JFK Assassination Forum

I didn't say they were of by six minutes. Based on what Bowles said they could have been. But I actually do not believe they were six minutes off.
They give Bowley's radio call at 1:17. If the timestamp was off by six minutes, Bowley would have made the call at 1:11, which is not possible because the drive from the school took 13 minutes. I believe it's likely that Bowley really made his call at around 1:14 (real time), which would make the timestamps off by roughly 3 minutes,

And still no answer about Roberts..... Why am I not surpirsed?

I'm not trying to avoid any discussion on Earlene Roberts.  Unlike you, I do not wish to argue over things just for the sake of arguing.  We've discussed Roberts a million times.  Maybe a week from now I'll want to argue with you some more.  Right now?  No interest.  I've made my points.

So two minutes for "this" clock, plus two minutes for "that" clock, plus two minutes for the "other" clock means the timestamps are off by six minutes.  Got it.
 

I didn't say they were of by six minutes. Based on what Bowles said they could have been. But I actually do not believe they were six minutes off.
They give Bowley's radio call at 1:17. If the timestamp was off by six minutes, Bowley would have made the call at 1:11, which is not possible because the drive from the school took 13 minutes. I believe it's likely that Bowley really made his call at around 1:14 (real time), which would make the timestamps off by roughly 3 minutes,

And still no answer about Roberts..... Why am I not surpirsed?

"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." -- J.C. Bowles

For some unknown reason (wait, I do know the reason after all), you keep wanting to stretch this "minute or so apart" to mean six or seven minutes.

No, for some reason you are unwilling to accept that between the City Hall clock's "official" time and the timestamps there are three different clocks involved which all could easily be two minutes off compared to eachother.

Now, let's get back to Roberts. Are you going to tell me why she is such a special witness?

Marina mad a logical inference that the rifle was still in the blanket. I'm not surprised this escapes you.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.
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.
That conclusion is based on common sense. I guess that leaves you out.
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.
I can't explain your false premise.
You presented the polygraph as evidence Frazier accurately recalled the length of the package. A polygraph measures honesty, not accuracy.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.
As I already said, I can't dumb it down enough for you to understand. I guess that's a failure on my part. No comment from me is even necessary at this point.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.One print is all that is necessary to prove Oswald handled the bag that was found next to the sniper's nest.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
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.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. You can lead a horse to water...Try reading for comprehension. Did you miss the qualifier BY ITSELF.?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. 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. I don't have to pretend.You are the last person I would want schooling me. You are at the head of the dunce class.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.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.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.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.Stop lying.That's called projection.

If you want me to reply to this mess, clean up the post.

On second thought don't even bother. I am not wasting my time in going over the same lies and assumptions every time.

All this constant BS about "logical inference" when it is in fact a mere assumption, the BS about "matching" fibers, the idiotic conclusions based on "common sense" claims and massive lies, like that the paper bag was not folded up when it was found (when the WC actually said it was) and your bogus claim that I consider the polygraph as evidence that Frazier accurately recalled the length of the package (when in fact he told to truth about how he saw Oswald carry in the cup of his hand and under his armpit) is more enough for me to conclude that you are a complete idiot who couldn't tell the truth if it saved his life. We're done.

Hey dumb ass... I did indeed have pizza with Buell Frazier last November.

Did you? All we have is your word for it and that's not worth much.

I already told you that I won't disclose to Kooks like you what was said until I have permission.  I am friends with Dave Perry, who set up the pizza dinner with Buell Frazier.  Perry and Frazier are really good friends and I won't disrespect Dave Perry by running around posting what we talked about for those two hours.

Then perhaps you should have said nothing at all instead of boasting about the meeting!

Over the years I have met and spoken with a number of people directly involved in this case and have never said anything about it. But then, I only want to find out for myself if the case against Oswald is solid or not and do not have an ego to validate.

Hey dumb ass... I did indeed have pizza with Buell Frazier last November.

Did you? All we have is your word for it and that's not worth much.

I have no need to lie.  Also, I have pics.  Not that you'll ever see them.

As for your "ego" comment, you're being foolish.  I didn't speak of having dinner with Buell Frazier until it was necessary.  I posted the two affidavits where Frazier acknowledges that the rifle was in the car.  You called them fakes.  That prompted me to inform you that I've already made an attempt to verify.

Like you, I simply wanted to verify for myself (in this case, the authenticity of the two affidavits).  If I had plans to speak of what was discussed during this pizza dinner with Buell, then I would have asked him (and Dave Perry) right then and there if I could discuss (on various internet forums and Facebook groups) what we talked about.

How many times are you going to comment on something which you know nothing about?