JFK Assassination Forum

Oh goody, the amateur hour continues in the most shallow way possible. That's just sad.

The WC explanation wins by default.

This most pathetic comment sums it up nicely what a fool showing his true colors can be like....

The WC report is nothing more than a prosecutorial presentation of an extremely weak circumstantial case. Even worse, it's a political motivated report to bring about a quick explanation to convince the American public. In other words, it's not worth the paper it was written on!

When, as it did for me, the WC explanation falls short of providing a solid case and turns out to be a mere propaganda tool, it can never be a default, except of course for fools who do not understand the first thing they are actually talking about.

Do you really want to expose yourself as an idiot who can not counter any point I have raised? Have at it.... I can only feel sorry for you

This most pathetic comment sums it up nicely what a fool showing his true colors can be like....

except of course for fools who do not understand the first thing they are actually talking about.

expose yourself as an idiot

Coming from a pathetic loser who always reverts to personal attacks when he can't win an argument, this is funny!

In 35 years of dealing with conspiracy hobbyists, your the first one who I've ever come across who even made an issue about Haygood. What reason would anyone else have had to cook up an explanation for Haygood's movements. You are a cult of one with your fixation about this. Nobody else cares. And nobody else ever will.

I'm not foolish enough to think that an eyewitness recollection trumps forensic evidence.

Neither am I, but in this case there is no forensic evidence to trump. At least not in the real world.

The bag in question had Oswald's palm print on it which would be expected if Oswald carried it cupped in his had as demonstrated by Frazier.

There is no "bag in question". All there is, is a bag that you can not place in Oswald's hand when he walked to the TSBD, except of course for your wishful thinking!

What is typical with eyewitnesses is they get some things right and some things wrong. To determine which they got right and which they got wrong we need to look at how the eyewitness account squares with other evidence.

What "other evidence" would that be? You really need to stop thinking that the bag allegedly found at the 6th floor is somehow the same one Oswald carried on Friday morning, but that won't stop you making up your own reality, right?

and fibers matching the rifle blanket found in the bag,

There you go again with the same old fibers BS. You really have a problem understanding reality, don't you. At best fibers can be similar, but they can not be matched to any particular item. Also, when a bag and a blanket are placed next to each other, there is a serious possibility of cross contamination. In this case the bag and blanket were photographed next to each other at the DPD office and at the FBI lab. In what kind of analysis do you dismiss or ignore possible cross contamination of evidence?

I find it far more compelling to believe the bag Frazier saw and the one found by the sniper's nest are one and the same.

Of course you do. Why look at the actual facts when you can make up your own little story. After all, what you believe must be true, right?

You on the other hand prefer to believe that Frazier's account was spot on and that there were two different bags. Obviously, you can't see how unlikely that would be. 

The likelihood of Frazier's observation about the way Oswald carried the bag being correct is far greater than you would like it to be. You are trying to put a bag, which you can't even prove ever left the TSBD, in Oswald's hand regardless of what the only witness who actually saw it says. I bet you can't even explain how unlikely my opinion is.....

The above paragraph is an example of how one goes about weighing evidence.

Nope, it's a prime example of how you try to fit the evidence to a preconceived conclusion.

I will gladly put my analysis of the situation against yours any day.

Isn't it funny how some people say one thing and their actually actions demonstrate the opposite?

You are not analyzing anything. You are making up stories that fit your own flawed opinions. That's why you are completely unable to defend any of the BS claims you post.

   "Hold any water"? Why do you think the Officer Haygood making a 2nd trip into the railroad yard was suddenly cooked up after 62+ years? It is in response to my have attached a rock solid 12:38 PM Timeline to the Darnell still frame showing Officer Harkness, + Buddy Walthers, + The Alleged Officer Haygood. I have been banging away at the "That Ain't Haygood" issue for 2 yrs now. My recent discoveries of the documented Officer Harkness 12:36 radio transmission, and Inspector Sawyer NOT arriving at the TSBD until 12:35 PM, are the straws that broke this camel's back. "That Ain't Haygood" = Conspiracy has 'em scrambling.

That object is definitely not a motorcycle cop's glove.