JFK Assassination Forum
JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => Topic started by: Martin Weidmann on January 09, 2018, 11:08:29 PM
-
As did the WC before them, the LNers constantly claim that Buell Wesley Frazier and his sister Linnie May Randle were simply mistaken about the size of the paper bag they had seen Oswald carry. They argue that Frazier said in his testimony several times that he wasn't really paying much attention and that he simply could have gotten the size wrong.
Never mind that Frazier also said that the package he saw Oswald carry fitted between the cup of his hand and underneath his armpit or that FBI agent Odum's measurement from the door to the point on the backseat of the car where Frazier said the package reached was roughly the same as Frazier's own estimate. And never mind that a reconstruction by the FBI of the way she had seen Oswald carry the package resulted in a similar measurement and they were all to small to conceal even a broken down MC rifle. Never mind all that..
Let's just look at this "not paying much attention" claim for a second. There is another take on that whole thing but is never discussed. Frazier said it (for the first time) during his WC testimony, months after the event. I am not aware of any record that shows he said it any time earlier than that. I don't know this for a fact (I will make sure to ask him when I meet him later this year) but it seems possible to me that by that time it was pretty obvious to Frazier that his statements about the bag were not being believed. Perhaps it was even clear to him that they wanted him to give a larger estimate or some sort of other identification of the bag, and he just simply did not want to go there because he knew what he had seen and was sticking by that.
In fact, he is still saying the same thing today as he did on day 1. So, what better way of getting out of a jam, without having to alter his testimony, than simply saying "I wasn?t paying much attention"?
Whenever this subject is being discussed, it is always about the size estimates and how they could have been wrong, but it is never about what Frazier told his DPD interrogators on day 1. I have mentioned this in another thread and will repeat and expand on it here;
At 11.30 pm on 11/22/63 Frazier was being polygraphed by DPD detective R.D. Lewis. During this session, Frazier was shown the paper bag that had been found at the TSBD, which at that time (except for the fact that it had been dusted in vain for prints at the TSBD) was still in its original state. Frazier could not identify the bag as the one he had seen Oswald carry, some 16 / 17 hours earlier and the polygraph did not register an anomaly.
According to a report by FBI agent Vincent Drain, dated December 1, 1963, the polygrapher R.D. Lewis stated that Frazier had told him that the "crickly brown paper sack" Oswald had carried did not resemble the "home made heavy paper gun case" the DPD officers had shown him. Drain added that Lewis referred to the bag as "paper gun case" because "the DPD is of the opinion the brown heavy paper was used by Oswald to carry the rifle into the building".
A memo from FBI agent 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 that, according to Lt Day, Frazier described the bag Oswald had carried as "definitely a thin, flimsy sack like the one purchased in a dime store". The memo then goes on to say;
"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 silly theory. Even more so, if Oswald's prints had really been found on the heavy bag and the MC rifle ......
So, what else did Frazier say or do in those early days? Well, for one thing he corrected and initialed his own affidavit. Where it used the word "bag" he crossed it out and replaced it with "sack". For some reason that distinction was important to him.
And then of course there was the Odum and McNeely report of December 2, 1963. They quote Frazier as saying that "the package was wrapped in a cheap, crinkly, thin paper sack, such as that provided by Five and Ten Cent Stores"
So we have at least two occasions shortly after the event where Frazier qualifies the paper bag as "definitely a thin, flimsy sack like the one purchased in a dime store" and "a cheap, crinkly, thin paper sack, such as that provided by Five and Ten Cent Stores".
None if this was ever a topic in the subsequent "investigation" for obvious reasons, but as it is day 1 evidence, I would like to see some sort of explanation about this evidence which was clearly ignored when the thin, flimsy, crinkly paper sack somehow morphed into a heavy duty paper bag made from TSBD materials. No doubt the LNers will try to spin this, but to reasonable people it is beyond obvious that Frazier knew exactly what he had seen and it wasn't the bag the DPD claimed to have been the "gun sack".
After that, things probably got messy for Frazier, resulting in his "I didn't pay much attention" ticket out of the mess.
Any thoughts?
-
I believe Frazier is being controlled by the DPD..... He said that Lee told him the flimsy paper sack contained curtain rod, when in reality Lee never said any such thing......BUT...The DPD called him back to the police station to take a "lie detector" test that anybody who is familiar with polygraph tests knows was sham. But never-the- less Frazier went through that sham while actually believing his responses were being recorded and verified his truthfulness.....
Lee denied telling Frazier that the paper sack contained curtain rods, but Frazier' polygraph recorded that Frazier's statement was the truth.... ( of course it was all BS but Frazier believed it and he still believes it..... He can't now admit that he was lying when he believes there is a polygraph chart that shows that he was telling the truth and... Lee Oswald was lying.... Even if he wanted to.
-
I believe Frazier is being controlled by the DPD..... He said that Lee told him the flimsy paper sack contained curtain rod, when in reality Lee never said any such thing......BUT...The DPD called him back to the police station to take a "lie detector" test that anybody who is familiar with polygraph tests knows was sham. But never-the- less Frazier went through that sham while actually believing his responses were being recorded and verified his truthfulness.....
Lee denied telling Frazier that the paper sack contained curtain rods, but Frazier' polygraph recorded that Frazier's statement was the truth.... ( of course it was all BS but Frazier believed it and he still believes it..... He can't now admit that he was lying when he believes there is a polygraph chart that shows that he was telling the truth and... Lee Oswald was lying.... Even if he wanted to.
I can not find any record that shows that Frazier was asked about what was in the bag during the polygraph test.
-
I can not find any record that shows that Frazier was asked about what was in the bag during the polygraph test.
I don't know that it is recorded.....But think about it .... They were desperate to pit Frazier against Oswald....
Frazier said that Lee carried a paper bag that they could morph into a sack that held a rifle..... If they asked him about the bag containing curtain rods and told him that the polygraph had verified that he was truthful in saying that Lee told him the bag contained curtain rods .... Frazier is stuck with that tale.....and Lee Oswald becomes the liar.
-
It would appear no LNer is going anywhere near this thread. One can only wonder why....
-
Did anyone check the Dime stores for 2 foot long narrow sacks/bags made of thin crinkly brown paper?
If these stores didn't sell such bags/sacks then Frazier plugged the Prez with a .303 disguised as a Mauser.
Then he went home and boned Mrs Oswald which accounts for his missing 4 hours.
-
Did anyone check the Dime stores for 2 foot long narrow sacks/bags made of thin crinkly brown paper?
If these stores didn't sell such bags/sacks then Frazier plugged the Prez with a .303 disguised as a Mauser.
Then he went home and boned Mrs Oswald which accounts for his missing 4 hours.
That's almost as funny as what you actually think happened!
-
That's almost as funny as what you actually think happened!
That Oswald shot Kennedy and Tippit and if anyone else was involved it was likely covered up by the CIA and FBI?
Yeah that's hilarious.
-
That Oswald shot Kennedy and Tippit and if anyone else was involved it was likely covered up by the CIA and FBI?
Yeah that's hilarious.
Yes....... Everybody knows that FBI and CIA agents are all Eagle Scouts.....
-
Where are all the know-it-all LNs?
Frazier's day 1 statement, while being polygraphed, tells us that, some 16 hours earlier, he had seen Oswald carry "definitely a thin, flimsy sack like the one purchased in a dime store".
In the subsequent days, Frazier made a similar statement to FBI agents Odum and McNeely and a memo from James Anderton to SAC Dallas confirms that Lt Day clearly believed that Frazier was telling the truth.
So, why were these statements by Frazier ignored and why was there no search for the kind of bag that Frazier described?
-
Where are all the know-it-all LNs?
Frazier's day 1 statement, while being polygraphed, tells us that, some 16 hours earlier, he had seen Oswald carry "definitely a thin, flimsy sack like the one purchased in a dime store".
In the subsequent days, Frazier made a similar statement to FBI agents Odum and McNeely and a memo from James Anderton to SAC Dallas confirms that Lt Day clearly believed that Frazier was telling the truth.
So, why were these statements by Frazier ignored and why was there no search for the kind of bag that Frazier described?
LOL. We have gone through this already. Frazier may honestly but erroneously thought it was not bag he saw Oswald carry that morning. Because he honestly thought so, it would not register as a lie on the polygraph even though it was not true. Good grief. Of course if the polygraph had confirmed that Frazier saw the bag found in the TSBD, you and your nutty kindred would be on here lecturing us on how unreliable such polygraphs are. You still can't explain why Oswald himself would deny carrying a long bag the size estimated by Frazier. If it contained some non-incriminatory item it would have assisted him to admit and direct the DPD to that bag. But instead he denies it. And no such bag matching Frazier's estimate is ever found or accounted for in any way - because it wasn't there. Instead a longer bag is found with Oswald's prints. It doesn't take Sherlock Holmes to puzzle this out. Oswald carried a long bag that morning that contained some incriminatory item (the reason he later had to lie about it). That item was the rifle. The bag he used was long enough because it was found and measured. As a result, there is no reason to speculate or rely upon an estimate of its size. We know how long it was because it was found and measured.
-
LOL. We have gone through this already. Frazier may honestly but erroneously thought it was not bag he saw Oswald carry that morning. Because he honestly thought so, it would not register as a lie on the polygraph even though it was not true. Good grief. Of course if the polygraph had confirmed that Frazier saw the bag found in the TSBD, you and your nutty kindred would be on here lecturing us on how unreliable such polygraphs are. You still can't explain why Oswald himself would deny carrying a long bag the size estimated by Frazier. If it contained some non-incriminatory item it would have assisted him to admit and direct the DPD to that bag. But instead he denies it. And no such bag matching Frazier's estimate is ever found or accounted for in any way - because it wasn't there. Instead a longer bag is found with Oswald's prints. It doesn't take Sherlock Holmes to puzzle this out. Oswald carried a long bag that morning that contained some incriminatory item (the reason he later had to lie about it). That item was the rifle. The bag he used was long enough because it was found and measured. As a result, there is no reason to speculate or rely upon an estimate of its size. We know how long it was because it was found and measured.
It doesn't take Sherlock Holmes to puzzle this out.
Apparently it does, as you seem to be struggling
Frazier may honestly but erroneously thought it was not bag he saw Oswald carry that morning. Because he honestly thought so, it would not register as a lie on the polygraph even though it was not true. Good grief.
Or Frazier simply told the truth when he said that the bag he had seen Oswald carry was "definitely a thin, flimsy sack like the one purchased in a dime store".
Being possibly wrong about a size estimate is one thing. Being shown a bag and saying it isn't the one he had seen Oswald carry 16 hours earlier is another. Frazier cleary knew what kind of bag he had seen and it wasn't a heavy duty bag like the one shown to him.
Of course if the polygraph had confirmed that Frazier saw the bag found in the TSBD, you and your nutty kindred would be on here lecturing us on how unreliable such polygraphs are.
Pathetic argument. Fact is however that polygraphs are indeed unreliable, but that's not the point. To this day police still use polygraphs to intimidate suspects. Frazier, being a 19 year old kid with no prior contact with police, most likely wouldn't have known how reliable the test was or not. As he was innocent, it didn't matter because all he needed to do (and did) was tell the truth and I might add the record shows that Lt Day believed him!
You still can't explain why Oswald himself would deny carrying a long bag the size estimated by Frazier.
I don't have to explain that because - as John Iacoletti has told you a number of times already - Oswald was never asked about a bag size estimated by Frazier. All Fritz asked him (according to his own report) was if he had carried a long bag. Whatever "long bag" means is open to discussion, but you don't get to add on "size estimated by Frazier" to change the question. It is however extremely telling that you feel the need to misrepresent the facts. There is nothing in the record anywhere that shows that a size estimate by Frazier or anybody else was ever mentioned by Fritz. Oswald could have had no clue just how long the bag was that Fritz was talking about, he probably just knew that the bag he had used wasn't "long" and so he denied it.
If it contained some non-incriminatory item it would have assisted him to admit and direct the DPD to that bag. But instead he denies it. And no such bag matching Frazier's estimate is ever found or accounted for in any way - because it wasn't there.
Already explained to you, yet clearly in vain because you keep on repeating the same worthless crap time after time. They did not find "a thin, flimsy sack like the one purchased in a dime store" because they never looked for one. During their search of the TSBD (prior to Frazier's polygraph) they mainly searched the 6th floor and found a bag. At that time they did not know about Frazier's description of the bag and there is no record that they searched the TSBD again after Frazier's polygraph, so your entire argument goes nowhere. Besides (and this has been said to you many times also) absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence. Please try to get that through your thick skull for once!
Instead a longer bag is found with Oswald's prints.
There you go again.... the bag actually contained more prints, which could have belonged to other people but were never identified. So, just claiming that the bag had Oswald's prints on it without mentioning the rest is pure dishonesty. As for the prints themselves, we just have to take Latona's word for it, don't we? He was only able to discover two identifiable parcial prints after using silver nitrate, which also destroyed the bag to such extend that a re-examination of the bag was never possible again. But even if those prints did belong to Oswald, the bag was made from TSBD materials and found at the TSBD on a floor where Oswald worked. There is no evidentary value to those prints beyond the fact that they show that Oswald once held that bag.... that's it! Everything else is just your imagination.
Oswald carried a long bag that morning that contained some incriminatory item (the reason he later had to lie about it). That item was the rifle. The bag he used was long enough because it was found and measured. As a result, there is no reason to speculate or rely upon an estimate of its size. We know how long it was because it was found and measured.
The trouble with all this nonsense is that you don't have a shred of evidence to prove any of it. It is nothing more than your opinion based on all sorts of bogus assumptions for which you also don't have a shred of evidence....
In fact, your entire post is the same old crap you have posted time after time. What you have not done is deal with the FACT that Frazier on day 1 said to Lt Day that the bag Oswald carried was "definitely a thin, flimsy sack like the one purchased in a dime store" and told polygrapher R.D. Lewis that it was a ?crickly brown paper sack? and that he told Odum and McNeely a few days later that "the package was wrapped in a cheap, crinkly, thin paper sack, such as that provided by Five and Ten Cent Stores?
Let me guess; Frazier just was honestly mistaken, right? He just couldn't tell the difference between a cheap dime store bag and the heavy duty wrapping paper he probably saw at the TSBD every day, right?
-
It doesn't take Sherlock Holmes to puzzle this out.
Apparently it does, as you seem to be struggling
Frazier may honestly but erroneously thought it was not bag he saw Oswald carry that morning. Because he honestly thought so, it would not register as a lie on the polygraph even though it was not true. Good grief.
Or Frazier simply told the truth when he said that the bag he had seen Oswald carry was "definitely a thin, flimsy sack like the one purchased in a dime store".
Being possibly wrong about a size estimate is one thing. Being shown a bag and saying it isn't the one he had seen Oswald carry 16 hours earlier is another. Frazier cleary knew what kind of bag he had seen and it wasn't a heavy duty bag like the one shown to him.
Of course if the polygraph had confirmed that Frazier saw the bag found in the TSBD, you and your nutty kindred would be on here lecturing us on how unreliable such polygraphs are.
Pathetic argument. Fact is however that polygraphs are indeed unreliable, but that's not the point. To this day police still use polygraphs to intimidate suspects. Frazier, being a 19 year old kid with no prior contact with police, most likely wouldn't have known how reliable the test was or not. As he was innocent, it didn't matter because all he needed to do (and did) was tell the truth and I might add the record shows that Lt Day believed him!
You still can't explain why Oswald himself would deny carrying a long bag the size estimated by Frazier.
I don't have to explain that because - as John Iacoletti has told you a number of times already - Oswald was never asked about a bag size estimated by Frazier. All Fritz asked him (according to his own report) was if he had carried a long bag. Whatever "long bag" means is open to discussion, but you don't get to add on "size estimated by Frazier" to change the question. It is however extremely telling that you feel the need to misrepresent the facts. There is nothing in the record anywhere that shows that a size estimate by Frazier or anybody else was ever mentioned by Fritz. Oswald could have had no clue just how long the bag was that Fritz was talking about, he probably just knew that the bag he had used wasn't "long" and so he denied it.
If it contained some non-incriminatory item it would have assisted him to admit and direct the DPD to that bag. But instead he denies it. And no such bag matching Frazier's estimate is ever found or accounted for in any way - because it wasn't there.
Already explained to you, yet clearly in vain because you keep on repeating the same worthless crap time after time. They did not find "a thin, flimsy sack like the one purchased in a dime store" because they never looked for one. During their search of the TSBD (prior to Frazier's polygraph) they mainly searched the 6th floor and found a bag. At that time they did not know about Frazier's description of the bag and there is no record that they searched the TSBD again after Frazier's polygraph, so your entire argument goes nowhere. Besides (and this has been said to you many times also) absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence. Please try to get that through your thick skull for once!
Instead a longer bag is found with Oswald's prints.
There you go again.... the bag actually contained more prints, which could have belonged to other people but were never identified. So, just claiming that the bag had Oswald's prints on it without mentioning the rest is pure dishonesty. As for the prints themselves, we just have to take Latona's word for it, don't we? He was only able to discover two identifiable parcial prints after using silver nitrate, which also destroyed the bag to such extend that a re-examination of the bag was never possible again. But even if those prints did belong to Oswald, the bag was made from TSBD materials and found at the TSBD on a floor where Oswald worked. There is no evidentary value to those prints beyond the fact that they show that Oswald once held that bag.... that's it! Everything else is just your imagination.
Oswald carried a long bag that morning that contained some incriminatory item (the reason he later had to lie about it). That item was the rifle. The bag he used was long enough because it was found and measured. As a result, there is no reason to speculate or rely upon an estimate of its size. We know how long it was because it was found and measured.
The trouble with all this nonsense is that you don't have a shred of evidence to prove any of it. It is nothing more than your opinion based on all sorts of bogus assumptions for which you also don't have a shred of evidence....
In fact, your entire post is the same old crap you have posted time after time. What you have not done is deal with the FACT that Frazier on day 1 said to Lt Day that the bag Oswald carried was "definitely a thin, flimsy sack like the one purchased in a dime store" and told polygrapher R.D. Lewis that it was a ?crickly brown paper sack? and that he told Odum and McNeely a few days later that "the package was wrapped in a cheap, crinkly, thin paper sack, such as that provided by Five and Ten Cent Stores?
Let me guess; Frazier just was honestly mistaken, right? He just couldn't tell the difference between a cheap dime store bag and the heavy duty wrapping paper he probably saw at the TSBD every day, right?
This is simple. Any reliance on a polygraph is misplaced if the person being interrogated honestly but erroneously answers a question. The polygraph is not God determining the truth of a matter but indicates whether the person is intentionally lying. If that person is being honest but gets it wrong that is a mistake not an intentional lie. It is the totality of facts that resolves the question and not an estimate. Only one bag matching Frazier's general description was found. It has Oswald's prints on it confirming it was in Oswald's possession. There is no work-related explanation for that bag to be in the TSBD. No other person who ever worked there came forward and explained the bag or accounted for it. No bag matching Frazier's size estimate was ever found or accounted for. Oswald denied carrying a long package but only his lunch. Thus, he denied carrying a long bag the size estimated by Frazier when that would have assisted him. The bag is found in proximity to fired bullet casings from Oswald's rifle and the SN boxes with Oswald's prints on them. There is only one reasonable conclusion to be drawn from the facts and evidence. There is not a single respectable historian that entertains any doubt whatsover that the bag found on the 6th floor was the one used to carry the rifle that morning. This is the kind of discussion that only a fringe group has on the Internet. They would throw a net over you if you made that argument in front of any informed group of folks. Why don't you take your nutty theory to the NY Times if you think it is accurate and supported by the evidence instead of spending day and night here agonizing over every sentence like some kind of demented monk?
-
This is simple. Any reliance on a polygraph is misplaced if the person being interrogated honestly but erroneously answers a question. The polygraph is not God determining the truth of a matter but indicates whether the person is intentionally lying. If that person is being honest but gets it wrong that is a mistake not an intentional lie. It is the totality of facts that resolves the question and not an estimate. Only one bag matching Frazier's general description was found. It has Oswald's prints on it confirming it was in Oswald's possession. There is no work-related explanation for that bag to be in the TSBD. No other person who ever worked there came forward and explained the bag or accounted for it. No bag matching Frazier's size estimate was ever found or accounted for. Oswald denied carrying a long package but only his lunch. Thus, he denied carrying a long bag the size estimated by Frazier when that would have assisted him. The bag is found in proximity to fired bullet casings from Oswald's rifle and the SN boxes with Oswald's prints on them. There is only one reasonable conclusion to be drawn from the facts and evidence. There is not a single respectable historian that entertains any doubt whatsover that the bag found on the 6th floor was the one used to carry the rifle that morning. This is the kind of discussion that only a fringe group has on the Internet. They would throw a net over you if you made that argument in front of any informed group of folks. Why don't you take your nutty theory to the NY Times if you think it is accurate and supported by the evidence instead of spending day and night here agonizing over every sentence like some kind of demented monk?
Only one bag matching Frazier's general description was found.
Really??? They found a paper bag that was about two feet long and made from FLIMSY light weight brown paper??
I'm sure that you can verify this statement ..."Only one bag matching Frazier's general description was found." so please do....
-
This is simple. Any reliance on a polygraph is misplaced if the person being interrogated honestly but erroneously answers a question. The polygraph is not God determining the truth of a matter but indicates whether the person is intentionally lying. If that person is being honest but gets it wrong that is a mistake not an intentional lie. It is the totality of facts that resolves the question and not an estimate. Only one bag matching Frazier's general description was found. It has Oswald's prints on it confirming it was in Oswald's possession. There is no work-related explanation for that bag to be in the TSBD. No other person who ever worked there came forward and explained the bag or accounted for it. No bag matching Frazier's size estimate was ever found or accounted for. Oswald denied carrying a long package but only his lunch. Thus, he denied carrying a long bag the size estimated by Frazier when that would have assisted him. The bag is found in proximity to fired bullet casings from Oswald's rifle and the SN boxes with Oswald's prints on them. There is only one reasonable conclusion to be drawn from the facts and evidence. There is not a single respectable historian that entertains any doubt whatsover that the bag found on the 6th floor was the one used to carry the rifle that morning. This is the kind of discussion that only a fringe group has on the Internet. They would throw a net over you if you made that argument in front of any informed group of folks. Why don't you take your nutty theory to the NY Times if you think it is accurate and supported by the evidence instead of spending day and night here agonizing over every sentence like some kind of demented monk?
This is simple. Any reliance on a polygraph is misplaced if the person being interrogated honestly but erroneously answers a question. The polygraph is not God determining the truth of a matter but indicates whether the person is intentionally lying. If that person is being honest but gets it wrong that is a mistake not an intentional lie.
Who exactly is relying on a polygraph?... Another figment of your imagination!
It is the totality of facts that resolves the question and not an estimate.
You still haven't caught on to the notion that Frazier's description of the bag as "definitely a thin, flimsy sack like the one purchased in a dime store" is not an estimate!
Only one bag matching Frazier's general description was found.
This is an outright lie. The bag they "found" on the 6th floor does not match Frazier's "general description" at all!
It has Oswald's prints on it confirming it was in Oswald's possession.
Are you really this stupid?... Prints on a bag at best only confirm that somebody touched that bag at some point in time. That's it!
There is no work-related explanation for that bag to be in the TSBD.
Says who?.... You are making stuff up again! Why do you constantly need this kind of strawman?
No other person who ever worked there came forward and explained the bag or accounted for it.
Meaning what exactly? How many people would have even known about that paper bag and the significance placed on it in the first place, prior to the WCR being released?
No bag matching Frazier's size estimate was ever found or accounted for.
Only a fool continues to make the argument that a bag that was not found because nobody searched for it actually means something.
Besides, you are contradicting yourself in your dishonesty, as you claimed (falsly) that they had found a bag "matching Frazier's general description"
Oswald denied carrying a long package but only his lunch.
So what?
Thus, he denied carrying a long bag the size estimated by Frazier when that would have assisted him.
BS... This has already been explained to you time after time.... Oswald was never asked about a bag "size estimated by Frazier". According to Fritz he was merely asked if he had carried a "long" bag, whatever that means.....
The bag is found in proximity to fired bullet casings from Oswald's rifle and the SN boxes with Oswald's prints on them.
Really?... Where exactly was it and who found that bag?
Detective Montgomery is on record saying that Fritz told him to guard the so-called sniper's nest until Day and Studebaker got there. He said he did and nobody touched anything in the location during that time. Yet, Montgomery also says on record that he saw the folded bag lying on top of a box. But Studebaker (who failed to photograph it in situ, yet was photographed himself bending over the exact same location when the bag was supposed to be there) claimed it was on the floor. Another unresolved contradiction...
Oswald's rifle
LOL
SN boxes with Oswald's prints on them
Wow.. boxes in a warehouse have prints on them from a guy whose job it is to handle those boxes..... Cased closed, right? Pfffffff
And again, your entire post is the same old crap you have posted time after time. What you have not done is deal with the FACT that Frazier on day 1 said to Lt Day that the bag Oswald carried was "definitely a thin, flimsy sack like the one purchased in a dime store" and told polygrapher R.D. Lewis that it was a ?crickly brown paper sack? and that he told Odum and McNeely a few days later that "the package was wrapped in a cheap, crinkly, thin paper sack, such as that provided by Five and Ten Cent Stores?
Let me guess; Frazier just was honestly mistaken, right? He just couldn't tell the difference between a cheap dime store bag and the heavy duty wrapping paper he probably saw at the TSBD every day, right?
-
im?passe
a situation in which no progress is possible.
Martin cites a polygraph over and over and then asks who is relying on a polygraph. He denies there is no work-related explanation for the bag but doesn't provide any or cite to any evidence in the last 50 years that provides any explanation for that bag being on the 6th floor except to carry the rifle. He dismisses Oswald's prints on this bag because they only demonstrate that he touched it at some point (yes, like that morning when he carried it into the building). He takes issue with the characterization that Oswald denied carrying a bag the size estimated by Frazier. Frazier indicated that Oswald carried a long package about two feet long that was not his lunch. Oswald denied carrying a long package but insisted it was his lunch. Somehow Martin apparently believes these are not mutually exclusive claims. He explains away the fact that no two-foot long bag was ever found by suggesting that no one ever searched for it! A ridiculous and dishonest claim. The building was thoroughly searched and a bag was found. He idiotically tries to explain why no one ever came forward to explain the bag found if it had some work-related purpose by dishonestly claiming that no one would understand it's importance. A real lulu. The bag the authorities claimed the assassin brought his rifle. If this bag belonged to someone else or had some work-related purpose for being on the 6th floor someone would have come forward to explain it in the last fifty years. They did not. That is the single dumbest claim since John I. suggested Oswald would not have taken paper from the TSBD to make the bag because that might have got him fired!!! A real concern for the guy who intended to assassinate the president that week. LOL. That one is a keeper. These kooks are all the more humorous because they take themselves so seriously on an Internet forum. Again, if you think you have evidence that proves a conspiracy take it to the NY Times and get back to us on their opinion.
-
The building was thoroughly searched and a bag was found.
Please provide evidence that the building was thoroughly searched for a lunch bag. Is there any evidence that the lunch rooms were searched at all? What a ridiculous argument. Harold Norman's lunch bag was never found. He must have brought in a rifle too.
Right, the police thoroughly searched the building. That why they never found the clipboard Oswald used or his blue jacket. But by golly they would have found a 20-inch lunch bag made out of cheap, crinkly, thin paper if one existed. Do you ever listen to yourself?
That is the single dumbest claim since John I. suggested Oswald would not have taken paper from the TSBD to make the bag because that might have got him fired!!! A real concern for the guy who intended to assassinate the president that week. LOL. That one is a keeper.
It was particularly hilarious when your buddy Mytton said it. Oops!
Detecting any deformation in the bag due to a specific item would be near impossible due to the condition of this bag which was obviously folded up by Oswald and smuggled out under his jacket and since stealing from the Depository was probably a dismissable offence, Oswald kept his theft to himself.
-
im?passe
a situation in which no progress is possible.
Martin cites a polygraph over and over and then asks who is relying on a polygraph. He denies there is no work-related explanation for the bag but doesn't provide any or cite to any evidence in the last 50 years that provides any explanation for that bag being on the 6th floor except to carry the rifle. He dismisses Oswald's prints on this bag because they only demonstrate that he touched it at some point (yes, like that morning when he carried it into the building). He takes issue with the characterization that Oswald denied carrying a bag the size estimated by Frazier. Frazier indicated that Oswald carried a long package about two feet long that was not his lunch. Oswald denied carrying a long package but insisted it was his lunch. Somehow Martin apparently believes these are not mutually exclusive claims. He explains away the fact that no two-foot long bag was ever found by suggesting that no one ever searched for it! A ridiculous and dishonest claim. The building was thoroughly searched and a bag was found. He idiotically tries to explain why no one ever came forward to explain the bag found if it had some work-related purpose by dishonestly claiming that no one would understand it's importance. A real lulu. The bag the authorities claimed the assassin brought his rifle. If this bag belonged to someone else or had some work-related purpose for being on the 6th floor someone would have come forward to explain it in the last fifty years. They did not. That is the single dumbest claim since John I. suggested Oswald would not have taken paper from the TSBD to make the bag because that might have got him fired!!! A real concern for the guy who intended to assassinate the president that week. LOL. That one is a keeper. These kooks are all the more humorous because they take themselves so seriously on an Internet forum. Again, if you think you have evidence that proves a conspiracy take it to the NY Times and get back to us on their opinion.
So rather than addressing the points I have made in my previous posts, you just decided to ignore it all and instead completely misrepresent what I have been saying in order to (once again) concoct another strawman rant in which you repeat your own lies and misrepresentations of the evidence as if they haven't already been debunked and proven wrong. Who do you think you are fooling?
But very well, unlike you, I will address all the crap you foolishly consider to be "logic"
Martin cites a polygraph over and over and then asks who is relying on a polygraph.
Stop exposing your stupidity and stop lying. I did not cite a polygraph nor did I rely on one. I said that the record shows Frazier was being polygraphed when he was shown the heavy bag and there is no mention of any anomaly. That is a statement of fact, whether you like it or not!
He denies there is no work-related explanation for the bag but doesn't provide any or cite to any evidence in the last 50 years that provides any explanation for that bag being on the 6th floor except to carry the rifle.
More dishonesty and stupidity... First of all, I have never denied (or confirmed for that matter) that "there is no work-related explanation for the bag" simply because I don't know if there was one or not (and neither do you) and secondly, the lack of an work-related explanation for that bag does not automatically mean that it's only purpose must have been "to carry the rifle".
He dismisses Oswald's prints on this bag because they only demonstrate that he touched it at some point (yes, like that morning when he carried it into the building).
More dishonesty. I don't dismiss the prints on the bag. I dismiss as speculation your claim that those prints somehow prove that the bag ever "was in Oswald's possession". Those prints could have been the result of Oswald simply picking up the bag and moving it that same morning. There is no way of knowing with any kind of certainty how those prints got on the bag, if they actually ever did!
He takes issue with the characterization that Oswald denied carrying a bag the size estimated by Frazier.
Indeed, because according to Fritz Oswald was only asked if he had carried a "long" bag, whatever that means. It had nothing to do with a size estimate by Frazier!
Frazier indicated that Oswald carried a long package about two feet long that was not his lunch. Oswald denied carrying a long package but insisted it was his lunch. Somehow Martin apparently believes these are not mutually exclusive claims.
Frazier said that Oswald carried a "definitely a thin, flimsy sack like the one purchased in a dime store". He may well have been wrong in his estimate, to the extend that he estimated the bag to be larger than it really was. As for the content, that's an entirely different matter. Frazier allegedly said that Oswald told him the bag contained curtain rods, but that could have been a lie on Oswald's part and the bag could indeed simply have contained Oswald's lunch after all.
Here's the background to that; Oswald wants to go to Irving to make up with Marina after a fight the previous weekend (exactly what Marina and Ruth Paine both said) so he asks this 19 year old kid, Frazier, to take him there. When Frazier asks why, do you really think Oswald would tell him that he is going there to make up with his wife?... Or would he give him some excuse, like "picking up curtain rods"? Having told Frazier the cover story on Thursday, Oswald simply repeated it on Friday when Frazier asked him again about the package.....
He explains away the fact that no two-foot long bag was ever found by suggesting that no one ever searched for it! A ridiculous and dishonest claim.
You have not a shred of evidence that DPD officers returned to the TSBD to look for "a thin, flimsy sack like the one purchased in a dime store" after Frazier mentioned it while being polygraphed.
During the initial search on Friday afternoon they had no reason to look for a flimsy sack, because they had already "found" the heavy bag and jumped to the conclusion that this was the bag in which the rifle was brought in.
The building was thoroughly searched and a bag was found.
John already replied to this one. No need for me to repeat it again. I can't help it when you are just to dumb to understand it.
He idiotically tries to explain why no one ever came forward to explain the bag found if it had some work-related purpose by dishonestly claiming that no one would understand it's importance. A real lulu.
Why is that dishonest? Can you even explain how people even would have known about that paper bag before the WCR was published? You are the one who is living in cuckoo land to believe that everybody would have had instant knowledge about what investigators were looking at.
The bag the authorities claimed the assassin brought his rifle. If this bag belonged to someone else or had some work-related purpose for being on the 6th floor someone would have come forward to explain it in the last fifty years. They did not.
Complete BS... After the publication of the WCR there would have been no point in coming forward. The entire argument you are trying to make is pathetic. Just because you can't think of a work-explanation for that bag and just because nobody came forward to claim it (as far as we know) does not automatically justify the conclusion that it must have been Oswald's bag and that he used it to carry a rifle. In fact, the bag found at the TSBD contained no traces of anything to even remotely conclude there had ever been a rifle in it.
These kooks are all the more humorous because they take themselves so seriously on an Internet forum.
And you take them seriously enough to constantly reply to them with lies, misrepresentations, strawman, hand waving and a repetitive pattern of stupidity.
And once again, your entire post is the same old crap you have posted time after time. What you have not done (again) is deal with the FACT that Frazier on day 1 said to Lt Day that the bag Oswald carried was "definitely a thin, flimsy sack like the one purchased in a dime store" and told polygrapher R.D. Lewis that it was a ?crickly brown paper sack? and that he told Odum and McNeely a few days later that "the package was wrapped in a cheap, crinkly, thin paper sack, such as that provided by Five and Ten Cent Stores?
Why do you keep running away from that, Richard?
-
It seems the LNs have nothing to counter this first day evidence which clearly shows that the bag found at the TSBD couldn't have been and wasn't the bag Frazier saw Oswald carry.
On Friday evening (Day 1) Frazier said to Lt Day that the bag he had seen Oswald carry some 16 hours earlier was "definitely a thin, flimsy sack like the one purchased in a dime store" and told polygrapher R.D. Lewis that it was a ?crickly brown paper sack?. A few days later he told FBI agents Odum and McNeely that "the package was wrapped in a cheap, crinkly, thin paper sack, such as that provided by Five and Ten Cent Stores?.
-
You still haven't caught on to the notion that Frazier's description of the bag as "definitely a thin, flimsy sack like the one purchased in a dime store" is not an estimate!
Correct, it is not an estimate; it's an opinion. Frazier never touched the bag so he could not know how thick or thin the bag was.
-
Correct, it is not an estimate; it's an opinion. Frazier never touched the bag so he could not know how thick or thin the bag was.
"Frazier never touched the bag so he could not know how thick or thin the bag was."
This is the argument of a desperate fool..... A person doesn't have to touch a piece of brown paper to know if it is liegnt weigh flimsy paper or heavy weight paper...... And furthermore Frazier said that he recognized the light weight paper of the sack as being similar to the paper that he had handled when unpacking curtain rods in a store where he had been employed.
-
"Frazier never touched the bag so he could not know how thick or thin the bag was."
This is the argument of a desperate fool..... A person doesn't have to touch a piece of brown paper to know if it is liegnt weigh flimsy paper or heavy weight paper...... And furthermore Frazier said that he recognized the light weight paper of the sack as being similar to the paper that he had handled when unpacking curtain rods in a store where he had been employed.
This is the argument of a desperate fool..... A person doesn't have to touch a piece of brown paper to know if it is liegnt weigh flimsy paper or heavy weight paper......
Exactly right!
And Brown fails completely to explain how he even knows that Frazier "could not know".
-
(http://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/Pict_essay_thomasbugfritz_2_marvinjohnson_lrg.jpg)
-
BRW was not a smoker
Where did you get this info?
-
So rather than addressing the points I have made in my previous posts, you just decided to ignore it all and instead completely misrepresent what I have been saying in order to (once again) concoct another strawman rant in which you repeat your own lies and misrepresentations of the evidence as if they haven't already been debunked and proven wrong. Who do you think you are fooling?
But very well, unlike you, I will address all the crap you foolishly consider to be "logic"
Martin cites a polygraph over and over and then asks who is relying on a polygraph.
Stop exposing your stupidity and stop lying. I did not cite a polygraph nor did I rely on one. I said that the record shows Frazier was being polygraphed when he was shown the heavy bag and there is no mention of any anomaly. That is a statement of fact, whether you like it or not!
He denies there is no work-related explanation for the bag but doesn't provide any or cite to any evidence in the last 50 years that provides any explanation for that bag being on the 6th floor except to carry the rifle.
More dishonesty and stupidity... First of all, I have never denied (or confirmed for that matter) that "there is no work-related explanation for the bag" simply because I don't know if there was one or not (and neither do you) and secondly, the lack of an work-related explanation for that bag does not automatically mean that it's only purpose must have been "to carry the rifle".
He dismisses Oswald's prints on this bag because they only demonstrate that he touched it at some point (yes, like that morning when he carried it into the building).
More dishonesty. I don't dismiss the prints on the bag. I dismiss as speculation your claim that those prints somehow prove that the bag ever "was in Oswald's possession". Those prints could have been the result of Oswald simply picking up the bag and moving it that same morning. There is no way of knowing with any kind of certainty how those prints got on the bag, if they actually ever did!
He takes issue with the characterization that Oswald denied carrying a bag the size estimated by Frazier.
Indeed, because according to Fritz Oswald was only asked if he had carried a "long" bag, whatever that means. It had nothing to do with a size estimate by Frazier!
Frazier indicated that Oswald carried a long package about two feet long that was not his lunch. Oswald denied carrying a long package but insisted it was his lunch. Somehow Martin apparently believes these are not mutually exclusive claims.
Frazier said that Oswald carried a "definitely a thin, flimsy sack like the one purchased in a dime store". He may well have been wrong in his estimate, to the extend that he estimated the bag to be larger than it really was. As for the content, that's an entirely different matter. Frazier allegedly said that Oswald told him the bag contained curtain rods, but that could have been a lie on Oswald's part and the bag could indeed simply have contained Oswald's lunch after all.
Here's the background to that; Oswald wants to go to Irving to make up with Marina after a fight the previous weekend (exactly what Marina and Ruth Paine both said) so he asks this 19 year old kid, Frazier, to take him there. When Frazier asks why, do you really think Oswald would tell him that he is going there to make up with his wife?... Or would he give him some excuse, like "picking up curtain rods"? Having told Frazier the cover story on Thursday, Oswald simply repeated it on Friday when Frazier asked him again about the package.....
He explains away the fact that no two-foot long bag was ever found by suggesting that no one ever searched for it! A ridiculous and dishonest claim.
You have not a shred of evidence that DPD officers returned to the TSBD to look for "a thin, flimsy sack like the one purchased in a dime store" after Frazier mentioned it while being polygraphed.
During the initial search on Friday afternoon they had no reason to look for a flimsy sack, because they had already "found" the heavy bag and jumped to the conclusion that this was the bag in which the rifle was brought in.
The building was thoroughly searched and a bag was found.
John already replied to this one. No need for me to repeat it again. I can't help it when you are just to dumb to understand it.
He idiotically tries to explain why no one ever came forward to explain the bag found if it had some work-related purpose by dishonestly claiming that no one would understand it's importance. A real lulu.
Why is that dishonest? Can you even explain how people even would have known about that paper bag before the WCR was published? You are the one who is living in cuckoo land to believe that everybody would have had instant knowledge about what investigators were looking at.
The bag the authorities claimed the assassin brought his rifle. If this bag belonged to someone else or had some work-related purpose for being on the 6th floor someone would have come forward to explain it in the last fifty years. They did not.
Complete BS... After the publication of the WCR there would have been no point in coming forward. The entire argument you are trying to make is pathetic. Just because you can't think of a work-explanation for that bag and just because nobody came forward to claim it (as far as we know) does not automatically justify the conclusion that it must have been Oswald's bag and that he used it to carry a rifle. In fact, the bag found at the TSBD contained no traces of anything to even remotely conclude there had ever been a rifle in it.
These kooks are all the more humorous because they take themselves so seriously on an Internet forum.
And you take them seriously enough to constantly reply to them with lies, misrepresentations, strawman, hand waving and a repetitive pattern of stupidity.
And once again, your entire post is the same old crap you have posted time after time. What you have not done (again) is deal with the FACT that Frazier on day 1 said to Lt Day that the bag Oswald carried was "definitely a thin, flimsy sack like the one purchased in a dime store" and told polygrapher R.D. Lewis that it was a ?crickly brown paper sack? and that he told Odum and McNeely a few days later that "the package was wrapped in a cheap, crinkly, thin paper sack, such as that provided by Five and Ten Cent Stores?
Why do you keep running away from that, Richard?
In which Martin denies relying upon a polygraph and in the same breath relies on a polygraph! You can't make that sort of idiocy up. What do you mean in discussing the polygraph that there was no "anomaly" when Frazier was asked about the bag during the polygraph if you are not relying upon the polygraph results to claim that it validates his belief that Oswald was not carrying the bag he was shown? Why point that out at all if you are not relying upon it? I have explained to you as, to a mentally impaired child, why a polygraph would not register that as a lie if Frazier honestly but erroneously believed what he was saying. It is a bit pathetic that you seemingly have a hazy understand of this since you backtracked like a coward but then make the same argument again. There is too much psycho-babble nonsense here to bother addressing every point like a demented monk but everyone should read Martin's response to fully understand the level of bizarre nonsense at play.
-
Where did you get this info?
Oops...I meant Lee Oswald was not a smoker..... But I wonder if BRW also was a non smoker?
-
Please provide evidence that the building was thoroughly searched for a lunch bag. Is there any evidence that the lunch rooms were searched at all? What a ridiculous argument. Harold Norman's lunch bag was never found. He must have brought in a rifle too.
What a dishonest idiot. Why are you babbling about a lunch sack? Your claim is that Oswald brought a two-foot long package to work that morning as described by Frazier. Or are you now claiming he lied about that when he confirmed that Oswald did not have his lunch that morning? I thought Frazier's testimony on the bag was gospel to you? The DPD found such a long bag during their search. Only it was a bit longer. It had Oswald prints on it. They did not have to be searching for a bag per se to find it. That is a very stupid argument even for you. The DPD searched the building for anything suspicious. No bag matching Frazier's size description was ever found although a similar bag was.
-
What a dishonest idiot. Why are you babbling about a lunch sack? Your claim is that Oswald brought a two-foot long package to work that morning as described by Frazier. Or are you now claiming he lied about that when he confirmed that Oswald did not have his lunch that morning? I thought Frazier's testimony on the bag was gospel to you? The DPD found such a long bag during their search. Only it was a bit longer. It had Oswald prints on it. They did not have to be searching for a bag per se to find it. That is a very stupid argument even for you. The DPD searched the building for anything suspicious. No bag matching Frazier's size description was ever found although a similar bag was.
The DPD searched the building for anything suspicious. No bag matching Frazier's size description was ever found
The DPD searched the building for anything suspicious. No bag matching Frazier's size description was ever reported to have been found .
-
The DPD searched the building for anything suspicious. No bag matching Frazier's size description was ever found
The DPD searched the building for anything suspicious. No bag matching Frazier's size description was ever reported to have been found .
You are on the path to wisdom grasshopper. A hazy sort of revelation begins to emerge! Such a bag was not reported to have been found because it never existed! Not because there was no search for it as stupidly claimed. Instead they found a similar but somewhat longer bag. And whose prints were on that bag?
-
In which Martin denies relying upon a polygraph and in the same breath relies on a polygraph! You can't make that sort of idiocy up. What do you mean in discussing the polygraph that there was no "anomaly" when Frazier was asked about the bag during the polygraph if you are not relying upon the polygraph results to claim that it validates his belief that Oswald was not carrying the bag he was shown? Why point that out at all if you are not relying upon it? I have explained to you as, to a mentally impaired child, why a polygraph would not register that as a lie if Frazier honestly but erroneously believed what he was saying. It is a bit pathetic that you seemingly have a hazy understand of this since you backtracked like a coward but then make the same argument again. There is too much psycho-babble nonsense here to bother addressing every point like a demented monk but everyone should read Martin's response to fully understand the level of bizarre nonsense at play.
What do you mean in discussing the polygraph that there was no "anomaly" when Frazier was asked about the bag during the polygraph if you are not relying upon the polygraph results to claim that it validates his belief that Oswald was not carrying the bag he was shown?
And once again Richard tells us what he thinks I have said rather than dealing with what I actually said. There are only two possible reasons for that; he either really doesn't understand what I was telling him, or he does understand and desperately wants to pivot the discussion away from it.
Why point that out at all if you are not relying upon it?
Easily answered; Because it is part of the record. If I tell you (what the record shows) that he was shown the bag while being polygraphed without adding that there was no anomaly registered you would probably make a big deal out of me not mentioning it.
I don't need to claim that Frazier's polygraph validates that Oswald was not carrying the bag he was show, because the record contains three separate descriptions (including two on the 1st day) by Frazier of the flimsy dime store bag he had seen Oswald carry.
I have explained to you as, to a mentally impaired child, why a polygraph would not register that as a lie if Frazier honestly but erroneously believed what he was saying.
No, you have given me the explanation of a mentally impaired child who, against mounting evidence, is desperately trying to find a way to explain away why it could not simply be that Frazier did not recognize the bag shown to him as the one he had seen Oswald carry 16 hours earlier because it wasn't the same bag!.
Frazier described the bag he had seen Oswald carry as a flimsy five and dime shop bag. Whatever gave you the idea that Frazier was in error when he dismissed the TSBD bag, other than of course your desperate need to keep the TSBD bag in play.
Frazier estimates the size of the bag..... You say he was mistaken, but you were not there.
Frazier says the bag fitted between his armpit and the cup of his hand...... You say Oswald could have carried the package protruding outward, but you did not see him carrying it that way.
Frazier says, while being polygraphed, that the bag they showed him wasn't the one he had seen Oswald carry....... You say he was not only in error, he even did not know himself that he was in error and thus answered honestly, but you have nothing more than a biased opinion for that claim.
You see the pathetic pattern?
It is a bit pathetic that you seemingly have a hazy understand of this since you backtracked like a coward but then make the same argument again.
I didn't backtrack one bit.... You made your usual silly strawman argument and as usual it went nowhere.
There is too much psycho-babble nonsense here to bother addressing every point like a demented monk but everyone should read Martin's response to fully understand the level of bizarre nonsense at play.
Translation; I really haven't got anything remotely plausible to counter Martin's arguments with, so I'll just keep on repeating that the TSBD bag was the bag Oswald carried that morning no matter what the witness who actually saw it says.
-
What a dishonest idiot. Why are you babbling about a lunch sack? Your claim is that Oswald brought a two-foot long package to work that morning as described by Frazier. Or are you now claiming he lied about that when he confirmed that Oswald did not have his lunch that morning? I thought Frazier's testimony on the bag was gospel to you? The DPD found such a long bag during their search. Only it was a bit longer. It had Oswald prints on it. They did not have to be searching for a bag per se to find it. That is a very stupid argument even for you. The DPD searched the building for anything suspicious. No bag matching Frazier's size description was ever found although a similar bag was.
What a dishonest idiot. Why are you babbling about a lunch sack? Your claim is that Oswald brought a two-foot long package to work that morning as described by Frazier.
Talk about dishonesty!... Frazier also said that the bag he had seen Oswald carry was "definitely a thin, flimsy sack like the one purchased in a dime store". That's the lunch sack John was talking about. The one you claimed (without a shred of evidence) was searched for and never found.
Or are you now claiming he lied about that when he confirmed that Oswald did not have his lunch that morning? I thought Frazier's testimony on the bag was gospel to you?
This is hilarious coming from the guy who claims everything Frazier said was in error unless it was something that fits his biased theory.
Frazier had no way of knowing what was in the bag and thus he could never confirm anything of the kind.
The DPD found such a long bag during their search. Only it was a bit longer. It had Oswald prints on it.
No they didn't. They did not find "such a long bag"... they found a bag that Frazier denied was the one he had seen.
You keep repeating that the bag "had Oswald's prints on it" when the reality is that it had several other prints on it as well and only two parcials prints belonging to Oswald.... if Latona is to be believed, that is. Unfortunately, the silver nitrate he used to find the prints destroyed them as well so no independent verification was ever possible.
And even if there were prints from Oswald on that bag, so what? The bag was made from TSBD materials and found at the TSBD at a location where Oswald had been working that same morning. The prints could have gotten on the paper bag simply by him moving it. But that's not important or valid to dishonest Richard, right?
They did not have to be searching for a bag per se to find it. That is a very stupid argument even for you.
Actually, the stupidity is all yours, poor Richie! The TSBD bag was found in the afternoon and shown to Frazier at 11.30 PM that same evening. It is at that time that Frazier denied it was the bag he had seen Oswald carry and also the time he described the bag that he had seen as "definitely a thin, flimsy sack like the one purchased in a dime store". You claimed that such a bag was searched for but never found and that was a lie! There is no record whatsoever to show that the DPD returned to the TSBD after obtaining Frazier's description to look for such a bag.
The DPD searched the building for anything suspicious. No bag matching Frazier's size description was ever found although a similar bag was.
And here is the outright lie again.... The DPD did not even search the building good enough on Friday afternoon, because they failed to find Oswald's jacket in the Domino room and the clipboard he had used that morning. They did not find a flimsy bag because they never looked for it and after Frazier gave them the description they never went back and searched for it. Your entire argument is bogus and invalid.
-
What a dishonest idiot. Why are you babbling about a lunch sack? Your claim is that Oswald brought a two-foot long package to work that morning as described by Frazier. Or are you now claiming he lied about that when he confirmed that Oswald did not have his lunch that morning? I thought Frazier's testimony on the bag was gospel to you? The DPD found such a long bag during their search. Only it was a bit longer. It had Oswald prints on it. They did not have to be searching for a bag per se to find it. That is a very stupid argument even for you. The DPD searched the building for anything suspicious. No bag matching Frazier's size description was ever found although a similar bag was.
Insults don't make your ridiculous argument any better. Answer the question, Richard. Harold Norman's lunch bag was never found. Does that mean that there was no Harold Norman lunch bag?
-
And once again Richard tells us what he thinks I have said rather than dealing with what I actually said.
Which he does over and over again and then can't figure out why they're called strawman arguments.
-
Which he does over and over again and then can't figure out why they're called strawman arguments.
Poor old Richard isn't very good in dealing with facts being placed before him. He much rather invents his own alternate reality so that he can stay in his comfort zone.
Too afraid to leave his own house on a sunny day for fear that it might rain and he gets wet!
-
What a dishonest idiot. Why are you babbling about a lunch sack? Your claim is that Oswald brought a two-foot long package to work that morning as described by Frazier.
Talk about dishonesty!... Frazier also said that the bag he had seen Oswald carry was "definitely a thin, flimsy sack like the one purchased in a dime store". That's the lunch sack John was talking about. The one you claimed (without a shred of evidence) was searched for and never found.
Or are you now claiming he lied about that when he confirmed that Oswald did not have his lunch that morning? I thought Frazier's testimony on the bag was gospel to you?
This is hilarious coming from the guy who claims everything Frazier said was in error unless it was something that fits his biased theory.
Frazier had no way of knowing what was in the bag and thus he could never confirm anything of the kind.
The DPD found such a long bag during their search. Only it was a bit longer. It had Oswald prints on it.
No they didn't. They did not find "such a long bag"... they found a bag that Frazier denied was the one he had seen.
You keep repeating that the bag "had Oswald's prints on it" when the reality is that it had several other prints on it as well and only two parcials prints belonging to Oswald.... if Latona is to be believed, that is. Unfortunately, the silver nitrate he used to find the prints destroyed them as well so no independent verification was ever possible.
And even if there were prints from Oswald on that bag, so what? The bag was made from TSBD materials and found at the TSBD at a location where Oswald had been working that same morning. The prints could have gotten on the paper bag simply by him moving it. But that's not important or valid to dishonest Richard, right?
They did not have to be searching for a bag per se to find it. That is a very stupid argument even for you.
Actually, the stupidity is all yours, poor Richie! The TSBD bag was found in the afternoon and shown to Frazier at 11.30 PM that same evening. It is at that time that Frazier denied it was the bag he had seen Oswald carry and also the time he described the bag that he had seen as "definitely a thin, flimsy sack like the one purchased in a dime store". You claimed that such a bag was searched for but never found and that was a lie! There is no record whatsoever to show that the DPD returned to the TSBD after obtaining Frazier's description to look for such a bag.
The DPD searched the building for anything suspicious. No bag matching Frazier's size description was ever found although a similar bag was.
And here is the outright lie again.... The DPD did not even search the building good enough on Friday afternoon, because they failed to find Oswald's jacket in the Domino room and the clipboard he had used that morning. They did not find a flimsy bag because they never looked for it and after Frazier gave them the description they never went back and searched for it. Your entire argument is bogus and invalid.
The DPD found such a long bag during their search. Only it was a bit longer. It had Oswald prints on it.
No they didn't. They did not find "such a long bag"... they found a bag that Frazier denied was the one he had seen.
Here's the way I see it.....
A) Linnie Mae Randle and her mother were watching the TV coverage of he assassination. They saw DPD Detectives Marvin Johnson and LD Montgomery emerge from the TSBD carrying a large paper sack. The reporter said the detectives surmised that Oswald has carried the rifle into the TSBD in the paper sack.
B) LMR recalled that she had seen Lee Oswald carrying a long paper sack that dark and rainy morning.
C) LMR sees all of the police cars at the house of Paine and and decides to go tell the police that she had seen Lee Oswald carrying a long paper sack that morning and she had seen Oswald put the sack in her brother's car.
Thus LMR alerted the police to her brother's possible involvement as an accessory and the curtain rod tale.
-
The DPD found such a long bag during their search. Only it was a bit longer. It had Oswald prints on it.
No they didn't. They did not find "such a long bag"... they found a bag that Frazier denied was the one he had seen.
Here's the way I see it.....
A) Linnie Mae Randle and her mother were watching the TV coverage of he assassination. They saw DPD Detectives Marvin Johnson and LD Montgomery emerge from the TSBD carrying a large paper sack. The reporter said the detectives surmised that Oswald has carried the rifle into the TSBD in the paper sack.
B) LMR recalled that she had seen Lee Oswald carrying a long paper sack that dark and rainy morning.
C) LMR sees all of the police cars at the house of Paine and and decides to go tell the police that she had seen Lee Oswald carrying a long paper sack that morning and she had seen Oswald put the sack in her brother's car.
Thus LMR alerted the police to her brother's possible involvement as an accessory and the curtain rod tale.
Walt,
Do you know where I can find the TV footage of Johnson and Montgomery leaving the TSBD. I don't recall ever seeing that.
-
What do you mean in discussing the polygraph that there was no "anomaly" when Frazier was asked about the bag during the polygraph if you are not relying upon the polygraph results to claim that it validates his belief that Oswald was not carrying the bag he was shown?
And once again Richard tells us what he thinks I have said rather than dealing with what I actually said. There are only two possible reasons for that; he either really doesn't understand what I was telling him, or he does understand and desperately wants to pivot the discussion away from it.
Why point that out at all if you are not relying upon it?
Easily answered; Because it is part of the record. If I tell you (what the record shows) that he was shown the bag while being polygraphed without adding that there was no anomaly registered you would probably make a big deal out of me not mentioning it.
I don't need to claim that Frazier's polygraph validates that Oswald was not carrying the bag he was show, because the record contains three separate descriptions (including two on the 1st day) by Frazier of the flimsy dime store bag he had seen Oswald carry.
I have explained to you as, to a mentally impaired child, why a polygraph would not register that as a lie if Frazier honestly but erroneously believed what he was saying.
No, you have given me the explanation of a mentally impaired child who, against mounting evidence, is desperately trying to find a way to explain away why it could not simply be that Frazier did not recognize the bag shown to him as the one he had seen Oswald carry 16 hours earlier because it wasn't the same bag!.
Frazier described the bag he had seen Oswald carry as a flimsy five and dime shop bag. Whatever gave you the idea that Frazier was in error when he dismissed the TSBD bag, other than of course your desperate need to keep the TSBD bag in play.
Frazier estimates the size of the bag..... You say he was mistaken, but you were not there.
Frazier says the bag fitted between his armpit and the cup of his hand...... You say Oswald could have carried the package protruding outward, but you did not see him carrying it that way.
Frazier says, while being polygraphed, that the bag they showed him wasn't the one he had seen Oswald carry....... You say he was not only in error, he even did not know himself that he was in error and thus answered honestly, but you have nothing more than a biased opinion for that claim.
You see the pathetic pattern?
It is a bit pathetic that you seemingly have a hazy understand of this since you backtracked like a coward but then make the same argument again.
I didn't backtrack one bit.... You made your usual silly strawman argument and as usual it went nowhere.
There is too much psycho-babble nonsense here to bother addressing every point like a demented monk but everyone should read Martin's response to fully understand the level of bizarre nonsense at play.
Translation; I really haven't got anything remotely plausible to counter Martin's arguments with, so I'll just keep on repeating that the TSBD bag was the bag Oswald carried that morning no matter what the witness who actually saw it says.
I have explained to you as, to a mentally impaired child, why a polygraph would not register that as a lie if Frazier honestly but erroneously believed what he was saying.
At the time they subjected Frazier to the polygraph he was very agitated and frightened.....A polygrah will not register any useful information under those conditions.
The DPD were simply "using" Frazier...... They wanted him to believe that the polygraph had confirmed that he was telling the truth about Lee telling him that there were curtain rods in the paper sack. ( When in reality the polygraph was worthless) Thus Frazier was stuck with the curtain rod tale.....and Lee Oswald was a liar.
-
Insults don't make your ridiculous argument any better. Answer the question, Richard. Harold Norman's lunch bag was never found. Does that mean that there was no Harold Norman lunch bag?
Again, why are you mentioning an ordinary lunch sack when the discussion was about the two-foot plus long bag that Frazier indicated Oswald carried? Your silly claim is that a bag along the size Frazier estimated wasn't found because no one searched for it. That has absolutely nothing to do with looking for anyone's lunch sack. In fact, Frazier indicated that he asked Oswald about his lunch because he noticed he wasn't carrying it that day. I know you entertain multiple, mutually exclusive realities in which Frazier must be absolutely correct in his estimate of the bag's length but it can also be an ordinary lunch sack (even though his testimony confirms it was not) but that is taking the privilege of being a dishonest contrarian too far. You should be embarrassed. A bag was found that matches Frazier's general description. It had Oswald's prints on it. After 50 plus years that bag cannot be accounted for in any way except as the bag Oswald used to carry the rifle that morning. Oswald himself denied carrying any bag along the size estimated by Frazier. It's a slam dunk except to fringe Internet kooks. But again if you think you have evidence that casts doubts this historical conclusion, don't waste your time here. Take it to the NY Times and tell them you can cast doubt on Oswald's guilt. Get back to us on their response.
-
Again, why are you mentioning an ordinary lunch sack when the discussion was about the two-foot plus long bag that Frazier indicated Oswald carried? Your silly claim is that a bag along the size Frazier estimated wasn't found because no one searched for it. That has absolutely nothing to do with looking for anyone's lunch sack. In fact, Frazier indicated that he asked Oswald about his lunch because he noticed he wasn't carrying it that day. I know you entertain multiple, mutually exclusive realities in which Frazier must be absolutely correct in his estimate of the bag's length but it can also be an ordinary lunch sack (even though his testimony confirms it was not) but that is taking the privilege of being a dishonest contrarian too far. You should be embarrassed. A bag was found that matches Frazier's general description. It had Oswald's prints on it. After 50 plus years that bag cannot be accounted for in any way except as the bag Oswald used to carry the rifle that morning. Oswald himself denied carrying any bag along the size estimated by Frazier. It's a slam dunk except to fringe Internet kooks. But again if you think you have evidence that casts doubts this historical conclusion, don't waste your time here. Take it to the NY Times and tell them you can cast doubt on Oswald's guilt. Get back to us on their response.
Don't you ever stop lying?
-
What do you mean in discussing the polygraph that there was no "anomaly" when Frazier was asked about the bag during the polygraph if you are not relying upon the polygraph results to claim that it validates his belief that Oswald was not carrying the bag he was shown?
And once again Richard tells us what he thinks I have said rather than dealing with what I actually said. There are only two possible reasons for that; he either really doesn't understand what I was telling him, or he does understand and desperately wants to pivot the discussion away from it.
Why point that out at all if you are not relying upon it?
Easily answered; Because it is part of the record. If I tell you (what the record shows) that he was shown the bag while being polygraphed without adding that there was no anomaly registered you would probably make a big deal out of me not mentioning it.
I don't need to claim that Frazier's polygraph validates that Oswald was not carrying the bag he was show, because the record contains three separate descriptions (including two on the 1st day) by Frazier of the flimsy dime store bag he had seen Oswald carry.
[
This one is a real lulu. Dance circus monkey dance for your peanuts. After referencing the polygraph multiple times in connection with your claim that the bag Frazier was shown was not the same one Oswald carried that morning, we now learn that you did that only because I would make a "big deal" out of it for some unknown reason. Even before I had even chimed in on the matter. LOL. Incoherent nonsense. You were clearly referencing the results of the polygraph to support your fantasy that Frazier was correct about that not being the bag Oswald carried because the polygraph did not indicate he was lying. Once you were educated on how a polygraph works (i.e. not determining the truth but indicating whether a participant is intentionally lying) then you backtracked to this psycho-babble that makes no sense. Just admit you are a dishonest fool and beg forgiveness for wasting our time again.
-
This one is a real lulu. Dance circus monkey dance for your peanuts. After referencing the polygraph multiple times in connection with your claim that the bag Frazier was shown was not the same one Oswald carried that morning, we now learn that you did that only because I would make a "big deal" out of it for some unknown reason. Even before I had even chimed in on the matter. LOL. Incoherent nonsense. You were clearly referencing the results of the polygraph to support your fantasy that Frazier was correct about that not being the bag Oswald carried because the polygraph did not indicate he was lying. Once you were educated on how a polygraph works (i.e. not determining the truth but indicating whether a participant is intentionally lying) then you backtracked to this psycho-babble that makes no sense. Just admit you are a dishonest fool and beg forgiveness for wasting our time again.
Still living in your own strawman fantasy world, I see... must be comforting, not having to deal with reality.
Try dealing with the points raised in reply to your nutty posts for once.....
-
Did anyone check the Dime stores for 2 foot long narrow sacks/bags made of thin crinkly brown paper?
If these stores didn't sell such bags/sacks then Frazier plugged the Prez with a .303 disguised as a Mauser.
Then he went home and boned Mrs Oswald which accounts for his missing 4 hours.
Did anyone check the Dime stores for 2 foot long narrow sacks/bags made of thin crinkly brown paper?
Good Question..... After WWII Japan was struggling to get back on track economically..... their heavy industries lay in ruins so they were forced to produce cheap light industry items like tin toys and house hold items like dust pans and curtain rods. To prevent the items from rubbing together during transit they wrapped the items in a light weight brown paper made from rice straw ....This lightweight paper was thin and a bit brittle which made it "crinkly".
( I'm sure that I'm not the only person in this group that recalls the cheap items coming from Japan )
Buell Frazier probably unpacked some of those curtain rods and recalled the cheap brown paper they were wrapped in....
-
Again, why are you mentioning an ordinary lunch sack when the discussion was about the two-foot plus long bag that Frazier indicated Oswald carried?
Who said anything about an "ordinary lunch sack"? What does that even mean?
Your silly claim is that a bag along the size Frazier estimated wasn't found because no one searched for it. That has absolutely nothing to do with looking for anyone's lunch sack.
Your silly claim is that if someone's lunch sack was never found then it must have never existed. And yet, Harold Norman's lunch sack was never found, was it Richard?
You're the one who should be embarrassed, making such a ridiculous argument.
A bag was found that matches Frazier's general description.
It doesn't match Frazier's general description at all. Frazier said it was not the same bag.
It had Oswald's prints on it. After 50 plus years that bag cannot be accounted for in any way except as the bag Oswald used to carry the rifle that morning.
What makes you think Oswald carried a rifle in that morning?
Oswald himself denied carrying any bag along the size estimated by Frazier.
We've already been through that. Another one of your lies.
It's a slam dunk except to fringe Internet kooks.
It's a slam dunk TO fringe Internet kooks. There, I fixed it for you.
"Historical conclusion". LOL.
-
This one is a real lulu. Dance circus monkey dance for your peanuts. After referencing the polygraph multiple times in connection with your claim that the bag Frazier was shown was not the same one Oswald carried that morning, we now learn that you did that only because I would make a "big deal" out of it for some unknown reason. Even before I had even chimed in on the matter. LOL. Incoherent nonsense. You were clearly referencing the results of the polygraph to support your fantasy that Frazier was correct about that not being the bag Oswald carried because the polygraph did not indicate he was lying. Once you were educated on how a polygraph works (i.e. not determining the truth but indicating whether a participant is intentionally lying) then you backtracked to this psycho-babble that makes no sense. Just admit you are a dishonest fool and beg forgiveness for wasting our time again.
The only think worse than an arrogant ass is an arrogant ass who is wrong.
Frazier said it wasn't the same bag, Richard. Deal with it.
-
As did the WC before them, the LNers constantly claim that Buell Wesley Frazier and his sister Linnie May Randle were simply mistaken about the size of the paper bag they had seen Oswald carry.
I don't claim that Linnie Mae was mistaken, I think she almost nailed it when she told SA Bookhout on Nov 22 that the bag was approximately three feet by six inches.
-
I don't claim that Linnie Mae was mistaken, I think she almost nailed it when she told SA Bookhout on Nov 22 that the bag was approximately three feet by six inches.
My God! That would be about "rifle size"? Was that after one of the boys at the Paine?s contacted Sweat at HQ about Oswald?s rooming house phone number?
-
I don't claim that Linnie Mae was mistaken, I think she almost nailed it when she told SA Bookhout on Nov 22 that the bag was approximately three feet by six inches.
It follows that you must also think that Oswald's arms were approximately three feet long. Do you, Tim?
-
My God! That would be about "rifle size"? Was that after one of the boys at the Paine?s contacted Sweat at HQ about Oswald?s rooming house phone number?
I'm sorry Colin, I'm not familiar with that factoid. Could you elaborate please/
-
It follows that you must also think that Oswald's arms were approximately three feet long. Do you, Tim?
Why would I think that Oswald's arms were approximately three feet long? Because of the way that Frazier said he thought Oswald carried the package? Try placing one end of a 27 inch long piece of 2 x 4 under your right armpit while cupping the other end in the palm of your right hand. Let me know how you make out.
-
Why would I think that Oswald's arms were approximately three feet long? Because of the way that Frazier said he thought Oswald carried the package? Try placing one end of a 27 inch long piece of 2 x 4 under your right armpit while cupping the other end in the palm of your right hand. Let me know how you make out.
Good point. Maybe that's why Frazier said "around two feet, give and take a few inches".
-
It doesn't take Sherlock Holmes to puzzle this out. Oswald carried a long bag that morning that contained some incriminatory item (the reason he later had to lie about it). That item was the rifle. The bag he used was long enough because it was found and measured. As a result, there is no reason to speculate or rely upon an estimate of its size. We know how long it was because it was found and measured.
It doesn't take Sherlock Holmes to puzzle this out.
Now what? Do we mean it doesn't take Sherlock Holmes to solve this? We know the paper bag existed because it did.
Brilliant Watson!
Deep in the archives exists two entirely different statements concerning the paper bag and it's analysis.
The reports are identical in every way except one--where the FBI found that the paper had the same characteristics as the kind used at the TSBD...and one where the paper did NOT have the same characteristics.
Sherlock...where are you?
https://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/images/6/67/Pict_essay_speerproof_jackwhite.jpg
-
It doesn't take Sherlock Holmes to puzzle this out.
Now what? Do we mean it doesn't take Sherlock Holmes to solve this? We know the paper bag existed because it did.
Brilliant Watson!
Deep in the archives exists two entirely different statements concerning the paper bag and it's analysis.
The reports are identical in every way except one--where the FBI found that the paper had the same characteristics as the kind used at the TSBD...and one where the paper did NOT have the same characteristics.
Sherlock...where are you?
https://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/images/6/67/Pict_essay_speerproof_jackwhite.jpg
There's more than one difference between the two documents in the Archives. I see three others. One of which is unique for Drain's FD-302s.
-
As did the WC before them, the LNers constantly claim that Buell Wesley Frazier and his sister Linnie May Randle were simply mistaken about the size of the paper bag they had seen Oswald carry. They argue that Frazier said in his testimony several times that he wasn?t really paying much attention and that he simply could have gotten the size wrong.
Never mind that Frazier also said that the package he saw Oswald carry fitted between the cup of his hand and underneath his armpit or that FBI agent Odum?s measurement from the door to the point on the backseat of the car where Frazier said the package reached was roughly the same as Frazier?s own estimate. And never mind that a reconstruction by the FBI of the way she had seen Oswald carry the package resulted in a similar measurement and they were all to small to conceal even a broken down MC rifle. Never mind all that?..
Let?s just look at this ?not paying much attention? claim for a second. There is another take on that whole thing but is never discussed. Frazier said it (for the first time) during his WC testimony, months after the event. I am not aware of any record that shows he said it any time earlier than that. I don?t know this for a fact (I will make sure to ask him when I meet him later this year) but it seems possible to me that by that time it was pretty obvious to Frazier that his statements about the bag were not being believed. Perhaps it was even clear to him that they wanted him to give a larger estimate or some sort of other identification of the bag, and he just simply did not want to go there because he knew what he had seen and was sticking by that.
In fact, he is still saying the same thing today as he did on day 1. So, what better way of getting out of a jam, without having to alter his testimony, than simply saying ?I wasn?t paying much attention??
Whenever this subject is being discussed, it is always about the size estimates and how they could have been wrong, but it is never about what Frazier told his DPD interrogators on day 1. I have mentioned this in another thread and will repeat and expand on it here;
At 11.30 pm on 11/22/63 Frazier was being polygraphed by DPD detective R.D. Lewis. During this session, Frazier was shown the paper bag that had been found at the TSBD, which at that time (except for the fact that it had been dusted in vain for prints at the TSBD) was still in its original state. Frazier could not identify the bag as the one he had seen Oswald carry, some 16 / 17 hours earlier and the polygraph did not register an anomaly.
According to a report by FBI agent Vincent Drain, dated December 1, 1963, the polygrapher R.D. Lewis stated that Frazier had told him that the ?crickly brown paper sack? Oswald had carried did not resemble the ?home made heavy paper gun case? the DPD officers had shown him. Drain added that Lewis referred to the bag as ?paper gun case? because ?the DPD is of the opinion the brown heavy paper was used by Oswald to carry the rifle into the building?.
A memo from FBI agent 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 that, according to Lt Day, Frazier described the bag Oswald had carried as "definitely a thin, flimsy sack like the one purchased in a dime store". The memo then goes on to say;
"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 silly theory. Even more so, if Oswald's prints had really been found on the heavy bag and the MC rifle ......
So, what else did Frazier say or do in those early days? Well, for one thing he corrected and initialed his own affidavit. Where it used the word ?bag? he crossed it out and replaced it with ?sack?. For some reason that distinction was important to him.
And then of course there was the Odum and McNeely report of December 2, 1963. They quote Frazier as saying that ?the package was wrapped in a cheap, crinkly, thin paper sack, such as that provided by Five and Ten Cent Stores?
So we have at least two occasions shortly after the event where Frazier qualifies the paper bag as "definitely a thin, flimsy sack like the one purchased in a dime store" and ?a cheap, crinkly, thin paper sack, such as that provided by Five and Ten Cent Stores?.
None if this was ever a topic in the subsequent "investigation" for obvious reasons, but as it is day 1 evidence, I would like to see some sort of explanation about this evidence which was clearly ignored when the thin, flimsy, crinkly paper sack somehow morphed into a heavy duty paper bag made from TSBD materials. No doubt the LNers will try to spin this, but to reasonable people it is beyond obvious that Frazier knew exactly what he had seen and it wasn?t the bag the DPD claimed to have been the ?gun sack?.
After that, things probably got messy for Frazier, resulting in his ?I didn?t pay much attention? ticket out of the mess?.
Any thoughts?
Have two posts related to firearms in paper sacks and a lack of DPD and FBI clarity, communication, and documentation.
Background :
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=217846#relPageId=81&search=893265
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51115916884_ef2aa8aea8_b.jpg)
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=62261#relPageId=5&search=elyon
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51116154001_a805f887d8_c.jpg)
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51116154591_c4b3a18da2_c.jpg)
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51115905129_6b013389b7_b.jpg)
-
What have we, here ?
https://www.maryferrell.org/pages/Essay_-_Proof_the_FBI_Changed_Documents_and_Vincent_Bugliosi_Was_Wrong.html
By Pat Speer - 2007
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=61494#relPageId=111&search=%22We_are%20in%20doubt.%20Please%20submit%20a%20report%20%22
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51116216201_19c7c83a06_b.jpg)
(https://www.geocities.ws/jfkresearch/paper2.jpg)
https://www.maryferrell.org/php/marysdb.php?id=7301&search="not%20to%20be%20identical%20with%20the%20paper"
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51116201386_5cf0e619f0_b.jpg)
-
What have we, here ?
https://www.maryferrell.org/pages/Essay_-_Proof_the_FBI_Changed_Documents_and_Vincent_Bugliosi_Was_Wrong.html
By Pat Speer - 2007
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=61494#relPageId=111&search=%22We_are%20in%20doubt.%20Please%20submit%20a%20report%20%22
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51116216201_19c7c83a06_b.jpg)
(https://www.geocities.ws/jfkresearch/paper2.jpg)
https://www.maryferrell.org/php/marysdb.php?id=7301&search="not%20to%20be%20identical%20with%20the%20paper"
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51116201386_5cf0e619f0_b.jpg)
Fascinating as usual Tom. Thank you for sharing+