JFK Assassination Forum

This is a classic example of conspiracy hobbyists making excuses to dismiss the damning evidence of Oswald's guilt.

First of all; I'm not a "conspiracy hobbyist" (whatever that means) as I couldn't care less if Oswald did it or not. My position is a simple one; show me the evidence that proves that Oswald did it. Don't tell me fanciful stories based on conjecture and questionable evidence, but show that so-called "damning evidence". I don't dismiss the evidence that's there. Never have and never will. It is what it is, but don't try to convince me that Oswald's print being on a bag is conclusive evidence of his guilt. Even less so, when the bag itself can't be authenticated!

The bag was made out of TSBD material. There is nobody who saw Oswald make that bag or even be close to the packaging area on Thursday afternoon. Frazier did not see Oswald carry a paper bag with him to Irving, or he would have said so. What Frazier did say and still says to this day is that the bag he saw wasn't big enough to conceal a broken down rifle. Now, if you want to complain about dismissing evidence, why don't you start by not dismissing what Frazier said by simply saying that he was mistaken! He showed two FBI agents to where on the backseat of his car the bag reached and they measured it. Off hand I can't remember the size (I'm getting too old for this crap!) but I do recall it matched the size the bag would have had to have been for Oswald to carry it in the way he saw him carry it.

They can't explain the evidence to make the case for Oswald's innocence so they try to explain it away

Nobody needs to make the case for Oswald's innocence. Guys like you need to prove his guilt and you can't. That's why you complain about nonsense like this. If the case against Oswald was strong and conclusive enough than it wouldn't matter if some people think Oswald is innocent! So, tell me, what evidence exactly can't be explained?

One of their favorite ploys is to attack each piece of evidence individually rather than look at the body of evidence as a whole.

What body of evidence would that be? All you have by way of physical evidence regarding the entire trip to Irving is a paper bag and even that's questionable. Everything else is assumption and idiotic BS like a police officer still seeing the shape of a rifle in a blanket after the weapon was removed. Don't make me laugh!

When you do the latter, there can be no other plausible explanation than Oswald brought the rifle to work and used it to kill JFK.

And there it is! Translation; I first believe Oswald is guilty, never mind how weak and questionable the evidence is, and than I conclude that he must have brought a rifle to work (for which you also haven't got a shred of evidence) and used it to kill JFK. Never mind that nobody has ever been able to place Oswald at the sniper's nest when the shots were fired. It is all hot air and you have fallen for it!

You ask why anybody would have to present an "alternative plausible explanation". Well, if you want to make the case for conspiracy, that would be nice.

And what if I only want to see the conclusive evidence of his guilt, without making a case for conspiracy. What then?

There simply is no plausible alternative.

Isn't there? Pray tell, how did you ever reach that conclusion? Did you see and examine all the evidence that was gathered and looked at all the stuff the investigators ignored, misrepresented, dismissed and/or suppressed? I seriously doubt it. Just like you now believe everything the nut currently in the White House tells you, you've just taken the WC's word for it. It's the appeal to authority fallacy, pure and simple!

I'm not going to bother to go into every detail of this, because there would be no point. What you have given me is the prosecution's side of the argument and it contains many false, unproven and questionable claims. For instance; there is no evidence whatsoever which shirt Oswald was wearing at the TSBD on Friday morning. Yet here you are claiming it as fact!

So, if you had to make logical inferences from the evidence presented, wouldn't you not also have to take into account the arguments of the defence? But let's say, for argument's sake, that the rifle found at the TSBD is indeed the same one shown in the BY photos and the LN claim that Oswald owned that rifle since the purchase from Klein's is true. Doesn't that mean that any fibers found on the rifle allegedly matching Oswald's shirt could have gotten on that rifle at any time? Of course it does! So, what makes you so sure that the transfer of fibers took place at the TSBD on Friday morning?

And there is the classic LN "he never measured the bag" BS. Frazier, said that Oswald was wearing the package in the cup of his hand and below the shoulder. That gives you the dimensions of the package, regardless if the actual bag was bigger or not. You do know and understand that a paper bag can be folded, right? But far more important, on the evening after the assassination, Frazier was being question by DPD officers and given a polygraph (which he passed). He was shown the actual paper bag allegedly found in the sniper's nest (no in situ photo, remember!) and he instantly denied it was the bag he had seen Oswald carry. No matter what they threatened with, he stuck to his story even when he was still considered to be a suspect himself. It drove Captain Fritz to the point where he wanted to hit Frazier and Lt Day started to speculate (and there is documentation for this) that Oswald might have hidden this bag (the one allegedly from the 6th floor) in an old supermarkt bag. Just how desperate could they get. Ultimately, they just buried this story but the paperwork that still remains confirms it actually happened. And that should tell you all you need to know about how desperate they were to keep that paper bag in play!

But just for grins, let's say that the bag found in the TSBD was not the same bag Frazier saw. We can make two logical inferences from that. One is that the bag Frazier saw Oswald bring into the TSBD disappeared without a trace, despite a thorough search of the TSBD. The other is that at some other time, Oswald brought a different bag into the TSBD and that bag was long enough to hold a disassemble Carcano rifle.

Whatever works for you, I guess. You do understand that by coming up with this speculation you have just shown that even you don't know any detail involving the paper bag for sure. All you are desperately coming up with is two arguments to support your preconceived assumption that Oswald was guilty. And they are in fact crappy arguments. First of all, there is no evidence at all that there ever was a thorough search of the entire TSBD. In fact, if such a search did happen, why didn't they instantly find the clipboard and Oswald's jacket in the Domino room? Secondly, Oswald arrived at the TSBD at 8 AM carrying a paper bag. Kennedy was shot around 12.30 PM, which leaves an entire morning to dispose of a paper bag, which would have been easy, as the bag you claim Oswald used was in fact made from TSBD materials. So, all Oswald would have needed to do to make the bag disappear is to tear it up and dump it in a rubbish bin at the packaging department. Nobody would have been the wiser, but guys like you believe it was perfectly normal for him to fold up the bag (without leaving fresh prints) and leaving it behind at the scene of the crime.

Are you capable of rational thought? And if so, just how much thought have you actually put into looking at this kind of stuff?

If they dreamed up the kind of silly excuses that conspiracy hobbyists do to disregard the evidence of Oswald's guilt, every criminal defendant would walk. There is no reasonable doubt of Oswald's guilt in either the murder of JFK or the murder of JDT. To anyone who is familiar [sic] with the evidence against Oswald and is capable of thinking logically there is no doubt at all.

Of course there is reasonable doubt. Not only about some of the evidence that we know of but also because of what should have been there but isn't. All this pathetic whining about far more reasonable people than you not instantly accepting your silly claim about there being no doubt is alike to a toddler whining about people not liking his favorite toy.

The bottom line is a simple one. If there really was no reasonable doubt a forum like this would not exist and people would not be discussing this case more than 60 years after the fact!

I don't know what the forum record is for most misstatements in one post is, but you have to be close to it if you haven't broken it.

Oswald's print on the bag is not by itself proof of his guilt but it is probative. Rarely is a proof beyond a reasonable doubt made on a single piece of evidence. This is what conspiracy hobbyists (yes, you are one) fail to understand. It is the accumulative effect of all the evidence that erases reasonable doubt, not just in this case but in all cases. When all the arrows are pointing in the same direction, they aren't pointing in the wrong direction. It simply isn't reasonable, plausible, or even possible that all this evidence could be pointing to Oswald's guilt if he were actually innocent.

You seem to think it is significant that nobody saw Oswald make the paper bag. How does that preclude Oswald from having made the paper bag? Did any witness see somebody else making the bag out of TSBD paper? Somebody made that paper bag and did so without being seen by a witness. The forensic evidence makes it highly probative that it was Oswald who made the bag.

The Warren Commission made the case for Oswald's guilt and they provided us with conclusive evidence of that guilt far beyond a reasonable doubt. The fact that unreasonable people choose to dismiss that evidence does not establish reasonable doubt.

I did not speculate that Oswald brought a different bag into the TSBD at some unknown time. I was simply pointing out the logical conundrum you and other conspiracy hobbyists have created for themselves by disputing the bag found in the TSBD after the shooting was the same bag Frazier saw Oswald with. I find it far more likely that the two bags are one and the same but if you insist on claiming there were two different bag, then you have to accept that the bag Frazier saw disappeared without a trace and that another bag bearing Oswald's prints, long enough to hold the disassembled rifle, and containing fibers matching his rifle blanket was brought into the TSBD at some unknown time. Those are the logical choices you have. Which one do you want to go with. If you think there is a third option, please explain to us what that is.

You question why Frazier didn't see the bag when he took Oswald to Irving on Thursday evening. The bag had numerous creases in it indicating it had been folded up. It would be easy to conceal the folded up bag inside a jacket. Did you really need me to explain that to you?

The you ask "What body of evidence would that be?". I just got done listing it for you. I am not responsible for your poor reading comprehension. You can lead a horse to water...

You ask how much thought I have put into this case. I have been dealing with conspiracy hobbyists online for 35 years. I began shortly after Oliver Stone's movie came out in 1991. I know a hell of a lot more now then I did then and I have seen just about every argument imaginable over that time and have rebutted every one of them. Nothing you have raised is new to me nor are any of my answers to your questions. I've been down this road more times than I can count. What it comes down to is that conspiracy hobbyists cannot seem to solve the equation 2 + 2 = x.

You claim the evidence of Oswald's guilt is weak and questionable. It only seems that way to people who simply refuse to accept the conclusion that Oswald assassinated JFK just as surely as John Wilkes Booth assassinated Lincoln. There is none so blind as he who will not see.

You inferred there is some piece(s) of evidence that should be there but isn't. Tell us just what that evidence is. The body of evidence is exactly what we would expect to have with Oswald as the assassin. There is no evidence he was for or in conjunction with any other person. It is theoretically possible he could have had one or more accessories to his crime for which no evidence has ever been found, but after 62 years I find that possibility to be extremely remote. If you ever come across such compelling evidence, I'll be as happy as anyone to see it. I'm not holding my breath however.

You went on to claim evidence "ignored, misrepresented, dismissed and/or suppressed". Please tell us what that would be. Investigators looked at all the evidence and reached very logical conclusions. In some cases, the evidence was contradictory and mutually exclusive. For example we have one group of earwitnesses who told us all the shots came from the GK and another group who said all the shots came from the direction of the TSBD, Should the investigators have concluded both groups were correct or should they have looked for corroborating evidence to determine which group was right and which group was wrong?

You went on a long diatribe to dispute my claim that conspiracy hobbyists look at the evidence piecemeal instead of looking at it as a whole. In so doing, you demonstrated my claim to be true. You did exactly what I said. You refuse to look at the evidence as a body, because you know there is only one possible explanation that takes in ALL the evidence and that is a conclusion you simply refuse to accept. There are two types of people who dispute the fact that Oswald was the assassin. Those who don't know the body of evidence of his guilt and those who know the evidence and refuse to accept what that evidence tells us. The latter group (which you seem to be a member of) have as much credibility as flat earthers and moon landing deniers. Do you have reasonable doubts that the earth is a sphere or that our astronauts landed on the moon over 50 years ago and another group is now returning from having circled the moon? Either of the positions make about as much sense as denying Oswald was JFK's assassin.

You could try some of these, Bill.

Possible Alternatives.

https://www.google.com/search?q=List+Of+Free+Image+Hosting+Websites&sca_esv=3d5a416c9d6b3eb4&rlz=1C1CHBD_en-GBGB1053GB1053&sxsrf=ANbL-n46GeII685CHTOHNvCt4MALMyYWLw%3A1775818647160&ei=l9fYadGyCZSvhbIPueHU-Ao&biw=1440&bih=757&ved=0ahUKEwiR2pj9j-OTAxWUV0EAHbkwFa8Q4dUDCBE&oq=List+Of+Free+Image+Hosting+Websites&gs_lp=Egxnd3Mtd2l6LXNlcnAiI0xpc3QgT2YgRnJlZSBJbWFnZSBIb3N0aW5nIFdlYnNpdGVzMgUQIRigAUiQrgFQoA1Yl58BcAF4AZABAJgBkAGgAawVqgEEMzQuM7gBDMgBAPgBAZgCJqACiRrCAgoQABhHGNYEGLADwgIXEC4Y3AYYuAYY2gYY2AIYyAMYsAPYAQHCAggQABgIGAcYHsICCxAAGIAEGIoFGIYDwgIIEAAYgAQYogTCAgUQABjvBcICCBAhGKABGMMEwgIEECEYCsICBRAAGIAEwgILEAAYgAQYigUYkQLCAgYQABgWGB7CAgUQIRifBcICBxAhGAoYoAHCAgQQIRgVmAMAiAYBkAYNugYGCAEQARgZkgcFMjcuMTGgB5uhAbIHBTI2LjExuAfdGcIHCzAuMS4xNi4xOS4yyAevA4AIAQ&sclient=gws-wiz-serp

Thanks Duncan.  How do we post images now?

Hilarious, so now in a matter of minutes you suddenly go 180 and now believe that eyewitness testimony is the best kind of evidence?? Whatever to further your CT agenda.
You seriously can't make this up! LOLOLOL!

JohnM

Hilarious, so now in a matter of minutes you suddenly go 180 and now believe that eyewitness testimony is the best kind of evidence??

Do you live in some sort of alternative reality?

Eye witness testimony is indeed the worst kind of evidence, but statements made shortly after the events are likely the best information you can get from a witness.

But instead of trying to focus on Frazier denial about the bag shown to him, why don't you try to place that bag of yours in Frazier's car?

I ask again; what exactly does a bag made from TSBD materials and found at the TSBD, which can not be placed in Frazier's car actually prove?

Sorry Martin, not just Fritz!

Mr. BELIN. What was that about curtain rods?
Mr. HOLMES. Asked him if he brought a sack out when he got in the car with this young fellow that hauled him and he said, "Yes."
"What was in the sack?"
"Well, my lunch."
"What size sack did you have?"
He said, "Oh, I don't know what size sack. You don't always get a sack that fits your sandwiches. It might be a big sack."
"Was it a long sack?''
"Well, it could have been"
"What did you do with it?"
"Carried it in my lap."
"You didn't put it over in the back seat?"
"No." He said he wouldn't have done that.
"Well, someone said the fellow that hauled you said you had a long package which you said was curtain rods you were taking to somebody at work and you laid it over on the back seat."
He said, "Well, they was just mistaken. That must have been some other time he picked me up."
That is all he said about it.

JohnM

So it's what Fritz and Holmes claimed he said.... not much difference there.

Let's not forget that Fritz and Holmes were testifying months after the fact when they already knew there would never be a trial. They could have said anything they liked.