JFK Assassination Forum

  Pick & choose. Pick and choose.
an irrefutable pile of garbage

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.

And yet you have done absolutely nothing to prove that the verbal timestamps throughout are wrong.

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.

Markham had to wait for traffic (most likely Tatum) to pass and by the time Tatum passed, the shooting had already taken place.

She "risked missing her bus" so that she wouldn't get run over by Tatum.

This is my opinion, which is what you asked before; unless you somehow believe that I am inside Markham's head and was supposed to give you a definite on what she was thinking.

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?

Speaking of the jacket, forget CE-162.  Forget Tenth & Patton.  Forget the gunning down of a police officer.  Forget any jacket found under a car behind the Texaco station.

On the afternoon of the murder, Roberts told a reporter that Oswald left in a "short grey coat".  She testified that he was zipping it up as he went out the door.

Johnny Brewer, in a December 1963 affidavit, stated that Oswald was wearing a "brown sport shirt" on Jefferson Blvd. and made no mention of any jacket.  During his Warren Commission testimony, Brewer described what Oswald was wearing in more detail, even mentioning that the shirt was untucked.  When directly asked if Oswald was wearing any jacket, Brewer replied "No".

Even if it was rainbow-colored, why did Oswald ditch the jacket he was wearing when he left the rooming house by the time he was seen on Jefferson by Brewer?  Why can't the Kooks ever make a reasonable reply to that question instead of the lame-ass reply that Earlene Roberts was blind and Oswald must have been zipping up a button-up shirt?

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...

       (1) That Aint Haygood, and (2) The not on the Weigman Film "Car". These 2 Evidence Based Issues are Brand New. This is what has you sticking around. Only proving, "With the good, comes the bad".

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...

Thanks for sharing that bit of history. It's a shame he died so relatively young.

You didn't ask a question. You stated an obvious fact.

No, I said you would have to believe there was a rifle stored at Ruth Paine's garage on 11/21/63.

It's pretty obvious that you believe exactly that without being able to provide a shred of proof for it.

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.

"Longevity on Porous Surfaces
Porous materials, such as paper, cardboard, untreated wood, and fabric, absorb the oils and sweat from fingerprints, which can make the prints less visible initially but sometimes more stable within the material itself. On such surfaces, fingerprints may fade within hours or days under normal conditions, especially if exposed to moisture, heat, or physical handling."

If you don't like my source, you are free to provide your own.

Oh, I agree that prints don't last long on certain materials. But in this case there is a partial print left from carrying the package in the cup of his hand, and no print for picking up the parcel from the backseat of Frazier's car, only a moment sooner. Kinda strange, don't you think? How did Oswald manage to pick up that package from the backseat of the car and leave no print? And how did he manage to fold the bag in the sniper's nest and leave no print?

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

If only you could prove that one witness accurately remembered what he saw.

Don't have to. He passed a polygraph!

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

[Oswald on the other hand did leave prints on the bag on the 6th floor so we know he handled it.[/b]

If only you could prove that bag ever left the TSBD to begin with.

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

Since he left his rifle behind, I see no reason he would be concerned about doing the same with the bag.

Just one more reason for not using a paper bag! If it was Oswald who left the rifle there, he would have been far better off using a duffel bag from Ruth Paine's garage to conceal the rifle in.
That way he could have actually walked out of the building with the rifle. None of it makes any sense.

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?

So why did you cite it as evidence Frazier was accurate in his description of the bag.

Because, even if the polygraph is far from perfect, it doesn't mean it's worthless. Frazier passed the test and you instantly started to look for ways to rather stupidly explain away the result by claiming Frazier could have lied while believing he spoke the truth. You don't even understand just how lame that is? The fact remains that Frazier passed the test and that was enough to cause massive panic by Lt Day!

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

That's why the people doing the polygraph test establish a baseline for how nervous the person is to begin with. They look for spikes in the three measurements for indications of deceit.

So what? That's what they would have done with Frazier as well, right?

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.

I know he got the description of the bag wrong and still passed the polygraph which indicates to me he believed his mistaken recollection about the size of the bag.

No. You don't know anything of the kind. You just don't want to accept that he got the description of the bag right and thus passed the test.

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

As best he remembered it. That doesn't establish he remembered what he saw correctly. It's very common for eyewitnesses to get details wrong, especially when the detail wouldn't have seemed important at the time it was observed.

It doesn't mean he remembered it incorrectly.
[/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.

Again... there is no way you can prove that the bag from the 6th floor was the same one Oswald carried. It's all wishful thinking on your part and that is what is causing you to question and doubt anything that destroys your silly opinion. You can be a stubborn as you like, but that still doesn't make you right and it never will.

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.

If I have to chose between Frazier's real time observations and statement and your opinion you always lose!

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.

A lie is when you knowingly tell a falsehood. I'm sure Frazier honestly believes what he said he saw. He just didn't accurately remember what he saw. Very common for eyewitnesses to do that. That's been explained to you many times but you refuse to accept that.

Classic LN If a witness says something I don't like, the witness must be wrong, because my opinion always supersedes what somebody say who was actually there and saw what happened.

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

You're right. I don't accept your opinion, exactly because it's an opinion for which there isn't a shred of proof. A print on a paper bag made from TSBD materials and found at the TSBD where Oswald worked proves nothing and it certainly doesn't prove that this was the bag Oswald carried. You desperately want it to be, just like Ltd Day did on day one, but the facts are clear and the one who doesn't want to accept them is you.

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?

No I haven't. Do you have a reliable source for those reports?

So you don't know the evidence! And yes, I have a reliable source; I have the reports themself! They are available on line. Do some research before you make comments!

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.

Because the accounts of people who were there often conflict with the forensic evidence. I place far more faith in the latter.

No, you place more faith in your opinion which you somehow incorrectly consider to be "forensic evidence".

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