JFK Assassination Forum

\  To test the location of the car either parked along the south (or north) curb of the Elm Extension, as seen in the Wiegman film, I plotted Wiegman’s position with test south curb versus north curb cars on a DP map. The plot showed the north curb car about twice the distance from the camera compared to a south curb car. Then for equal sized cars the north curb car would appear about one half the size of the south curb car to Wiegman’s camera.  I made a quick 3D view animation to demonstrate this and added a 5.5’ black suit man for comparison. It looks to me that the Wiegman car is nearer to the south curb. Note that I gave the test cars a steel-blue color (not white) for the 3D animation for modeling development use.

 

    As we can see, there is No Car parked alongside the Island when Wiegman filmed this footage. Not yet. The "getaway" car is on its' way down the Elm Extension and being hidden by the large trees and shrubs that run along the Knoll side of the street. Within mere seconds of the above Wiegman still frame, that car will arrive and park in the "NO PARKING At Any Time" zone. The car will then be sitting almost directly across from the "wide open" Huge Gates. ALL of this did Not just happen by accident. This was an extremely well planned conspiracy. 

Another fine example of your inability to make logical inferences. Marina knew Oswald kept his rifle in a blanket in the Paine's garage.

Another dishonest reply. Marina didn't know anything of the sort. She checked the blanket once, in late september, and saw the wooden stock of a rifle. She assumed it was Oswald's, and it may well have been. But what she didn't know is what happened to that rifle after late September. She may have seen the blanket lying on the ground but she could only assume (and not know) if the rifle was still in it.

Marina mad a logical inference that the rifle was still in the blanket. I'm not surprised this escapes you.

After the shooting, Oswald's rifle is found on the floor where the shooter was seen and spent shells were on the floor.

"Pswald's rifle" LOL

Yes, Oswald's rifle
The on that had his palm print on the underside of the barrel.
The one with fibers matching the shirt he wore that day.
The one he had several photographs take of him holding the rifle.
The one for which there is a clear paper trail showing he ordered the rifle from Klein's Sporting Goods.
Your scoffing at the notion that it is Oswald's rife shows no amount of evidence will ever convince a dedicated conspiracy hobbyist of Oswald's guilt. They will always find an excuse to dismiss it.

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?

Apart for the fact that you keep representing the evidence, of course I can make an assumption (which is actually what you mean by "logical inference", but that doesn't mean that this would the correct conclusion.

An assumption is something that is made without evidence.  A logical inference is made based on evidence. I'm not surprised you don't understand the difference.

You need it proven to you to an absolute certainty?

So, you don't know for certain there was a rifle in Ruth Paine's garage on 11/21/63. Got it.

That conclusion is based on common sense. I guess that leaves you out.

Nobody is applying such a high standard. All I have asked for is even the slightest bit of actual evidence to show there was actually a rifle stored in Ruth Paine's garage. What is clear beyond absolute certainty is that you haven't any. All you have is information that is being misrepresented and assumptions. In other words; you've got nothing. But I expect you will never understand that!
[/quote[

I've tried my best but I just can't find a way to dumb it down enough for you to understand.

Quote

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

The bag was found folded up in the sniper's nest. If you like think it was folder somewhere else, be my guest.
It wasn't found folded up. It had creases in it indicating it had been folded at one time.

Quote

I take it you also can't provide an explanation for the absence of prints that would have been placed on the bag when it was folded.

I can't explain your false premise.

Quote

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

And nobody said they could. Only a dishonest person would bring up something this stupid. A polygraph is not perfect, but it's the best tool there is to determine if somebody is telling the truth about what he or she had seen.

You presented the polygraph as evidence Frazier accurately recalled the length of the package. A polygraph measures honesty, not accuracy.

Quote

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

Whenever  I make a logical inference, I do so based on actual verifiable evidence and not just speculation and wishful thinking as you do.

Every time you try, you show how bad you are at weighing evidence. You put absolute faith in Frazier's recollections and dismiss all the hard evidence of Oswald's guilt.

Quote

So, in summary, we have so far;

You have no evidence that a rifle was stored in Ruth Paine's garage on 11/21/63. You only have assumption
You have no explanation for the absence of prints on the bag that would recently have been made when the bag was folded.
And you have no evidence to support your claim that the 6th floor bag ever left the TSBD

Wow!

As I already said, I can't dumb it down enough for you to understand. I guess that's a failure on my part.

Quote

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.

Yes, sure. he could have easily done that. He could have walked out the back of the building with a duffel bag and mingle with people in the street in seconds. He also could have left the building through the front door (which LNs believe he did) and walked out with a back into a sense of massive commotion. We know that nobody saw him leave in any event. As soon as he crossed the street and walked towards a bus he was just another guy in a crowd. Sometimes the best place to hide is in plain sight!

No comment from me is even necessary at this point.

Quote

More to the point, do you think Oswald would have thought that?

I don't know what Oswald was thinking. I just don't understand the reasoning for making a paper bag, when he had duffel bags in Ruth Paine's garage and he alleged managed to take the rifle to New Orleans on public transport without being noticed.

Oswald made the bag to smuggle the rifle into the TSBD. He succeeding in doing that. Why would you second guess his decision.

Killing JFK was probably the one thing Oswald succeeded at in his short miserable life, and the conspiracy hobbyists have spent the last 62 years denying him credit for it. Give the guy a break. If Oswald could comeback, I'm sure he would tell you all to STFU.
{quote]

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.

And Frazier clearly wasn't deliberately deceitful. He simply told the truth, but that's something you just don't like.

I'll bet he told us what he thought to be the truth. He just got one very important detail wrong.

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.

And what in the world makes you think that Frazier inaccurately remembered anything? Let me guess.... back to the pathetic massive assumptions about the 6th floor bag.
[/quote}

His description of the length of the bag he saw Oswald carry into the TSBD was different from the bag found in the TSBD with Oswald's prints on it and no shorter bag was ever found. But keep telling yourself Frazier got every detail of the bag correct even though he had no reason to pay much attention to it at the time and admitted he didn't.

Quote

You do understand that your entire flawed theory is based on a partial print on a paper bag that was found at Oswald's place of work? On second thought; you probably don't understand that at all.

One print is all that is necessary to prove Oswald handled the bag that was found next to the sniper's nest.

Quote

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

Don't have to. Frazier saw the bag and gets the benefit of the doubt until actual evidence shows he was wrong. So, it's up to you to provide that evidence and you can't do it.

The evidence is there. You just refuse to accept it. The fact you are willing to assume Frazier was 100% accurate reveals how misguided you are. It makes no sense to assume any witness is 100% accurate because usually they are not. Witnesses get some things wrong and some things right. We can confirm or refute what they say by how it jives with the physical evidence. What Frazier is to you is an excuse to dismiss all the daming evidence of Oswald's guilt. An excuse is all a determined conspiracy hobbyist needs too delude himself.  WTG

Quote

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.

This is getting tiresome. You have nothing to put the bag found at the 6th floor in Oswald's cup of hand. And you really need to stop lying. Frazier's description of the bag did not match the 6th floor bag, made from heavy duty wrapping paper, at all.

Quote

Well fore once we agree, This is tiresome trying to clue you in. I've been at this for 35 years and have learned that no amount of evidence will ever convince a dediccated conspiracy hobbyist he is wrong. He will cling to his beliefs no matter how much evidence there is to the contrary.

Quote

Detective Lewis states for the record that Frazier described the bag he saw as being a "crickly brown paper sack" and Ltd Day confirmed that Frazier told him that "the sack he observed in possession of Oswald early that morning was definitely a thin, flimsy sack like on purchased in a dime store"

So, who do you lie?

You keep relying on Frazier to describe the bag and ignore the bag that was actually found in the TSBD. With Oswald's prints on it.  What a silly way to weigh the evidence.

Quote

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.

Translation; It's an assumption for which I don't have a shred of evidence, so I just call it a "logical inference". Pathetic!

The evidence has been presented. You refuse to accept it. That's your problem, not mine. It's the reason that 62 years later, you still can't figure out a simple murder case that the DPD had solved in the first 12 hourse.

Quote

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, your opinion isn't "forensic evidence". The only forensic value the 6th floor bag has is to show that a partial print of Oswald was found on it. That's it! Everything else is you making stuff up, which is something the WC didn't even do. They just stated as fact that it was the bag Oswald had carried and completely ignored what Frazier said. That's some investigation!

You can lead a horse to water...

Quote

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.

And you just agreed it proves nothing.

Try reading for comprehension. Did you miss the qualifier BY ITSELF.?

Quote

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?

Hilarious. The only piece of physical evidence is the 6th floor bag with Oswald's partial print on it. Claiming that the rifle "was proven to belong to Oswald" is a gross overstatement of the facts. And this fiber BS is getting tedious. Anybody who cherry picks the evidence and simply rejects or ignores the real possibility of cross contamination is not serious.

The fact you dispute Oswald's ownership of the rifle and the validity of fiber evidence speaks volumes about your unwillingness to accept credible evidence.

Quote

There are no pieces to put together. All you have are claims you wish to believe. It is and can never be a logical conclusion when it is based on purposely misrepresented, so-called "facts".

Nothing has been misrepresented. The fact that you refuse to accept the evidence of Oswald's guilt is a reflection on you, not the evidence.

Quote

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.

First of all, don't pretend to know better about the assassination than me

I don't have to pretend.

Quote

and they ask me to school you.

You are the last person I would want schooling me. You are at the head of the dunce class.

Quote

 It's pathetic! Do your homework!

It's not my homework. It's yours. The burden of proof is on the person making the claim. You obviously can't meet that burden so you try to shift it to me. Why would I search for something that you made up out if thin air. If you had a source for this story, you would have no trouble providing it but you won't because you can't.

Quote

And secondly, as to providing evidence; since you never provide any evidence for your claims, I would say; no it's not a given that I should help you out.

Why do you keep lying. I've provided solid evidence for everything I've stated. The fact you refuse to accept the evidence is a reflection on you, not me.

Quote

I actually don't care if you believe the reports exist of not.

Quote

We both know they don't.

Quote

If you claim they don't exist, you do so at your own peril, because there are plenty of people who know far more than you ever will who will see you for the buffoon you really are.

If these reports actually existed, you would have no trouble providing them.

I've called your bluff. It's time for you to show your cards or fold your hand.

Quote

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. 

It's not a ploy. I couldn't care less what you think.

You must not care what anybody thinks. You'ee been called out and still you can't support your made up story. That says it all.

Quote

I have the reports here

Stop lying.

Quote

and that's all I need to know. The last thing I will try to do is convince you of anything as that would be a pointless exercise

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

You're funny little man. Oh well, even the biggest fool considers himself to be a genius.....

That's called projection.

First, it's Bowles, not Bowley.  You need to start getting these names right.  J.C. Bowles was the "chief of dispatchers".  T.F. Bowley pulled up on the Tippit scene just after the shooting.

And I'm perfectly aware of what Bowles said (and did not say).  He does NOT say that the timestamps could be off by as much as five to eight minutes.

In fact, here is what Bowles says:

A master clock on the telephone room wall was connected to the City Hall system. This clock reported "official" time. Within the dispatcher's office there were numerous other time giving and time recording devices, both in the telephone room and in the radio room. Telephone operators and radio operators were furnished "Simplex" clocks. Because the hands often worked loose, they indicated the incorrect time. However, their purpose was to stamp the time, day and date on incoming calls. While they were reliable at this, they were not synchronized as stated in the Committee report. Therefore, it was not uncommon for the time stamped on calls to be a minute to two ahead or behind the "official" time shown on the master clock. Accordingly, at "exactly" 10:10, various clocks could be stamping from 10:08 to 10:12, for example. When clocks were as much as a minute or so out of synchronization it was normal procedure to make the needed adjustments. During busy periods this was not readily done.

In addition to the times stamped on calls by telephone operators, the radio operators stamped the "time" as calls were dispatched, and the "time" that officers completed an assignment and returned to service. Radio operators were also furnished with 12-hour digital clocks to facilitate their time references when they were not using call sheets containing stamped time. These digital clocks were not synchronized with any time standard. Therefore, the time "actual" and time "broadcast" could easily be a minute or so apart.

Now, multiply this by two since the police department was operating on two radio frequencies. For convenience they were referred to as Channel 1 and Channel 2. Calls for police service or information as well as interdepartmental messages were placed through the police communications office. Telephone clerks trained for the task handled the initial contacts. Telephone calls which required that an officer be sent to render a service were transcribed by hand on "call sheets" to inform the radio dispatcher as to the location and nature of the service request. The telephone clerk inserted the call sheet into the nearest time clock, causing the call sheet to be stamped with a "call received" time. The operator then sent the call sheet to the dispatcher by way of a conveyer belt which passed continuously between operators sitting opposite each other at the telephone stations. The conveyer belt terminated at the radio operator's console. The radio operator, upon receiving a call sheet, would select the officer appropriate to handle the call, dispatch the call to that officer, and stamp the call sheet with a "call dispatched" time. When the officer assigned a call had rendered the necessary service, he would inform the dispatcher that he was "clear." The dispatcher would then stamp the call sheet to obtain a "call cleared" time, and inform the officer of his clearing time. On November 22, 1963, the regular business of the department was conducted on Channel 1, and radio traffic associated with the President's visit was conducted on Channel 2. Next, consideration should be given to the methods of individual radio operators. A given operator at a given time might broadcast "time" a little early in one event then a little late the next. Accordingly, a call initiated at, say, 10:10 might be stamped at 10:13 by the dispatcher, only to have intervening radio traffic delay his broadcast. He might go ahead and announce the dispatch time as 10:13 and the digital clock then showed 10:14. Time intervals of less than one minute were never used. Likewise, the time stated in periodic station identification time checks was not always exact. During quiet intervals, station time checks were usually on time. However, radio operators did not interrupt radio traffic in progress just to give a station check. Accordingly, an operator might give, say, the 10:30 check as 10:30 when it was actually 10:29 or perhaps 10:31 or later. On another occasion, that same operator might state, "10:31 KKB 364," the correct time even though he was at least a minute late."

Are you saying that you accept that the Tippit shooting occurred no earlier than 1:12-1:13?


Whaley described, THE VERY NEXT DAY, what Oswald was wearing and makes no mention of the jacket, even describing the shirt in some detail and the bracelet, etc...

Roberts, THE VERY SAME DAY, stated that Oswald left in a short grey coat.  I don't care what color she said it was (even though the jacket in evidence is indeed a "short grey coat").

Your point is completely invalid here.

First, it's Bowles, not Bowley.  You need to start getting these names right.

At my age, things like that happen.

And I'm perfectly aware of what Bowles said (and did not say).  He does NOT say that the timestamps could be off by as much as five to eight minutes.

Nobody claimed the timestamps could be off by five to eight minutes. You claimed you could rely on the timestamps and Bowles saying they could be off undermines your claim. Easy to understand really.

Are you saying that you accept that the Tippit shooting occurred no earlier than 1:12-1:13?

No, I believe he was shot earlier than that. 1:09 or 1:10, something like that.

Whaley described, THE VERY NEXT DAY, what Oswald was wearing and makes no mention of the jacket, even describing the shirt in some detail and the bracelet, etc...

Roberts, THE VERY SAME DAY, stated that Oswald left in a short grey coat.  I don't care what color she said it was (even though the jacket in evidence is indeed a "short grey coat").

Your point is completely invalid here.

I am only using Whaley to demonstrate somebody could be wrong. I also mentioned Frazier who said on THE VERY SAME DAY while being polygraphed that he saw Oswald carried the package in the cup of his hand and under his armpit. In the past you have questioned that statement and said that he could be wrong.

On the other hand, you seem to believe that Roberts could not possibly have been wrong. So, there isn't an invalid point, just a very valid question;

What makes Roberts so special?

Frazier signed that car statement for the buyer. For the car. It didn't get him any more than $10. The buyer was planning a "Tragedy Museum". When that fell thru the car was sold to Ripley's and is now in Texas. Those documents are on the side windows.

That was Oct. '64. The Warren Report was out -  but not the 26 volumes. There was some talk of a Mauser gun or Gerald Ford leaking the Back Yard Photos to LIFE Magazine. No one had tapped Frazier for what he saw and he believed what he was told. That only changed to what he believes today.

They (WC) used him and excluded him without even confronting his mistakes directly  - it took most of 1965-66 for researchers like Weisberg or Meager or Mark Lane to uncover initial failures in the evidence.

I find it amazing that somebody like Bill Brown could be so easily fooled by those documents.

Even more so as Frazier's signature on the car registration document is completely different from the ones on those fakes! Bill knows this of course, as the photos he has posted and the registration document are found on the Ripley's Son Antonio website.

I have no need for hypocrisy here.  I have indeed shown a statement (signed, in fact) by Frazier where he acknowledges that the rifle was in the bag, i.e. the bag was large enough for the rifle, i.e. the bag couldn't have been carried the way Frazier described.

Hilarious.

I'm not going to get into a "prove it's fake" conversation. If you want people to believe that Frazier actually would admit in a real affidavit that he lied to the police and the WC, have at it!
The next time you see him (if you ever saw him to begin with) tell him about your "find" at Ripley's believe it or not and see how he responds.