Bugliosi's dishonesty
Walt
photo section following page 435 there is a photo of a disassembled
Mannlicher Carcano lying next to the fake bag that the FBI had made as
an "exact replica" of the bag they claim was found in the S E. corner
of the sixth floor of the TSBD. The is nothing in the photo to
compare for scale. Of course students of the case know the wooden
stock is nearly three feet long ( 35 inches) but to the uninitiated it
would appear that the rifle would have fit in that bag. ( and it's
possible that it would have) HOWEVER The bag in the photo is NOT the
bag Oswald carried that morning. Both Linnie Mae Randle and her
brother Buell Frazier told the FBI that the bag shown in da Bug's book
was much bigger than the bag they saw oswald carry. Of course da Bug
doesn't reveal any of this... He merely publishes a misleading photo
to fool the unwary.
Walt
Bud
Walt wrote:
> I just thumbed through Revisting History at B&N bookstore. In the
> photo section following page 435 there is a photo of a disassembled
> Mannlicher Carcano lying next to the fake bag that the FBI had made as
> an "exact replica" of the bag they claim was found in the S E. corner
> of the sixth floor of the TSBD. The is nothing in the photo to
> compare for scale. Of course students of the case know the wooden
> stock is nearly three feet long ( 35 inches) but to the uninitiated it
> would appear that the rifle would have fit in that bag. ( and it's
> possible that it would have) HOWEVER The bag in the photo is NOT the
> bag Oswald carried that morning. Both Linnie Mae Randle and her
> brother Buell Frazier told the FBI
That that very bag shown in that photo could be the bag they saw Oz
carrying that morning. Read the FBI report, idjit.
lazu...@webtv.net
section-he has a copy of the HSCA Diagram of the supposed headshot
entrance...which he apparently agrees with..that puts the wound above
the cowlick near the crown of the head, now Von Pein here says that "it
doesn' matter exactly which square inch it struck", that is true to a
degree if it's within an inch and a half or let's say even 2 inches, but
Canal,Humes, Finck, Boswell Sturdivan, Zimmermnn all put the wound
closer to the EOP, some 4 inches lower..you can't have it both ways( the
damage to the head, trajectory, and bullet particles will be entirely
different, but Bugliosi just merges the 2 lone nut entrances without
telling the reader, and he also doesn't use AUTOPSY PHOTOGRAPHS, which
show no real definiton to the cowlick entrance, as opposed to the IDA
Dox drawing that depicts a certain cowlick entrance. Jeff
Walt
> Walt wrote:
> > I just thumbed through Revisting History at B&N bookstore. In the
> > photo section following page 435 there is a photo of a disassembled
> > Mannlicher Carcano lying next to the fake bag that the FBI had made as
> > an "exact replica" of the bag they claim was found in the S E. corner
> > of the sixth floor of the TSBD. The is nothing in the photo to
> > compare for scale. Of course students of the case know the wooden
> > stock is nearly three feet long ( 35 inches) but to the uninitiated it
> > would appear that the rifle would have fit in that bag. ( and it's
> > possible that it would have) HOWEVER The bag in the photo is NOT the
> > bag Oswald carried that morning. Both Linnie Mae Randle and her
> > brother Buell Frazier told the FBI
>
> That that very bag shown in that photo could be the bag they saw Oz
> carrying that morning. Read the FBI report, idjit.
Not so dopey.... Frazier and Randle, both were adamant that the fake
bag that the FBI showed them was much bigger that the 27 inch bag they
saw Oswald carry that morning. Furthermore the 27 inch that Oswald
carried contained nothing rigid that would have prevented it from
being folded to about 22 inches so that it would fit under Oswald's
arm as Frazier stated. Frazier said that Lee carried the bag from his
car to the TSBD "cupped in his hand and tucked into his armpit". That
would meanthe bag was folded down to about 22 inches.
Walt
>
>
>
> > that the bag shown in da Bug's book
> > was much bigger than the bag they saw oswald carry. Of course da Bug
> > doesn't reveal any of this... He merely publishes a misleading photo
> > to fool the unwary.
>
> > Walt- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
cdddraftsman
testimony of two people who admitted they didn't study the bag and
only had a breif glance at it would be more sugestive of a overactive
imagination on your part rather then taking precise measurements from
people who also admitted it wasn't a great concern what he was carring
at the time ..........................tl
PS : What I just described is what CTer's have done for 44 years .
Built a mole hill
atop a mountain of unfounded speculation , congradulations , you've
proved nothing and showed us again you'd be worthless in any type of
investigation that wanted to know the truth .
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
eca...@tx.rr.com
out the front door that had Oz-prints
on it. Reckon Oz pulled a fast one and
taped the curtain rods up real tight to
minimize it's size?
This is more heavy shit from you Walt.
Do the National Inquirer and Star know
about this!??!?
This is some heavy shit you have
uncovered 44 yrs later..
Also Walt: Did the real Kennedy killer
and the real Tippit killer both get away?
MR :~? ED
1635Jun1707
Bud
Walt wrote:
> On 17 Jun, 15:24, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
> > Walt wrote:
> > > I just thumbed through Revisting History at B&N bookstore. In the
> > > photo section following page 435 there is a photo of a disassembled
> > > Mannlicher Carcano lying next to the fake bag that the FBI had made as
> > > an "exact replica" of the bag they claim was found in the S E. corner
> > > of the sixth floor of the TSBD. The is nothing in the photo to
> > > compare for scale. Of course students of the case know the wooden
> > > stock is nearly three feet long ( 35 inches) but to the uninitiated it
> > > would appear that the rifle would have fit in that bag. ( and it's
> > > possible that it would have) HOWEVER The bag in the photo is NOT the
> > > bag Oswald carried that morning. Both Linnie Mae Randle and her
> > > brother Buell Frazier told the FBI
> >
> > That that very bag shown in that photo could be the bag they saw Oz
> > carrying that morning. Read the FBI report, idjit.
>
> Not so dopey.... Frazier and Randle, both were adamant that the fake
> bag that the FBI showed them was much bigger that the 27 inch bag they
> saw Oswald carry that morning. Furthermore the 27 inch that Oswald
> carried contained nothing rigid that would have prevented it from
> being folded to about 22 inches so that it would fit under Oswald's
> arm as Frazier stated. Frazier said that Lee carried the bag from his
> car to the TSBD "cupped in his hand and tucked into his armpit". That
> would meanthe bag was folded down to about 22 inches.
Read Odum and McNeely`s FBI report, idjit. CE 2008-2009. They
showed these witnesses the bag found in the sixth floor of the TSBD
(the same bag shown in Bugliosi book). Both witnesses said that bag
could be the bag they saw Oz carrying the morning of the assasination.
If they said it could be the bag, who are you to say it couldn`t?
David Von Pein
Yes, it is. The caption to the photo in VB's book specifically states
the bag in the picture is the same bag found on the 6th Floor (i.e.,
CE142).
>>> "Both Randle and Frazier told the FBI that the bag shown in da Bug's book was much bigger than the bag they saw oswald carry. Of course da Bug doesn't reveal any of this. He merely publishes a misleading photo to fool the unwary." <<<
Get the book and READ some of it before making your usual ass of
yourself. (That'd be kinda special, wouldn't it?)
Vince doesn't "merely publish a photo" re. the paper-bag controversy.
There's plenty in the text of the book about the bag lengths, with
Vince laying it all out on the table, including the "27-28 inch"
estimates made by both Frazier and Randle.
Let's look.....
================
"Both Frazier and his sister, although saying the package found in the
sniper's
nest was "similar" in color to the one they saw Oswald carrying on the
morning of the assassination (2 H 240, WCT Buell Wesley Frazier; 2 H
249, WCT Linnie Mae Randle), described the package they had seen
Oswald carrying as being shorter than what would have been needed for
the disassembled rifle-a fact that conspiracy critic Sylvia Meagher
called "the central weakness of the Commission's thesis" that Oswald
carried the murder weapon into the Depository the day of the
assassination.
"Linnie Mae Randle, who first saw Oswald with the package from her
kitchen window and then from her kitchen door on the morning of the
assassination, described the package as a "heavy brown bag, heavier
than a grocery bag" that was "more bulky" toward the bottom (where the
butt of the rifle would be) than it was on the top.
"She also thought the bag might have been about 27 to 28 inches long-
the bag found in the Depository was actually 38 inches in length,
while the 401/5-inch rifle, disassembled, measured 344/5 inches. When
shown the bag found beneath the sixth-floor window, Randle recalled
that the bag she saw Oswald with was around the same width. (2 H 248-
250, WCT Linnie Mae Randle; CE 2008, 24 H 407-408; 344/5 inches: 3 H
395, WCT Robert A. Frazier; Meagher, Accessories after the Fact, p.54-
57) ....
"The Warren Commission concluded that Frazier and Randle probably
erred in their recollections of the length of the bag (WR, p.134), and
it was understandable the two had done so. Neither Frazier nor his
sister, the only two people who saw Oswald with the package, suspected
that it was of any significance.
"They therefore had no reason to note its dimensions for later recall.
Frazier caught only a glimpse of the package on the backseat as he got
behind the wheel of his car. After arriving at the Depository, Oswald
got out first and remained ahead of Frazier by from twelve to
ultimately fifty feet (by the time Oswald reached the Book Depository
Building) as they walked toward the building (the first time, he said,
that Oswald had ever walked in front of him into the building).
"During the walk, the package was partly obscured by Oswald's hand,
arm, and shoulder as he carried it. (CE 2009, 24 H 409; 2 H 228, WCT
Buell Wesley Frazier) Frazier said he "didn't pay much attention" to
the package because he didn't have "any reason to doubt his [Oswald's]
word" that it contained curtain rods. ....
"Under Frazier's supervision, the FBI measured the length of that
visible portion to be 9X1 inch (CE 2009, 24 H 409). Since he could
only see this small portion of the package under Oswald's right arm,
and because he didn't notice any part of the package sticking above
his right shoulder ("you couldn't tell that he had a package from the
back"), Frazier assumed that it must have been tucked under his
armpit, telling the Commission, "I don't see how you could have it
anywhere other than under your armpit" (2 H 243).
"Although the critics have been quick to embrace Frazier's conclusion,
it should be repeated that he told the Commission over and over (no
less than five separate times) that he didn't pay much attention to
the package or to the way Oswald carried it (2 H 228, 229, 239, 241,
243).
"Just as importantly, Frazier told the Warren Commission that "I
couldn't see
much of the bag from him walking in front of me. Now he could have had
some of it sticking out in front of his hands because I didn't see it
from the front." Question: "Now, you said that some of the bag might
have been beyond his hands?" "Yes, sir. I said it could have, now I am
not saying it was." "In other words, it [the bag] could have been
longer than his hands?" "Right." But later, Frazier said the bag could
have extended "widthwise, not lengthwise," and that he did not think
"it was longer than his hands." (2 H 240-241)
"In other words, and understandably, Frazier was confused." ---
Vincent T. Bugliosi; Via "Reclaiming History" (Endnotes; Pages
408-409)
================
BTW, the "fake" bag (as Walt The Kook states it) was not meant to
REPLACE the real 6th-Floor paper bag. It was produced merely to aid
the witnesses who saw the original bag on 11/22. The only reason it
was created was because the testing done to the original bag resulted
in a very different-looking bag (discoloration mainly). The FBI's
James Cadigan explained it under oath to the WC. (He's a liar, right
Walt? What else?)......
Mr. CADIGAN -- "This is Commission Exhibit 364. It is a paper sack
similar to Commission Exhibit 142. It was made at the Texas School
Book Depository on December 1, 1963, by special agents of the FBI in
Dallas to show to prospective witnesses, because Commission's Exhibit
142 was dark and stained from the latent fingerprint treatment and
they thought that this would--it wouldn't be fair to the witness to
ask "Did you see a bag like that?" So they went to the Texas School
Book Depository and constructed from paper and tape a similar bag."
aeffects
> >>> "The bag in the photo is NOT the bag Oswald carried that morning." <<<
>
> Yes, it is. The caption to the photo in VB's book specifically states
> the bag in the picture is the same bag found on the 6th Floor (i.e.,
> CE142).
>
there you have it folks, daBugliosi says it so... from the gods lips
to my ass, spounds like a bunch of shit!
<snip the nonsense>
David Von Pein
picture is not the "replica" bag made by the FBI. (Via the precise
creases/folds in the bag, for one thing.)
Naturally, the kooks will argue otherwise. Nothing new there. That's
because they are kooks.
Walt
> >>> "The bag in the photo is NOT the bag Oswald carried that morning." <<<
>
> Yes, it is. The caption to the photo in VB's book specifically states
> the bag in the picture is the same bag found on the 6th Floor (i.e.,
> CE142).
Hey Von Pea Brain, are you absolutely sure that the bag in the picture
in da Bugs book is a photo of the ORIGINAL bag that the cops claimed
was found in the SE corner of the sixth floor?? Did da Bug actually
say that??
Walt
Walt
>
> Yes, it is. The caption to the photo in VB's book specifically states
> the bag in the picture is the same bag found on the 6th Floor (i.e.,
> CE142).
>
> >>> "Both Randle and Frazier told the FBI that the bag shown in da Bug's book was much bigger than the bag they saw oswald carry. Of course da Bug doesn't reveal any of this. He merely publishes a misleading photo to fool the unwary." <<<
>
> Get the book and READ some of it before making your usual ass of
> yourself. (That'd be kinda special, wouldn't it?)
>
> Vince doesn't "merely publish a photo" re. the paper-bag controversy.
> There's plenty in the text of the book about the bag lengths, with
> Vince laying it all out on the table, including the "27-28 inch"
> estimates made by both Frazier and Randle.
>
> Let's look.....
>
> ================
Right let's examine what yer hero wrote....
>
> "Both Frazier and his sister, although saying the package found in the
> sniper's
> nest was "similar" in color to the one they saw Oswald carrying on the
> morning of the assassination (2 H 240, WCT Buell Wesley Frazier; 2 H
> 249, WCT Linnie Mae Randle), described the package they had seen
> Oswald carrying as being shorter than what would have been needed for
> the disassembled rifle-a fact that conspiracy critic Sylvia Meagher
> called "the central weakness of the Commission's thesis" that Oswald
> carried the murder weapon into the Depository the day of the
> assassination.
VB acknowledges that the bag Randle and Frazier saw Oswald carry was
too short to contain the rifle.
>
> "Linnie Mae Randle, who first saw Oswald with the package from her
> kitchen window and then from her kitchen door on the morning of the
> assassination, described the package as a "heavy brown bag, heavier
> than a grocery bag" that was "more bulky" toward the bottom (where the
> butt of the rifle would be) than it was on the top.
If there had been a rifle in that bag, ( an impossibility) How does VB
know the butt would have been at the bottom of the bag..... Is there
some law of physics that makes it impossible for a rifle to have the
butt up??
>
> "She also thought the bag might have been about 27 to 28 inches long-
> the bag found in the Depository was actually 38 inches in length,
> while the 401/5-inch rifle, disassembled, measured 344/5 inches. When
> shown the bag found beneath the sixth-floor window, Randle recalled
> that the bag she saw Oswald with was around the same width. (2 H 248-
> 250, WCT Linnie Mae Randle; CE 2008, 24 H 407-408; 344/5 inches: 3 H
> 395, WCT Robert A. Frazier; Meagher, Accessories after the Fact, p.54-
> 57) ....
That's right Randle and Frazier both said that the WIDTH of the fake
bag that the FBI created was about the same size as the bag Oswald
carried.... but they strongly disagreed about the length of the bag.
>
> "The Warren Commission concluded that Frazier and Randle probably
> erred in their recollections of the length of the bag (WR, p.134), and
> it was understandable the two had done so.
That's right the W.C. and VB both ignore the witnesses who actually
saw Oswald carry the bag so the can use the larger fake bag to frame
Oswald.
Neither Frazier nor his
> sister, the only two people who saw Oswald with the package, suspected
> that it was of any significance.
That's true but that's irrelevant...because regardless of the
implications, they both had objects which they used as a scale to
estimate the length of the bag the saw Oswald carry. Randle said he
carried the bag beside his leg with his arm straight down at his side,
and the bag almost touched the ground, On the 5' 9" Oswald that
distance was about 27 inches. Frazier noticed how much of the seat
of his 53 chevy was covered by the bag, and when the FBI measured the
distance that Frazier indicated they found it covered 27 inches of the
seat.
>
> "They therefore had no reason to note its dimensions for later recall.
> Frazier caught only a glimpse of the package on the backseat as he got
> behind the wheel of his car. After arriving at the Depository, Oswald
> got out first and remained ahead of Frazier by from twelve to
> ultimately fifty feet (by the time Oswald reached the Book Depository
> Building) as they walked toward the building (the first time, he said,
> that Oswald had ever walked in front of him into the building).
>
> "During the walk, the package was partly obscured by Oswald's hand,
This is a damned lie.... Frazier said the package was not visible from
behind.
He did NOT say the package was "partly obscured".......
> arm, and shoulder as he carried it. (CE 2009, 24 H 409; 2 H 228, WCT
> Buell Wesley Frazier) Frazier said he "didn't pay much attention" to
> the package because he didn't have "any reason to doubt his [Oswald's]
> word" that it contained curtain rods. ....
>
> "Under Frazier's supervision, the FBI measured the length of that
> visible portion to be 9X1 inch (CE 2009, 24 H 409). Since he could
> only see this small portion of the package under Oswald's right arm,
> and because he didn't notice any part of the package sticking above
> his right shoulder ("you couldn't tell that he had a package from the
> back"), Frazier assumed that it must have been tucked under his
> armpit, telling the Commission, "I don't see how you could have it
> anywhere other than under your armpit" (2 H 243).
That's right...Frazier said Oswald had the bag cupped in his hand and
tucked into his armpit. and the bag was not visible from behind.
This means that the bag did not contain anything rigid that would have
prevented it from being folded down short enough to fit in Oswald's
cupped hand and under his armpit. That distance was about 22 inches.
>
> "Although the critics have been quick to embrace Frazier's conclusion,
> it should be repeated that he told the Commission over and over (no
> less than five separate times) that he didn't pay much attention to
> the package or to the way Oswald carried it (2 H 228, 229, 239, 241,
> 243).
He paid enough attention to point out how much of the seat was covered
and how Oswld carried the package to the TSBD.
>
> "Just as importantly, Frazier told the Warren Commission that "I
> couldn't see
> much of the bag from him walking in front of me. Now he could have had
> some of it sticking out in front of his hands because I didn't see it
> from the front." Question: "Now, you said that some of the bag might
> have been beyond his hands?" "Yes, sir. I said it could have, now I am
> not saying it was." "In other words, it [the bag] could have been
> longer than his hands?" "Right." But later, Frazier said the bag could
> have extended "widthwise, not lengthwise," and that he did not think
> "it was longer than his hands." (2 H 240-241)
The W.C. was attempting to confuse the issue....Frazier never argued
about the WIDTH of the bag....He disagreed about the length...and the
W.C. knew that.
VB knew it also....He's just a latter day Commissioner.
Walt
David Von Pein
Yes. Via the caption. (Which I already said earlier, of course.)
Do you now want to argue that the photo captions aren't really VB's
words, but someone else's instead? (Go run to Lifton with that
theory...he'll lap it up I'm sure.)
I've tried to find the exact picture online that VB uses in his book,
but I had no luck. It doesn't seem to be a "CE" or "CD" document at
all. Although it probably IS a "CD" (Commission Document), and I just
haven't found it amongst the thousands of pages that exist within the
1,555 official "Commission Documents".
But, as I mentioned, you can tell from the creases in the bag that the
VB photo is not of the replica bag. Plus, there appears to be some
discoloration on the bag too (from the FBI testing). There certainly
was no such discoloration of the "replica" bag, because that's the
whole reason why such a replica was created in the first place, to
keep that bag clean and non-discolored.
Plus -- common sense ALONE tells any non-kook that the bag placed
right next to the rifle (CE139) in an official photograph is the EXACT
SAME BAG THAT WAS REMOVED FROM THE DEPOSITORY.
Why on Earth would they place a different non-CE142 bag next to the
rifle?*
* = Let me guess....you, as a kook, don't trust the authorities.
Right?
Anyway, the CT-Kooks of the Earth wouldn't believe God (or George
Burns as "God") even if He swooped down on them and said the bag in
the VB photo was CE142.
Walt also seems to be claiming that even CE142 wasn't found on the 6th
Floor, when he utters this nonsense:
"The ORIGINAL bag that the cops claimed was found in the SE corner of
the sixth floor" -- (Walt).
You seem to be implying that there were TWO phony bags.
Walt
Yes there were two bags that were NOT the 27 inch bag that Oswald
carried.
One of the 38 inch bags ( a book wrapper) was tested for fingerprints
and discolored in the process.
The FBI had Roy Truly fabricate a fake bag like the book wrapper so
they could show it to Frazier and Randle in an attempt to get them to
agree that the bag they saw Oswald carry was just like the fake bag
that Truly fabricated. There was a tapered paper gun case that Day
found on the sixth floor, which he folded up and put in his pocket and
never displayed to anybody other than Roy Truly who was with Day at
the time he found that TAPERED paper gun case. He turned to Truly and
asked him if he'd ever seen the tapered paper gun case before. Truly
denied ever having seen the gun case, so Day folded it up and put it
in his pocket.
Walt
Walt
> >>> "Hey {Mr. D.R. Von Pein, sir}, are you absolutely sure that the bag in the picture in {Mr. Bugliosi's} book is a photo of the ORIGINAL bag that the cops claimed was found in the SE corner of the sixth floor?? Did {Mr. Bugliosi, Esq.} actually say that?" <<<
>
> Yes. Via the caption. (Which I already said earlier, of course.)
>
> Do you now want to argue that the photo captions aren't really VB's
> words, but someone else's instead? (Go run to Lifton with that
> theory...he'll lap it up I'm sure.)
No I don't want to argue with you.... I just wanted you to confirm
that VB said it was he ORIGINAL bag .
Now perhaps you should read what the note in the lower right hand
corner of the bag says......
Walt
David Von Pein
that Truly fabricated." <<<
You're insane.
>>> "There was a tapered paper gun case that Day found on the sixth floor, which he folded up and put in his pocket and never displayed to anybody other than Roy Truly who was with Day at the time he found that TAPERED paper gun case." <<<
You're still insane.
>>> "He turned to Truly and asked him if he'd ever seen the tapered paper gun case before." <<<
You're unbelievably insane. But keep going...
>>> "Truly denied ever having seen the gun case, so Day folded it up and put it in his pocket." <<<
Into the endzone of the funny farm goes Walt!! Six points!!
Care to try for the extra point?
tomnln
"Walt" <papakoc...@evertek.net> wrote in message
news:1182110913.6...@q69g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
Bud
<snicker> Kooks demand the LN talk about the evidence. LN talk about
the evidence. Kooks sputter "I don`t believe it, phony, planted,
manufactured, squalk!"
> <snip the nonsense>
Bud
Nobody measured the bag when it was being carried by Oz.
> > "Linnie Mae Randle, who first saw Oswald with the package from her
> > kitchen window and then from her kitchen door on the morning of the
> > assassination, described the package as a "heavy brown bag, heavier
> > than a grocery bag" that was "more bulky" toward the bottom (where the
> > butt of the rifle would be) than it was on the top.
> If there had been a rifle in that bag, ( an impossibility) How does VB
> know the butt would have been at the bottom of the bag..... Is there
> some law of physics that makes it impossible for a rifle to have the
> butt up??
>
>
> >
> > "She also thought the bag might have been about 27 to 28 inches long-
> > the bag found in the Depository was actually 38 inches in length,
> > while the 401/5-inch rifle, disassembled, measured 344/5 inches. When
> > shown the bag found beneath the sixth-floor window, Randle recalled
> > that the bag she saw Oswald with was around the same width. (2 H 248-
> > 250, WCT Linnie Mae Randle; CE 2008, 24 H 407-408; 344/5 inches: 3 H
> > 395, WCT Robert A. Frazier; Meagher, Accessories after the Fact, p.54-
> > 57) ....
>
> That's right Randle and Frazier both said that the WIDTH of the fake
> bag that the FBI created was about the same size as the bag Oswald
> carried.... but they strongly disagreed about the length of the bag.
Their width estimates were as erroneous as their length estimates.
> > "The Warren Commission concluded that Frazier and Randle probably
> > erred in their recollections of the length of the bag (WR, p.134), and
> > it was understandable the two had done so.
>
> That's right the W.C. and VB both ignore the witnesses who actually
> saw Oswald carry the bag so the can use the larger fake bag to frame
> Oswald.
They don`t ignore them, they are useful in determing how Oz got his
rifle into the TSBD. There is just no good reason to believe that the
details they related about their brief views of a mundane object must
be correct on all counts. When they say it is "understandable", they
didn`t mean by idjits.
> Neither Frazier nor his
> > sister, the only two people who saw Oswald with the package, suspected
> > that it was of any significance.
>
> That's true but that's irrelevant...because regardless of the
> implications, they both had objects which they used as a scale to
> estimate the length of the bag the saw Oswald carry. Randle said he
> carried the bag beside his leg with his arm straight down at his side,
> and the bag almost touched the ground, On the 5' 9" Oswald that
> distance was about 27 inches. Frazier noticed how much of the seat
> of his 53 chevy was covered by the bag, and when the FBI measured the
> distance that Frazier indicated they found it covered 27 inches of the
> seat.
He glanced in his backseat. And how is thismethod of relating
information any better than holding you hands apart, and saying "It
was about this big"?
> >
> > "They therefore had no reason to note its dimensions for later recall.
> > Frazier caught only a glimpse of the package on the backseat as he got
> > behind the wheel of his car. After arriving at the Depository, Oswald
> > got out first and remained ahead of Frazier by from twelve to
> > ultimately fifty feet (by the time Oswald reached the Book Depository
> > Building) as they walked toward the building (the first time, he said,
> > that Oswald had ever walked in front of him into the building).
> >
> > "During the walk, the package was partly obscured by Oswald's hand,
>
> This is a damned lie.... Frazier said the package was not visible from
> behind.
> He did NOT say the package was "partly obscured".......
You`re wrong, as usual. Read the FBI report, about the 1 inch by 8
inch portion Frazier could see from behind.
> > arm, and shoulder as he carried it. (CE 2009, 24 H 409; 2 H 228, WCT
> > Buell Wesley Frazier) Frazier said he "didn't pay much attention" to
> > the package because he didn't have "any reason to doubt his [Oswald's]
> > word" that it contained curtain rods. ....
> >
> > "Under Frazier's supervision, the FBI measured the length of that
> > visible portion to be 9X1 inch (CE 2009, 24 H 409). Since he could
> > only see this small portion of the package under Oswald's right arm,
> > and because he didn't notice any part of the package sticking above
> > his right shoulder ("you couldn't tell that he had a package from the
> > back"), Frazier assumed that it must have been tucked under his
> > armpit, telling the Commission, "I don't see how you could have it
> > anywhere other than under your armpit" (2 H 243).
>
> That's right...Frazier said Oswald had the bag cupped in his hand and
> tucked into his armpit.
If you want to pretend that the brief observations of a witness who
wasn`t interested in this object must be accurate.
> and the bag was not visible from behind.
> This means that the bag did not contain anything rigid that would have
> prevented it from being folded down short enough to fit in Oswald's
> cupped hand and under his armpit. That distance was about 22 inches.
>
> >
> > "Although the critics have been quick to embrace Frazier's conclusion,
> > it should be repeated that he told the Commission over and over (no
> > less than five separate times) that he didn't pay much attention to
> > the package or to the way Oswald carried it (2 H 228, 229, 239, 241,
> > 243).
>
> He paid enough attention to point out how much of the seat was covered
> and how Oswld carried the package to the TSBD.
He related the impression he had. Who knows how accurate these
impressions were...
Walt
Here's what Frazier told the W.C...... Tell him he's wrong.
because he didn't notice any part of the package sticking above his
right shoulder ("you couldn't tell that he had a package from the
back"), Frazier assumed that it must have been tucked under his
armpit, telling the Commission, "I don't see how you could have it
anywhere other than under your armpit" (2 H 243).
"you couldn't tell that he had a package from the back".........Buell
Frazier.
> > > Book Depository and constructed from paper and tape a similar bag."- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Walt
> On 17 Jun, 18:49, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > >>> "Hey {Mr. D.R. Von Pein, sir}, are you absolutely sure that the bag in the picture in {Mr. Bugliosi's} book is a photo of the ORIGINAL bag that the cops claimed was found in the SE corner of the sixth floor?? Did {Mr. Bugliosi, Esq.} actually say that?" <<<
>
> > Yes. Via the caption. (Which I already said earlier, of course.)
>
> > Do you now want to argue that the photo captions aren't really VB's
> > words, but someone else's instead? (Go run to Lifton with that
> > theory...he'll lap it up I'm sure.)
>
> No I don't want to argue with you.... I just wanted you to confirm
> that VB said it was he ORIGINAL bag .
>
> Now perhaps you should read what the note in the lower right hand
> corner of the bag says......
>
of the bag says......
Hello, hello,....hello.... Damn!,... the lines gone dead.... I think
he hung up. Hello, Von Pea brain
can you hear me?? What does the note that is written on the bag
say??
Walt
> > You seem to be implying that there were TWO phony bags.- Hide quoted text -
aeffects
C'mon David.... step up, what does the hand written note say on the
lower right hand corner of the bag?
Wasn't there a note on the FAKE bag stating it's NOT the REAL bag
found in the SE corner, but a *replica* bag made by Truly for the
FBI?
Bud
You still haven`t read the FBI report of when they interviewed
these two witnesses, have you idjit?
aeffects
what does the note say, pea brain? Spit it out!
> ...
>
> read more ยป
David Von Pein
There's no "note" visible on the bag in the pic in VB's book.
So...what's your point, kook?
Walt
Psssst....Pea Brain....you'll hafta pull yer head outta yer ass ta see
it. It's right there in the lower right hand corner. What does it
say? Do you want me to tell you what it says? I gotta warn ya, it
reveals that both you and yer buddy VB are liars.
Walt
Bud
There is nothing visible there, idjit.
> Walt