This is how the rifle was gotten into the building

[Walt Cakebread]

Thankfully, Mr Lidell's hopeless sophisms are reduced to irrelevance by what Ms Mary Hall saw:

A long box being delivered to the Depository from a pawn shop/junkyard truck the morning of the assassination.

Can you imagine how intensely Mr Lidell must wish Mr Oswald had been seen bringing such a box into work that morning? 

Let's also note that the 'Honest Joe's' truck was again noticed minutes before the assassination by Mr A. J. Millican.

It's pretty obvious what happened:

The rifle was brought into the building in a long box; shortly before the assassination, the empty box was picked up. Leaving only the rifle in the building. 

A long box being delivered to the Depository from a pawn shop/junkyard truck the morning of the assassination.

pawn shop / junkyard truck ??    Please don't add information that is not in evidence....  "Honest Joe's "pawn shop" was not a " junkyard". ( although I believe the shop it was crammed with all sorts of junk)

As I recall Honest Joe had a station wagon or panel truck with the name of his business emblazoned on the sides of the vehicle.   And I believe he had a 50 caliber machine gun mounted on top of the vehicle.   It was a very distinctive vehicle and it would have attracted Mrs Hall's attention.

[Alan Ford]

A long box being delivered to the Depository from a pawn shop/junkyard truck the morning of the assassination.

pawn shop / junkyard truck ??    Please don't add information that is not in evidence....  "Honest Joe's "pawn shop" was not a " junkyard". ( although I believe the shop it was crammed with all sorts of junk)

As I recall Honest Joe had a station wagon or panel truck with the name of his business emblazoned on the sides of the vehicle.   And I believe he had a 50 caliber machine gun mounted on top of the vehicle.   It was a very distinctive vehicle and it would have attracted Mrs Hall's attention.

Cool down, Mr Cakebread! I was basing my remarks on the following quote from the Dallas History Forum which Mr Lee Forman posted on the Education Forum:

"Roy, Honest Joe's Pawn Shop was a large overgrown junk yard that called itself a pawn shop located not far from the old Central Fire Station. My dad spent the last 20 year of his life as a dispatcher at that fire station. He died in 1966. I visited the fire station and Honest Joe's many times in my youth."

Did you ever enter Honest Joe's Pawn Shop yourself during the Sixties and see what was out back?

 

[Richard Smith]

Owning an "almost identical rifle" means nothing in terms of Buell Frazier's estimate of the length of the package that Oswald carried to the TSBD.

Did Buell Frazier disassemble the rifle and place it in a paper bag?

Did he hold up the package and ask a dozen people to estimate it's length?

Did he carry the package cupped in his hand and under his armpit (the 3 ways it could have been positioned against his body): subsequently asking the same dozen people (50 feet behind him) if they could see the package above his shoulder?

If Buell Frazier did not do all those things: Mere ownership and personal observation of a Carcano rifle does not enhance the accuracy of his estimate that occurred years before.

It's unfortunate for these nuts that even "Mr. Oswald" denied carrying any curtain rods or long package.  So Oswald himself takes issue with Frazier's claim.  According to Oswald he had no curtain rods or long package.  Just his lunch.  So Frazier's estimate of the size of a long bag is pointless unless you believe Oswald is lying for some unspecified reason about the curtain rods/long bag that Frazier indicates that he was carrying.  And it obviously makes no sense at all for Oswald to lie about carrying some curtain rods that morning.  In fact, it would have helped his situation to direct the police to that bag. 

It's humorous that CTers cling to Frazier's estimate not realizing that it actually implicates Oswald because he takes issue with Frazier's claim.  If Oswald is lying about the bag, logic dictates that he does so because he had something to hide.  I wonder what?  Maybe we should consult Sherlock Holmes.  LOL. What we are left with is that Oswald made an unusual trip to the location where he kept a rifle, that rifle is not found there later in the day, carried a long bag that he told Frazier contained curtain rods, told Frazier he did not have his lunch that day, but then denies to the police he owned a rifle, carried any curtain rods or long bag but had only his lunch.  In direct contradiction to what Frazier indicates happened.  And a long bag is found at the crime scene with Oswald's prints on them.  That bag is measured which confirms that it actually is a bit longer than Frazier's estimate.  Thus, no need to speculate on its size or rely on estimates.   

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."

[Martin Weidmann]

It's unfortunate for these nuts that even "Mr. Oswald" denied carrying any curtain rods or long package.  So Oswald himself takes issue with Frazier's claim.  According to Oswald he had no curtain rods or long package.  Just his lunch.  So Frazier's estimate of the size of a long bag is pointless unless you believe Oswald is lying for some unspecified reason about the curtain rods/long bag that Frazier indicates that he was carrying.  And it obviously makes no sense at all for Oswald to lie about carrying some curtain rods that morning.  In fact, it would have helped his situation to direct the police to that bag. 

It's humorous that CTers cling to Frazier's estimate not realizing that it actually implicates Oswald because he takes issue with Frazier's claim.  If Oswald is lying about the bag, logic dictates that he does so because he had something to hide.  I wonder what?  Maybe we should consult Sherlock Holmes.  LOL. What we are left with is that Oswald made an unusual trip to the location where he kept a rifle, that rifle is not found there later in the day, carried a long bag that he told Frazier contained curtain rods, told Frazier he did not have his lunch that day, but then denies to the police he owned a rifle, carried any curtain rods or long bag but had only his lunch.  In direct contradiction to what Frazier indicates happened.  And a long bag is found at the crime scene with Oswald's prints on them.  That bag is measured which confirms that it actually is a bit longer than Frazier's estimate.  Thus, no need to speculate on its size or rely on estimates.   

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."

Oh look... one delusional fool trying to support another with a special brand of "logic"

It's unfortunate for these nuts that even "Mr. Oswald" denied carrying any curtain rods or long package.  So Oswald himself takes issue with Frazier's claim.  According to Oswald he had no curtain rods or long package.  Just his lunch.  So Frazier's estimate of the size of a long bag is pointless unless you believe Oswald is lying for some unspecified reason about the curtain rods/long bag that Frazier indicates that he was carrying.  And it obviously makes no sense at all for Oswald to lie about carrying some curtain rods that morning.  In fact, it would have helped his situation to direct the police to that bag. 

It's humorous that CTers cling to Frazier's estimate not realizing that it actually implicates Oswald because he takes issue with Frazier's claim.  If Oswald is lying about the bag, logic dictates that he does so because he had something to hide.  I wonder what?  Maybe we should consult Sherlock Holmes.  LOL.

And where exactly is the verbatim record of what Oswald really said during interrogation? Oh wait, there is none... Guess we just have to accept the word of those who wrote reports about a week after Oswald was killed.....

What we are left with is that Oswald made an unusual trip to the location where he kept a rifle, that rifle is not found there later in the day, carried a long bag that he told Frazier contained curtain rods, told Frazier he did not have his lunch that day, but then denies to the police he owned a rifle, carried any curtain rods or long bag but had only his lunch.  In direct contradiction to what Frazier indicates happened.  And a long bag is found at the crime scene with Oswald's prints on them.  That bag is measured which confirms that it actually is a bit longer than Frazier's estimate.  Thus, no need to speculate on its size or rely on estimates.   

Oswald made an unusual trip to [Irving]

Highly inflammatory conclusion! Oswald only made a few trips to Irving. Hardly enough to establish a pattern of sorts. In fact the weekend prior he didn't go at all.

the location where he kept a rifle

Multiple assumptions for which there isn't a shred of evidence.

that rifle is not found there later in the day

What rifle? The one you can't prove was ever there to begin with?

carried a long bag that he told Frazier contained curtain rods, told Frazier he did not have his lunch that day, but then denies to the police he owned a rifle, carried any curtain rods or long bag but had only his lunch.  In direct contradiction to what Frazier indicates happened.

So you assume Frazier is being truthfull about all that but not about the size of the package he saw..... LOL

And a long bag is found at the crime scene with Oswald's prints on them.

So, at best Oswald touched a bag, at his place of work, which was made out of TSBD materials. Wow!

That bag is measured which confirms that it actually is a bit longer than Frazier's estimate.  Thus, no need to speculate on its size or rely on estimates.

So why are you speculating?

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."

The guy telling this tale, would that be the same one who tried to coerce Frazier into signing an already written "confession"?

[Alan Ford]

It's unfortunate for these nuts that even "Mr. Oswald" denied carrying any curtain rods or long package. 

It's unfortunate for Mr Smith that he trusts the word of the very people who (as we found out only last year) suppressed Mr Oswald's all-important claim to have gone "outside to watch the P. parade". I guess that's why he's seeking solace from a fellow Warren Gullible like Mr Lidell!

If you're still there, Mr Smith, we're still waiting for you to explain how and when the numbers 275 & 276 came to be attached to those curtain rods. You know the ones I mean--the ones that were submitted for fingerprint testing eight days before Ms Paine's WC testimony in Irving. 

[Ross Lidell]

Means nothing? The nearly identical rifle was too long in length to carry so it means it wasn't a rifle. 

A disassembled rifle wouldn't have fit in a paper bag according to Frazier based on shape and size.       


He held it up himself and see it didn't fit under his arm.   

Frazier held the rifle the same way Osawld carried his package and it did not fit because the rifle was too long.   

Your making excuses. An identical rifle was used as a demonstration and Frazier did a reenactment of Oswald that showed the rifle to be too long. That is pretty good indicator of evidence which you do not have.       

Means nothing? The nearly identical rifle was too long in length to carry so it means it wasn't a rifle. 

Buell Frazier's "representation" of  Oswald's long paper bag is seriously flawed. Buell is not considering "possibilities": He is working towards a predetermined outcome. The bag that he constructs is based on his E S T I M A T E. No one can be sure this was the exact length of the long paper bag Oswald carried to the TSBD. Frazier did not measure Oswald's bag with a ruler or tape measure, so his estimate cannot be considered unquestionably accurate. It's a guess. It was a guess in 1964 and it's a guess in the video interview of "20??" with the cunning, biased interviewer--who is also working towards a predetermined outcome.

A disassembled rifle wouldn't have fit in a paper bag according to Frazier based on shape and size.       

Frazier's "size and shape" is a guess because Frazier did not measure Oswald's package with a tape measure or ruler. Tell us how accurate was Frazier's "estimate"? What percentage accurate? 100% accurate? 99% accurate? 92% accurate... name your best E S T I M A T E.


He held it up himself and see it didn't fit under his arm.   

Buell Frazier held "his" bag in one (1) way Oswald "could have" carried his "22 November 1963" long bag. Frazier did not demonstrate the two (2) other ways Oswald could have carried the long bag "parallel to his body" and "under his armpit"--as viewed from the rear. Frazier is not interested in considering "all possibilities". He is wanting (understandably) to rule out the possibility that he (innocently) transported the murder weapon to the scene of the crime. Frazier has developed a "bias" against the Warren Commission's conclusions because the DPD treated him as an accomplice to the assassination of President Kennedy. 

Frazier held the rifle the same way Osawld carried his package and it did not fit because the rifle was too long.

Who is "Osawld"? 

Frazier held the package the way "he thought" Oswald carried his long bag. By his own testimony to the Warren Commission: Buell Frazier only saw Lee Oswald's paper bag from Oswald's rear. He never saw the front of Oswald's body and therefore cannot preclude the possibility that the paper bag extended beyond Oswald's torso.

Your making excuses. An identical rifle was used as a demonstration and Frazier did a reenactment of Oswald that showed the rifle to be too long. That is pretty good indicator of evidence which you do not have. 

I'm not making excuses: I'm pointing out the flaws in Frazier's theory and the interviewer's theory.

That was NOT a reenactment. Did Frazier walk with the long paper bag and have the interviewer observe him from 50 feet behind? Did Frazier do three (3) reenactments; holding the paper bag in the three (3) possible ways Oswald COULD have... and have the interviewer observe him from 50 feet behind? Some people are easily fooled: Looks like your one of them.

[Martin Weidmann]

Means nothing? The nearly identical rifle was too long in length to carry so it means it wasn't a rifle. 

Buell Frazier's "representation" of  Oswald's long paper bag is seriously flawed. Buell is not considering "possibilities": He is working towards a predetermined outcome. The bag that he constructs is based on his E S T I M A T E. No one can be sure this was the exact length of the long paper bag Oswald carried to the TSBD. Frazier did not measure Oswald's bag with a ruler or tape measure, so his estimate cannot be considered unquestionably accurate. It's a guess. It was a guess in 1964 and it's a guess in the video interview of "20??" with the cunning, biased interviewer--who is also working towards a predetermined outcome.

Coming from a guy who always works towards a pre-determined outcome, that's hilarious.

The only difference between you and Frazier is that Frazier was actually there and you were not. A description like "in his cupped hand and under his armpit" isn't an estimate. It's a sound observation which limits the size the bag could have been. So, yes, Frazier can be damned sure what the exact length was of the bag Oswald carried.

A disassembled rifle wouldn't have fit in a paper bag according to Frazier based on shape and size.       

Frazier's "size and shape" is a guess because Frazier did not measure Oswald's package with a tape measure or ruler. Tell us how accurate was Frazier's "estimate"? What percentage accurate? 100% accurate? 99% accurate? 92% accurate... name your best E S T I M A T E.

Stop playing silly games. Frazier saw the bag, you didn't. If he says the bag wasn't big enough to conceal a broken down rifle, then it wasn't. And your wishful thinking isn't going to change that.

He held it up himself and see it didn't fit under his arm.   

Buell Frazier held "his" bag in one (1) way Oswald "could have" carried his "22 November 1963" long bag. Frazier did not demonstrate the two (2) other ways Oswald could have carried the long bag "parallel to his body" and "under his armpit"--as viewed from the rear. Frazier is not interested in considering "all possibilities". He is wanting (understandably) to rule out the possibility that he (innocently) transported the murder weapon to the scene of the crime. Frazier has developed a "bias" against the Warren Commission's conclusions because the DPD treated him as an accomplice to the assassination of President Kennedy. 

No. Frazier showed Tom Meros exactly how Oswald carred the bag. Not how he "could have" done it. That's just you again, not wanting to accept the reality that you are seeing with your own eyes. It's pretty pathetic that you now claim that Frazier is not being truthfull because of some bias against the Warren Commission, since he is saying the same thing now as he did on day one, before the Warren Commission even existed. You are just making up stuff to justify not having to believe Frazier. The dishonest one is you!

Frazier held the rifle the same way Osawld carried his package and it did not fit because the rifle was too long.

Who is "Osawld"? 

Childish come back

Frazier held the package the way "he thought" Oswald carried his long bag. By his own testimony to the Warren Commission: Buell Frazier only saw Lee Oswald's paper bag from Oswald's rear. He never saw the front of Oswald's body and therefore cannot preclude the possibility that the paper bag extended beyond Oswald's torso.

No. Frazier never said that "he thought" Oswald carried the packet in a certain way. He said he saw how Oswald carried the package and the description hasn't changed from day one until today. Although Frazier did indeed not see the front of Oswald's body as the latter walked away, he did not see the package sticking out over Oswald's shoulder. In the video of Tom Meros it is shown conclusively how high the package would have reached, if there had been a rifle in there, and there is no way that Frazier could have missed seeing a package sticking out of Oswald's shoulder and nearly reaching the top of his head.

Your making excuses. An identical rifle was used as a demonstration and Frazier did a reenactment of Oswald that showed the rifle to be too long. That is pretty good indicator of evidence which you do not have. 

I'm not making excuses: I'm pointing out the flaws in Frazier's theory and the interviewer's theory.

That was NOT a reenactment. Did Frazier walk with the long paper bag and have the interviewer observe him from 50 feet behind? Did Frazier do three (3) reenactments; holding the paper bag in the three (3) possible ways Oswald COULD have... and have the interviewer observe him from 50 feet behind? Some people are easily fooled: Looks like your one of them.

BS.. Unlike you, Frazier never had the intention of fooling anybody. There is no "Frazier's theory".... there is only what Frazier saw. You don't like that, but you can not prove him wrong, so you make up a bunch of crap about how Frazier should have behaved. The Tom Meros video is pretty clear and exposes your theory as being completely bogus.

Your flawed assumptions are getting tiresome.

[Alan Ford]

#1:



#2:



#3:



#4:



Poor Mr Lidell!