Recent Posts

Recent Posts

Pages: 1 ... 6 7 [8] 9 10
71
JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion And Debate / Re: That Is Not Officer Haygood = Conspiracy! Prove Me Wrong Challenge
« Last post by Royell Storing on Yesterday at 09:25:14 PM »
Quote from: John Corbett on Yesterday at 08:05:28 PM
You thinking is bassackwards. Just because there is no evidence Haygood went back for a second trip to the rail yard (other than the film in question) you conclude he didn't go back. Did you ever consider the possibility that the reason he didn't testify to going back was he was not asked about it. There is a principle you need to understand. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. It's an important principle.

   The only reason the Haygood 2nd trip through the train yard was suddenly dreamed up after 62+ years, is because I conclusively proved that the Darnell film segment showing Haygood with Officer Harkness and Buddy Walters had a timestamp of 12:38 PM. With Haygood having made a 12:35 transmission from his motorcycle, this made Haygood being with Harkness and Walters impossible. This mandated that Haygood 2nd trip into the train yard. Like I said previously, if Haygood was making that 2nd trip into the trainyard in order to reach the TSBD Houston St loading dock, why did he go all the way back to the string of passenger train cars? When we 1st see this cop on the Darnell Film, he is deeper inside the train yard than Roger Craig and Buddy Walthers. He is even at the very end of the train cars. And if you look at a good copy of the Darnell film, this cop is moving DOWNWARD/toward Elm St  from that string of train cars. This is how extremely close to that string of train cars this alleged cop is when we see him for the very 1st time. If this motorcycle cop is heading for the TSBD Houston St loading dock as is claimed, he did not need to go this extremely deep into the train yard. That string of train cars is well above the TSBD. And why didn't this cop just use his motorcycle to arrive at the TSBD Houston St loading dock? Why? Because this "cop" did Not have a motorcycle. "That Ain't Haygood". 
72
JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion And Debate / Re: The Brown Paper Bag
« Last post by Martin Weidmann on Yesterday at 09:11:58 PM »
Quote from: John Corbett on Yesterday at 08:37:12 PM
I'm not foolish enough to think that an eyewitness recollection trumps forensic evidence. 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. 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. In some cases, the other evidence will corroborate. In other cases, it will refute it. In still other cases, there might be no evidence which either refutes nor corroborates the eyewitness account. In those instances, the logical conclusion is that the witness might be right or might be wrong. We have corroboration for Frazier's account that Oswald carried the rifle cupped in his palm. There is no evidence that either corroborates or refutes whether or not the bag Frazier saw Oswald carry into the TSBD stuck up above his shoulder. Given that the bag not only had Oswald's palm print on it where it should be and fibers matching the rifle blanket found in the bag, 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. 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 above paragraph is an example of how one goes about weighing evidence. I will gladly put my analysis of the situation against yours any day.

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?



Btw, I just borrowed this from Mytton. I'm sure he won't mind!

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.

73
JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion And Debate / Re: The Brown Paper Bag
« Last post by John Corbett on Yesterday at 08:37:12 PM »
Quote from: Martin Weidmann on Yesterday at 07:41:02 PM
Oh poor Johnny is still misrepresenting the evidence, as per usual.

You do know that the three photos of Frazier holding a bag are stills from a video interview in which the bags were constructed. It clearly shows that the bag Frazier saw came close to the one he is holding in the first picture. I'm sure you don't like that, but there it is.....


And yet, Frazier still says that's the way Oswald carried the package. So, perhaps the actual package was even shorter than the 24 inch estimate!

There is no proof whatsoever that Linnie Mae ever really said that. This information - and you know this - comes from an FBI FD 302 report, so it was the FBI agent who claimed she said it. To this day, FD 302 reports are for internal use and frequently contain incorrect information.

Not that this would stop you misrepresenting the facts, right?

I'm not foolish enough to think that an eyewitness recollection trumps forensic evidence. 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. 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. In some cases, the other evidence will corroborate. In other cases, it will refute it. In still other cases, there might be no evidence which either refutes nor corroborates the eyewitness account. In those instances, the logical conclusion is that the witness might be right or might be wrong. We have corroboration for Frazier's account that Oswald carried the rifle cupped in his palm. There is no evidence that either corroborates or refutes whether or not the bag Frazier saw Oswald carry into the TSBD stuck up above his shoulder. Given that the bag not only had Oswald's palm print on it where it should be and fibers matching the rifle blanket found in the bag, 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. 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 above paragraph is an example of how one goes about weighing evidence. I will gladly put my analysis of the situation against yours any day.
74
JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion And Debate / Re: The Brown Paper Bag
« Last post by Martin Weidmann on Yesterday at 08:14:13 PM »
Quote from: Jack Nessan on Yesterday at 08:03:43 PM
JC: How about Oswald's palm print on the underside of the barrel. That could only have been placed there with the rifle disassembled.
 
MW: And now you are going to tell us you know exactly when the rifle was disassembled, right?
-------------

Nice John, Weideman finally admits it was LHOs print on his rifle and it is a fact that the FBI matched the bullets and fragments to the rifle. Who cares when he disassembled it. The print proves LHO did disassemble the rifle. His rifle.

By admission, LHO shot JFK. What is left to know?

Oh boy, another LN who doesn't understand what has been written and makes up his own "reality".
75
JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion And Debate / Re: The Brown Paper Bag
« Last post by Michael Capasse on Yesterday at 08:06:43 PM »
Quote from: John Mytton on Yesterday at 04:01:53 PM
::)

Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Cadigan, can you state your full name and position?
Mr. CADIGAN. James C. Cadigan, special agent of the FBI, assigned as an examiner of questioned documents in the laboratory here in Washington.
----------------------------
Mr. EISENBERG. Can you tell us how you conducted that examination?
Mr. CADIGAN. Yes.
I first saw this paper bag on November 23, 1963, in the FBI laboratory, along with the sample of paper and tape from the Texas School Book Depository obtained November 22, 1963, which is FBI Exhibit D-1.

JohnM

Yes,  James Cadigan:
"....There were no marks on this bag that I could say were caused by that rifle or any other rifle or any other given instrument."
76
JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion And Debate / Re: That Is Not Officer Haygood = Conspiracy! Prove Me Wrong Challenge
« Last post by John Corbett on Yesterday at 08:05:28 PM »
Quote from: Royell Storing on Yesterday at 04:40:50 PM
   My mind is "open". But I do need fact(s). The Officer Haygood making an on foot 2nd trip back inside the Railroad Yard has absolutely Nothing to support it. Nothing. And on top of that, Haygood himself Never testified, said, or wrote that he went back inside the Railroad Yard a 2nd time AFTER he returned to his motorcycle parked at the Elm St curb. The Haygood 2nd trip stuff has no factual foundation.

You thinking is bassackwards. Just because there is no evidence Haygood went back for a second trip to the rail yard (other than the film in question) you conclude he didn't go back. Did you ever consider the possibility that the reason he didn't testify to going back was he was not asked about it. There is a principle you need to understand. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. It's an important principle.
77
JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion And Debate / Re: The Brown Paper Bag
« Last post by Jack Nessan on Yesterday at 08:03:43 PM »
JC: How about Oswald's palm print on the underside of the barrel. That could only have been placed there with the rifle disassembled.
 
MW: And now you are going to tell us you know exactly when the rifle was disassembled, right?
-------------

Nice John, Weideman finally admits it was LHOs print on his rifle and it is a fact that the FBI matched the bullets and fragments to the rifle. Who cares when he disassembled it. The print proves LHO did disassemble the rifle. His rifle.

By admission, LHO shot JFK. What is left to know?
78
JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion And Debate / Re: That Is Not Officer Haygood = Conspiracy! Prove Me Wrong Challenge
« Last post by Zeon Mason on Yesterday at 07:47:47 PM »
I’ve never seen anybody who carries one glove rolled up like JohnM showed, but I guess it’s possible. Maybe  I need to get out and about more often and observe police officers in action. I should have been able seen this in 65 years and I’ve seen a lot of motorcycle riders in my area maybe I wasn’t paying attention and missed the rolled up glove detail.

Those other barehanded cops, is there any indication where on their person they are carrying their pair of gloves? Probably the side pants pocket budging would be an indication the gloves were in the pocket which is most likely place.

So One Glove Cop taking  one glove off the hand so he could more quickly remove his revolver  from holster, if necessary , may be a plausable explanation , however  the firing of the revolver as trained in cop school would be to use both hands , so its sort of odd to carry around the glove rolled up the other hand when it would have been easier to just put it in a pants pocket, thus no possible interference.

I’m not sure if this particular cop  followed the standard police 2 handed method of shooting or if he was a Clint Eastwood fan and practiced to shoot with just one hand.

Until JohnM can find another cop with one glove off ( and rolled up ) and one glove on, Royell still gets credit for discovering at least an interesting phenomenon ( along with the mystery car parked in the no parking spot).

Without CTs, ( and Skeptics ) it would get rather dull here at JFK Forum just agreeing all the time with LNs lol.
79
JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion And Debate / Re: The Brown Paper Bag
« Last post by Martin Weidmann on Yesterday at 07:41:02 PM »
Quote from: John Mytton on Yesterday at 04:33:17 PM
Thanks for posting this photo, but I'm afraid it's backfiring badly. And in fact whoever did this demonstration was setting out to deceive.

For a start Frazier who is taller than 6 foot can barely hold a 24 inch package under his arm and his hand isn't cupped because the package is being held by the tips of his fingers. Look at the second photo and Frazier is showing a cupped hand!! Ouch!

Secondly Oswald was at least 3 inches shorter and he definitely wasn't built like a gorilla with extrrraa long arms.

Thirdly, Linnie Mae estimated the package at the testimony to be 28.5 inches but quickly interjected that her previous estimate was smaller. Why was she so keen to shrink the package?

Mrs. RANDLE. And this goes this way, right? Do you want me to hold it?
Mr. BALL. Yes.
Mrs. RANDLE. About this.
Mr. BALL. Is that about right? That is 28 1/2 inches.
Mrs. RANDLE. I measured 27 last time.
Mr. BALL. You measured 27 once before?
Mrs. RANDLE. Yes, sir.

But funnily enough and before Linnie Mae realized her brother was in potentially serious trouble, her initial estimate was;

RANDLE stated that about 7:15 a.m., November 22, 1963, she looked out of a window of her residence and observed LEE HARVEY OSWALD walking up her driveway and saw him put a long brown package, approximately 3 feet by 6 inches

JohnM

Oh poor Johnny is still misrepresenting the evidence, as per usual.

You do know that the three photos of Frazier holding a bag are stills from a video interview in which the bags were constructed. It clearly shows that the bag Frazier saw came close to the one he is holding in the first picture. I'm sure you don't like that, but there it is.....


Quote
For a start Frazier who is taller than 6 foot can barely hold a 24 inch package under his arm and his hand isn't cupped because the package is being held by the tips of his fingers. Look at the second photo and Frazier is showing a cupped hand!! Ouch!

Secondly Oswald was at least 3 inches shorter and he definitely wasn't built like a gorilla with extrrraa long arms.

And yet, Frazier still says that's the way Oswald carried the package. So, perhaps the actual package was even shorter than the 24 inch estimate!

Btw, Frazier told FBI agent Odum on 12/02/63 that he "observed that Oswald had his package under his right arm, one end of the package being under his armpit and the other end apparently held with his right fingers". You are of course aware of this, right?

Quote
But funnily enough and before Linnie Mae realized her brother was in potentially serious trouble, her initial estimate was;

RANDLE stated that about 7:15 a.m., November 22, 1963, she looked out of a window of her residence and observed LEE HARVEY OSWALD walking up her driveway and saw him put a long brown package, approximately 3 feet by 6 inches


There is no proof whatsoever that Linnie Mae ever really said that. This information - and you know this - comes from an FBI FD 302 report, so it was the FBI agent who claimed she said it. To this day, FD 302 reports are for internal use and frequently contain incorrect information.

Not that this would stop you misrepresenting the facts, right?

80
JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion And Debate / Re: The Brown Paper Bag
« Last post by Martin Weidmann on Yesterday at 07:30:54 PM »
Quote from: John Corbett on Yesterday at 03:54:08 PM
How about Oswald's palm print on the underside of the barrel. That could only have been placed there with the rifle disassembled. The we have the fibers in the bag that matched the blanket Oswald stored his rifle in when it was in Paine's garage. That ties the rifle to the bag and the bag could only hold a disassembled rifle without sticking out the top of the bag.

As previously noted, you are really, really bad at weighing evidence. That being the case, this hobby doesn't seem to suit you. Maybe you should consider stamp collecting as an alternative.

How about Oswald's palm print on the underside of the barrel. That could only have been placed there with the rifle disassembled.

And now you are going to tell us you know exactly when the rifle was disassembled, right?

we have the fibers in the bag that matched the blanket Oswald stored his rifle in when it was in Paine's garage.

Talking about being bad at weighing evidence! You have no evidence whatsoever that a rifle was stored in Ruth Paine's garage at any time after late September 1963.

And as far as the fibers go.... there is no such thing as fibers matching a particular object. Besides, you have already been told that evidence photos show the bag and the blanket lying next to each other on a table, so there was a real possibility of cross contamination. Ignoring reality seems to be a requirement for your kind of "weighing evidence".

That being the case, this hobby doesn't seem to suit you. Maybe you should consider stamp collecting as an alternative.

Is it in the LN handbook to conduct yourself in an arrogant manner while throwing childish insults around that only make you seem weak?

By the way, it was very impressive to see how you completely avoided to respond to the substance of the post you were replying to. Why was that? Could it be you had no credible reply?
Pages: 1 ... 6 7 [8] 9 10