The Brown Paper Bag

[Martin Weidmann]

You're so desperate to win, you just make up any old crap as you go along and considering the quote I "gotcha" with was less than an hour before your post, just shows how dishonest you are!!

JohnM

Project much...

I don't care about winning. There is nothing to win. Oswald has been dead for more than 60 years. The only one constantly talking in terms of "winning" is you! But you are not even man enough to admit it, despite the fact that is obvious for every sane reader.

If Oswald was a double killer than so be it. All I ask is for solid evidence to show his guilt and all I get it LN crap based on assumptions and speculation. I can't help it that you can't provide solid evidence and thus constantly play stupid childish games.

[John Corbett]

more presumptuous garbage.

If there's no snow on the ground when you go to bed and you wake up and there's snow on the ground, is it presumptuous to assume it snowed over night?

That bag is 38in by about 8in wide - about 2 sq ft of hard paper and tape
X2 because it's a bag. How many times can you fold that on your person without looking odd? - or without making a sound?

4 Sq ft of hard paper and tape under a light jacket. Frazier saw no sign of it.
No reason at all to hide it. Buell will see it tomorrow. lol - or are we back to the unreliable witness BS when YOU choose?:

you need to redo your arithmetic. A 38 inch by 8 inch bag is not 4 square feet. It's a little over half that.

Frazier said he wore a light gray jacket to Irving Thursday night. - How did it end up in Oak Cliff on Friday?

Damn good question. Another example of Frazier's less than stellar powers of observation.

[Martin Weidmann]

If there's no snow on the ground when you go to bed and you wake up and there's snow on the ground, is it presumptuous to assume it snowed over night?you need to redo your arithmetic. A 38 inch by 8 inch bag is not 4 square feet. It's a little over half that.Damn good question. Another example of Frazier's less than stellar powers of observation.

Damn good question.

And one you clearly can't answer. The list of questions you can't answer is getting longer by the minute.

Another example of Frazier's less than stellar powers of observation.

A honest person would say, either Frazier got it wrong or Earlene Roberts did.

You are clearly not a honest person.

[Michael Capasse]

If there's no snow on the ground when you go to bed and you wake up and there's snow on the ground, is it presumptuous to assume it snowed over night?

If I know I saw something. I KNOW what I saw.

you need to redo your arithmetic. A 38 inch by 8 inch bag is not 4 square feet.

The area of a 38-inch by 8-inch bag is approximately 2.11 square feet.
It is a bag and therefore has two front and back sides - Double it.

Damn good question. Another example of Frazier's less than stellar powers of observation.

I'm sure you'll find a way to distort it. Mytton is already way ahead of you.
  he just fails miserably. I doubt you could do any better.

[John Corbett]

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.

[Bill Brown]

So Frazier AND Marina said the jacket Oswald wore to work on Friday was CE 162 the LIGHT GRAY jacket?

And CE 163, the Darker Blue Gray jacket was found in the Domino room TSBD?

So JohnM explanation is that we just can’t trust Marina or Fraziers perceptions therefore Oswald must have been wearing the CE  163 the blue gray jacket when he went to work?

So then Oswald left the TSBD after the shooting NOT wearing ANY jacket?

That would have to be the case if CE 162 was at the boarding house and CE 163 was found in the Domino room. ( exception would be that the CE 163 blue gray jacket was moved by DPD from presumably found at boarding house to the domino room a month later ,  which is even more bizzare.)

William Whaley the taxi driver said he saw Oswald wearing a jacket albeit a bit confusing how Whaley described the jacket.

Earlene Roberts compounds the problem by seeing Oswald just wearing a LIGHT colored shirt with long sleeves when he entered the boarding house.

NO WONDER it took 25 volumes of WC to explain the LN theory. 😳

On the day after the assassination, William Whaley described what Oswald was wearing in his cab (even describing the shirt to some detail) and makes no mention of a jacket at all.

[Michael Capasse]

Whaley told the Commission he saw both jackets;
Mr. BALL. Here is Commission No. 162 which is a gray jacket with zipper.
Mr. WHALEY. I thank that is the jacket he had on when he rode with me in the cab.

Mr. BALL. Look something like it?
And here is Commission Exhibit No. 163, does this look like anything he had on?

Mr. WHALEY. He had this one on or the other one.
Mr. BALL. That is right.

Mr. WHALEY. That is what I told you I noticed. I told you about the shirt being open, he had on the two jackets with the open shirt.

Dec 18, 63 to the FBI  - He called it a gray work jacket;
"...OSWALD was wearing grey work pants and a grey work jacket and had on a darker shirt which had a gold streak in it .
He also recalled that this shirt was opened down the front to about the fourth button, and he does not recall OSWALD wearing
an undershirt. He also recalled that the. sh1rt, as well as the rest of OSWALD's attire, was unpressed and wrinkled as though
it had not been ironed after washing or as though he had slept in the clothes."