Again with wildly overstating your nutty claims - "no evidence whatsover"! LOL Well, except for Oswald's prints being found on that bag. The location of the bag next to bullet casings fired from his rifle. No accounting for this bag except as the bag Oswald carried the rifle in that morning. No other bag matching the size estimate of Frazier ever being found or accounted for in any way. And Oswald himself denying he carried any bag as described by Frazier. It's amusing that you dismiss all evidence against Oswald as the product of "assumptions" which implies outlandish baseless counter-possibilities like this bag being planted and all the implications that entails none of which are supported by any evidence at all. Very humorous.
Well, except for Oswald's prints being found on that bag. According to Latona, a parcial palm print and a parcial finger print on the bag could be identified as belonging to Oswald. Other prints, also on the bag and thus potentially belonging to others, could not be identified. Unfortunately, as so often in this case, we have to take the word of one person for it, since the silver nitrate used on the bag destroyed the evidence to the extend that no second opinion could even be obtained.
Having said that, the presence of two parcial prints of a TSBD employee on a bag made from TSBD materials and found inside the TSBD does not even begin to prove that this was the bag Oswald carried that morning.
Even worse for your narrative, which is why you have ignored it so far, is that Wesley Buell Frazier was shown the TSBD bag the same day and he, while being polygraphed, denied that it was the bag he had seen Oswald carry that morning. He added that the bag he had actually seen was "definitely a thin, flimsy sack like the one purchased in a dime store".
The location of the bag next to bullet casings fired from his rifle.Wrong again. The devil is, as always, in the details! Fritz told Detective Montgomery to guard and preserve the sniper's nest until Day and Studebaker got there. Montgomery is on record as saying that the bag he saw was sitting on top of a box, which contradicts completely where Studebaker claimed it was.
And as far as "fired from his rifle" goes;
"wildly overstating your nutty claims" decribes it well!
No accounting for this bag except as the bag Oswald carried the rifle in that morning. BS. What is this self serving speculation supposed to prove, other than your own narrowmindedness?
No other bag matching the size estimate of Frazier ever being found or accounted for in any way. Proves nothing. Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence. Besides, there is no evidence whatsoever that they actually ever searched for another bag to begin with. They already had a bag, simply looked no further and just jumped to a conclusion....
And Oswald himself denying he carried any bag as described by Frazier. This is simply not true. It is at best a misrepresentation of the facts. Frazier described the bag to DPD officers as "definitely a thin, flimsy sack like the one purchased in a dime store". Can you show me where and when Oswald was asked about such a flimsy bag? I know that it is reported that they asked him about a long or large bag, but that is clearly not how Frazier described it.
It's amusing that you dismiss all evidence against Oswald as the product of "assumptions" which implies outlandish baseless counter-possibilities like this bag being planted So, basically what you are saying is that your assumption must be correct simply because you dismiss all other possibilities as "outlandish" and "baseless"..... Now that's really funny!
Btw why would that bag have been planted? It was made of TSBD materials and allegedly found at the TSBD!
