The Brown Paper Bag

[Martin Weidmann]

In October of '64, Frazier was clearly saying that the rifle was in the bag.  You don't have to like it.

Sure, Bill... Whatever you say, Bill.  Pffffff

It makes of course complete sense (not) for Frazier to deny that the bag was large enough to conceal a rifle from day one, then suddenly sign an "affidavit" saying the opposite and then go back to maintain his old position for the next 60 years.

But as you believe the WC BS, we already know that you are easily fooled, so why wouldn't you believe this nonsense as well, right?

[John Mytton]

Sure, Bill... Whatever you say, Bill.  Pffffff

It makes of course complete sense (not) for Frazier to deny that the bag was large enough to conceal a rifle from day one, then suddenly sign an "affidavit" saying the opposite and then go back to maintain his old position for the next 60 years.

But as you believe the WC BS, we already know that you are easily fooled, so why wouldn't you believe this nonsense as well, right?

...and then go back to maintain his old position for the next 60 years.

I can't blame him, you conspiracy Kooks theorists are psychotic and have badgered Frazier continually, as you say "for the next 60 years", he had no choice, otherwise you people would have made his life HELL!

JohnM

[Michael Capasse]

In October of '64, Frazier was clearly saying that the rifle was in the bag.  You don't have to like it.

Never said it before and hasn't said it since.
Lame.

[Martin Weidmann]

Never said it before and hasn't said it since.
Lame.

It merely shows the level of desperation at the LN side. They know they can't win the argument by debate and honest treatment of the evidence, so they come up with crap like this.

LNs never back up the bogus claims they make. Bill Brown is not going to produce a confirmation of Buell Frazier because he will never get one.

[Dan O'meara]

The issue is not the length of the paper bag - it's the length of the object in the bag.
Both Randall and Frazier report Oswald carrying the package in incredibly specific ways that, if taken at face value, make it impossible for the object in the paper bag to be a rifle, disassembled or not.
Frazier has the object cupped in Oswald's hand and held under his armpit.
Randall seems to describe Oswald carrying the object down by his side, almost touching the ground.
It doesn't matter what guesses Frazier and Randall made about the length of the package.
What matters is the way they describe the object being held as this sets a limit on how long the object can be.
For a man of Oswald's physical stature, it is physically impossible for him to be carrying a 34.8 inch disassembled rifle in the ways described by Frazier and Randall.
At a guess, the object must be somewhere between 24 - 28 inches in order to be carried in the ways Frazier and Randall describe.
If not a rifle, what can this object possibly be, as it is clearly not Oswald's lunch bag?

[Martin Weidmann]

I can't blame him, you conspiracy Kooks theorists are psychotic and have badgered Frazier continually, as you say "for the next 60 years", he had no choice, otherwise you people would have made his life HELL!

JohnM

That's not the impression I got from him. Frazier is more than helpful to talk to and deal with people who do not blindly believe the WC's allegations.
Not so much with LN nuts.

[John Corbett]

The issue is not the length of the paper bag - it's the length of the object in the bag.
Both Randall and Frazier report Oswald carrying the package in incredibly specific ways that, if taken at face value, make it impossible for the object in the paper bag to be a rifle, disassembled or not.
Frazier has the object cupped in Oswald's hand and held under his armpit.
Randall seems to describe Oswald carrying the object down by his side, almost touching the ground.
It doesn't matter what guesses Frazier and Randall made about the length of the package.
What matters is the way they describe the object being held as this sets a limit on how long the object can be.
For a man of Oswald's physical stature, it is physically impossible for him to be carrying a 34.8 inch disassembled rifle in the ways described by Frazier and Randall.
At a guess, the object must be somewhere between 24 - 28 inches in order to be carried in the ways Frazier and Randall describe.
If not a rifle, what can this object possibly be, as it is clearly not Oswald's lunch bag?

It has never been established that Oswald had the package tucked under his armpit. That was the recollection of ONE witness who by his own admission wasn't paying that much attention to it. Why the hell would he. Eyewitness recollections do not establish facts because eyewitnesses can be and often are wrong. As of Linnie May Randle's observation, whether right or wrong, you never bother to tell us why it would have been impossible for Oswald to carry the longer package in the manner described.

[Michael Capasse]

It has never been established that Oswald had the package tucked under his armpit. That was the recollection of ONE witness who by his own admission wasn't paying that much attention to it. Why the hell would he. Eyewitness recollections do not establish facts because eyewitnesses can be and often are wrong. As of Linnie May Randle's observation, whether right or wrong, you never bother to tell us why it would have been impossible for Oswald to carry the longer package in the manner described.

  He knew exactly what he saw.
Then failed to identify the bag allegedly found upstairs