Buell Wesley Frazier

[Tom Sorensen]

It was safely stored in the confines of a crowded garage as part of a house which was virtually occupied 24/7, that's a safe environment.
It wasn't stored outside behind a tree or leaning against a house.
The rifle itself was stored inconspicuously in a blanket, even Michael who interacted with the blanket numerous times thought that it contained pipes or a shovel. 
Is a thief going to back up a truck and empty the entire contents of the tightly stuffed garage and even if they did, a blanket on the floor wouldn't have a high priority.
BTW, out of the post you replied to, you edit out every other fact and then decide to fall on your sword with a misjudged, misguided easily refuted, assertion! Really?



Mr. LIEBELER - Did you think there was more than one tent pole in the package or just one tent pole?
Mr. PAINE - As I say, I moved it several times, and I think I thought progressively each time. I moved it twice. It had three occasions. And the first one was an iron, thought of an iron pipe and then I have drawn, I drew yesterday, a picture of the thing I had in mind. Then in order to fill out the package I had to add another object to it and there I added again I was thinking of camping equipment, and I added a folding shovel such as I had seen in the Army, a little spade where the blade folds back over the handle. This has the trouble that this blade was too symmetrical I disposed to the handle and to fit the package the blade had to be off center, eccentric to the handle. Also, I had my vision of the pipe. It had an iron pipe about 30 inches long with a short section of pipe going off 45 degrees. No words here, it just happened that I did have this image in my mind of trying to fill up that package in the back burner of my mind.
https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/testimony/paine_m1.htm



For someone who is constantly "rolling on the floor laughing", you don't seem like a very funny guy, in fact you give the impression of an overly paranoid dude, with a permanent scowl on your face!

JohnM

Wow, that took a lot of words attempting to back up your claim! By now you should know that I enjoy taking potshots at the weak Nutters. BTW, had you been one of the elite LNs, you would simply have argued that the bundle didn't include the ammo; hence, it was perfectly safe for even the children to slip into the garage. In fact, not even an empty ammunition box was anywhere to be found in the Paine residence. Not safe for the scope, though, to end up on the floor and being kicked around, ROFL.

[Tom Sorensen]

Your history here is an open book and there was nothing false about my observation, the fact that you are here freaking out, is very telling.

JohnM

I was not "responding for Martin". Another unsupported claim we can put on top of your existing pile of unsupported claims. Carry on, John!

[Tom Sorensen]

Yeah sure, combing through testimony and cross referencing archives is pre-school stuff? Did you discover this or did you rip off other researchers?

I referred to the dates, like looking them up in a 1963 calendar, but maybe I was too harsh saying preschool. Should have said 3rd grade; did you even make it past 3rd grade? Ripping off researchers sounds interesting; what was that all about?

See the problem here Tom, is that you appear to have no experience in the real World, human error out here is so prevalent that it's away of life.
Newspaper articles get locations, facts, times and etc, wrong all the time. Just witness the initial reports in this case alone, different rifles, agents killed, mistaken and/or misrepresented evidence and the list goes on and on.

What I conclude in this Paine curtain rod saga is the WC date of the curtain rod collection is in line with Day's fingerprint analysis and the subsequent Howlett collection, nuff said!
As I said at the start, this is months after the assassination and is a simple exercise in satisfying the public with every potential possibility.

BTW I asked you to "convince me if this is something beyond innocent human error" and where could this possibly be construed as something evil? But as usual you have no answers.

JohnM

I'm not here to convince you of anything. Day not being present and signing the form is pretty far out, even for a Nutter. Adding the 24th to your fantasy makes even less sense if the rods are dusted on the 25th. You've stopped making any sense, so I'll wait around for the more elite Nutters to chime in.

[John Mytton]

Wow, that took a lot of words attempting to back up your claim! By now you should know that I enjoy taking potshots at the weak Nutters. BTW, had you been one of the elite LNs, you would simply have argued that the bundle didn't include the ammo; hence, it was perfectly safe for even the children to slip into the garage. In fact, not even an empty ammunition box was anywhere to be found in the Paine residence. Not safe for the scope, though, to end up on the floor and being kicked around, ROFL.

Wow, that took a lot of words attempting to back up your claim!

And considering you couldn't refute a single point, makes my facts the only possible answers. Thanks for playing.

By now you should know that I enjoy taking potshots at the weak Nutters.

And this is the best you got, after I just humiliated you? Get real.

BTW, had you been one of the elite LNs, you would simply have argued that the bundle didn't include the ammo; hence, it was perfectly safe for even the children to slip into the garage.

What idiot stores his rifle with the ammo, you're not very good at this are you, Tom!

In fact, not even an empty ammunition box was anywhere to be found in the Paine residence.

Oswald didn't even have enough bullets to fill his clip, any ammo box was long gone.

Not safe for the scope, though, to end up on the floor and being kicked around, ROFL.

What proof have you got that the scope was attached or even in the Blanket, because at Neely street, Oswald's rifle didn't have the scope attached, Oops, so it's not a given that it was permanently attached. And considering the rifle was war surplus, you know designed to be used in a war, I don't think Oswald was too concerned about a few toddlers rummaging about around his blanket wrapped rifle. Hahahaha!

Mr. RANKIN. Was it out in the room at that time, as distinguished from in a closet in the room?
Mrs. OSWALD. Yes, it was open, out in the open. At first I think---I saw some package up on the top shelf, and I think that that was the rifle. But I didn't know. And apparently later he assembled it and had it in the room.
Mr. RANKIN. When you saw the rifle assembled in the room, did it have the scope on it?
Mrs. OSWALD. No, it did not have a scope on it.



BTW I love smashing silly overconfident bully CT's, it makes each and every win extremely satisfying.

Next time bring your "A" game because so far making you look the fool is just way too easy. Now run along and do a little research so you can at least appear barely competent.

JohnM

[John Mytton]

I referred to the dates, like looking them up in a 1963 calendar, but maybe I was too harsh saying preschool. Should have said 3rd grade; did you even make it past 3rd grade? Ripping off researchers sounds interesting; what was that all about?

I'm not here to convince you of anything. Day not being present and signing the form is pretty far out, even for a Nutter. Adding the 24th to your fantasy makes even less sense if the rods are dusted on the 25th. You've stopped making any sense, so I'll wait around for the more elite Nutters to chime in.

I referred to the dates, like looking them up in a 1963 calendar, but maybe I was too harsh saying preschool. Should have said 3rd grade; did you even make it past 3rd grade? Ripping off researchers sounds interesting; what was that all about?

Like I said, I checked all the primary sources, that's what a reputable researcher does. In my early days I've trusted many CT's that I assumed did the legwork and let's just say, their research skills left a lot to be desired.

Ripping off researchers sounds interesting; what was that all about?

Alan Ford was spewing this nonsense years ago and you've just jumped on his coat-tails. But maybe you can do a better job of fitting this months old evidence into a plausible narrative, but somehow I doubt it!

I'm not here to convince you of anything.

Well Tom, you're doing a good job of that.

Day not being present and signing the form is pretty far out, even for a Nutter. Adding the 24th to your fantasy makes even less sense if the rods are dusted on the 25th. You've stopped making any sense, so I'll wait around for the more elite Nutters to chime in.

I told you it's simple human error. Lt. Day made some assumptions which didn't pan out.

Then I asked politely for you to create a narrative explaining what you believe happened and so far you have failed because you apparently lack the deductive reasoning skills to add one and one. But I guess after reading Alan Ford's absurd hole filled alternate reality, I can understand why you won't.

• So in conclusion, what are we left with is plain and simple human error, or will a yet to found super CT make the necessary connections because here in this CT cesspool we have a lot of nobodies and insane theories but no answers!
It sure looks like being a keen CT isn't what it's cracked up to be!

JohnM

[Michael Capasse]

based on what a nutter (that is you) told me.

Sure, why would anyone doubt that you did. Actually, that has to be one of the stranger things you have posted.

You are denying LHO walked bent over, good choice LHO was walking erect with a 3 foot 6 inch bag. We all know, nobody would walk bent over with the 27 inch bag. You had the right answer and here you are now you are denying it. I don't know why you would want to do that. You personally have posted all of these. Did you not ever read them? Maybe subconsciously you just did not want to know what she said. She destroys the short bag nonsense and the whole conspiracy tripe that goes along with it.

Where did LMR say Lee used his left hand?

Let us review, Linnie gives two different descriptions of how each hand held the package. “Gripping or grabbing or grab” the top with the right hand and “hugging” the bottom with the other.

Right hand:

Mr. BALL. Let me see. He carried it in his right hand, did he? 

Mrs. RANDLE. That is right. 

Mr. BALL. And where was his hand gripping the middle of the package? 

Mrs. RANDLE. No, sir; the top with just a little bit sticking up. You know just like you grab something like that.

 

Mrs. RANDLE. No, sir; the top with just a little bit sticking up. You know just like you grab something like that.
Mr. BALL. And he was grabbing it with his right hand at the top of the package and the package almost touched the ground?
Mrs. RANDLE. Yes, sir.

Left Hand:

Mr. BALL. I have one question, Mr. Chief Justice.
You used an expression there, that the bag appeared heavy.
Mrs. RANDLE. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. You meant that there was some weight appeared to--
Mrs. RANDLE. To the bottom.
Mr. BALL. To the bottom?
Mrs. RANDLE. Yes. It tapered like this as he [i]hugged [/i]it in his hand. It was more bulky toward the bottom than it was this way.
Mr. BELIN. Toward the top? More bulky toward the bottom than toward the top?
Mrs. RANDLE. That is right.


Both Hands:

I suppose, and he carried it in his right hand, had the top sort of folded down and had a grip like this, and the bottom, he carried it this way, you know, and it almost touched the ground as he carried it.

Linnie shreds BWF testimony. It leaves you with two choices, one he deliberately misleads investigators or two as he said he just did not pay any attention. You should be happy. Your posting made a significant contribution to understanding how Linnie's bag recollections shed light on the question of LHO transporting the rifle to the TSBD.

All garbage.
She never saw him touch the bag with his left hand.

The prints on the bag are not consistent with how it was carried.

[Jack Nessan]

All garbage.
She never saw him touch the bag with his left hand.

The prints on the bag are not consistent with how it was carried.

All garbage.

You asked for proof and now that it has been presented you do not like the results.

But don't be so hard on yourself.  It all comes from your posts. Apparently, you just never read them.


She never saw him touch the bag with his left hand

No, according to her statements and your own assessment she did.


The prints on the bag are not consistent with how it was carried.

Oh, but they are. I am sure you would like them not to be but no they are there.