JFK Assassination Forum

I'm not foolish enough to think that an eyewitness recollection trumps forensic evidence.

Neither am I, but in this case there is no forensic evidence to trump. At least not in the real world.

The bag in question had Oswald's palm print on it which would be expected if Oswald carried it cupped in his had as demonstrated by Frazier.

There is no "bag in question". All there is, is a bag that you can not place in Oswald's hand when he walked to the TSBD, except of course for your wishful thinking!

What is typical with eyewitnesses is they get some things right and some things wrong. To determine which they got right and which they got wrong we need to look at how the eyewitness account squares with other evidence.

What "other evidence" would that be? You really need to stop thinking that the bag allegedly found at the 6th floor is somehow the same one Oswald carried on Friday morning, but that won't stop you making up your own reality, right?

and fibers matching the rifle blanket found in the bag,

There you go again with the same old fibers BS. You really have a problem understanding reality, don't you. At best fibers can be similar, but they can not be matched to any particular item. Also, when a bag and a blanket are placed next to each other, there is a serious possibility of cross contamination. In this case the bag and blanket were photographed next to each other at the DPD office and at the FBI lab. In what kind of analysis do you dismiss or ignore possible cross contamination of evidence?

I find it far more compelling to believe the bag Frazier saw and the one found by the sniper's nest are one and the same.

Of course you do. Why look at the actual facts when you can make up your own little story. After all, what you believe must be true, right?

You on the other hand prefer to believe that Frazier's account was spot on and that there were two different bags. Obviously, you can't see how unlikely that would be. 

The likelihood of Frazier's observation about the way Oswald carried the bag being correct is far greater than you would like it to be. You are trying to put a bag, which you can't even prove ever left the TSBD, in Oswald's hand regardless of what the only witness who actually saw it says. I bet you can't even explain how unlikely my opinion is.....

The above paragraph is an example of how one goes about weighing evidence.

Nope, it's a prime example of how you try to fit the evidence to a preconceived conclusion.

I will gladly put my analysis of the situation against yours any day.

Isn't it funny how some people say one thing and their actually actions demonstrate the opposite?

You are not analyzing anything. You are making up stories that fit your own flawed opinions. That's why you are completely unable to defend any of the BS claims you post.

More silly nonsense. No worse and no better than anything else I've seen from the conspiracy crowd. You simply can't get around the fact that the explanation given by the WC fits the entire body of evidence. It is the only such explanation ever given that does fit the evidence. If there was another plausible explanation, someone from the conspiracy side would have figured it out by now. But of course, that has never happened and it never will. The body of evidence is what it is. After 62 years, you aren't going to add to it. If you and your dwindling cohort can't figure out an alternative explanation for the evidence by now, why should anyone take any of you seriously. All you can do is take potshots at the WC without ever offering anything better or even anything at all. The WC explanation wins by default.

   "Hold any water"? Why do you think the Officer Haygood making a 2nd trip into the railroad yard was suddenly cooked up after 62+ years? It is in response to my have attached a rock solid 12:38 PM Timeline to the Darnell still frame showing Officer Harkness, + Buddy Walthers, + The Alleged Officer Haygood. I have been banging away at the "That Ain't Haygood" issue for 2 yrs now. My recent discoveries of the documented Officer Harkness 12:36 radio transmission, and Inspector Sawyer NOT arriving at the TSBD until 12:35 PM, are the straws that broke this camel's back. "That Ain't Haygood" = Conspiracy has 'em scrambling.

In 35 years of dealing with conspiracy hobbyists, your the first one who I've ever come across who even made an issue about Haygood. What reason would anyone else have had to cook up an explanation for Haygood's movements. You are a cult of one with your fixation about this. Nobody else cares. And nobody else ever will.

That object is definitely not a motorcycle cop's glove.

And you're definitely not a researcher whose crazy theories hold any water whatsoever! But keep telling yourself otherwise..

I’ve never seen anybody who carries one glove rolled up like JohnM showed, but I guess it’s possible. Maybe  I need to get out and about more often and observe police officers in action. I should have been able seen this in 65 years and I’ve seen a lot of motorcycle riders in my area maybe I wasn’t paying attention and missed the rolled up glove detail.

Those other barehanded cops, is there any indication where on their person they are carrying their pair of gloves? Probably the side pants pocket budging would be an indication the gloves were in the pocket which is most likely place.

So One Glove Cop taking  one glove off the hand so he could more quickly remove his revolver  from holster, if necessary , may be a plausable explanation , however  the firing of the revolver as trained in cop school would be to use both hands , so its sort of odd to carry around the glove rolled up the other hand when it would have been easier to just put it in a pants pocket, thus no possible interference.

I’m not sure if this particular cop  followed the standard police 2 handed method of shooting or if he was a Clint Eastwood fan and practiced to shoot with just one hand.

Until JohnM can find another cop with one glove off ( and rolled up ) and one glove on, Royell still gets credit for discovering at least an interesting phenomenon ( along with the mystery car parked in the no parking spot).

Without CTs, ( and Skeptics ) it would get rather dull here at JFK Forum just agreeing all the time with LNs lol.

  Zeon - Thanks again. In my opinion, that's no glove the alleged cop is carrying in his (L) hand. It's not close to being long enough to be a motorcycle glove. And where is there any trace of the fingers on this alleged glove? I think people are looking at low definition copies of the Darnell film. This low definition blurs the object the cop is holding. Better definition Darnell film copies show the object to flat/blunt on both ends. And maybe 6 inches long max. That object is definitely not a motorcycle cop's glove.   

I'm not foolish enough to think that an eyewitness recollection trumps forensic evidence. The bag in question had Oswald's palm print on it which would be expected if Oswald carried it cupped in his had as demonstrated by Frazier. What is typical with eyewitnesses is they get some things right and some things wrong. To determine which they got right and which they got wrong we need to look at how the eyewitness account squares with other evidence. In some cases, the other evidence will corroborate. In other cases, it will refute it. In still other cases, there might be no evidence which either refutes nor corroborates the eyewitness account. In those instances, the logical conclusion is that the witness might be right or might be wrong. We have corroboration for Frazier's account that Oswald carried the rifle cupped in his palm. There is no evidence that either corroborates or refutes whether or not the bag Frazier saw Oswald carry into the TSBD stuck up above his shoulder. Given that the bag not only had Oswald's palm print on it where it should be and fibers matching the rifle blanket found in the bag, I find it far more compelling to believe the bag Frazier saw and the one found by the sniper's nest are one and the same. You on the other hand prefer to believe that Frazier's account was spot on and that there were two different bags. Obviously, you can't see how unlikely that would be.

The above paragraph is an example of how one goes about weighing evidence. I will gladly put my analysis of the situation against yours any day.

I'm not foolish enough to think that an eyewitness recollection trumps forensic evidence.

Neither am I, but in this case there is no forensic evidence to trump. At least not in the real world.

The bag in question had Oswald's palm print on it which would be expected if Oswald carried it cupped in his had as demonstrated by Frazier.

There is no "bag in question". All there is, is a bag that you can not place in Oswald's hand when he walked to the TSBD, except of course for your wishful thinking!

What is typical with eyewitnesses is they get some things right and some things wrong. To determine which they got right and which they got wrong we need to look at how the eyewitness account squares with other evidence.

What "other evidence" would that be? You really need to stop thinking that the bag allegedly found at the 6th floor is somehow the same one Oswald carried on Friday morning, but that won't stop you making up your own reality, right?

and fibers matching the rifle blanket found in the bag,

There you go again with the same old fibers BS. You really have a problem understanding reality, don't you. At best fibers can be similar, but they can not be matched to any particular item. Also, when a bag and a blanket are placed next to each other, there is a serious possibility of cross contamination. In this case the bag and blanket were photographed next to each other at the DPD office and at the FBI lab. In what kind of analysis do you dismiss or ignore possible cross contamination of evidence?

I find it far more compelling to believe the bag Frazier saw and the one found by the sniper's nest are one and the same.

Of course you do. Why look at the actual facts when you can make up your own little story. After all, what you believe must be true, right?

You on the other hand prefer to believe that Frazier's account was spot on and that there were two different bags. Obviously, you can't see how unlikely that would be. 

The likelihood of Frazier's observation about the way Oswald carried the bag being correct is far greater than you would like it to be. You are trying to put a bag, which you can't even prove ever left the TSBD, in Oswald's hand regardless of what the only witness who actually saw it says. I bet you can't even explain how unlikely my opinion is.....

The above paragraph is an example of how one goes about weighing evidence.

Nope, it's a prime example of how you try to fit the evidence to a preconceived conclusion.

I will gladly put my analysis of the situation against yours any day.

Isn't it funny how some people say one thing and their actually actions demonstrate the opposite?

You are not analyzing anything. You are making up stories that fit your own flawed opinions. That's why you are completely unable to defend any of the BS claims you post.