JFK Assassination Forum

Another fine example of your inability to make logical inferences. Marina knew Oswald kept his rifle in a blanket in the Paine's garage. The morning of the 22nd, Oswald takes a long brown paper package to work. After the shooting, Oswald's rifle is found on the floor where the shooter was seen and spent shells were on the floor. A short distance away, am empty brown paper bag is found with Oswald's prints on it and fibers matching Oswald's blanket and you can't put all these factors together to reach the logical inference that Oswald took his rifle to work in the long brown paper package? You need it proven to you to an absolute certainty? Damn, if I ever commit a serious crime, I hope I get someone like you on my jury.

Why do you think he folded it in the sniper's nest?

You obviously don't know what it is that polygraphs do. Hint: they can't indicate whether a person accurately remembered an event.

That requires one to make logical inferences. You seem incapable of doing that. Or is it that your unwilling to do that?

One question. Do you honestly believe that? Do you really think he could have left the building from which someone had just shot the POTUS carrying a duffle bag with a heavy object and no one would have been the least bit suspicious. More to the point, do you think Oswald would have thought that?

At best, a polygraph can indicate if someone is being DELIBERATELY deceitful. It can't give an indication if someone didn't  remember and event accurately. That's why they call it a lie detector. It's not called a can't-remember-shit detector.

Yes, it is and if Frazier was honestly telling them what he remembered, there would have been no indication of deceit. If Frazier inaccurately remembered the event, a polygraph would have given no indication of that. Polygraphs are used to determine if a person is being honest, not if they are being accurate.

You have never provided a bit of corroborating forensic evidence that proves Frazier accurately remember the package he saw Oswald carry.

No it doesn't. If all we had to go on was Frazier's description of the bag, the logical conclusion would be the bag might or might not be the length Frazier remembered. But that isn't all we have to go on. A bag was found in the TSBD with Oswald's prints on it which matched Frazier's description of the bag in every way except for the length.

Again, it requires one to make logical inferences in order to conclude that the bag found in the TSBD is the same one Frazier saw Oswald carry into the TSBD. You seem either unable or unwilling to do that.

You don't have to choose between Frazier's opinion and my opinion. If's a choice as to whether you believe Frazier or the forensic evidence.

Again, it isn't a case of whether Frazier's account conflicts with my opinion. Frazier's account conflicts with the forensic evidence.

It proves nothing BY ITSELF. This is where conspiracy hobbyists always fall down. They look at one piece of evidence and say it doesn't prove anything. You have to put the pieces together to figure out what the puzzle looks like. We have a paper bag with Oswald's prints found near the location where someone saw a shooter and which shells were found that matched a rifle found elsewhere on the same floor which was proven to belong to Oswald and the bag contained fibers that matched the blanket Oswald was known to have stored his rifle in. Can you really not put all those pieces together and reach a logical conclusion or do you just not want to accept the logical conclusion?

So you expect me to find the proof to support your assertion. Since you are the one claiming that proof exists, shouldn't you be the one providing it.
I wish I had a nickel for every time I've seen a conspiracy hobbyist resort to that ploy. Long time conspiracy hobbyist Tony Marsh's stock reply when asked to provide support for one of his claims was, "Learn to google". This is just more of the same.

Why don't your surprise us. Prove to us you didn't just make this story up.

The difference between us is that my opinions are supported by hard evidence, Yours, not so much.

Pick & choose. Pick and choose.

Whaley told the Commission he saw both jackets;
Mr. BALL. Here is Commission No. 162 which is a gray jacket with zipper.
Mr. WHALEY. I thank that is the jacket he had on when he rode with me in the cab.

Mr. BALL. Look something like it?
And here is Commission Exhibit No. 163, does this look like anything he had on?

Mr. WHALEY. He had this one on or the other one.
Mr. BALL. That is right.

Mr. WHALEY. That is what I told you I noticed. I told you about the shirt being open, he had on the two jackets with the open shirt.

Dec 18, 63 to the FBI  - He called it a gray work jacket;
"...OSWALD was wearing grey work pants and a grey work jacket and had on a darker shirt which had a gold streak in it .
He also recalled that this shirt was opened down the front to about the fourth button, and he does not recall OSWALD wearing
an undershirt. He also recalled that the. sh1rt, as well as the rest of OSWALD's attire, was unpressed and wrinkled as though
it had not been ironed after washing or as though he had slept in the clothes."

Nonsense.  The time stamps on the police tapes are not "bad evidence" at all.  You don't understand them; that doesn't make them "bad".

I understand them alright. I just don't agree with your opinion.

Again, you basically asked me to speculate and I admit I am only giving my opinion.  Seems simple enough but only a Kook would take issue with it.

Typical LN talk. I asked you to help me out by explaining why Markham would risk missing her bus by waiting at the corner of 10th and Patton after the car(s) had passed.
You then started speculating and you did so in a self-serving way, like you always do. Your speculations are not facts! It's that simple.

Again, in her Warren Commission testimony, she said traffic was coming.  She did not say it was a police car.  If you want to rely on the FBI report as if it's gospel, then we can also agree then that Randle indeed said the bag was three feet long.  This is simple stuff, really.  So, which is it for you?

Apparently you want to rely fully on witness testimony because you are desperate to get Tippit's police car out of the overall picture, despite the fact that his car was there and did pass the intersection. But if you want to rely solely on WC testimony, let's go that way. That means of course that Roberts couldn't identify CE 162 and thought that the jacket she had seen was darker. It means that Frazier saw Oswald carry the package in the cup of his hand and under his armpit and it means that Randle provided a far more accurate estimate of the size of the package than Barrett wrote. Are you happy with that?

By the way, the FBI agent who interviewed Markham in March of '64 was Barrett (as you originally stated), not Bookhout (as you are now stating).

I stand corrected. My bad.

In your opinion.  Obviously that was not Markham's opinion, as she tells us she had to wait for traffic to pass before trying to cross.

And where exactly does she say that also included Tatum's car? Or are you simply making that up?

You don't know what "get your bus" means and you certainly don't know how Markham interpreted the question.

Her answer in her WC testimony is clear enough;

Mr. BALL. You know what time you usually get your bus, don't you?
Mrs. MARKHAM. 1:15.

And you swear by WC testimony, right?

The bottom line is that Markham never says she caught a bus at 1:15 and no amount of you putting words into her mouth will change this.

So, now you want verbatim quotes. As I said before.... you are playing word games (again). You can deny reality as much as you like but normal same people know exactly what somebody says she "gets" or "caught" her bus at 1:15 PM.

Besides, she made it very very clear that she needed to be at the bus stop every day at 1:15 PM, regardless if she got or caught a bus or jumped on the back of a bike! Deal with it!

I understand them alright. I just don't agree with your opinion.

Typical LN talk. I asked you to help me out by explaining why Markham would risk missing her bus by waiting at the corner of 10th and Patton after the car(s) had passed.
You then started speculating and you did so in a self-serving way, like you always do. Your speculations are not facts! It's that simple.

Apparently you want to rely fully on witness testimony because you are desperate to get Tippit's police car out of the overall picture, despite the fact that his car was there and did pass the intersection. But if you want to rely solely on WC testimony, let's go that way. That means of course that Roberts couldn't identify CE 162 and thought that the jacket she had seen was darker. It means that Frazier saw Oswald carry the package in the cup of his hand and under his armpit and it means that Randle provided a far more accurate estimate of the size of the package than Barrett wrote. Are you happy with that?

I was a regular contributor on John's forum (alt.assassination.jfk) for 13 years prior to his sudden death. Since it was a moderated group, posts had to be approved by one of the moderators before it would show up. When I first started posting there, John had several co-moderators who could have approved posts, but by that time, he was the only one.When John passed, that effectively killed that forum. There was an unmoderated forum at the time (alt.conspiracy.jfk) where you could post anything without it being pre-approved and there were a number of people who posted to both groups. I didn't often visit that group but it was there that I learned of John's sudden passing.

I continued to post on the unmoderated group for awhile but I think it was shortly thereafter that Google did away with google groups so that killed everything. I had quit JFKA discussions cold turkey until a few months ago I discovered this forum and got drawn back into the debate. While the forums have changed, not much about the debate has changed. The arguments I see getting posted here are pretty much the same ones I saw on the old Prodigy network back in 1991. The more things change...