JFK Assassination Forum

Question for Martin W.:

From your own personal point-of-view (i.e., as a person who has great doubts about the guilt of Lee Harvey Oswald) .... do you think it's possible to come up with a "reasonable and sensible" scenario that explains every piece of evidence in the JFK and Tippit cases WITHOUT having to resort to any of the things I mentioned in my last post?

Those things being: Fantasy, wild speculation, and tons of planted evidence and coerced witnesses.

Good luck in your efforts. For I don't think it's even remotely possible to accomplish that task.

  Nutters fail everyday with an "irrefutable mountain of evidence" that "points to him."

No, it's what a post looks like that was written by someone (John Corbett) who actually knows how to properly and sensibly assess and evaluate the evidence in the JFK case.

Incredibly, though, many conspiracy theorists seem to think that ALL OF THIS WEALTH OF EVIDENCE can actually exist in the JFK and Tippit murder cases and yet still end up with Lee Oswald being innocent of shooting anyone on 11/22/63.

But reasonable and sensible people who live here in the World of Reality just can't stretch their imaginations nearly that far. Because people like John Corbett and I prefer to remain in this universe of reality instead of wandering into the CT world of fantasy, wild speculation, and tons of planted evidence and coerced witnesses.

Isn't it remarkable that even the biggest fool considers himself to be a reasonable and sensible person.

Corbett is making a big issue of the fact that Oswald went to Irving on Thursday instead of Friday, but he hasn't got a clue what was going through Oswald's mind.
He hasn't got a shred of evidence to show there was a rifle stored in Ruth Paine's garage on 11/21/63. He merely assumes there was.
He has a heavy duty bag with a partial print on it, made and found at the TSBD but he can not prove that bag ever left the TSBD or was carried by Oswald holding a rifle. He merely assumes it was.
He ignores the fact that the best witness who saw the bag passed a polygraph while dismissing the heavy duty bag as the one he saw. What he did see was a flimpsy bag that Oswald carried in the cup of his hand and under his armpit.

So, without a shred of evidence he jumps to conclusions while dismissing the testimony of a witness that contradicts him.

And then you have the audacity to claim he is "properly and sensibly assessing and evaluating the evidence". Pathetic!

Oswald's strange behaviour.

Oswald was first seen by Linnie Mae Randle walking straight to Buell's car and placing a package made of a "heavy type of wrapping paper" on the back seat of Frazier's car. This is incriminating for a start, why would Oswald go straight to Frazier's car and hide the package, if it was just his lunch and as he said he kept it with him in the front seat on the way to the Depository, he would simply hold his light lunch as he waited for Frazier.
And besides it's rude to access someone's property without them being there or without permission, Frazier was doing Oswald a favour, a favour which Oswald didn't even contribute a single penny for the gas used. What a scumbag!

Mr. BALL - I see. Did he pay for any part of the trip, buy your gasoline?
Mr. FRAZIER - No, sir; he didn't.



And as for the ridiculous notion that Randle couldn't see Oswald from her elevated position because of the garage wall, well that's just absurd because the garage wall was made of slats with open areas, so if anybody wants to believe that Randle couldn't see through open air then you're to far gone to reason with.



Mr. BALL. He put the package in the car.
Mrs. RANDLE. Yes, sir; I don't know if he put it on the seat or on the floor but I just know he put it in the back.

Frazier corroborates Randle's recollection when he saw the what was obviously an unwieldly package on the back seat of his car.

Mr. FRAZIER - Let's see, when I got in the car I have a kind of habit of glancing over my shoulder and so at that time I noticed there was a package laying on the back seat, I didn't pay too much attention and I said, "What's the package, Lee?"
And he said, "Curtain rods," and I said, "Oh, yes, you told me you was going to bring some today."
That is the reason, the main reason he was going over there that Thursday afternoon when he was to bring back some curtain rods, so I didn't think any more about it when he told me that.

Oswald's lies

As we see above, Frazier saw the package on the back seat. But according to Fritz, Oswald had the package with him in the front seat, so who to believe, Frazier or the double murderer Oswald??

Mr. FRITZ. I asked him where he had the sack---his lunch, and he said he had it in the front seat with him.
Mr. BALL. Did you ask him if he put any sack in the back seat?
Mr. FRITZ. He said he did not.

Mr. BALL. What did you tell him?
Mr. FRITZ. I told him he had a package and put it in the back seat and it was a package about that long and it was curtain rods. He said he didn't have any kind of a package but his lunch. He said he had his lunch and that is all he had, and Mr. Frazier told me that he got out of the car with that package, he saw him go toward the building with this long package.
I asked him, I said, "Did you go toward the building carrying a long package?"
He said, "No. I didn't carry anything but my lunch."

And this was corroborated by the Postal Inspector, who had nothing to do with the Dallas Police and if you believe that they both got together to make up stories then as I said, you are too far gone to reason with!

Mr. HOLMES.
---------
"You didn't put it over in the back seat?"
"No." He said he wouldn't have done that.
"Well, someone said the fellow that hauled you said you had a long package which you said was curtain rods you were taking to somebody at work and you laid it over on the back seat."
He said, "Well, they was just mistaken. That must have been some other time he picked me up."
That is all he said about it.

Then the contents of the bag was raised, Frazier said Oswald told him it was curtain rods, but Fritz said Oswald told him he had his lunch. Again who to believe Frazier or the double murderer Oswald??

Mr. BALL. What did you tell him?
Mr. FRITZ.
--------------
I asked him, I said, "Did you go toward the building carrying a long package?"
He said, "No. I didn't carry anything but my lunch."

Corroborated by Holmes!

Mr. HOLMES. Asked him if he brought a sack out when he got in the car with this young fellow that hauled him and he said, "Yes."
"What was in the sack?"
"Well, my lunch."

Frazier recalls that Oswald always brought his lunch in a little paper sack, except for the 22nd. The day Oswald assassinated the President!

Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir. When he rode with me, I say he always brought lunch except that one day on November 22 he didn't bring his lunch that day.
Mr. BALL - But every other day he brought a lunch?
Mr. FRAZIER - Right, when he rode with me.
Mr. BALL - Would he bring it in a paper sack or what kind of a container?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir; like a little paper sack you get out of a grocery store, you have seen these little old sacks that you could buy, sandwich bag, sack.

Conclusion

Oswald didn't want to stand around holding his packaged rifle so immediately accessed Frazier's car to hide it.
Oswald lied about where he stashed his rifle on the back seat of Frazier's car.
Oswald lied about having his lunch with him on the front seat.
Oswald lied about Curtain rods.
Oswald lied about his lunch.

Whenever the rifle or it's packaging came up during the interrogation, Oswald lied! He also lied about ordering, purchasing and possessing the rifle, he lied about living at Neely street(the location of the backyard photos) and he lied about the backyard photos.





JohnM

What are you babbling about?
The search function is there so no one has to remember anything.

Since you need even more schooling here's how it works, you enter in the name of the person who made the posts, I.E. you! And then put in the word to be searched by the person who made the posts I.E. Your posts mentioning Vincent Baxter. Which takes all of 30 seconds!
This crazy belief that I have a history of your posts stored in my brain/computer when all I had to do was use the "search" function is just further proof of your deluded narcissism, you're just not that important, and in fact you're just another piece of crap that's stuck under my shoe!

JohnM

Your desperate attempts to defend yourself only prove what is obvious; Vincent Baxter is your sock puppet and you got caught. Period?

This crazy belief that I have a history of your posts stored in my brain/computer

There is nothing crazy about it. You have my history stored and those of many others. You are paranoid and obsessed. That has been obvious for a very long time.

And regardless of all your denials, I have been living rent free in your head for many years and your biggest problem is that you can't get rid of it. I feel sorry for you!

Btw the question that still needs to be answered is; why are you involved in this at all if you have nothing to do with Vincent Baxter?

You've never been the sharpest tool in the shed, but you yourself replied to Vincent Baxter in 2022, check you history. Vincent joined in 2019. You are seriously the dumbest person to ever post on this forum!



It literally took me a minute to use the "search" function at the top of the page to locate all the necessary posts that I used to humiliate you. You are not only the dumbest person to ever post on this Forum, you are the Dumbest person to ever live on this planet!

JohnM

Do you really think I am just as fanatical as you and remember every post? The mere fact that you produced one within minutes tells us just how obsessed you are with this kind of crap.
Try to get a life.

I agreed that Baxter joined in 2019 and that I didn't check his actual posts. But for an idiot like you that will never be enough.

The fact remains that Baxter showed up exactly on the day his name was mentioned and you are the only one who is trying to explain/justify it. And that is all anybody needs to know.

Oh, btw.... your pathetic childish insults are telling more about you than me. I'm laughing about them and you seem really really angry. Now why is that.... because of Vincent Baxter? HAHAHAHAHAHA