JFK Assassination Forum

Darnell Frame:

   ROBIN - Thanks. That's a very clear still frame.

Because it fits together perfectly with several other pieces of evidence and witness testimony connected with the JFK case.

Such as:

.... The location where the bag was found, which was a location very near the window from which the President was shot. (And despite the fact that no pictures exist of the bag before it was picked up, multiple police officers did nevertheless testify they did see the bag folded up in the corner, near the Sniper's Nest.)

.... The two finger and palm prints belonging to Lee Oswald that were found on the CE142 paper bag, which prove beyond all reasonable doubt that Oswald was in possession of that particular paper bag at some point in time.

.... The fibers found inside the otherwise empty bag, which were consistent with fibers also present in the blanket that Oswald's rifle was known to have been wrapped in during the time the rifle was being stored in Ruth Paine's garage in Irving.

.... Oswald lies to the police about carrying any large-ish bag to work on 11/22. I can think of no good reason for Oswald to want to lie to the cops about taking a paper bag into the TSBD unless that bag in question contained the Kennedy murder weapon. After all, curtain rods can't very well be considered a deadly weapon, can they?

And when we combine all of the above things with the critical fact that Oswald's own rifle (found on that same 6th floor of the TSBD on Nov. 22) was a weapon that positively was used by someone on that day to fire shots at President Kennedy, it's not too difficult to connect the dots.

And I'll again ask this question, which I've asked previously in forum posts but never have received a reasonable answer (or any answer, for that matter):

On any given day of the year (whether it be 11/22/63 or some other day), who is more likely to use Lee Harvey Oswald's very own Carcano rifle .... Lee Oswald himself or some unknown person?

.... The location where the bag was found, which was a location very near the window from which the President was shot. (And despite the fact that no pictures exist of the bag before it was picked up, multiple police officers did nevertheless testify they did see the bag folded up in the corner, near the Sniper's Nest.)

You are speculating, where you demanded that others should argue based on fact. None of this provides evidence of Oswald ever carrying that bag or that it ever left the TSBD. All it does is showning that Oswald touched a bag made out of TSBD materials, found at the TSBD on the floor where he worked.

.... The two finger and palm prints belonging to Lee Oswald that were found on the CE142 paper bag, which prove beyond all reasonable doubt that Oswald was in possession of that particular paper bag at some point in time.

No it doesn't prove that Oswald ever had that bag in possession. All it shows is that he touched it.

.... The fibers found inside the otherwise empty bag, which were consistent with fibers also present in the blanket that Oswald's rifle was known to have been wrapped in during the time the rifle was being stored in Ruth Paine's garage in Irving.

This is not even evidence at all. There are at least three evidence photos showing the bag and blanket lying on a table next to eachother. In the real world that means that the possibility of contamination destroys whatever evidentary value you think these fibers might have had.

Secondly, we know no such thing that it was "Oswald's rifle" (whatever that means) that was ever wrapped in that blanket or was stored in Ruth Paine's garage. All we really know is that Marina looked in the blanket about a week after returning from New Orleans and she saw the wooden stock of a rifle, which later morphed into "she saw a rifle". After late September 1963 nobody saw a rifle wrapped in that blanket, which means it could have been removed between late September and 11/21/63. Claiming that that rifle, or even "Oswald's rifle" was stored in Ruth Paine's garage until 11/21/63 is assuming "facts" that are not in evidence. As to the "Oswald's rifle" claim, Marina was shown the rifle found on the 6th floor on Friday after the assassination and she couldn't identify it. I thought you were all about dealing with facts instead of speculating?

One more thing; of course we all know that the official narrative makes all sorts of claims that are really not supported by the evidence but put together tells a circumstantial story regardless if it is true or not. If you want to honestly deal with evidence you can not let yourself be guided by a narrative that (IMO) simply isn't credible.

 .... Oswald lies to the police about carrying any large-ish bag to work on 11/22. I can think of no good reason for Oswald to want to lie to the cops about taking a paper bag into the TSBD unless that bag in question contained the Kennedy murder weapon. After all, curtain rods can't very well be considered a deadly weapon, can they?

Who said Oswald lied? Were you there when he was asked or do we now simply rely on the words of his interrogators, despite the fact that they contradict eachother on several points. Can you please define "large-ish bag"? When Oswald is asked if he brought a large bag to the TSBD when in fact he only carried a small bag and thus say "No" is is he lying? Now, things might have been different if he was actually shown the TSBD bag, but that never happened. One can only wonder why!

The fact that you can't figure out why he would lie about bringing a bag into the TSBD, is utterly meaningless. There are a great many things in life I don't understand but that doesn't mean I can just attach some sort of speculative conclusion to that! Of course, your claim that "the bag in question contained the Kennedy murder weapon" is nothing but speculation for which you can not provide a shred of evidence. It was you who was complaining about "wild speculation" right? Go figure.

And when we combine all of the above things with the critical fact that Oswald's own rifle (found on that same 6th floor of the TSBD on Nov. 22) was a weapon that positively was used by someone on that day to fire shots at President Kennedy, it's not too difficult to connect the dots.

When you combine all the above things you end up with a contrived conclusion that in reality doesn't connect any dots at all. You can throw it the "Oswald's rifle" bit in it, but all you are doing there is trying to give more credibility to your speculation and assumption by stating something as fact that you can't even conclusively prove!

And I'll again ask this question, which I've asked previously in forum posts but never have received a reasonable answer (or any answer, for that matter):

On any given day of the year (whether it be 11/22/63 or some other day), who is more likely to use Lee Harvey Oswald's very own Carcano rifle .... Lee Oswald himself or some unknown person?

Which assumes that the Carcano was in fact "Oswald's very own rifle",  when all you have is questionable evidence that Oswald ordered it for himself, you have no evidence he ever received the weapon and you have Oswald being photographed apparently with a rifle that is not the one he allegedly ordered. And all that happened in March 1963. What happened to the rifle in the photos is anybody's guess.

Your reply is disappointing, David

Mr. BALL - Did you usually walk up there together.
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir; we did.
Mr. BALL - Is this the first time that he had ever walked ahead of you?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir...

Means nothing. Frazier chose to stay behind

Mr. BALL - You didn't get out immediately then?

Mr. FRAZIER - No, sir; I was sitting there, say, looked at my watch and somewhere around 7 or 8 minutes until and I saw we had a few minutes and I sat there, and as I say you can see the Freeway, Stemmons Freeway, from the warehouse and also the trains coming back and forth and I was sitting there.

What I was doing--glanced up and watching cars for a minute but I was letting my engine run and getting to charge up my battery, because when you stop and start you have to charge up your battery.

No, I'm not ignoring you, Martin. I'm putting together my answer to you as we speak. Give me a few more minutes.... 

It should be pointed out that while the CTs remain in the majority, few of them doubt that Oswald was at least one of the shooters in DP that day. It's a small cult that believe Oswald was actually innocent.

You might be correct when taking ALL "CTers" into account (beyond just the people who populate the Internet), but in my experience in dealing with many CTers at Internet forums, I would say that the vast majority of conspiracy theorists I have encountered believe that Oswald didn't shoot anybody on 11/22.

Based on my interactions with online CTers, the "Oswald Didn't Shoot Anyone" club certainly isn't merely a "small cult". And based on all the ridiculous "LHO Shot No One" comments that I get nearly every day at my JFK YouTube Channel, it seems to me that almost 100% of those people think that Oswald never fired a shot.