bag might have been carried with a choke grip, and slightly bent arm. I tested that myself at the time... but, that doesn't make sense if he was trying to reduce the package profile. Seems Randle's carry-description would keep the bag right beside him.
Based on Randle's first-day report of an approximate 36" bag length, her brother's rather aggressive handling in interrogation, and then the incredible shrinking bag popping up, one can reasonably argue that FBI/Dallas weren't the only folks taking a CYA stance. So I'm not unreservedly calling them liars in the nasty sense that Johnny666 and others here use. I'm more inclined to place them in the 'white lie' category, as there was never going to be a trial anyway, and Buell had to live down the fact that he drove the potential killer to work that day.
Alternately, as JohnM has just posted, the approximations are in the ballpark as compared to the Rather demo.
-
Actually it's easy to understand what Randle meant, at least with how the bag was gripped. A few months ago I thought the bag might have been carried with a choke grip, and slightly bent arm. I tested that myself at the time... but, that doesn't make sense if he was trying to reduce the package profile. Seems Randle's carry-description would keep the bag right beside him.
Based on Randle's first-day report of an approximate 36" bag length, her brother's rather aggressive handling in interrogation, and then the incredible shrinking bag popping up, one can reasonably argue that FBI/Dallas weren't the only folks taking a CYA stance. So I'm not unreservedly calling them liars in the nasty sense that Johnny666 and others here use. I'm more inclined to place them in the 'white lie' category, as there was never going to be a trial anyway, and Buell had to live down the fact that he drove the potential killer to work that day.
Alternately, as JohnM has just posted, the approximations are in the ballpark as compared to the Rather demo.
the approximations are in the ballpark as compared to the Rather demo.
The problem is;.... Rather's package not only doesn't look like CE 142 that Detective Montgomery carried from the TSBD...It doesn't fit the description of the sack that Linnie Mae Randle and BWF said they saw Lee carry that morning.
-
the approximations are in the ballpark as compared to the Rather demo.
The problem is;.... Rather's package not only doesn't look like CE 142 that Detective Montgomery carried from the TSBD...It doesn't fit the description of the sack that Linnie Mae Randle and BWF said they saw Lee carry that morning.
Let's just forget about Rather and focus on the WC investigation. If I remember correctly they showed both witnesses the original and the replica bag and both denied it was the bag they had seen. They asked Frazier and Randle to reproduce multiple copies of the bag that none of them came close to the size the WC needed to conceal a broken down MC rifle.
When they couldn't get Frazier and Randle on board on the size they just said they were mistaken..... What more does anybody else need to know, when investigators start making up their own truth and dismissing the only witnesses who actually saw the bag?
-
Let's just forget about Rather and focus on the WC investigation. If I remember correctly they showed both witnesses the original and the replica bag and both denied it was the bag they had seen. They asked Frazier and Randle to reproduce multiple copies of the bag that none of them came close to the size the WC needed to conceal a broken down MC rifle.
When they couldn't get Frazier and Randle on board on the size they just said they were mistaken..... What more does anybody else need to know, when investigators start making up their own truth and dismissing the only witnesses who actually saw the bag?
34.8" broken down
Randle estimates 36" package first-day
Buell gets raked over the coals in first-day interrogation
xxxx these xxxxxxxxx for threatening me, figures Buell
Cool sister says lets bs these d-bags and cover our butts
It's every man for himself. The bag shrinks.
-
Randle estimates 36" package first-day
Nope.. Bookhout wrote that this was Randle's estimate. Prove she actually said it!
Futhermore, if what Bookhout wrote in his FB 302 is true, Randle committed perjury in her WC testimony. Was she ever prosecuted?
Make up your own reality as much as you like, but the only two witnesses who ever saw the bag Oswald carried say your reality is wrong, regardless of what Bookhout wrote!
-
Huh? How about you use a tape measure and then the dimensions will be beyond dispute.
JohnM
Holding a metal tape in my hand, it's 30" of tape below my hand.
Happy now?
-
Oswald put his long package on the back seat and lied to the DP when he said his rifle lunch was on his lap.
Oswald told the DP that his long package contained his lunch.
Buell said that Oswald told him that the package contained curtain rods.
Here's Linnie and Buell demonstrating their guesstimates for Oswald's "lunch" package.
(https://i.postimg.cc/xj7s18fK/buell_linnie_est.jpg)
JohnM
Cheating again, John. Make both Dan and Linnie about the same size. Go on, you know you can do it.
Don't bother.I posted this years ago when you posted your dubious comparison then.
(https://i.postimg.cc/CKYc2Szj/bag_comparison.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)
Linnie's package looks a lot smaller in comparison that photo, doesn't it?
-
Let's just forget about Rather and focus on the WC investigation. If I remember correctly they showed both witnesses the original and the replica bag and both denied it was the bag they had seen. They asked Frazier and Randle to reproduce multiple copies of the bag that none of them came close to the size the WC needed to conceal a broken down MC rifle.
When they couldn't get Frazier and Randle on board on the size they just said they were mistaken..... What more does anybody else need to know, when investigators start making up their own truth and dismissing the only witnesses who actually saw the bag?
If I remember correctly they showed both witnesses the original and the replica bag and both denied it was the bag they had seen. They asked Frazier and Randle to reproduce multiple copies of the bag that none of them came close to the size the WC needed to conceal a broken down MC rifle.
I believe the police displayed a large paper sack to BWF and LMR at the police station on the night of 11 /22/63. This sack was the bag that reporters photographed Detective L.D. Montgomery carrying from the TSBD at about 2:00 pm that afternoon.
On Sunday 11/24/ 63 Roy Truly manufactured a paper sack that was reputed to be an "exact replica" of the sack that L.D. Montgomery was photographed carrying. ( How did they create an "exact replica" when the original sack was a thousand miles away...In Washington DC?) The FBI agents then took the "exact replica" out to Irving and displayed it to LMR and BWF and asked them if it was the sack that Lee carried on Friday morning.... Both LMR and BWF stated very clearly that the sack that they were being shown was MUCH LARGER than the sack that Lee Oswald carried.
-
Randle estimates 36" package first-day
Nope.. Bookhout wrote that this was Randle's estimate. Prove she actually said it!
Futhermore, if what Bookhout wrote in his FB 302 is true, Randle committed perjury in her WC testimony. Was she ever prosecuted?
Make up your own reality as much as you like, but the only two witnesses who ever saw the bag Oswald carried say your reality is wrong, regardless of what Bookhout wrote!
Bookhout wrote that this was Randle's estimate. Prove she actually said it!
Based on the fact that there are photos that show LMR holding her hands about two feet apart....It's highly unlikely that she ever said the sack was about three feet long..... And many witnesses were shocked to read what FBI agents recorded of statements they had given the FBI .... Many witnesses said their statements as recorded by the FBI were totally inaccurate and complete distortions of what they had actually told the FBI.
-
All this discussion about the size of the bag when the WC failed to support their claim that a bag was ever found in the alleged SN.
What bag?
-
All this discussion about the size of the bag when the WC failed to support their claim that a bag was ever found in the alleged SN.
What bag?
It doesn't matter whether you or I like the invention of the bag..... The authorities created it as part of the tale (aka cover up) and that garbage has taken firm root in the legend.
There definitely was a bag found ....Day spotted it because it was SHAPED LIKE A GUN CASE.... And it probably was constructed from a different paper than the book wrappers, which drew Day's attention to it. At the time he spotted the gun case shaped paper sack Roy Truly was at his side. Day turned to Truly and asked if he'd ever seen the gun case shaped paper sack before.....Naturally, Truly denied ever having seen the sack.
Day said that after he displayed the gun case shaped sack to Roy Truly he folded it up and put it in his pocket and never displayed it to anybody else. I 've long believed that Day showed that sack to Fritz and they realized it was too small to hold the Carcano.... Fritz was reported to have said..." Well he must have broke it down then, and I'm sure he did" after it was pointed out that the bag was too small to have been used to smuggle the Carcano into the TSBD.
It was probably at this point that Detective Day decided to create the huge paper sack that Detective LD Montgomery carried from the TSBD.
-
Randle estimates 36" package first-day
Nope.. Bookhout wrote that this was Randle's estimate. Prove she actually said it!
Futhermore, if what Bookhout wrote in his FB 302 is true, Randle committed perjury in her WC testimony. Was she ever prosecuted?
Make up your own reality as much as you like, but the only two witnesses who ever saw the bag Oswald carried say your reality is wrong, regardless of what Bookhout wrote!
We'll never know if Randle's estimate was a spoken one or not. Bookout did not make that distinction as far as I know. Where you there?
People say a lot of things. Especially a person who drove the eventual prime suspect to the eventual murder scene. And was the person who apparently underwent a lengthy interrogation in which he was threatened with fisticuffs unless he 'fessed up.
Under those circumstances, I contend that the smart move would have been to sling-the-bull about the bag size.
That's my reality.
-
We'll never know if Randle's estimate was a spoken one or not. Bookout did not make that distinction as far as I know. Where you there?
People say a lot of things. Especially a person who drove the eventual prime suspect to the eventual murder scene. And was the person who apparently underwent a lengthy interrogation in which he was threatened with fisticuffs unless he 'fessed up.
Under those circumstances, I contend that the smart move would have been to sling-the-bull about the bag size.
That's my reality.
We'll never know if Randle's estimate was a spoken one or not. Bookout did not make that distinction as far as I know
Exactly right. And that's why you don't get to assume that what Bookhout wrote in his FD 302 was indeed correct.
People say a lot of things. Especially a person who drove the eventual prime suspect to the eventual murder scene. And was the person who apparently underwent a lengthy interrogation in which he was threatened with fisticuffs unless he 'fessed up.
Under those circumstances, I contend that the smart move would have been to sling-the-bull about the bag size.
What kind of weird "logic" is this? When you are innocent and uninvolved there is no reason to lie about anything. Lying under such circumstances could only make you look guilty and get you into trouble.
-
We'll never know if Randle's estimate was a spoken one or not. Bookout did not make that distinction as far as I know
Exactly right. And that's why you don't get to assume that what Bookhout wrote in his FD 302 was indeed correct.
People say a lot of things. Especially a person who drove the eventual prime suspect to the eventual murder scene. And was the person who apparently underwent a lengthy interrogation in which he was threatened with fisticuffs unless he 'fessed up.
Under those circumstances, I contend that the smart move would have been to sling-the-bull about the bag size.
What kind of weird "logic" is this? When you are innocent and uninvolved there is no reason to lie about anything. Lying under such circumstances could only make you look guilty and get you into trouble.
'You don't get to assume that what Bookhout wrote in his FD 302 was indeed correct'
>>> Using that measure, you don't get to assume that what Bookout wrote in his report wasn't correct
'What kind of weird "logic" is this? When you are innocent and uninvolved there is no reason to lie about anything. Lying under such circumstances could only make you look guilty and get you into trouble'
>>> Exactly what would Randle and/or Buell be charged with? Underestimating the bag size?
-
'You don't get to assume that what Bookhout wrote in his FD 302 was indeed correct'
>>> Using that measure, you don't get to assume that what Bookout wrote in his report wasn't correct
'What kind of weird "logic" is this? When you are innocent and uninvolved there is no reason to lie about anything. Lying under such circumstances could only make you look guilty and get you into trouble'
>>> Exactly what would Randle and/or Buell be charged with? Underestimating the bag size?
Using that measure, you don't get to assume that what Bookout wrote in his report wasn't correct
That would possibly be true if Randle had not made several other statements, including one under oath, that differ completely from what Bookhout wrote. As it stands all her known statements back up the conclusion that what Bookhout wrote was incorrect.
Exactly what would Randle and/or Buell be charged with? Underestimating the bag size?
You are not making any sense. First you suggest that Frazier and Randle may have lied about the bag to avoid Frazier being regarded as complicit in the murder.
People say a lot of things. Especially a person who drove the eventual prime suspect to the eventual murder scene. And was the person who apparently underwent a lengthy interrogation in which he was threatened with fisticuffs unless he 'fessed up.
Under those circumstances, I contend that the smart move would have been to sling-the-bull about the bag size.
That's my reality.
and now you seem to suggest that Frazier could easily have told a lie because of the limited consequence that would have. So, here is my question for you;
If Frazier had nothing to fear to begin with, why would he lie in the first place?
-
Using that measure, you don't get to assume that what Bookout wrote in his report wasn't correct
That would possibly be true if Randle had not made several other statements, including one under oath, that differ completely from what Bookhout wrote. As it stands all her known statements back up the conclusion that what Bookhout wrote was incorrect.
Exactly what would Randle and/or Buell be charged with? Underestimating the bag size?
You are not making any sense. First you suggest that Frazier and Randle may have lied about the bag to avoid Frazier being regarded as complicit in the murder.
and now you seem to suggest that Frazier could easily have told a lie because of the limited consequence that would have. So, here is my question for you;
If Frazier had nothing to fear to begin with, why would he lie in the first place?
I believe that BWF lied to avoid becoming a accessory ....( because he had transported the weapon to the site) I believe the police told BFW that Lee Oswald had told them that the sack he carried that morning contained curtain rods. ( In reality Lee had said nothing of the kind) BWF could see no harm in confirming Lee's story (which was not Lee's story, but a tale invented by the police) So BWF confirmed that Lee had told him the sack held curtain rods. Thereby supporting his friend Lee, and clearing himself of any accessory charge.
The police submitted BWF to a phony "lie dector test and told him that he'd passed the test because the machine indicated that he was telling the truth about the paper sack. ( even though the lie detector test was a complete scam)
The cops now knew they had a witness who would swear that Lee carried a long paper sack that morning........
-
Using that measure, you don't get to assume that what Bookout wrote in his report wasn't correct
That would possibly be true if Randle had not made several other statements, including one under oath, that differ completely from what Bookhout wrote. As it stands all her known statements back up the conclusion that what Bookhout wrote was incorrect.
Exactly what would Randle and/or Buell be charged with? Underestimating the bag size?
You are not making any sense. First you suggest that Frazier and Randle may have lied about the bag to avoid Frazier being regarded as complicit in the murder.
and now you seem to suggest that Frazier could easily have told a lie because of the limited consequence that would have. So, here is my question for you;
If Frazier had nothing to fear to begin with, why would he lie in the first place?
He had the rest of his life to be worried about. That was borne out in the problems he had with the busybodies giving him static about driving the killer to work.
How many times do you hear people say they are innocent and have nothing to fear? Ask the innocent people who Henry Wade got in his clutches how that went, first time around.
Best to hedge one's bets given that atmosphere.
-
He had the rest of his life to be worried about. That was borne out in the problems he had with the busybodies giving him static about driving the killer to work.
How many times do you hear people say they are innocent and have nothing to fear? Ask the innocent people who Henry Wade got in his clutches how that went, first time around.
Best to hedge one's bets given that atmosphere.
Once again you are not making any sense. An innocent and uninvolved Frazier had no incentive to lie. And most certainly he did not have an incentive to lie and tell the DPD something they didn't want to hear!
The DPD found a bag that was big enough to have contained a broken down rifle. Early on, with Oswald having been arrested, they were convinced they had their man. They also knew that Frazier drove Oswald to work that morning. So, the DPD wanted to hear from Frazier that they had the correct bag and that it was indeed big enough to contain a rifle, right? Telling them exactly that would have gotten Frazier out of trouble, but that would have been a lie!
But he did not tell them that. Instead he claimed, like an innocent person would do, that they had the wrong bag and that Oswald's bag was much smaller. Now, if that was a lie, it was a pretty stupid one, because the DPD could conclude that he was lying to protect Oswald and maybe himself as a complicit.
How many times do you hear people say they are innocent and have nothing to fear? Ask the innocent people who Henry Wade got in his clutches how that went, first time around.
Could that possibly include Oswald as well?
-
Once again you are not making any sense. An innocent and uninvolved Frazier had no incentive to lie. And most certainly he did not have an incentive to lie and tell the DPD something they didn't want to hear!
The DPD found a bag that was big enough to have contained a broken down rifle. Early on, with Oswald having been arrested, they were convinced they had their man. They also knew that Frazier drove Oswald to work that morning. So, the DPD wanted to hear from Frazier that they had the correct bag and that it was indeed big enough to contain a rifle, right? Telling them exactly that would have gotten Frazier out of trouble, but that would have been a lie!
But he did not tell them that. Instead he claimed, like an innocent person would do, that they had the wrong bag and that Oswald's bag was much smaller. Now, if that was a lie, it was a pretty stupid one, because the DPD could conclude that he was lying to protect Oswald and maybe himself as a complicit.
How many times do you hear people say they are innocent and have nothing to fear? Ask the innocent people who Henry Wade got in his clutches how that went, first time around.
Could that possibly include Oswald as well?
Oswald denied carrying curtain rods. Buell said otherwise.
Oswald said he carried his lunch to work. Buell said he didn't.
Who do you believe?
Buell kept proclaiming that he wasn't really paying attention to the bag. That oft-repeated statement alone could raise investigator eyebrows; suggesting a kind of 'methinks the Bueller doth protesteth too much'
You ignore the threat of fisticuffs Buell faced in interrogation. You can sanitize his situation as much as you want, but he had to know he was in deep crap.
I stand by my point that Randle & Buell could have decided to hedge their bets. It would have been the smart move.
-
They should have asked LMR about it when she testified. It could be as simple as she said two feet and Bookhout misheard or misremembered three feet.
-
Oswald denied carrying curtain rods. Buell said otherwise.
Oswald said he carried his lunch to work. Buell said he didn't.
Who do you believe?
Buell kept proclaiming that he wasn't really paying attention to the bag. That oft-repeated statement alone could raise investigator eyebrows; suggesting a kind of 'methinks the Bueller doth protesteth too much'
You ignore the threat of fisticuffs Buell faced in interrogation. You can sanitize his situation as much as you want, but he had to know he was in deep crap.
Wow ...that was actually a Chap-post?
BWF was a 19 yr old kid at the time. His affidavit was drafted by the Dallas Police [all you have to do is read it] https://www.google.com/search?q=affidavit+buell+wesley+frazier&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiLgoX60_rdAhUqjFQKHWtJC1QQsAR6BAgFEAE&biw=1024&bih=646
As you can see from the link there seems to be different versions of the same affidavit.
How did the police appear to have keyed in on Frazier so quickly? Almost like it was in the script.
Police...Tell us about the curtain rods.
BWF.....What curtain rods?
Police...The curtain rods that Oswald brought to work.
BWF.....He did?
-
Nice work Jerry Freeman. Never saw that. Still reading this whole thing... I don't want to be premature.
-
Oswald denied carrying curtain rods. Buell said otherwise.
Oswald said he carried his lunch to work. Buell said he didn't.
Who do you believe?
Buell kept proclaiming that he wasn't really paying attention to the bag. That oft-repeated statement alone could raise investigator eyebrows; suggesting a kind of 'methinks the Bueller doth protesteth too much'
You ignore the threat of fisticuffs Buell faced in interrogation. You can sanitize his situation as much as you want, but he had to know he was in deep crap.
I stand by my point that Randle & Buell could have decided to hedge their bets. It would have been the smart move.
Oswald denied carrying curtain rods. Buell said otherwise.
Oswald said he carried his lunch to work. Buell said he didn't.
Who do you believe?
There is no verbatim record of what Oswald said!
Buell kept proclaiming that he wasn't really paying attention to the bag. That oft-repeated statement alone could raise investigator eyebrows; suggesting a kind of 'methinks the Bueller doth protesteth too much'
Why would that raise eyebrows for an investigator? It's fairly common for people not to pay much attention to most what is around them. More than anything else it sounds like a build in safety measure to me, as it gave Frazier some protection to being pinned down too solidly to a statement. And, of course, it could well be true.
You ignore the threat of fisticuffs Buell faced in interrogation. You can sanitize his situation as much as you want, but he had to know he was in deep crap.
No, I didn't ignore that at all. A 19 year old kid who knows he hasn't done anything wrong, has no reason to lie to police. An innocent indivual doesn't usually lie to try and get out of trouble. Besides, if he was going to lie, why not tell investigators what they wanted to hear; i.e. that the bag they had was indeed the bag he saw Oswald carry?
I stand by my point that Randle & Buell could have decided to hedge their bets. It would have been the smart move.
I disagree. The move would have been just as stupid as you standing by that point!
-
Once again you are not making any sense. An innocent and uninvolved Frazier had no incentive to lie. And most certainly he did not have an incentive to lie and tell the DPD something they didn't want to hear!
The DPD found a bag that was big enough to have contained a broken down rifle. Early on, with Oswald having been arrested, they were convinced they had their man. They also knew that Frazier drove Oswald to work that morning. So, the DPD wanted to hear from Frazier that they had the correct bag and that it was indeed big enough to contain a rifle, right? Telling them exactly that would have gotten Frazier out of trouble, but that would have been a lie!
But he did not tell them that. Instead he claimed, like an innocent person would do, that they had the wrong bag and that Oswald's bag was much smaller. Now, if that was a lie, it was a pretty stupid one, because the DPD could conclude that he was lying to protect Oswald and maybe himself as a complicit.
How many times do you hear people say they are innocent and have nothing to fear? Ask the innocent people who Henry Wade got in his clutches how that went, first time around.
Could that possibly include Oswald as well?
Could that possibly include Oswald as well?
There's not a shred of doubt in my mind that Henry Wade was a key cretin in the framing of Lee Oswald....
-
Wow ...that was actually a Chap-post?
BWF was a 19 yr old kid at the time. His affidavit was drafted by the Dallas Police [all you have to do is read it] https://www.google.com/search?q=affidavit+buell+wesley+frazier&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiLgoX60_rdAhUqjFQKHWtJC1QQsAR6BAgFEAE&biw=1024&bih=646
As you can see from the link there seems to be different versions of the same affidavit.
How did the police appear to have keyed in on Frazier so quickly? Almost like it was in the script.
Police...Tell us about the curtain rods.
BWF.....What curtain rods?
Police...The curtain rods that Oswald brought to work.
BWF.....He did?
Citation for this please:
Police...Tell us about the curtain rods.
BWF.....What curtain rods?
Police...The curtain rods that Oswald brought to work.
BWF....He did?
In the meantime:
Buell Wesley Frazier Affidavit
THE STATE OF TEXAS
COUNTY OF DALLAS
BEFORE ME, Mary Rattan, a Notary Public in and for said County, State of Texas, on this day personally appeared Buell Wesley Frazier, Age 19, 2439 West 5th Street, Irving, Texas WE 3-8965 who, after being by me duly sworn, on oath deposes and says:
I work at Texas School Book Depository, Corner Elm and Houston. I have worked there since September 13, 1963. I fill orders. About a month ago, I met Lee Harvey Oswald at work. I saw that he was a new man, and I walked up to him and asked him if he was Lee. I figured he must be Lee as my sister had told me about him. I asked him if he would like to ride back and forth with me as I knew his wife lived with Ruth Paine near my house, and he said he would, but only on week ends as he had an apartment of his own in Oak Cliff. After that every Friday evening Lee would ride home with me and then ride back to work with me on Monday morning. He has only rode home from work with me on Fridays, but yesterday morning, Thursday, November 21, 1963, Lee told me that he wanted to ride home with me that evening. I was surprised, and I asked him if he was going with me Friday also, and he said, "No". He told me that he was going home to get some curtain rods. Thursday afternoon Lee rode to Irving with me to Ruth Paine's house, where his wife is staying. I let him out of my car in front of Ruth's house, then I went on. This morning, Friday, November 22, 1963, I got up between 6:00 - 6:30 AM, and got ready to go to work, and then sit down to eat breakfast, about 7:15 AM, me, my mother, and my two little neices [sic] were at the table, and my sister was at the sink. My mother looked up and said, "Who is that looking in the window?" I looked up and said, "That's Lee." I got up and finished getting ready and got my lunch and went to the door and met Lee on the car port. We then walked to my car, it was parked backed up at the side of the car port. Before I got in the car, I glanced in the back seat, and saw a big sack. It must have been about 2' long, and the top of the sack was sort of folded up, and the rest of the sack had been kind of folded under. I asked Lee what was in the sack, and he said "curtain rods", and I remembered that he had told me the day before that he was going to bring some curtain rods. We drove to work the same way that I usually go. We came into town on Stemmons Freeway to Main and Main to Record, and then on across the McKinney and by the warehouse to the parking lot. I parked the car and sit there awhile and run the motor to charge the battery, and while I was doing that, Lee got out and opened the back door and got the package out of the back seat and walked behind the car, then I got out of the car and started walking toward the building where I work. I noticed that Lee had the package in his right hand under his arm, and the package was straight up and down, and he had his arm down, and you could not see much of the package. When we started walking, Lee was just a few feet ahead of me, but he kept waking faster than me, and finally got way ahead of me. I saw him go in the back door at the Loading Dock of the building that we work in, and he still had the package under his arm. I did not see him anymore for about 30 minutes, and then we were both working. Lee did not carry his lunch today. He told me this morning he was going to buy his lunch today. I was standing on the front steps of the building when the Parade came by, and I watched the Parade go by. After President Kennedy had got out of my sight, I heard three shots. I stood there, then people started running by, and I turned, and went back in the building and got my lunch and eat it. I did not see Lee anymore after about 11:00 AM today, and at that time, we were both working, and we were on the first floor.
Wesley Frazier
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN BEFORE ME THIS 22 DAY OF November A.D. 1963
/s/Mary Rattan
Notary Public, Dallas County, Texas
-
Nice work Jerry Freeman. Never saw that. Still reading this whole thing... I don't want to be premature.
Note that at least one of those are from Ripley's Believe it or Not
BTW, they claim to have Oswald's toe tag, along with the machine & tools used to embalm him
-
Note that at least one of those are from Ripley's Believe it or Not
BTW, they claim to have Oswald's toe tag, along with the machine & tools used to embalm him
Note that at least one of those are from Ripley's Believe it or Not
It's still an affidavit signed by a notary public, so what exactly is your point?
-
Oswald denied carrying curtain rods. Buell said otherwise.
Oswald said he carried his lunch to work. Buell said he didn't.
Who do you believe?
There is no verbatim record of what Oswald said!
Buell kept proclaiming that he wasn't really paying attention to the bag. That oft-repeated statement alone could raise investigator eyebrows; suggesting a kind of 'methinks the Bueller doth protesteth too much'
Why would that raise eyebrows for an investigator? It's fairly common for people not to pay much attention to most what is around them. More than anything else it sounds like a build in safety measure to me, as it gave Frazier some protection to being pinned down too solidly to a statement. And, of course, it could well be true.
You ignore the threat of fisticuffs Buell faced in interrogation. You can sanitize his situation as much as you want, but he had to know he was in deep crap.
No, I didn't ignore that at all. A 19 year old kid who knows he hasn't done anything wrong, has no reason to lie to police. An innocent indivual doesn't usually lie to try and get out of trouble. Besides, if he was going to lie, why not tell investigators what they wanted to hear; i.e. that the bag they had was indeed the bag he saw Oswald carry?
I stand by my point that Randle & Buell could have decided to hedge their bets. It would have been the smart move.
I disagree. The move would have been just as stupid as you standing by that point!
There is no verbatim record of what Oswald said!
>>>He said the bag he was carrying contained his lunch. Buell says different. You can't have it both ways. Either Buell or Oswald lied about that. Again, who do you think was lying about curtain rods: Buell or Oswald?
Why would that raise eyebrows for an investigator?
>>> Did I say would, or could? You need to stop misrepresenting what I said.
No, I didn't ignore that at all. A 19 year old kid who knows he hasn't done anything wrong, has no reason to lie to police.
>>> This particular 19yo 'kid' was sharp enough to recognize a fist being raised by an apparently irate officer who seemed intent on getting Buell's signature on a confession.
An innocent indivual doesn't usually lie to try and get out of trouble
>>> An innocent individual who is physically threatened by police?
Besides, if he was going to lie, why not tell investigators what they wanted to hear; i.e. that the bag they had was indeed the bag he saw Oswald carry?
>>> It would be folly to admit that. He would then have to explain why he never considered the package seemed big enough to carry a broken down rifle, on a day when the POTUS would be driving right past their workplace.
I disagree. The move would have been just as stupid as you standing by that point!
>>> So because you disagree with me I'm stupid, huh. You must have all the answers. Can't wait for your press conference.
-
There is no verbatim record of what Oswald said!
>>>He said the bag he was carrying contained his lunch. Buell says different. You can't have it both ways. Either Buell or Oswald lied about that. Again, who do you think was lying about curtain rods: Buell or Oswald?
Why would that raise eyebrows for an investigator?
>>> Did I say would, or could? You need to stop misrepresenting what I said.
No, I didn't ignore that at all. A 19 year old kid who knows he hasn't done anything wrong, has no reason to lie to police.
>>> This particular 19yo 'kid' was sharp enough to recognize a fist being raised by an apparently irate officer who seemed intent on getting Buell's signature on a confession.
An innocent indivual doesn't usually lie to try and get out of trouble
>>> An innocent individual who is physically threatened by police?
Besides, if he was going to lie, why not tell investigators what they wanted to hear; i.e. that the bag they had was indeed the bag he saw Oswald carry?
>>> It would be folly to admit that. He would then have to explain why he never considered the package seemed big enough to carry a broken down rifle, on a day when the POTUS would be driving right past their workplace.
I disagree. The move would have been just as stupid as you standing by that point!
>>> So because you disagree with me I'm stupid, huh. You must have all the answers. Can't wait for your press conference.
He said the bag he was carrying contained his lunch.
Did you hear Oswald say that? Since there is no verbatim record of what Oswald said, you must have heard him say that yourself, right?
Did I say would, or could? You need to stop misrepresenting what I said.
There was no misrepresentation. You said; "That oft-repeated statement alone could raise investigator eyebrows" and I asked you why it would. In other words, I was asking you why you feel it "could raise investigator eyebrows" It is not my problem if you don't comprehend what is written.
But let's see if you understand this; by saying "could raise" you implicitely leave the possibility open that it could also be "couldn't raise", which in turn makes your entire argument completely invalid and useless.
This particular 19yo 'kid' was sharp enough to recognize a fist being raised by an apparently irate officer who seemed intent on getting Buell's signature on a confession.
First of all, as far as I can recall, nowhere in Frazier's story is there a fist being raised, so I have no idea where you got that bit of information from. Secondly, Frazier claims that when Fritz presented him with a written confession for him to sign, he stood up to Fritz and said "no", which clearly shows he was not letting Fritz intimidate him.
And yet you basically say that Frazier would have felt intimidated and that's why he lied and told them what they did not want to hear? BS: Do you see the flaw in this "logic"?
It would be folly to admit that. He would then have to explain why he never considered the package seemed big enough to carry a broken down rifle, on a day when the POTUS would be driving right past their workplace.
This is just plain stupid. You've got two guys driving to work on a regular basis and just because the President comes to town, one of those guys is supposed to suspect the other of carrying a concealed weapon for the purpose of killing Kennedy? Are you for real?
So because you disagree with me I'm stupid, huh.
Nope. Where did I say that? Do you have a comprehension problem? The fact that I disagree with you has nothing to do with you being stupid. Your argument being stupid has to do with your argument being stupid.
-
Just because their alleged accounts differ, that doesn't necessarily mean that one of them is lying.
-
Blah Blah
Why suck up a bunch of web space quoting the affidavit that the police wrote?
I provided the link and we've all read it.
Now it is/or is it? obvious that BWF was grilled before Fritz [according to his notes] asked Oswald about curtain rods...
I can't find a better photo of RATher holding the curtain rods----
(http://i1233.photobucket.com/albums/ff394/dhjosephs/Ratherbagtoobigtoo_zps7e00bda8.jpg)
Again---
Mr. BALL - Did he come in with anybody?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - No.
Mr. BALL - He was alone?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - Yes; he was alone.
Mr. BALL - Do you recall him having anything in his hand?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - Well, I didn't see anything, if he did.
Mr. BALL - Did you pay enough attention to him, you think, that you would remember whether he did or didn't?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - Well, I believe I can---yes, sir---I'll put it this way; I didn't see anything in his hands at the time.
Mr. BALL - In other words, your memory is definite on that is it?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL - In other words, you would say positively he had nothing in his hands?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - I would say that---yes, sir.
In other words, there was no package ;)
-
Why suck up a bunch of web space quoting the affidavit that the police wrote?
I provided the link and we've all read it.
Now it is/or is it? obvious that BWF was grilled before Fritz [according to his notes] asked Oswald about curtain rods...
I can't find a better photo of RATher holding the curtain rods----
(http://i1233.photobucket.com/albums/ff394/dhjosephs/Ratherbagtoobigtoo_zps7e00bda8.jpg)
Again--- In other words, there was no package ;)
Tell us why Rather showing that the 34.8" bag cannot be held in the palm and under the armpit is the only aspect of the Rather bag demo you seem interested in.
-
Just because their alleged accounts differ, that doesn't necessarily mean that one of them is lying.
Yes it does
-
First of all, as far as I can recall, nowhere in Frazier's story is there a fist being raised, so I have no idea where you got that bit of information from.
Buell Wesley Frazier and his interrogation by Will Fritz
-
Buell Wesley Frazier and his interrogation by Will Fritz
Hang on a minute. You claimed;
People say a lot of things. Especially a person who drove the eventual prime suspect to the eventual murder scene. And was the person who apparently underwent a lengthy interrogation in which he was threatened with fisticuffs unless he 'fessed up.
The video shows that Fritz presented Frazier with a written confession to sign early on and got angry when Frazier stood up to him and refused to sign it.
Only after Fritz left (and Frazier said he never saw him again) was Frazier being interrogated for hours!
What I don't understand and you likely can not explain is why would Frazier feel so intimidated during the later interrogation that he lied about the bag, when he had already shown no sign of being intimidated by Fritz?
-
Hang on a minute. You claimed;
The video shows that Fritz presented Frazier with a written confession to sign early on and got angry when Frazier stood up to him and refused to sign it.
Only after Fritz left (and Frazier said he never saw him again) was Frazier being interrogated for hours!
What I don't understand and you likely can not explain is why would Frazier feel so intimidated during the later interrogation that he lied about the bag, when he had already shown no sign of being intimidated by Fritz?
The video shows that Fritz presented Frazier with a written confession to sign early on and got angry when Frazier stood up to him and refused to sign it.
Yes, that's right.... Unfortunately Frazier's later statement cast a pall over his veracity.....I'm referring to Frazier saying " they would have a "hell of a fight" if Fritz struck him.... That's pure unadulterated Bull stuff.....
-
Quote from: Martin Weidmann on October 11, 2018, 03:32:33 PM
First of all, as far as I can recall, nowhere in Frazier's story is there a fist being raised, so I have no idea where you got that bit of information from.
WELL?
-
Quote from: Martin Weidmann on October 11, 2018, 03:32:33 PM
First of all, as far as I can recall, nowhere in Frazier's story is there a fist being raised, so I have no idea where you got that bit of information from.
WELL?
Well nothing, Now I recall.
How about you addressing the points I have raised?
-
Tell us why Rather showing that the 34.8" bag cannot be held in the palm and under the armpit is the only aspect of the Rather bag demo you seem interested in.
By 'you' ...I guess you mean me?
1) I don't know how long the paper sack Rat is holding and neither do you.
2) WBF testified....
Mr. BALL - When you saw him get out of the car, when you first saw him when he was out of the car before he started to walk, you noticed he had the package under the arm?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL - One end of it was under the armpit and the other he had to hold it in his right hand. Did the package extend beyond the right hand?
Mr. FRAZIER - No, sir. Like I say if you put it under your armpits and put it down normal to the side.
Mr. BALL - But the right hand on, was it on the end or the side of the package?
Mr. FRAZIER - No; he had it cupped in his hand.
Mr. BALL - Cupped in his hand?
Mr. FRAZIER - Right.
3) So the Rat was off and so are you.
-
By 'you' ...I guess you mean me?
1) I don't know how long the paper sack Rat is holding and neither do you.
2) WBF testified....3) So the Rat was off and so are you.
A) You're assuming Buell was telling the truth.
B) You assume that Rather was lying about the size of the demo bag. Rather was 1.78m tall. One can compare the demo bag to Rather's height to confirm the demo bag size.
-
Well nothing, Now I recall.
How about you addressing the points I have raised?
How about you doing some quick 'brush up' research before crafting your answers in such a way as to cast doubt on the veracity of myself and other LNers? I'd be willing to bet that you knew all along about the Fritz physical threat re Buell, and wanted to sanitize that issue in order to minimize my suggestion that Fritz's threat might have alerted Buell to the possibility that he might be in deeper crap than he had expected.
Re the other questions in your post, how about you not misrepresenting what I said?
-
A) You're assuming Buell was telling the truth.
B) You assume that Rather was lying about the size of the demo bag. Rather was 1.78m tall. One can compare the demo bag to Rather's height to confirm the demo bag size.
I say old Chap...I assumed nothing really. I only noted testimony before the Worn Commission. Because the case is 'worn' out. I care nothing about Rather...he lied too.
Yes Frazier did lie. He lied about the paper bag..the curtain rods.. everything.
-
How about you doing some quick 'brush up' research before crafting your answers in such a way as to cast doubt on the veracity of myself and other CTers? I'd be willing to bet that you knew all along about the Fritz physical threat re Buell, and wanted to sanitize that issue in order to minimize my suggestion that Fritz's threat might have alerted Buell to the possibility that he might be in deeper crap than he had expected.
Re the other questions in your post, how about you not misrepresenting what I said?
How about you doing some quick 'brush up' research before crafting your answers in such a way as to cast doubt on the veracity of myself and other CTers?
Hang on, the comment I made began with "as far as I can recall"!
First of all, as far as I can recall, nowhere in Frazier's story is there a fist being raised, so I have no idea where you got that bit of information from.
Asking for an explanation or a cite isn't casting doubt on anybody, but the fact that you percieve it to be is very telling. Btw, as far as you go, your contributions to this forum make it abundantly clear that nothing you say can ever be taken at face value.
myself and other CTers
You are a CTer now?
Re the other questions in your post, how about you not misrepresenting what I said?
Pray tell, what did I misrepresent this time? And, even worse, how could I even have misrepresented what you said when I actually quoted your own words in my post?
-
How about you doing some quick 'brush up' research before crafting your answers in such a way as to cast doubt on the veracity of myself and other CTers?
Hang on, the comment I made began with "as far as I can recall"!
Asking for an explanation or a cite isn't casting doubt on anybody, but the fact that you percieve it to be is very telling. Btw, as far as you go, your contributions to this forum make it abundantly clear that nothing you say can ever be taken at face value.
myself and other CTers
You are a CTer now?
Re the other questions in your post, how about you not misrepresenting what I said?
Pray tell, what did I misrepresent this time? And, even worse, how could I even have misrepresented what you said when I actually quoted you own words in my post?
You are a CTer now?
Oh, I hope not.... He would definitely not be an asset to the CT team....Too dishonest.
-
You are a CTer now?
Oh, I hope not.... He would definitely not be an asset to the CT team....Too dishonest.
Point out where I'm 'dishonest'
-
Point out where I'm 'dishonest'
Version 1;
How about you doing some quick 'brush up' research before crafting your answers in such a way as to cast doubt on the veracity of myself and other CTers?
Version 2;
How about you doing some quick 'brush up' research before crafting your answers in such a way as to cast doubt on the veracity of myself and other LNers?
-
Just because their alleged accounts differ, that doesn't necessarily mean that one of them is lying.
Yes it does
No it doesn't.
-
Version 1;
Version 2;
LOL
You lot know darned well that I'm an LNer. You're so desperate to minimize me that you have to attack a late night slip-of-the-tongue. That speaks volumes, puts into question your true reason for posting here.
-
Yes it does
No it doesn't.
My dad can beat up your dad
-
LOL
You lot know darned well that I'm an LNer. You're so desperate to minimize me that you have to attack a late night slip-of-the-tongue. That speaks volumes, puts into question your true reason for posting here.
a late night slip-of-the-tongue.
I figured that it was that, but what was dishonest about it is that you did not own the mistake!
Instead you just went back and changed it from CT to LN, hoping nobody would notice. That was dishonest!
-
a late night slip-of-the-tongue.
I figured that it was that, but what was dishonest about it is that you did not own the mistake!
Instead you just went back and changed it from CT to LN, hoping nobody would notice. That was dishonest!
Is this all you can come up with in an attempt to show I'm somehow 'dishonest' Martin? Quite a reach...
Instead you just went back and changed it from CT to LN, hoping nobody would notice. That was dishonest!
>>> I corrected it because it was inaccurate. Is that dishonest somehow? You're trying to make it sound sneaky.
-
Is this all you can come up with in an attempt to show I'm somehow 'dishonest' Martin? Quite a reach...
Instead you just went back and changed it from CT to LN, hoping nobody would notice. That was dishonest!
>>> I corrected it because it was inaccurate. Is that dishonest somehow? You're trying to make it sound sneaky.
All you had to do was admit you made an error, but you probably couldn't bring yourself to say it.
-
All you had to do was admit you made an error, but you probably couldn't bring yourself to say it.
Exactly!
-
Is this all you can come up with in an attempt to show I'm somehow 'dishonest' Martin? Quite a reach...
Instead you just went back and changed it from CT to LN, hoping nobody would notice. That was dishonest!
>>> I corrected it because it was inaccurate. Is that dishonest somehow? You're trying to make it sound sneaky.
You asked;
Point out where I'm 'dishonest'
I did.
Deal with it!
-
All you had to do was admit you made an error, but you probably couldn't bring yourself to say it.
My late night slip-of-the-tongue is self-explanatory, given that regulars here know full well that I'm an LN
-
You asked;
I did.
Deal with it!
I find it odd that you think I wouldn't want anyone to notice my correction.
On the contrary, I wanted people to notice my correction, and ASAP. Thus, my prompt action was timely. In addition, my late night slip-of-the tongue is self-explanatory, given that regulars here know full-well that I'm a WC supporter.
-
I find it odd that you think I wouldn't want anyone to notice my correction.
On the contrary, I wanted people to notice my correction, and ASAP. Thus, my prompt action was timely. In addition, my late night slip-of-the tongue is self-explanatory, given that regulars here know full-well that I'm a WC supporter.
bla bla bla..... whatever.
Stop protesting so much!
-
I find it odd that you think I wouldn't want anyone to notice my correction.
On the contrary, I wanted people to notice my correction, and ASAP. Thus, my prompt action was timely. In addition, my late night slip-of-the tongue is self-explanatory, given that regulars here know full-well that I'm a WC supporter.
When you are in a hole stop digging. We all KNOW what you are.
-
Version 1;
Version 2;
Very interesting.
-
LOL
You lot know darned well that I'm an LNer. You're so desperate to minimize me that you have to attack a late night slip-of-the-tongue. That speaks volumes, puts into question your true reason for posting here.
A Freudian slip?
-
I find it odd that you think I wouldn't want anyone to notice my correction.
On the contrary, I wanted people to notice my correction, and ASAP. Thus, my prompt action was timely. In addition, my late night slip-of-the tongue is self-explanatory, given that regulars here know full-well that I'm a WC supporter.
What does time have to do with this? No matter what time it is I know that I believe in a conspiracy. Just typing CTer should have caused you pain. How did you not notice this?
-
A Freudian slip?
No, that's not a Freudian slip, or a faux pas.... Chappie is definitely not a CT....so it can't be a Freudian slip.
We should thank God that Chappie is on the other team.... He certainly is no asset to the LNer contingent....And he certainly would not be an asset to the CT side....
-
bla bla bla..... whatever.
Stop protesting so much!
So 'whatever' is your retreat. Got it.
-
So 'whatever' is your retreat. Got it.
Now you really show everybody that you are a true LN.... Thumb1:
Let me guess; you really think you are good at this stuff, don't you? :D
-
No, that's not a Freudian slip, or a faux pas.... Chappie is definitely not a CT....so it can't be a Freudian slip.
We should thank God that Chappie is on the other team.... He certainly is no asset to the LNer contingent....And he certainly would not be an asset to the CT side....
Take your meds, Waldo
-
Now you really show everybody that you are a true LN.... Thumb1:
Another non-answer...
-
Another non-answer...
to a non-question, perhaps?
But be happy, at least now there can't be any misunderstanding about you being an LN.
It might even have convinced yourself to such an extend that you will never confuse yourself with being a CT again.
-
to a non-question, perhaps?
But be happy, at least now there can't be any misunderstanding about you being an LN.
It might even have convinced yourself to such an extend that you will never confuse yourself with being a CT again.
On October 16 I explained the CT typo as a late night slip-of-the-tongue and you said you figured that's what it was.
Now you are foolishly attempting to save face.
-
On October 16 I explained the CT typo as a late night slip-of-the-tongue and you said you figured that's what it was.
Now you are foolishly attempting to save face.
On October 16 I explained the CT typo as a late night slip-of-the-tongue and you said you figured that's what it was.
Yes, you did explain that, but only one day after I had asked you;
myself and other CTers
You are a CTer now?
and after you went back to your original post and changed the wording from CT to LN, and never said a word.
You only "explained" the obvious after your dishonest behavior had been caught out.
Btw the Original CT post can still be seen, as it was quoted in my reply (#296 on page 30 of this thread)!
Now you are foolishly attempting to save face.
Looking in the mirror, are you?
You really are living in a world of your own, aren't you?
-
B.W.F back then was a redneck KKK hillbilly thick unread and in his in his own words and unwordly soul, who was easily manipulated by elders, he lied through his racist Texas teeth. No doubts about it
-
On October 16 I explained the CT typo as a late night slip-of-the-tongue and you said you figured that's what it was.
Yes, you did explain that, but only one day after I had asked you; and after you went back to your original post and changed the wording from CT to LN, and never said a word'
>>> Every veteran here knows full well that I'm an LNer. Why wait to inform newbies? And pretty sure I don't need anyone's permission on when to correct my own typos.
You only "explained" the obvious after your dishonest behavior had been caught out.
>>> How is correcting my own typo 'dishonest'?
'Btw the Original CT post can still be seen, as it was quoted in my reply (#296 on page 30 of this thread)!'
>>> Exactly, no need for me to announce anything.
You really are living in a world of your own, aren't you?
>>> Did you figure my CT typo a late night slip of the tongue or didn't you? You did... yet you said in a recent post that "It might even have convinced yourself to such an extend that you will never confuse yourself with being a CT again".
You seem the dishonest party here.
-
Yes, you did explain that, but only one day after I had asked you; and after you went back to your original post and changed the wording from CT to LN, and never said a word'
>>> Every veteran here knows full well that I'm an LNer. Why wait to inform newbies? And pretty sure I don't need anyone's permission on when to correct my own typos.
You only "explained" the obvious after your dishonest behavior had been caught out.
>>> How is correcting my own typo 'dishonest'?
'Btw the Original CT post can still be seen, as it was quoted in my reply (#296 on page 30 of this thread)!'
>>> Exactly, no need for me to announce anything.
You really are living in a world of your own, aren't you?
>>> Did you figure my CT typo a late night slip of the tongue or didn't you? You did... yet you said in a recent post that "It might even have convinced yourself to such an extend that you will never confuse yourself with being a CT again".
You seem the dishonest party here.
Again you show yourself to be a true LN. You just can't let go, can you now?
-
On October 16 I explained the CT typo as a late night slip-of-the-tongue and you said you figured that's what it was.
Yes, you did explain that, but only one day after I had asked you;
and after you went back to your original post and changed the wording from CT to LN, and never said a word.
You only "explained" the obvious after your dishonest behavior had been caught out.
Btw the Original CT post can still be seen, as it was quoted in my reply (#296 on page 30 of this thread)!
Now you are foolishly attempting to save face.
Looking in the mirror, are you?
You really are living in a world of your own, aren't you?
Wow, why all these attacks on the LNers, it's not a war, we are simply having a debate about the evidence in the JFK case but it seems that since you can't support your JFK arguments you're reduced to these endless and entirely worthless ad-hom attacks.
Maybe you need to take a break Weidmann and spend some time to analyse what's motivating you and then see a shrink and try and get rid of it!
JohnM
-
Again you show yourself to be a true LN. You just can't let go, can you now?
Put aside your gaslighting for a moment and answer this: Did you say you knew my 'CT' thing was a slip-of-the-tongue, or didn't you?
You're the one who can't let go
-
... my 'CT' thing was a slip-of-the-tongue ....
You type with your tongue? :P
-
Wow, why all these attacks on the LNers, it's not a war, we are simply having a debate about the evidence in the JFK case but it seems that since you can't support your JFK arguments you're reduced to these endless and entirely worthless ad-hom attacks.
Maybe you need to take a break Weidmann and spend some time to analyse what's motivating you and then see a shrink and try and get rid of it!
JohnM
Says the guy who claims that others are thrown off other boards, claims that they have no credibility constantly and mocks their supposed job. Sure, you're Mr. Nice Guy.
-
Put aside your gaslighting for a moment and answer this: Did you say you knew my 'CT' thing was a slip-of-the-tongue, or didn't you?
You're the one who can't let go
How does one make that kind of "slip of the tongue" anyway?
-
Says the guy who claims that others are thrown off other boards, claims that they have no credibility constantly and mocks their supposed job. Sure, you're Mr. Nice Guy.
Says the guy who claims that others are thrown off other boards
Go and share your knowledge and post at these other boards.
claims that they have no credibility
If you want credibility then earn it.
and mocks their supposed job.
I have no idea what you do and I don't care.
Sure, you're Mr. Nice Guy.
Where did I say I was "Mr Nice Guy"?
JohnM
-
Says the guy who claims that others are thrown off other boards, claims that they have no credibility constantly and mocks their supposed job. Sure, you're Mr. Nice Guy.
No point in responding to Mytton's crap.
When he starts like that, you've already won the argument and, although he most likely will never admit it, he knows it nevertheless. That's good enough for me!
-
You type with your tongue? :P
You ought to stop trying to be witty... you're just not good at it.
-
You ought to stop trying to be witty... you're just not good at it.
You got no sense of humor?
-
You got no sense of humor?
I believe he's a laughing stock ....Does that count as a sense of humor?
-
No point in responding to Mytton's crap.
When he starts like that, you've already won the argument and, although he most likely will never admit it, he knows it nevertheless. That's good enough for me!
No point in responding to Mytton.....
Is that a promise?
When he starts like that, you've already won the argument
What's to win? I didn't use "quotations" and you misunderstood what I was saying but since then I've cleared it up.
although he most likely will never admit it
What, a word game about my use of grammar, ok, whatever floats your boat.
he knows it nevertheless.
I know that to next time to use "quotations" so as to make the obvious clearer for people who are looking only to win.
That's good enough for me!
OK.
JohnM
-
Is that a promise?
What's to win? I didn't use "quotations" and you misunderstood what I was saying but since then I've cleared it up.
What, a word game about my use of grammar, ok, whatever floats your boat.
I know that to next time to use "quotations" so as to make the obvious clearer for people who are looking only to win.
OK.
JohnM
See what I mean?
-
See what I mean?
:D
No point in responding to Mytton...
JohnM
-
Go and share your knowledge and post at these other boards.
If you want credibility then earn it.
I have no idea what you do and I don't care.
Where did I say I was "Mr Nice Guy"?
JohnM
I gather that I would never earn any credibility with you as I post the evidence and that is a no-no for you. Why do you fear the evidence so much?
-
You ought to stop trying to be witty... you're just not good at it.
Sez u
-
No point in responding to Mytton's crap.
When he starts like that, you've already won the argument and, although he most likely will never admit it, he knows it nevertheless. That's good enough for me!
No point in responding to Mytton's crap.
You're right.... Knowledgeable CT's recognize Mytton for the disinformation cretin that he is..... But many feel that they have to expose Mytton's BS so others wont be deceived by it.
-
If Buell Frazier was going to lie about the bag's existence, wouldn't he at least state that the bag was long enough to contain the rifle? Why introduce a bag into the folklore but state that it was not long enough?
Silly conspirators.
So, are you saying that Frazier isn't capable of making up a false story? Frazier claimed he was standing with Sarah Stanton, but Sarah Stanton never even mentioned Frazier in her FBI testimony.
Lee Harvey Oswald himself denied that the bag contained curtain rods on two separate occasions. So, Harvey is refuting Frazier's story of the bag containing curtain rods.
Captain Will Fritz interrogated Oswald. According to Fritz's account: “He said he didn’t have any kind of a package but his lunch. He said he had his lunch and that is all he had. He said, ‘No. I didn’t carry anything but my lunch."
So, Oswald said he only had his lunch when he was interrogated by Fritz.
Also, Oswald denied Frazier's story a second time when Harry Holmes a postal inspector and FBI informer questioned Oswald about Frazier's story of a long package that he claimed Oswald had in the car.
Harry Holmes : "Asked him if he brought a sack out when he got in the car with this young fellow that hauled him and he said, “Yes.”
“What was in the sack?”
Oswald: “Well, my lunch.”
“What size sack did you have?”
He said, “Oh, I don’t know what size sack. You don’t always get a sack that fits your sandwiches. It might be a big sack.”
Holmes: “Was it a long sack?”
Oswald: “Well, it could have been.”
Holmes: “What did you do with it?”
Oswald: “Carried it in my lap.”
Holmes: “You didn’t put it over in the back seat?”
“No.” He said he wouldn’t have done that.
“Well, someone said the fellow that hauled you said you had a long package which you said was curtain rods you were taking to somebody at work and you laid it over on the back seat.”
He said, “Well, they was just mistaken. That must have been some other time he picked me up.”
That’s all he said about it.
So, that's twice Oswald was questioned about a curtain rods and he denied it twice. If the bag did contain curtain rods, Oswald wouldn't deny it on two separate occasions when being interrogated.
-
So, are you saying that Frazier isn't capable of making up a false story? Frazier claimed he was standing with Sarah Stanton, but Sarah Stanton never even mentioned Frazier in her FBI testimony.
Lee Harvey Oswald himself denied that the bag contained curtain rods on two separate occasions. So, Harvey is refuting Frazier's story of the bag containing curtain rods.
Captain Will Fritz interrogated Oswald. According to Fritz's account: “He said he didn’t have any kind of a package but his lunch. He said he had his lunch and that is all he had. He said, ‘No. I didn’t carry anything but my lunch."
So, Oswald said he only had his lunch when he was interrogated by Fritz.
Also, Oswald denied Frazier's story a second time when Harry Holmes a postal inspector and FBI informer questioned Oswald about Frazier's story of a long package that he claimed Oswald had in the car.
Harry Holmes : "Asked him if he brought a sack out when he got in the car with this young fellow that hauled him and he said, “Yes.”
“What was in the sack?”
Oswald: “Well, my lunch.”
“What size sack did you have?”
He said, “Oh, I don’t know what size sack. You don’t always get a sack that fits your sandwiches. It might be a big sack.”
Holmes: “Was it a long sack?”
Oswald: “Well, it could have been.”
Holmes: “What did you do with it?”
Oswald: “Carried it in my lap.”
Holmes: “You didn’t put it over in the back seat?”
“No.” He said he wouldn’t have done that.
“Well, someone said the fellow that hauled you said you had a long package which you said was curtain rods you were taking to somebody at work and you laid it over on the back seat.”
He said, “Well, they was just mistaken. That must have been some other time he picked me up.”
That’s all he said about it.
So, that's twice Oswald was questioned about a curtain rods and he denied it twice. If the bag did contain curtain rods, Oswald wouldn't deny it on two separate occasions when being interrogated.
If the bag had the gun in it, why did Oswald wait for Buell to finish with the car, before proceeding into the building? Surely you would want to get into the building and hide the gun ASAP?
-
If the bag had the gun in it, why did Oswald wait for Buell to finish with the car, before proceeding into the building? Surely you would want to get into the building and hide the gun ASAP?
On page one Martin posted.....
A memo from James Anderton to SAC Dallas, dated 11/29/63, reveals the desperation of Lt. Day after Frazier failed to identify the heavy bag found at the TSBD. Anderton writes;
"Lt. Day states that he and other officers have surmised that Oswald, by dismantling the rifle, could have placed it in the thick brown sack folder over, and then placed the entire package in the flimsy paper sack"
The obvious question is why Day was so desperate to explain the discrepancy between the heavy bag allegedly found on the 6th floor of the TSBD and the flimsy bag Frazier had seen that he would come up with this theory. Even more so, if he really had found Oswald's prints on the heavy bag and the MC rifle......
-
if he did he would compromise his Russia false defector work...
Yes, and jeopardize the lives of other agents who were still "out in the cold".....
That's what I thought after reading Michael Paine's comments in his manuscript about Lee, when he stated what he felt about the assumptions people had about Lee being a government or federal agent. I read the manuscript about a month ago in Sean DeGrilla's book Malcontent. I believe it's the first publication of the manuscript, I don't know/haven't seen if Paine's writing is online, so out of respect to author's new work I wont copy it here.
-
That's what I thought after reading Michael Paine's comments in his manuscript about Lee, when he stated what he felt about the assumptions people had about Lee being a government or federal agent. I read the manuscript about a month ago in Sean DeGrilla's book Malcontent. I believe it's the first publication of the manuscript, I don't know/haven't seen if Paine's writing is online, so out of respect to author's new work I wont copy it here.
Robert, Can you flesh that out a bit?.... What did Michael Paine say about Lee Oswald, with respect to Lee being a agent of the US government?
There's no doubt in my mind that Lee was sent to Russia by the US government. The Russians had recruited Lee while he was a Marine on a secret U-2 base in Japan. The CIA knew that the Russians were enticing Lee Oswald, and they contacted the Marines and encouraged Lee to play along with the Russians. They even sent Lee to foreign language school where he learned to understand and speak Russian.
-
Robert, Can you flesh that out a bit?.... What did Michael Paine say about Lee Oswald, with respect to Lee being a agent of the US government?
There's no doubt in my mind that Lee was sent to Russia by the US government. The Russians had recruited Lee while he was a Marine on a secret U-2 base in Japan. The CIA knew that the Russians were enticing Lee Oswald, and they contacted the Marines and encouraged Lee to play along with the Russians. They even sent Lee to foreign language school where he learned to understand and speak Russian.
Michael Paine wrote in the 2013 manuscript that if in fact Lee Oswald was associated CIA or FBI it would only be because that would be in Lee's view a way to infiltrate the Government.
Both Paine and Oswald attended left and right wing events, I just think that statement is being deceptive/protective.
The book is a great read, and has its position of course, not too many writings on the topic waver back and forth.
Walt, I've read so much on Oswald but can no longer find this reference, I've looked online: a claim that part of Oswald's intelligence training he was observed walking sidewalks backward. Not that I believe that claim, I don't know if that was in a book or online if anyone knows.
-
Michael Paine wrote in the 2013 manuscript that if in fact Lee Oswald was associated CIA or FBI it would only be because that would be in Lee's view a way to infiltrate the Government.
Both Paine and Oswald attended left and right wing events, I just think that statement is being deceptive/protective.
The book is a great read, and has its position of course, not too many writings on the topic waver back and forth.
Walt, I've read so much on Oswald but can no longer find this reference, I've looked online: a claim that part of Oswald's intelligence training he was observed walking sidewalks backward. Not that I believe that claim, I don't know if that was in a book or online if anyone knows.
Lee was a junior grade agent....His mission to Russia was to give him in the field training. ( experience) He surprised his handlers at his resourcefulness. When his mother went to Washington ( immediately after JFK's inauguration) she got the new President's attention. In his checking on momma Oswald's son he learned that the kid was a US agent. He was astonished to learn that someone so young was a spy and had successfully penetrated the Iron Curtain. He ordered the State Department to go to work and bring the young spy in from the cold. (Figuratively and actually....Brrrrr...Those Russian winters.)
-
Ruth said Oswald took his laundry after visiting on weekends. Frazier said Oswald only ever took his lunch except for the 22nd.
Who's lying Ruth or Buell? Your call.
Colin,
Why would Russophile Ruthie lie?
I mean I mean I mean If she was a liar, why would probable long-term KGB illegal George DeMohrenschildt (according to CI/SIG analyst Clare Edward Petty in TMWKTM) hand off Oswald and his probable (according to KGB true-defector Pyotr Deriabin) KGB-agent wife over to a person like that?
It makes no sense.
(LOL)
-- MWT ;)
PS I think Ruthie's story about how she found, and hid, and oh yeah copied (while Oswald was taking what must have been AT LEAST A FORTY-FIVE MINUTE SHOWER) the "Comrade Kostin" draft is totally believable, don't you?
/s
-
Addendum:
Michael Shermer has pointed out that the side that argues against the truth focuses on minutiae, whether it is 9/11 truthers, Scientific Creationists or Holocaust deniers. And don?t look at the overall picture.
Holocaust deniers claim presence of ?Prussian Blue? in the in the delousing stations but not in the gas chambers prove that the gas chambers were not used to kill people. Ignoring that insects require a much higher presence of cyanide is needed to kill insects (16,000 parts per million) than people (300 parts per million).
Scientific Creationists claiming human footprints besides dinosaur footprints disprove the Theory of Evolution. Ignoring the possibility of the ?human footprints? being chiseled into the rock by fakers.
9/11 Truthers pointing out that the fires could not have been hot enough to melt steel, and not considering that the steel doesn?t have to be melted, just heated to a high enough temperature long enough, to fail to support the tremendous weight of the building.
And just this weekend we see CTers doing the same thing.
1. The southwest corner of the sixth floor of the TSBD looks like a sniper?s nest, but it is claimed that it is just a bit too cramped to be used to shoot from.
2. The bag Oswald carried with him into work looked like it could have been used to carry his rifle into work that day, but it is claimed that it was just a bit too short to hold the rifle.
I know that Shermer is an idiot (from my reading over the years).
I dont know who came up with that stuff re the concentration of cyanide needed to kill insects versus to kill humans --- chemists tell us that insects need much less than humans (from my reading over the years).