Why DVP is wrong about the bag
greg
rifle?
Frazier.
Who inexplicably lingered in Frazier's car to charge the battery even
though it had just been driven, thus allowing another occupant to get
ahead some distance?
Frazier.
Who else carried a paper bag in Frazier's car and took it into the building?
Frazier.
Who said they had lunch and left to take the rest of the day off because
they thought there'd be no more work?
Frazier (to William Manchester on Sep 21, 1964)
Who was said to have passed a lie detector test by stating that the bag
found was not the one Oswald had - and that Oswald's had been made of
thin crinkly paper?
Frazier.
Who raced to the Paine residence when the police pulled up to tell them
about a "suspicious" looking bag she'd seen Oswald with that morning?
Linnie Mae.
Who sent the police after Buell, but gave them the wrong location to
find him?
Linnie Mae.
Who could not actually have seen Oswald place anything in Buell's car
from her stated location at the kitchen window?
Linnie Mae.
Who's husband (apart from Marina's) was investigated in relation to the
rifle sights?
Linnie Mae's.
Who used psychological ploys to convince Buell and Linnie Mae that the
bag found could in fact be the bag they saw Oswald with?
Ruth and Mike Paine pal, Bob Odum.
http://reopenjfkcase.interodent.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=50&Itemid=37
What the hell... let's also throw in...
Who's brother-in-law became mayor of Irving - a position in which he was
accused of profiteering from?
Linnie Mae's.
Who's brother-in-law became the target of NAACP over alleged racism in a
second election bid?
Linnie-Mae's.
------------------
Cheap crinkly paper bag like you'd find in a five and dime. Frazier's
original description, and one that, according to the polygraph, was
truthful.
Just the type you'd use for lunch. And Oswald said it carried his lunch.
No one asked Buell to describe the bag he claimed carried his lunch.
Perhaps Buell's had - ahem - "curtain rods"? Perhaps he was lucky he
wasn't polygraphed about *his* bag?
Perhaps that's why he went straight to the basement with his coat and
"lunch" instead of the usual place - the domino room?
And no witnesses put any bag in Oswald's hands apart Buell and his
sister. Who'd take notice of a thin crinkly old lunch bag anyway? Maybe
it fit in Oswald's jacket pocket when he walked? Maybe that's why
Dougherty saw nothing?
Nor did any other employee in the building. Nor any of the neighbors of
the Paines and Randles whose houses Oswald walked past that morning -
all of whom were interviewed.
Maybe Texans just aren't as nosy as Louisianans? After all, every
neighbor of Oswald in Magazine St seemed to know all of his comings and
goings and all about every visitor he ever had.
David Von Pein
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/bff8060438c3a461
Good Lord. What an idiotic theory. (Although, of course, not the first
time I've seen it around these parts).
Now, all you need to do is figure out WHY the brother-&-sister
conspirator team of "Buell & Linnie Mae" didn't go that EXTRA step
toward framing everybody's favorite "patsy" for all 1963 Dallas
murders by NOT giving the DPD a more accurate description of the paper
bag (length-wise, that is). And, I guess, "crinkly"-wise too.
IOW -- If they were trying to frame Ozzie, why would Frazier & Randle
say the bag Oz was carrying was TOO SHORT to carry the rifle that the
evil twins of deception (Buell & Linnie) desperately need to have
everybody believe was actually inside that bag?
Your Buell/LM theory is stupid. And you should be embarrassed at the
thought of posting such tripe. But CTers have a high tolerance when
comes to turning beet-red it seems.
Anybody yet figure out why people would want to go that extra mile-&-a-
half to try and exonerate a proven double-murderer (and at the same
time try to pin the label of conspirator on a 19-year-old boxboy named
Buell and his sister....sans a stitch of proof)?
~shrug time~
greg
>
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/bff8060438c3a461
>
>
>
>
>
> Good Lord. What an idiotic theory. (Although, of course, not the first
> time I've seen it around these parts).
How unusual. You ascribe the word "theory" to what is merely a set of
established facts and pertinent questions based on those facts.
> Now, all you need to do is figure out WHY the brother-&-sister
> conspirator team of "Buell & Linnie Mae" didn't go that EXTRA step
> toward framing everybody's favorite "patsy" for all 1963 Dallas
> murders by NOT giving the DPD a more accurate description of the paper
> bag (length-wise, that is). And, I guess, "crinkly"-wise too.
My theory - which wasn't mentioned in the post (no theory was) is that
Buell was possibly a potential alternate or co patsy.
> IOW -- If they were trying to frame Ozzie, why would Frazier & Randle
> say the bag Oz was carrying was TOO SHORT to carry the rifle that the
> evil twins of deception (Buell & Linnie) desperately need to have
> everybody believe was actually inside that bag?
I never said they were trying to frame Oswald. Those are YOUR words.
Buell was asked about - and shown - apparently during or just prior to a
polygrah, the bag allegedly found on the 6th floor and specifically
asked if this was Oswald's bag. He replied that it didn't look like the
one Oswald had, which he said was thin and crinkly. He passed the test.
SO what really happened here? He more or less corroborated what Oswald
told police - it was a plain ol' lunch bag.
> Your Buell/LM theory is stupid And you should be embarrassed at the
> thought of posting such tripe. But CTers have a high tolerance when
> comes to turning beet-red it seems.
I posted a set of facts, and pertinent questions based on those facts.
It is you who should be embarrassed by your patently obvious attempt to
set up a straw man to knowck down while avoiding posting anything
remotely responsive to the issues raised.
> Anybody yet figure out why people would want to go that extra mile-&-a-
> half to try and exonerate a proven double-murderer (and at the same
> time try to pin the label of conspirator on a 19-year-old boxboy named
> Buell and his sister....sans a stitch of proof)?
Anyone yet figure out why David won't respond to each fact I posted?
> ~shrug time~
Indeed. And while you're contemplating the meaning of life, maybe you
can explain why, of all possible individuals, only Bill Randle (aside
from Oswald) was investigated in relation to the scope on the M-C? No
explanation is in the records I've found.
David Von Pein
Good theory there.
In other words: Why stick with where all the evidence leads--to LHO--
when you could just as easily go looking for "alternate" theories and
"co-patsies". (Love that last one--"co-patsy".)
I've always wondered, too, if such a grandiose "Let's Get Oz" plot was
being formulated in great detail prior to 11/22...why in the world
didn't the super-slick plotters merely "plant" a few witnesses in
Dealey Plaza to say, afterward, that they had seen LHO in the window
pulling the trigger?
Pretty careless of those detailed "advance men" who were orchestrating
the massive plot against Schnook Oswald, wasn't it?
"They" go to the detailed and ridiculously-needless trouble (per some
CTers) to have an "imposter Oswald" be seen at a car lot and a rifle
range and a gun shop in the weeks leading up to the assassination --
but "they" don't bother manufacturing some of the BEST evidence they
could possibly amass -- i.e., a couple of actual FAKE WITNESSES to say
they saw the good ol' "patsy" performing the shooting.
Go figure that omission.
(But I imagine the kooks of CT-land have a good explanation for why
the plotters didn't have any witnesses "at the ready", even though
they apparently had PLENTY of police officials [and others] ready to
tell one rotten lie after another after the shooting.)
greg
>>>>"My theory - which wasn't mentioned in the post (no theory was) is that Buell was possibly a potential alternate or co patsy." <<<
>
>
> Good theory there.
>
> In other words: Why stick with where all the evidence leads--to LHO--
> when you could just as easily go looking for "alternate" theories and
> "co-patsies". (Love that last one--"co-patsy".)
The same evidence leads you refer to are the very ones that so often
lead elsewhere. The bag is a case in point.
A bag was allegedly found, but not photographed in place.
Lewis, The polygraph tester of Buell refers to it as a "brown heavy
paper gun case". Buell, one of only two witnesses to the bag carried by
Oswald said he didn't think it resembled Oswald's which he describes as
a "crinkly brown paper sack".
If a "brown heavy paper gun case" was found, and Buell was being
truthful - as attested to by all present, who did the heavy paper "gun
case" belong to? Certainly Lewis was flummoxed by this turn of events.
No - just for a change of pace, try dealing with the above without
spiralling into what your idea of a conspiracy theory is.
Then we can move on to other issues raised in the initial post.
greg
David Von Pein
A few simple Yes or No questions for you:
Question #1:
Do you think Buell Wesley Frazier saw Lee H. Oswald carrying a
relatively-lengthy paper bag into the TSBD on 11/22/63? (That is: a
bag that was more than 2 feet long, i.e., certainly bigger than just a
lunch sack.)
Y or N?
Question #2:
Do you think Buell Frazier was lying when he gave the following
"OSWALD BROUGHT NO LUNCH TO WORK" testimony to the WC in 1964?:
Mr. BALL - Did you notice whether or not Lee had a package that looked
like a lunch package that morning?
Mr. FRAZIER - You know like I told you earlier, I say, he didn't take
his lunch because I remember right when I got in the car I asked him
where was his lunch and he said he was going to buy his lunch that
day.
Mr. BALL - He told you that that day, did he?
Mr. FRAZIER - Right. That is right.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/frazierb1.htm
Question #3:
Do you think Buell Frazier was lying out his ass when he said this to
Vince Bugliosi and a large-sized cable-TV audience in 1986?:
VINCENT BUGLIOSI -- "Did you recall how he {Lee Harvey Oswald} was
carrying the bag?"
BUELL WESLEY FRAZIER -- "Yes sir. He was carrying it parallel to his
body."
MR. BUGLIOSI -- "Okay, so he carried the bag right next to his
body....on the right side?"
MR. FRAZIER -- "Yes sir. On the right side."
MR. BUGLIOSI -- "Was it cupped in his hand and under his armpit? I
think you've said that in the past."
MR. FRAZIER -- "Yes sir."
MR. BUGLIOSI -- "Mr. Frazier, is it true that you paid hardly any
attention to this bag?"
MR. FRAZIER -- "That is true."
MR. BUGLIOSI -- "So the bag could have been protruding out in front of
his body, and you wouldn't have been able to see it, is that correct?"
MR. FRAZIER -- "That is true."
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/9ccd8645d5da3d91
Bud
greg wrote:
> Who - without resort to a messy paper trail - is known to have owned a
> rifle?
>
> Frazier.
Yah, note that when an innocent man is asked if he owns a rifle, he
says he does. Guilty Oswald denied owning one.
> Who inexplicably lingered in Frazier's car to charge the battery even
> though it had just been driven, thus allowing another occupant to get
> ahead some distance?
>
> Frazier.
Why do you says its "inexplicable"? Frazier explained why he did
this.
> Who else carried a paper bag in Frazier's car and took it into the building?
>
> Frazier.
JFK wasn`t killed by a sandwich.
> Who said they had lunch and left to take the rest of the day off because
> they thought there'd be no more work?
>
> Frazier (to William Manchester on Sep 21, 1964)
Who had an alibi for the time of the shooting? Frazier. Who didn`t?
Oswald.
> Who was said to have passed a lie detector test by stating that the bag
> found was not the one Oswald had - and that Oswald's had been made of
> thin crinkly paper?
>
> Frazier.
Meaning he truthfully believed that, at the time (the FBI has him
believing that until they showed him the bag found in the TSBD, weeks
after the LDT). And I doubt if anything about "crinkly paper" was said
during questioninf for the lie detector test.
> Who raced to the Paine residence when the police pulled up to tell them
> about a "suspicious" looking bag she'd seen Oswald with that morning?
>
> Linnie Mae.
Had she done this before JFK was shot, he might be alive today.
> Who sent the police after Buell, but gave them the wrong location to
> find him?
>
> Linnie Mae.
Perhaps she was unaware that her father-in-law had been moved from
Parkland to the medical facility Frazier was found.
> Who could not actually have seen Oswald place anything in Buell's car
> from her stated location at the kitchen window?
>
> Linnie Mae.
She didn`t say she saw him put the bag in the car from the vantage
of the kitchen window.
> Who's husband (apart from Marina's) was investigated in relation to the
> rifle sights?
>
> Linnie Mae's.
Investigation tends to exonerate the innocent, like in the case of
Linnie Mae`s husband. In the case of Marina`s husband, it tended to
pile up a lot of incriminating information.
> Who used psychological ploys to convince Buell and Linnie Mae that the
> bag found could in fact be the bag they saw Oswald with?
>
> Ruth and Mike Paine pal, Bob Odum.
Who believes Odum used "psychological ploys"?
> http://reopenjfkcase.interodent.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=50&Itemid=37
>
> What the hell... let's also throw in...
>
> Who's brother-in-law became mayor of Irving - a position in which he was
> accused of profiteering from?
>
> Linnie Mae's.
>
> Who's brother-in-law became the target of NAACP over alleged racism in a
> second election bid?
>
> Linnie-Mae's.
You couldn`t dig up anything on Linnie Mae`s mailman?
> ------------------
>
> Cheap crinkly paper bag like you'd find in a five and dime. Frazier's
> original description, and one that, according to the polygraph, was
> truthful.
Jean Hill probably would have passed a lie-detector test saying
there was a dog in the limo, if that is what she believed when she
took the test. Doesn`t put a dog in the limo.
> Just the type you'd use for lunch. And Oswald said it carried his lunch.
Now you think he was going to eat his rifle?
> No one asked Buell to describe the bag he claimed carried his lunch.
>
> Perhaps Buell's had - ahem - "curtain rods"? Perhaps he was lucky he
> wasn't polygraphed about *his* bag?
>
> Perhaps that's why he went straight to the basement with his coat and
> "lunch" instead of the usual place - the domino room?
>
> And no witnesses put any bag in Oswald's hands apart Buell and his
> sister. Who'd take notice of a thin crinkly old lunch bag anyway? Maybe
> it fit in Oswald's jacket pocket when he walked? Maybe that's why
> Dougherty saw nothing?
Or maybe because he way over on the otherside of the cluttered room
from where Oz came in. Doughtery said he was on the wrapping table.
Check where that is in relation to the door Oz came in, photos exist
in evidence.
> Nor did any other employee in the building. Nor any of the neighbors of
> the Paines and Randles whose houses Oswald walked past that morning -
> all of whom were interviewed.
Lucky we have LMR and WBF, or it would be a mystery how Oswald
snuck his rifle into the TSBD.
> Maybe Texans just aren't as nosy as Louisianans?
Or sleep later. I don`t know what goes on outside that early, I`m
getting ready for work, or trying to enlighten folks on the internet.
> After all, every
> neighbor of Oswald in Magazine St seemed to know all of his comings and
> goings and all about every visitor he ever had.
Chalk it up as #3754 on the list of thing CT find suspicious, but
can go nowhere with.
David Von Pein
GREG SAID:
>>> "Who'd take notice of a thin crinkly old lunch bag anyway? Maybe it fit in Oswald's jacket pocket when he walked? Maybe that's why Dougherty saw nothing?" <<<
BUD THEN SAID:
>>> "Or maybe because he {was} way over on the other side of the cluttered room from where Oz came in. Doughtery said he was on the wrapping table." <<<
DVP NOW SAYS:
Re: "Oswald's lunch".....
CTers apparently like to ignore the fact that Wes Frazier told the WC
that he ASKED Oswald where his (LHO's) lunch was, and he (LHO) TOLD
Frazier that he (LHO) was going to "buy his lunch" on Nov. 22:
"He {Oswald} didn't take his lunch because I remember right when
I got in the car I asked him where was his lunch and he said he was
going to buy his lunch that day." -- B.W. Frazier
Therefore, OSWALD TOLD US (in effect) THAT HE DID NOT TAKE ANY LUNCH
SACK INTO WORK ON NOV. 22. Period.
Re: Dougherty's observations.....
I think it's quite possible (even likely) that after entering the
building, Oswald took some measures to hide the rifle package from the
view of as many people as he might run into as humanly possible,
including (quite possibly) Jack Dougherty.
Perhaps Oswald carried the bag off to the side in some way to where
the bag was totally hidden from Dougherty's line-of-sight as Oz was in
Jack's LOS that morning (we're only talking a few seconds' worth of
observation from JD after all).
Bud, I believe, hypothesized that Oswald might very well have stashed
the rifle package outside the building somewhere just before going
inside.
However, Frazier's affidavit would seem to make that theory a bit less
likely:
"When we started walking, Lee was just a few feet ahead of me,
but he kept walking faster than me, and finally got way ahead of me. I
saw him go in the back door at the Loading Dock of the building that
we work in, and he still had the package under his arm." -- B.W.
Frazier; 11/22/63
greg
posted instead of giving your own ideas of a what a CT is.
greg
http://reopenjfkcase.interodent.com
greg
Bud wrote:
>
> greg wrote:
>
>>Who - without resort to a messy paper trail - is known to have owned a
>>rifle?
>>
>>Frazier.
>
>
> Yah, note that when an innocent man is asked if he owns a rifle, he
> says he does.
The rifle was found during a search of the Randle home. He could hardly
deny ownership and expect that would fly.
Guilty Oswald denied owning one.
And the evidence that he did, is tenuous and circumstantial. You're
employing circular reasoning concerning ownership of the rifle and guilt.
>>Who inexplicably lingered in Frazier's car to charge the battery even
>>though it had just been driven, thus allowing another occupant to get
>>ahead some distance?
>>
>>Frazier.
>
>
> Why do you says its "inexplicable"? Frazier explained why he did
> this.
I say "inexplicable" becuase his explanation was plain silly.
"What I was doing--glanced up and watching cars for a minute but I was
letting my engine run and getting to charge up my battery, because when
you stop and start you have to charge up your battery."
But let's for the sake of argument, allow the above as being legitimate.
If it was legitimate on 11/22/63, it would have been legitimate on all
other occasions Frazier gave Oswald a ride to work. NO evidence suggests
that. He testified that they always walked together previously.
>>Who else carried a paper bag in Frazier's car and took it into the building?
>>
>>Frazier.
>
>
> JFK wasn`t killed by a sandwich.
Frazier said it was a sandwich, but he testified to eating alone - out
of sight of everyone in the basement, so there is no corroboration as to
what was in his bag.
>>Who said they had lunch and left to take the rest of the day off because
>>they thought there'd be no more work?
>>
>>Frazier (to William Manchester on Sep 21, 1964)
>
>
> Who had an alibi for the time of the shooting? Frazier. Who didn`t?
> Oswald.
Why all this focusing on being a shooter, as if that is the only role
any could or did have?
>>Who was said to have passed a lie detector test by stating that the bag
>>found was not the one Oswald had - and that Oswald's had been made of
>>thin crinkly paper?
>>
>>Frazier.
>
>
> Meaning he truthfully believed that, at the time (the FBI has him
> believing that until they showed him the bag found in the TSBD, weeks
> after the LDT).
The FBI interview with polygraph tester Lewis states Frazier was shown
the bag "while he [Lewis] was running the polygraph..."
And I doubt if anything about "crinkly paper" was said
> during questioninf for the lie detector test.
Certainly not by the polygrapher... but nevertheless, that was what the
report states Frazier said, and the description crops up again when the
FBI interview Frazier at his place - except with the added comment that
it was the kind of paper you'd get in a 5 and dime.
Are you saying you think Lewis and/or the FBI lied about what Frazier said?
>>Who raced to the Paine residence when the police pulled up to tell them
>>about a "suspicious" looking bag she'd seen Oswald with that morning?
>>
>>Linnie Mae.
>
>
> Had she done this before JFK was shot, he might be alive today.
Except she later claimed to have been told that Oswald would be carrying
"curtain rods" to work that morning - if that was the case, then seeing
him with a longish package should not have been "suspicious".
Mr. BALL. Do you remember anything about curtain rods?
Mrs. RANDLE. Yes.
Mr. BALL. What do you remember about that?
Mrs. RANDLE. He had told Wesley--
>>Who sent the police after Buell, but gave them the wrong location to
>>find him?
>>
>>Linnie Mae.
>
>
> Perhaps she was unaware that her father-in-law had been moved from
> Parkland to the medical facility Frazier was found.
Can you please point to any testimony or document where it indicates he
was moved from one facility to another?
>>Who could not actually have seen Oswald place anything in Buell's car
>>from her stated location at the kitchen window?
>>
>>Linnie Mae.
>
>
> She didn`t say she saw him put the bag in the car from the vantage
> of the kitchen window.
Mea culpa. She was looking out the kitchen window when she first saw
him, but at the kitchen door when she says he was placing something in
the car. But the point remains: she could not see him do this from where
she was. And she admitted it to Sen. Cooper, who apparently was not
entirely convinced by her original version.
Senator COOPER. On that point--did you see Lee Oswald place the package
in the automobile?
Mrs. RANDLE. In the automobile. I do not know if he put it on the seat
or on the floor.
Senator COOPER. I mean did you see him throw open the. door?
Mrs. RANDLE. Yes, sir.
Senator COOPER. When he placed the package in there do you remember
whether he used one hand or two?
Mrs. RANDLE. No; because I only opened the door briefly and what made me
establish the door on Wesley's car, it is an old car and that door, the
window is broken and everything and it is hard to close, so that cinched
in my mind which door it was, too. But it was only briefly that I looked.
Bottom line: she guessed he placed something in the car. She did not in
fact, see him do so.
>>Who's husband (apart from Marina's) was investigated in relation to the
>>rifle sights?
>>
>>Linnie Mae's.
>
>
> Investigation tends to exonerate the innocent,
Good point. This particular investigation exonerated both who were under
suspicion - Oswald and Randle. The places that sold these Japanese made
scopes did not have records of the name Oswald, Hidell, Lee or Randle.
like in the case of
> Linnie Mae`s husband. In the case of Marina`s husband, it tended to
> pile up a lot of incriminating information.
Huh? You obviously have not read the reports on the investigation into
the scope. They could not tie Oswald or Randle to it. LA cop Manny
Penna, who had been doubling as a Dodd Committee investigator on the
mail order weapons problem, gave the FBI a solution that didn't require
any evidence of connection to the scope: it was his suggestion that to
claim that the scope came with the rifle. Penna's talents also came in
handy during the RFK investigation...
>>Who used psychological ploys to convince Buell and Linnie Mae that the
>>bag found could in fact be the bag they saw Oswald with?
>>
>>Ruth and Mike Paine pal, Bob Odum.
>
>
> Who believes Odum used "psychological ploys"?
Odum and his partner got Buell and Linnie (separately) to participate in
little self-transformative psychodramas. He called them reenactments. A
recognized technique in getting a required result or response, rather
than the facts. Kind of like torture.
>>http://reopenjfkcase.interodent.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=50&Itemid=37
>>
>>What the hell... let's also throw in...
>>
>>Who's brother-in-law became mayor of Irving - a position in which he was
>>accused of profiteering from?
>>
>>Linnie Mae's.
>>
>>Who's brother-in-law became the target of NAACP over alleged racism in a
>>second election bid?
>>
>>Linnie-Mae's.
>
>
> You couldn`t dig up anything on Linnie Mae`s mailman?
These people (including the brother-in-law) where under suspicion - and
on face falue at least - some of their actions *were* suspicious and
warranted investigating into possible links to a conspiracy.
As always always, though, leads were not pursued. Reinvestigaing cold
cases means picking up on such leads.
>>------------------
>>
>>Cheap crinkly paper bag like you'd find in a five and dime. Frazier's
>>original description, and one that, according to the polygraph, was
>>truthful.
>
>
> Jean Hill probably would have passed a lie-detector test saying
> there was a dog in the limo, if that is what she believed when she
> took the test. Doesn`t put a dog in the limo.
Okay. Then why was put under so much pressure to agree that the bag
shown him was Oswald's? Why not just let him continue to say what he
thought was true and dismiss him as just plain wrong - as they did with
Hill?
>>Just the type you'd use for lunch. And Oswald said it carried his lunch.
>
>
> Now you think he was going to eat his rifle?
He was frugal, after all. And let's face it, that scrawny physique could
use the iron ;-)
>>No one asked Buell to describe the bag he claimed carried his lunch.
>>
>>Perhaps Buell's had - ahem - "curtain rods"? Perhaps he was lucky he
>>wasn't polygraphed about *his* bag?
>>
>>Perhaps that's why he went straight to the basement with his coat and
>>"lunch" instead of the usual place - the domino room?
>>
>>And no witnesses put any bag in Oswald's hands apart Buell and his
>>sister. Who'd take notice of a thin crinkly old lunch bag anyway? Maybe
>>it fit in Oswald's jacket pocket when he walked? Maybe that's why
>>Dougherty saw nothing?
>
>
> Or maybe because he way over on the otherside of the cluttered room
> from where Oz came in. Doughtery said he was on the wrapping table.
> Check where that is in relation to the door Oz came in, photos exist
> in evidence.
But unlike Linnie, who eventually admitted she could not see Oswald
place anything in the car as had no line of sight at all - at least
Dougherty COULD did have such a line - could see him - did see him.
>>Nor did any other employee in the building. Nor any of the neighbors of
>>the Paines and Randles whose houses Oswald walked past that morning -
>>all of whom were interviewed.
>
>
> Lucky we have LMR and WBF, or it would be a mystery how Oswald
> snuck his rifle into the TSBD.
Yes. Indeed.
>>Maybe Texans just aren't as nosy as Louisianans?
>
>
> Or sleep later. I don`t know what goes on outside that early, I`m
> getting ready for work, or trying to enlighten folks on the internet.
Ya.
>>After all, every
>>neighbor of Oswald in Magazine St seemed to know all of his comings and
>>goings and all about every visitor he ever had.
>
>
> Chalk it up as #3754 on the list of thing CT find suspicious, but
> can go nowhere with.
Maybe. But those neighbors sure were a wealth of information.
David Von Pein
Why couldn't Oswald (on previous occasions) have simply waited for
Wesley until after Wesley had charged his battery in the parking lot--
and then they walked to work together? Is that an impossible solution?
>>> "These people (including the brother-in-law) where under suspicion - and on face falue at least - some of their actions *were* suspicious and warranted investigating into possible links to a conspiracy." <<<
Of course Buell was under some degree of "suspicion" at first. I'd
have looked into his actions too (if I'd been a DPD member that
weekend). After all, it was Wesley who drove the accused assassin to
work on the day the President was killed. And Wesley drove Oswald to
Irving the previous night. They were together in the car twice on Nov.
21-22. This cannot be said about Oswald and any OTHER human being on
those 2 days. (Unless you want to count cab driver Whaley and bus
driver McWatters.)
And the police DID investigate a possible "conspiracy link" between
Oswald and Frazier -- just as they should have, given the
circumstances that had the two of them riding to work in the same car.
For all the cops knew at that early stage, perhaps Oswald & Wesley
were very good friends and associates. They couldn't know they weren't
until they checked out both Oz and Wesley, which they did.
And what was found that would lead to a Frazier/Oswald "conspiracy
plot"? -- Answer: Not a darn thing.
It's kind of funny -- CTers gripe about the WC and the DPD (et al) not
looking deep enough for a "plot" of some kind....but when the cops DO
investigate a person (Frazier) for a possible connection to the crime
(and find nothing), it seems that CTers still gripe....because they
found NOTHING they could hang on Mr. Buell Frazier.
~shrug~
Walt
> David Von Pein wrote:
>
> >http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/bff8060438c3a461
>
> > Good Lord. What an idiotic theory. (Although, of course, not the first
> > time I've seen it around these parts).
>
> How unusual. You ascribe the word "theory" to what is merely a set of
> established facts and pertinent questions based on those facts.
>
> > Now, all you need to do is figure out WHY the brother-&-sister
> > conspirator team of "Buell & Linnie Mae" didn't go that EXTRA step
> > toward framing everybody's favorite "patsy" for all 1963 Dallas
> > murders by NOT giving the DPD a more accurate description of the paper
> > bag (length-wise, that is). And, I guess, "crinkly"-wise too.
>
> My theory - which wasn't mentioned in the post (no theory was) is that
> Buell was possibly a potential alternate or co patsy.
>
> > IOW -- If they were trying to frame Ozzie, why would Frazier & Randle
> > say the bag Oz was carrying was TOO SHORT to carry the rifle that the
> > evil twins of deception (Buell & Linnie) desperately need to have
> > everybody believe was actually inside that bag?
>
> I never said they were trying to frame Oswald. Those are YOUR words.
>
> Buell was asked about - and shown - apparently during or just prior to a
> polygrah, the bag allegedly found on the 6th floor and specifically
> asked if this was Oswald's bag. He replied that it didn't look like the
> one Oswald had, which he said was thin and crinkly. He passed the test.
Greg, the 64 dollar question is:...Was the "polygraph test" actually a
legitimate lie detector test?
I seriously doubt that the test results had any meaning at all. I've
read that a person has to be given all of the questions before he is
hooked up to the polygraph so that he'll be prepared for the questions
and the machine will respond to any deception. You can't just haul a
suspect into a room and set him down to take the test, and get any
meaning ful results. Cops often use the ruse to trick suspects into
incriminating themselves. The cops hook up a suspect and act like
they are giving him a true test, when in reality they are playing
games. Afterward they tell he suspect that the machine indicated that
he lied about some aspect of the questioning, and trick the sucker
into incriminating himself.
This is what they did to Buell Frazier, only they told him that the
machine had showed he was telling the truth when he said that Oswald
told him that he had curtain rods in a long paper sack on the back
seat of his car.
Oswald had said nothing of the kind but Frazier thought that curtain
rods were an innocuous item and they couldn't charge him with being an
accessory if he thought Oswald was carrying curtain rods.
greg
Walt,
here's what I said about the polygrpah in the article atmy site:
*The polygraph*
Buell and Linnie Mae were questioned by police until 9:00 pm, at which
time their affidavits were taken. After this was done, Detectives Rose
and Stovall were driving them back to Irving when a call came through to
return them to City Hall. Upon arrival, Rose phoned Captain Fritz who
ordered that Frazier be polygraphed. By the time the Crime Lab's RD
Lewis arrived to administer the test, it was 11:20. The test concluded
at 12:10am.[6] According to the combined report of Rose, Stovall and
Adamcik, the test "showed conclusively that Wesley Frazier was truthful".
But was a proper polygraph test actually administered, or was it a prop
to get Frazier's future cooperation on the bag alleged to have been
carried that morning by Oswald? The affidavit itself gives no detail on
the bag except approximate length and that it was folded. What would be
required later would be an admission it resembled the bag found in the
building.
Between Lewis' arrival time and the time the test was completed, only
fifty minutes had elapsed. This seems woefully inadequate when one
considers a pre-test interview is standard protocol. On top of that,
time was also required to write the questions, including the so-called
"control" questions. All this, plus the test in 50 minutes hardly seems
possible.
Officially, only Rose and Stovall witnessed the test. However, according
to Jim Bishop's 1968 book , The Day Kennedy Was Shot, there were five
other officers in the room and doorway apart from Lewis, and Frazier was
in a state of near hysteria.
By contrast, Rose, interviewed for Larry Sneed's book, No More Silence
claimed to view the test through a one-way mirror, and though "it wasn't
an ideal situation for a polygraph... it wasn't necessarily bad either
because Wesley was a straight guy. He seemed totally straight forward
and passed the test with flying colors."
If such a test was actually conducted with Frazier passing it, why has
there never been a report produced by Lewis? After extensive searching,
the only report found where Lewis is said to have stated he performed
such a test, is page 291 of Commission Document 7, which is an interview
of Lewis conducted by FBI Special Agent, Vince Drain on November 29,
1963. And what an interesting interview it was.
greg
http://reopenjfkcase.interodent.com
greg
>>>>"If it {charging his battery after arriving at work} was legitimate on 11/22/63, it would have been legitimate on all other occasions Frazier gave Oswald a ride to work. NO evidence suggests that. He testified that they always walked together previously." <<<
>
>
>
> Why couldn't Oswald (on previous occasions) have simply waited for
> Wesley until after Wesley had charged his battery in the parking lot--
> and then they walked to work together? Is that an impossible solution?
No reason. He did wait on this occasion. But Wes still hung back
claiming he was watching the rail cars being switched.
BTW, how many people do you know who charge their car battery straight
after driving to work?
>>>>"These people (including the brother-in-law) where under suspicion - and on face falue at least - some of their actions *were* suspicious and warranted investigating into possible links to a conspiracy." <<<
>
>
>
> Of course Buell was under some degree of "suspicion" at first. I'd
> have looked into his actions too (if I'd been a DPD member that
> weekend). After all, it was Wesley who drove the accused assassin to
> work on the day the President was killed. And Wesley drove Oswald to
> Irving the previous night. They were together in the car twice on Nov.
> 21-22. This cannot be said about Oswald and any OTHER human being on
> those 2 days. (Unless you want to count cab driver Whaley and bus
> driver McWatters.)
>
> And the police DID investigate a possible "conspiracy link" between
> Oswald and Frazier -- just as they should have, given the
> circumstances that had the two of them riding to work in the same car.
>
> For all the cops knew at that early stage, perhaps Oswald & Wesley
> were very good friends and associates. They couldn't know they weren't
> until they checked out both Oz and Wesley, which they did.
>
> And what was found that would lead to a Frazier/Oswald "conspiracy
> plot"? -- Answer: Not a darn thing.
The investigation was minimal, and leads regarding Bill Randle and his
brother were not followed through at all.
One example: On 11/22, Bill Randle drove to Austin with a fellow
employee named Berry Caster. Both were employed by Bill's brother, Marvin.
Without going innto what happened on that trip, and the leads that
generated and not followed up... would it really be too much to ask that
at a minimum, the police make inquiries into any links between Berry
Caster and Warren Caster, the man displaying rifles in the TSBD two days
before the assassination?
> It's kind of funny -- CTers gripe about the WC and the DPD (et al) not
> looking deep enough for a "plot" of some kind....but when the cops DO
> investigate a person (Frazier) for a possible connection to the crime
> (and find nothing), it seems that CTers still gripe....because they
> found NOTHING they could hang on Mr. Buell Frazier.
If there was nothing to find, they were lucky. They couldn't know that
from the limited investigaion undertaken.
But then... what were the orders from Washington again...? oh yeah...
Oswald was a lone nut. We don't want to know about any conspiracy...
> ~shrug~
Indeed.
Bud
greg wrote:
> Bud, thank you for reply. Maybe David could take a leaf...
He does fine. Had I his skills, I would write posts more like his.
> Bud wrote:
> >
> > greg wrote:
> >
> >>Who - without resort to a messy paper trail - is known to have owned a
> >>rifle?
> >>
> >>Frazier.
> >
> >
> > Yah, note that when an innocent man is asked if he owns a rifle, he
> > says he does.
>
> The rifle was found during a search of the Randle home. He could hardly
> deny ownership and expect that would fly.
There was a photo of Oswald holding his rifle, and he tried to give
it flight.
> Guilty Oswald denied owning one.
>
> And the evidence that he did, is tenuous and circumstantial.
Multiple corroborating witnesses?
> You're
> employing circular reasoning concerning ownership of the rifle and guilt.
Better than no reasoning at all.
> >>Who inexplicably lingered in Frazier's car to charge the battery even
> >>though it had just been driven, thus allowing another occupant to get
> >>ahead some distance?
> >>
> >>Frazier.
> >
> >
> > Why do you says its "inexplicable"? Frazier explained why he did
> > this.
>
> I say "inexplicable" becuase his explanation was plain silly.
In other words, he gave an explaination you didn`t like.
> "What I was doing--glanced up and watching cars for a minute but I was
> letting my engine run and getting to charge up my battery, because when
> you stop and start you have to charge up your battery."
>
> But let's for the sake of argument, allow the above as being legitimate.
>
> If it was legitimate on 11/22/63, it would have been legitimate on all
> other occasions Frazier gave Oswald a ride to work. NO evidence suggests
> that. He testified that they always walked together previously.
Oz didn`t have a rifle he needed to stash on those occasions.
> >>Who else carried a paper bag in Frazier's car and took it into the building?
> >>
> >>Frazier.
> >
> >
> > JFK wasn`t killed by a sandwich.
>
> Frazier said it was a sandwich, but he testified to eating alone - out
> of sight of everyone in the basement, so there is no corroboration as to
> what was in his bag.
Nor have you shown why any would be needed. Frazier`s car had a
trunk, he could put anything in it, as could any of the other
emp;oyees who drove into work. There just isn`t any reason to suspect
these people of having anything to do with this crime.
> >>Who said they had lunch and left to take the rest of the day off because
> >>they thought there'd be no more work?
> >>
> >>Frazier (to William Manchester on Sep 21, 1964)
> >
> >
> > Who had an alibi for the time of the shooting? Frazier. Who didn`t?
> > Oswald.
>
> Why all this focusing on being a shooter, as if that is the only role
> any could or did have?
Any time a person could be unaccounted for, that person could be
engaged in conspiracy related activity, eh? Until we know every little
thing, we have to pretend we know nothing? You kooks will be spinning
wheels on this simple matter for eternity.
> >>Who was said to have passed a lie detector test by stating that the bag
> >>found was not the one Oswald had - and that Oswald's had been made of
> >>thin crinkly paper?
> >>
> >>Frazier.
> >
> >
> > Meaning he truthfully believed that, at the time (the FBI has him
> > believing that until they showed him the bag found in the TSBD, weeks
> > after the LDT).
>
> The FBI interview with polygraph tester Lewis states Frazier was shown
> the bag "while he [Lewis] was running the polygraph..."
According to Odum and McNeely`s FBI report, it was showing him the
bag that led him to reconsider his initial conclusion about the type
of paper. So, until then he must have been relying on his original
assessment as true.
> And I doubt if anything about "crinkly paper" was said
> > during questioninf for the lie detector test.
>
> Certainly not by the polygrapher...
That is who asks the questions. If "crinkly paper" wasn`t
specified, then it wasn`t attested to during the polygrapgh.
>but nevertheless, that was what the
> report states Frazier said, and the description crops up again when the
> FBI interview Frazier at his place - except with the added comment that
> it was the kind of paper you'd get in a 5 and dime.
>
> Are you saying you think Lewis and/or the FBI lied about what Frazier said?
No, the answer is in the later FBI report. He realized it at that
point in time, during the later interview (since he realized it then,
he must have failed to realize during the earlier LDT).
> >>Who raced to the Paine residence when the police pulled up to tell them
> >>about a "suspicious" looking bag she'd seen Oswald with that morning?
> >>
> >>Linnie Mae.
> >
> >
> > Had she done this before JFK was shot, he might be alive today.
>
> Except she later claimed to have been told that Oswald would be carrying
> "curtain rods" to work that morning - if that was the case, then seeing
> him with a longish package should not have been "suspicious".
>
> Mr. BALL. Do you remember anything about curtain rods?
> Mrs. RANDLE. Yes.
> Mr. BALL. What do you remember about that?
> Mrs. RANDLE. He had told Wesley--
Perhaps she could do with a little information what CT can`t do
with much more.
> >>Who sent the police after Buell, but gave them the wrong location to
> >>find him?
> >>
> >>Linnie Mae.
> >
> >
> > Perhaps she was unaware that her father-in-law had been moved from
> > Parkland to the medical facility Frazier was found.
>
> Can you please point to any testimony or document where it indicates he
> was moved from one facility to another?
The fact that Wesley was at the medical facility when Linnie Mae
said he was at Parland indicates such. How do you suppose the cops
found Frazier at the Oak Cliff medical facility if they didn`t go to
Parkland first, and been told where to find the father-in-law? Why
would Randle tried to hide Fraziers location when it is obvious he was
not on the lam, but just going about his business? Why do kooks go
down these alleys, why do they think there is a pot of gold down each
and every one? How many decades will they play these games, which
yield no progress and make no sense?
> >>Who could not actually have seen Oswald place anything in Buell's car
> >>from her stated location at the kitchen window?
> >>
> >>Linnie Mae.
> >
> >
> > She didn`t say she saw him put the bag in the car from the vantage
> > of the kitchen window.
>
> Mea culpa. She was looking out the kitchen window when she first saw
> him, but at the kitchen door when she says he was placing something in
> the car. But the point remains: she could not see him do this from where
> she was. And she admitted it to Sen. Cooper, who apparently was not
> entirely convinced by her original version.
>
> Senator COOPER. On that point--did you see Lee Oswald place the package
> in the automobile?
> Mrs. RANDLE. In the automobile. I do not know if he put it on the seat
> or on the floor.
> Senator COOPER. I mean did you see him throw open the. door?
> Mrs. RANDLE. Yes, sir.
> Senator COOPER. When he placed the package in there do you remember
> whether he used one hand or two?
> Mrs. RANDLE. No; because I only opened the door briefly and what made me
> establish the door on Wesley's car, it is an old car and that door, the
> window is broken and everything and it is hard to close, so that cinched
> in my mind which door it was, too. But it was only briefly that I looked.
>
> Bottom line: she guessed he placed something in the car. She did not in
> fact, see him do so.
He is carrying a package, he goes to the car, she hears the door
open and shut, and Oz appears at her door sans package. That clinches
in my mind that he put it in the car, especially when Frazier says he
saw it there. How does trying to portray these things as mysteries
bring clarity to this case for you?
> >>Who's husband (apart from Marina's) was investigated in relation to the
> >>rifle sights?
> >>
> >>Linnie Mae's.
> >
> >
> > Investigation tends to exonerate the innocent,
>
> Good point. This particular investigation exonerated both who were under
> suspicion - Oswald and Randle. The places that sold these Japanese made
> scopes did not have records of the name Oswald, Hidell, Lee or Randle.
You think the crime being investigated was scope ownership?
> like in the case of
> > Linnie Mae`s husband. In the case of Marina`s husband, it tended to
> > pile up a lot of incriminating information.
>
> Huh? You obviously have not read the reports on the investigation into
> the scope. They could not tie Oswald or Randle to it. LA cop Manny
> Penna, who had been doubling as a Dodd Committee investigator on the
> mail order weapons problem, gave the FBI a solution that didn't require
> any evidence of connection to the scope: it was his suggestion that to
> claim that the scope came with the rifle. Penna's talents also came in
> handy during the RFK investigation...
Doesn`t matter where he got the scope from. It`s shown in photos of
Oswald and the rifle.
Kooks have some strange ideas about what needs to be discovered to
establish guilt. THE LAPD had no evidence OJ ever touched a knife the
day NS-B and RG were killed, other than their butchered bodies.
> >>Who used psychological ploys to convince Buell and Linnie Mae that the
> >>bag found could in fact be the bag they saw Oswald with?
> >>
> >>Ruth and Mike Paine pal, Bob Odum.
> >
> >
> > Who believes Odum used "psychological ploys"?
>
> Odum and his partner got Buell and Linnie (separately) to participate in
> little self-transformative psychodramas. He called them reenactments. A
> recognized technique in getting a required result or response, rather
> than the facts. Kind of like torture.
You need a new hobby.
> >>http://reopenjfkcase.interodent.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=50&Itemid=37
> >>
> >>What the hell... let's also throw in...
> >>
> >>Who's brother-in-law became mayor of Irving - a position in which he was
> >>accused of profiteering from?
> >>
> >>Linnie Mae's.
> >>
> >>Who's brother-in-law became the target of NAACP over alleged racism in a
> >>second election bid?
> >>
> >>Linnie-Mae's.
> >
> >
> > You couldn`t dig up anything on Linnie Mae`s mailman?
>
> These people (including the brother-in-law) where under suspicion - and
> on face falue at least - some of their actions *were* suspicious and
> warranted investigating into possible links to a conspiracy.
Wesley was investigated. If nothing turms up on him, there is no
reason to expand the investigation to those he knows. Has he tried to
kill the cops who came for him, he likely would have received more
scrutiny (this alone would be enough for him, this plus much, much
more isn`t considered enough in Oz`s case).
> As always always, though, leads were not pursued. Reinvestigaing cold
> cases means picking up on such leads.
You should look into the mailman. He knows where people live,
including the Paine`s and Randles. This alone should make him a prime
suspect in the eyes of you kooks.
> >>------------------
> >>
> >>Cheap crinkly paper bag like you'd find in a five and dime. Frazier's
> >>original description, and one that, according to the polygraph, was
> >>truthful.
> >
> >
> > Jean Hill probably would have passed a lie-detector test saying
> > there was a dog in the limo, if that is what she believed when she
> > took the test. Doesn`t put a dog in the limo.
>
> Okay. Then why was put under so much pressure to agree that the bag
> shown him was Oswald's? Why not just let him continue to say what he
> thought was true and dismiss him as just plain wrong - as they did with
> Hill?
Hill didn`t drive the obviously guilty party to the scene of the
crime.
> >>Just the type you'd use for lunch. And Oswald said it carried his lunch.
> >
> >
> > Now you think he was going to eat his rifle?
>
> He was frugal, after all. And let's face it, that scrawny physique could
> use the iron ;-)
There is no use continuing this discussion if you are going to be
flippant and frivolous.
> >>No one asked Buell to describe the bag he claimed carried his lunch.
> >>
> >>Perhaps Buell's had - ahem - "curtain rods"? Perhaps he was lucky he
> >>wasn't polygraphed about *his* bag?
> >>
> >>Perhaps that's why he went straight to the basement with his coat and
> >>"lunch" instead of the usual place - the domino room?
> >>
> >>And no witnesses put any bag in Oswald's hands apart Buell and his
> >>sister. Who'd take notice of a thin crinkly old lunch bag anyway? Maybe
> >>it fit in Oswald's jacket pocket when he walked? Maybe that's why
> >>Dougherty saw nothing?
> >
> >
> > Or maybe because he way over on the otherside of the cluttered room
> > from where Oz came in. Doughtery said he was on the wrapping table.
> > Check where that is in relation to the door Oz came in, photos exist
> > in evidence.
>
> But unlike Linnie, who eventually admitted she could not see Oswald
> place anything in the car as had no line of sight at all - at least
> Dougherty COULD did have such a line - could see him - did see him.
WBF said Oz entered the TSBD with the package. So, the
possibilities are ...
Oz had no package, and Doughtery was correct.
Oz had a package, and Doughtery was incorrect.
Also possible Oz ditched the package between the two observers.
Doughtery is the kind of witness CT dwell on, and LN don`t give a
second thought to. He can`t be used to establish a thing, what use is
he on shedding light on anything?
> >>Nor did any other employee in the building. Nor any of the neighbors of
> >>the Paines and Randles whose houses Oswald walked past that morning -
> >>all of whom were interviewed.
> >
> >
> > Lucky we have LMR and WBF, or it would be a mystery how Oswald
> > snuck his rifle into the TSBD.
>
> Yes. Indeed.
>
> >>Maybe Texans just aren't as nosy as Louisianans?
> >
> >
> > Or sleep later. I don`t know what goes on outside that early, I`m
> > getting ready for work, or trying to enlighten folks on the internet.
>
> Ya.
>
> >>After all, every
> >>neighbor of Oswald in Magazine St seemed to know all of his comings and
> >>goings and all about every visitor he ever had.
> >
> >
> > Chalk it up as #3754 on the list of thing CT find suspicious, but
> > can go nowhere with.
>
> Maybe. But those neighbors sure were a wealth of information.
To go where with? And you comparison was apples and oranges, they
weren`t asking the New Orleans folks about a specific early morning
incident.
Bud
David Von Pein wrote:
> GREG SAID:
>
> >>> "Who'd take notice of a thin crinkly old lunch bag anyway? Maybe it fit in Oswald's jacket pocket when he walked? Maybe that's why Dougherty saw nothing?" <<<
>
>
> BUD THEN SAID:
>
> >>> "Or maybe because he {was} way over on the other side of the cluttered room from where Oz came in. Doughtery said he was on the wrapping table." <<<
>
>
> DVP NOW SAYS:
>
>
> Re: "Oswald's lunch".....
>
> CTers apparently like to ignore the fact that Wes Frazier told the WC
> that he ASKED Oswald where his (LHO's) lunch was, and he (LHO) TOLD
> Frazier that he (LHO) was going to "buy his lunch" on Nov. 22:
>
> "He {Oswald} didn't take his lunch because I remember right when
> I got in the car I asked him where was his lunch and he said he was
> going to buy his lunch that day." -- B.W. Frazier
>
> Therefore, OSWALD TOLD US (in effect) THAT HE DID NOT TAKE ANY LUNCH
> SACK INTO WORK ON NOV. 22. Period.
>
> Re: Dougherty's observations.....
>
> I think it's quite possible (even likely) that after entering the
> building, Oswald took some measures to hide the rifle package from the
> view of as many people as he might run into as humanly possible,
> including (quite possibly) Jack Dougherty.
Sure, the less people he has asking about it, the better. He didn`t
lay the groundwork of his "curtain rod" cover story with everyone.
> Perhaps Oswald carried the bag off to the side in some way to where
> the bag was totally hidden from Dougherty's line-of-sight as Oz was in
> Jack's LOS that morning (we're only talking a few seconds' worth of
> observation from JD after all).
>
> Bud, I believe, hypothesized that Oswald might very well have stashed
> the rifle package outside the building somewhere just before going
> inside.
I once offered that. But it seems that the door WBF saw Oz enter
was not the same door Doughtery would see Oz come in through. There
was a corridor between the two. Every loading dock area I`ve ever seen
had debris on it, packing material, skids (pallets), 55 gallon drums
for trash, ect. Looking at the clutter in all the photos of the TSBD,
it would be surprising if this corridor didn`t afford places to stash
a 3 foot long package. Again, this is academic and irrelevant,
Doughtery could have missed it also. For people who want to figure out
what happened, the information is there (Oz was where the rifle was
kept, Oz carried a long package to work, Oz`s rifle appeared at Oz`s
work). These things can all be disputed, of course, but the people
doing so aren`t really trying to determine what occurred, but are only
desperate to find alternatives more to their liking.
Walt
> David Von Pein wrote:
> >>>>"If it {charging his battery after arriving at work} was legitimate on 11/22/63, it would have been legitimate on all other occasions Frazier gave Oswald a ride to work. NO evidence suggests that. He testified that they always walked together previously." <<<
>
> > Why couldn't Oswald (on previous occasions) have simply waited for
> > Wesley until after Wesley had charged his battery in the parking lot--
> > and then they walked to work together? Is that an impossible solution?
>
> No reason. He did wait on this occasion. But Wes still hung back
> claiming he was watching the rail cars being switched.
>
> BTW, how many people do you know who charge their car battery straight
> after driving to work?
Greg, perhaps you should drop this question rhetorical question..."how
many people do you know who charge their car battery straight after
driving to work?"
Very few people will have a clue that Frazier's action was the
legitimate, although a somewhat"supersticious" action, that was the
result of old technology. In the days before solid state electronics
and 12 volt systems, cars were built with 6 volt batteries and
generators. Modern cars have 12 volt batteries and alternators with
solid state voltage regulators. Buell Frazier's 53 Chevy still had
the old 6 volt system and very often the voltage regulator wouldn't
work properly to keep the battery charged if the headlights and other
electrical accessories like the windshield wipers were operating.
Consequently the battery would be discharged and there wouldn't be
enough power in the battery to start the engine after it was shut
off. Many people would shut off all accessories and race the engine
for a few minutes to throw a charge into the battery before they shut
off the engine. If they didn't succeed in charging the battery so
that it had enough power to restart the engine, they could get out the
hand crank and crank the engine with the "Armstrong starter". Guess
you must be a kid......
Walt
> greghttp://reopenjfkcase.interodent.com- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
David Von Pein
Somebody pass me the smelling salts....Walt actually made a good,
reasonable post!
~faints~
David Von Pein
>>> "That David felt the need to repost it here after having that pointed out, shows how little (so far, nothing) by way of actual rebuttal he has." <<<
~sigh~
I didn't "repost" it at all. It merely took additional time (23 hours
to be precise) to show up at the moderated forum.
~unknowing shrug (and another sigh)~
>>> "I pity the credibility of those who want to treat this as a game; who use hyperbolic rhetoric to construct false dichotomies and strawman arguments to redirect the focus of the topic at hand. It is less than honorable, entirely unhelpful in any effort in getting to the facts, and should be condemned by all here." <<<
But apparently Greg thinks that by endlessly searching for Buell
Frazier-related chaff of some kind, it will ultimately help at
"getting to the facts" of the already-totally-solved JFK case at hand.
Right, Gregory?
I'll point this month's solo newsgroup lurker to a great post written
by Bud on this "Linnie Randle/Buell Frazier" sub-topic (full post
linked below). Bud has a tremendous ability to sift through the CT-
created garbage and get right to the meat/crux of the problem at hand.
Whenever I read a post authored by "Bud", I very rarely fail to be
entertained and enlightened. Bud's biggest strength, by far, of
course, is his remarkable ability to spot and highlight the inherent
flaws, problems, and built-in minefields that exist within the
theories (and the mindset) of many different JFK conspiracy theorists.
Bud seems to have some kind of built-in "CTers Aren't Evaluating This
Topic Properly" radar that aids him when examining the various
unsupportable and (most of the time) wholly-subjective theories being
espoused by CTers at these forums. The inherent problems and
inconsistencies within their theories are almost instantly recognized
by Bud. (And I almost always agree with Bud's logic 100% of the time.)
I wish I, too, had that kind of radar on my rooftop. I'd like to
think, however, that I have placed on the JFK table some of this same
type of "CS&L" (as I like to call it) when it comes to the CT vs. LN
arguments that I've engaged in over the years.
And I think I have succeeded in doing that many times too. But Bud's
astute view of the built-in deficiencies that exist in virtually all
CTers' theories is something I've yet to see topped by anyone who I've
seen argue the case with conspiracy theorists.
Plus, there's the fact that Bud can, almost always, point out these
CTer problems and deficiencies while using only the barest minimum of
words....which is another trait I admire too.
I, OTOH, am as long-winded as Jimbo Garrison at times. But Bud can
polish off a CTer and point out the problem with their almost-always-
flawed argument in just a few words on many occasions--and exhibit
total "CS&L" while doing so.
And most of the time, as Bud has also said in the past, the "problem"
isn't really with the evidence or the information at hand in the JFK
assassination case -- the problem rests, instead, squarely on the
shoulders of the CTers who are attempting to evaluate this information
in very odd ways (as Bud says so well in the post linked below, with a
highlight from that post shown underneath the link):
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/61024fa4bef6f6c0
"Kooks have some strange ideas about what needs to be discovered
to establish guilt. The LAPD had no evidence OJ ever touched a knife
the day [Nicole Brown Simpson] and [Ronald Goldman] were killed, other
than their butchered bodies." -- Bud; 03/11/08
robcap...@netscape.com
"And most of the time, as Bud has also said in the past, the "problem"
isn't really with the evidence or the information at hand in the JFK
assassination case -- the problem rests, instead, squarely on the
shoulders of the CTers who are attempting to evaluate this information
in very odd ways (as Bud says so well in the post linked below, with a
highlight from that post shown underneath the link)."
Don't take the CTers word for it, let's see what the officers who were
first on the scene at the TSBD said:
Sheriff Luke Mooney (he was the first officer at the SN)
Mr. BALL. Did you see a paper bag at any other window?
Mr. MOONEY. No, sir; I didn't.
Sgt. Gerald Hill (the first DPD officer to arrive)
Mr. HILL. The only specifics we discussed were this. You were asking
Officer Hicks if either one recalled seeing a sack, supposedly one
that had been made by the suspect, in which he could have possibly
carried the weapon into the Depository, and I at that time told you
about the small sack that appeared to be a lunchsack, **and that that
was the only sack that I saw**, and that I left the Book Depository
prior to the finding of the gun.
Deputy Sheriff Roger Craig
Mr. BELIN. Was there any long sack laying in the floor there that you
remember seeing, or not?
Mr. CRAIG. No; I don't remember seeing any.
Detective Boyd (who arrived with Captain Fritz before Day and
Studebaker)
Mr. BALL. Did you see any brown wrapping paper near the window where
the hulls were found, near the windows alongside which the hulls were
found?
Mr. BOYD. I don't believe I did.
Officer Studebaker
Mr. BALL. Now, did you at any time see any paper sack around there?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. Where?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. Storage room there in the southeast corner of the
building---folded.
Mr. BALL. In the southeast corner of the building?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. It was a paper---I don't know what it was.
Mr. BALL. And it was folded, you say?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. Yes.
Mr. BALL Did you draw the diagram?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. I drew a diagram in there for the FBI, somebody from
the FBI called me down--I can't think of his name, and he wanted an
approximate location of where the paper was found.
Mr. BALL. Does that show the approximate location?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. Yes.
Mr. BALL. Where you have the dotted lines?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. Yes.
Mr. BALL. Where was that with reference to those pipes--the paper
wrapping?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. Laying right beside it--right here.
Mr. BALL. Was it folded over?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. It was doubled--it was a piece of paper about this
long and it was doubled over.
Mr. BALL. How long was it, approximately?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. I don't know--I picked it up and dusted it and they
took it down there and sent it to Washington and that's the last I
have seen of it, and I don't know.
Mr. BALL. Did you take a picture of it before you picked it up?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. No.
Mr. BALL. Does that sack show in any of the pictures you took?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. No; it doesn't show in any of the pictures.
Dotted lines, why did NO one take a picture of it where it was
allegedly found???? They thought to check it for prints, but NOT
photograph it????
Mr. (Detective) MONTGOMERY. Wait just a minute no; I didn't pick it
up. I believe Mr. Studebaker did. We left it laying right there so
they could check it for prints.
Detective Montgomery would say Studebaker was the first to pick up the
paper sack but his partner would disagree:
Mr. BELIN. Did you find anything else up in the southeast corner of
the sixth floor? We have talked about the rifle, we have talked about
the shells, we have talked about the chicken bones and the lunch sack
and the pop bottle by that second pair of windows. Anything else?
Mr. JOHNSON. Yes, sir. We found this brown paper sack or case. It was
made out of heavy wrapping paper. Actually, it looked similar to the
paper that those books was wrapped in. It was just a long narrow paper
bag.
Mr. BELIN. Where was this found?
Mr. JOHNSON. Right in the corner of the building.
Mr. BELIN. On what floor?
Mr. JOHNSON. Sixth floor.
Mr. BELIN. Which corner?
Mr. JOHNSON. Southeast corner.
Mr. BELIN. Do you know who found it?
Mr. JOHNSON. **I know that the first I saw of it, L. D. Montgomery, my
partner, picked it up off the floor**, and it was folded up, and he
unfolded it.
Mr. BELIN. When it was folded up, was it folded once or refolded?
Mr. JOHNSON. It was folded and then refolded. It was a fairly small
package.
The size of the sack they brought out was huge (C:\My Documents
\Pictures\montgomerysack.art) so how could Frazier say:
"From what I seen walking behind he had it under his arm and you
couldn't tell that he had a package from the back."
What is inside the bag as Montgomery is carrying it quite oddly and it
is erect. An empty bag that had been folded shouldn't stand up like
this if empty. Why did he NOT leave it folded when tranporting it out
of the TSBD? Was something smuggled out of the TSBD in this bag? (We
know the M-C has already been taken out by Lt. Day, could the famous
"Mauser" be in this bag?)
What about that package found on 12/4/63 in the post office? It was
addressed to LHO and was in the dead-letter section of the Irving Post
Office. According to an FBI report (CD 205), the package was addressed
to Oswald at 601 W. Nassaus Street in Dallas, a non-existent address.
The package contained a "brown paper bag made of fairly heavy brown
paper which bag was open at both ends," which was approximately 18" in
length. Hmm.
greg
> On 10 Mar, 16:06, greg <magicremovebul...@octa4.net.au> wrote:
>
>>David Von Pein wrote:
>>
>>>>>>"If it {charging his battery after arriving at work} was legitimate on 11/22/63, it would have been legitimate on all other occasions Frazier gave Oswald a ride to work. NO evidence suggests that. He testified that they always walked together previously." <<<
>>
>>>Why couldn't Oswald (on previous occasions) have simply waited for
>>>Wesley until after Wesley had charged his battery in the parking lot--
>>>and then they walked to work together? Is that an impossible solution?
>>
>>No reason. He did wait on this occasion. But Wes still hung back
>>claiming he was watching the rail cars being switched.
>>
>>BTW, how many people do you know who charge their car battery straight
>>after driving to work?
>
>
> Greg, perhaps you should drop this question rhetorical question..."how
> many people do you know who charge their car battery straight after
> driving to work?"
>
> Very few people will have a clue that Frazier's action was the
> legitimate, although a somewhat"supersticious" action, that was the
> result of old technology.
Walt, count me among the "very few". I wasn't around in '53. I am a
little confused as to why you say it was a "supersticious" action since
what you say below makes it sound like a necessary one - at least if
you'd been running your wipers - which he may well have done due to
drizzle that morning. Either it was just an unnecessary ritual
(suprsticion) or it was needed to be done. Can't be both.
Anyhow - sounds interesting. I'll check it out.
Bottom line: whichever way you slice it, it was Wes who hung back until
Oswald got well ahead, rather than Oswald trying to race ahead.
greg
David Von Pein
found in the Sniper's Nest. Lt. Day's and Bob Studebaker's
corroborating testimony verifies that fact.
The reason why more officers said they didn't see the bag in the
corner of the SN (when we KNOW it was there, per Day/Studebaker)??? I
can't say. They just didn't notice it. That's all.
But I'd rather believe the "ordinary" explanation of....
The bag was definitely found in the Nest, but some of the officers
(for some reason[s]) just didn't notice the empty bag in the Nest.
....Instead of believing the "extraordinary" explanation of....
There was no bag in the Nest at all following the shooting and the
cops planted (or faked) the bag, and then Day, Studebaker, and
Montgomery got together and decided to tell a bunch of lies about the
bag. And: The cops somehow managed to plant Oswald's 2 prints on the
fake bag too.
I ask any reasonable person:
Which of the above two scenarios is the most logical, believable, and
"reasonable" to believe?
>>> "What is inside the bag as Montgomery is carrying it quite oddly and it is erect. An empty bag that had been folded shouldn't stand up like this if empty. Why did he NOT leave it folded when transporting it out of the TSBD?" <<<
Goodie! A CTer is looking at stuff sideways again and thinks something
is fishy. What's new? It's yet another "Why Didn't He Do It This Way
Instead Of This Way?" CT moment.
And SHAME on L.D. Montgomery for carrying the bag in a manner that
doesn't meet a kook's rigid standards!
>>> "Was something smuggled out of the TSBD in this bag?" <<<
And you think that Montgomery was "smuggling" something conspiratorial
out of the TSBD in the bag, in FULL VIEW OF THE CAMERA(S) that were
filming him doing this?? Is that your theory?
Was Montgomery just careless? Or maybe he just didn't give a shit who
photographed him (up close!) as he "smuggled" stuff out of the
building, huh?
INSTANT REPLAY:
>>> "Was something smuggled out of the TSBD in this bag?" <<<
Probably Oswald's curtain rods.
Or:
Maybe it was Oswald's lunch being smuggled out by Montgomery (you
know, the lunch that Oswald told Wes Frazier he DIDN'T take to work on
November 22).
>>> "We know the M-C has already been taken out by Lt. Day; could the famous "Mauser" be in this bag?" <<<
There was no Mauser (of course).
But if I were a CT-Kook like you, I'd still vote for the curtain rods
being in the bag.
Go for it.
>>> "What about that package found on 12/4/63 in the post office?" <<<
Where do you want to go with this "mystery package", Rob? Down
"Conspiracy Avenue" I'll bet, right?
>>> "It was addressed to LHO and was in the dead-letter section of the Irving Post Office. According to an FBI report (CD 205), the package was addressed to Oswald at 601 W. Nassaus Street in Dallas, a non-existent address. The package contained a "brown paper bag made of fairly heavy brown paper which bag was open at both ends," which was approximately 18" in length. Hmm." <<<
Don't just stop at "Hmm", Robby. Tell us your theory regarding this
mystery bag. Who sent it to Oswald (at a "non-existent" address)?
Was a member of the huge "Let's Frame Oswald" team trying to make it
look like "Oswald Alone" killed the President by mailing him some
brown paper two weeks after the assassination occurred?
And how was Oswald supposed to get this package if somebody mailed it
to a "non-existent" address?
Or: Did Oswald mail the brown bag to HIMSELF for some reason (and sent
it to an address that never existed)?
Where do we go with this shit? Where? I'm just curious to know.
robcap...@netscape.com
"The paper bag (with Lee Oswald's two prints on it) was positively
found in the Sniper's Nest. Lt. Day's and Bob Studebaker's
corroborating testimony verifies that fact."
What was the quality of those prints again? Even if they were good,
and I have my doubts, he worked there and the paper sack was the type
that held books inside the cartons, so they could have gotten there
when he unloaded books.
"The reason why more officers said they didn't see the bag in the
corner of the SN (when we KNOW it was there, per Day/Studebaker)??? I
can't say. They just didn't notice it. That's all."
Didn't notice it? It was huge, how in the world could they NOT notice
it?
"But I'd rather believe the "ordinary" explanation of...."
Of course you would, but your belief is NOT an "ordinary" explanation,
it is a made up story to support your made up theory.
"The bag was definitely found in the Nest, but some of the officers
(for some reason[s]) just didn't notice the empty bag in the Nest."
Prove it then. The officer who found the Nest said he did NOT see it,
he did NOT list it in his inventory, how come? Studebaker did NOT
photograph it, how come?
"....Instead of believing the "extraordinary" explanation of....
There was no bag in the Nest at all following the shooting and the
cops planted (or faked) the bag, and then Day, Studebaker, and
Montgomery got together and decided to tell a bunch of lies about the
bag. And: The cops somehow managed to plant Oswald's 2 prints on the
fake bag too."
This is EXACTLY what the evidence shows though, doesn't it? You can't
produce one witness who was first on the scene who saw the bag in the
SN area, not one. You can't produce a photo of the sack in the place
it was allegedly found, why? It is NOT included in the inventory of
officer Mooney discovery list, why?
"I ask any reasonable person:"
i.e. anyone who is NOT a LNer.
"Which of the above two scenarios is the most logical, believable, and
"reasonable" to believe?"
Come on Dave, you must be laughing hard at this ridiculous statement.
> >>> "What is inside the bag as Montgomery is carrying it quite oddly and it is erect. An empty bag that had been folded shouldn't stand up like this if empty. Why did he NOT leave it folded when transporting it out of the TSBD?" <<<
"Goodie! A CTer is looking at stuff sideways again and thinks
something is fishy. What's new? It's yet another "Why Didn't He Do It
This Way Instead Of This Way?" CT moment."
How about answering the question? Shock me and actually address the
point for once.
"And SHAME on L.D. Montgomery for carrying the bag in a manner that
doesn't meet a kook's rigid standards!"
Nice duck and jive routine, but you didn't answer why a bag that HUGE
would NOT be seen by so many officers, did you?
> >>> "Was something smuggled out of the TSBD in this bag?" <<<
"And you think that Montgomery was "smuggling" something
conspiratorial out of the TSBD in the bag, in FULL VIEW OF THE
CAMERA(S) that were filming him doing this?? Is that your theory?"
He could have, it was totally erect so something had to be keeping the
back from falling over at the middle. The Mauser is my guess.
"Was Montgomery just careless? Or maybe he just didn't give a shit who
photographed him (up close!) as he "smuggled" stuff out of the
building, huh?"
Please, like anyone was thinking of that at that point, they had the
biggest case of their lives. Only many years later has it been asked
what was in that bag?
"INSTANT REPLAY:
> >>> "Was something smuggled out of the TSBD in this bag?" <<<
"Probably Oswald's curtain rods."
Anwer this (don't expect it as you duck all the questions I ask) for
me then, when did LHO take the bag to the Paines? Frazier said LHO
had NO bag on Thursday night, so when did he get it from the TSBD
(WC's alledged place for the making of the bag) to the Paines' garage?
"Or:
Maybe it was Oswald's lunch being smuggled out by Montgomery (you
know, the lunch that Oswald told Wes Frazier he DIDN'T take to work on
November 22)."
Sure, little LHO ate a lunch out of a bag that HUGE!! Good one.
> >>> "We know the M-C has already been taken out by Lt. Day; could the famous "Mauser" be in this bag?" <<<
"There was no Mauser (of course)."
Explain the police officers that signed affadavits stating a Mauser
was found then. (I don't expect it as you never do)
"But if I were a CT-Kook like you, I'd still vote for the curtain rods
being in the bag."
Sure, and how did the curtain rods get into the Paines' garage again?
Who saw him bring them there again?
"Go for it."
My thoughts exactly. Prove your assertions for once.
http://s217.photobucket.com/albums/cc151/David_Von_Pein/JFK%20Assassi...
> >>> "What about that package found on 12/4/63 in the post office?" <<<
"Where do you want to go with this "mystery package", Rob? Down
"Conspiracy Avenue" I'll bet, right?"
We don't have to go anywhere Dave, just explain why it was sent to
LHO.
> >>> "It was addressed to LHO and was in the dead-letter section of the Irving Post Office. According to an FBI report (CD 205), the package was addressed to Oswald at 601 W. Nassaus Street in Dallas, a non-existent address. The package contained a "brown paper bag made of fairly heavy brown paper which bag was open at both ends," which was approximately 18" in length. Hmm." <<<
"Don't just stop at "Hmm", Robby. Tell us your theory regarding this
mystery bag. Who sent it to Oswald (at a "non-existent" address)?"
I have no idea who sent it to him, but it obvious why it was sent to
me, to frame him. I'm sure it was meant to be found much sooner as it
had the "bag" making material in it, but since it wasn't the WC had to
come up with the incorrect theory of LHO making it at the TSBD.
"Was a member of the huge "Let's Frame Oswald" team trying to make it
look like "Oswald Alone" killed the President by mailing him some
brown paper two weeks after the assassination occurred?"
It was not delivered because the address was incorrect, who knows when
it was actually sent, but I would guess closer to the assassination.
It was discovered weeks later, but that doesn't mean it was sent weeks
after the assassination.
"And how was Oswald supposed to get this package if somebody mailed it
to a "non-existent" address?"
He wasn't, it was meant to be discovered (I would guess sooner than a
few weeks) so two and two could be put together to frame LHO. If you
don't buy this, and I know you won't, explain another reason for the
package.
"Or: Did Oswald mail the brown bag to HIMSELF for some reason (and
sent it to an address that never existed)?"
That makes as much sense as your official theory, now doesn't it?
"Where do we go with this shit? Where? I'm just curious to know."
You tell me, give me a good explanation for the package then.
Walt
wrote:
.... "Actually, it looked similar to the paper that those books was
wrapped in"
HELLO.... ACTUALLY, IT LOOKED SIMILAR TO THE PAPER THAT THOSE BOOKS
WAS WRAPPED IN
There it is right from Detective Marvin Johnson's mouth. Johnson was
there he saw the books wrapped in paper and said that the so called
"gun case" LOOKED JUST LIKE THE BOOK WRAPPERS.
Bud
robcap...@netscape.com wrote:
> On Mar 11, 5:57�pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> "The paper bag (with Lee Oswald's two prints on it) was positively
> found in the Sniper's Nest. Lt. Day's and Bob Studebaker's
> corroborating testimony verifies that fact."
>
> What was the quality of those prints again? Even if they were good,
> and I have my doubts, he worked there and the paper sack was the type
> that held books inside the cartons,
Can you show this?
> so they could have gotten there
> when he unloaded books.
>
> "The reason why more officers said they didn't see the bag in the
> corner of the SN (when we KNOW it was there, per Day/Studebaker)??? I
> can't say. They just didn't notice it. That's all."
>
> Didn't notice it? It was huge, how in the world could they NOT notice
> it?
It was folded when found.
> "But I'd rather believe the "ordinary" explanation of...."
>
> Of course you would, but your belief is NOT an "ordinary" explanation,
> it is a made up story to support your made up theory.
Still waiting for you kooks to put a theory on the table that
accounts for all these things.
> "The bag was definitely found in the Nest, but some of the officers
> (for some reason[s]) just didn't notice the empty bag in the Nest."
>
> Prove it then. The officer who found the Nest said he did NOT see it,
Didn`t you just say it looked like something that belonged there?
It was made of paper common to that building. The cops were looking
for metal, not paper.
> he did NOT list it in his inventory, how come?
Produce an inventory list with the bag not on it.
> Studebaker did NOT
> photograph it, how come?
What good would the answers to these questions do you? You`d
disregard them anyway.
> "....Instead of believing the "extraordinary" explanation of....
>
> There was no bag in the Nest at all following the shooting and the
> cops planted (or faked) the bag,
How do you know Martians didn`t?
> and then Day, Studebaker, and
> Montgomery got together and decided to tell a bunch of lies about the
> bag.
When you need to go to "the whole world was picking on Oswald",
doesn`t it make more sense to admit he was just guilty?
>And: The cops somehow managed to plant Oswald's 2 prints on the
> fake bag too."
How? Did they have his fingers?
> This is EXACTLY what the evidence shows though, doesn't it? You can't
> produce one witness who was first on the scene who saw the bag in the
> SN area, not one.
There can only be one officer first on the scene, nimrod.
> You can't produce a photo of the sack in the place
> it was allegedly found, why?
Because it wasn`t photographed in place. Even you should have
gotten that one.
> It is NOT included in the inventory of
> officer Mooney discovery list, why?
Try Day. He had it, and intitialed it.
> "I ask any reasonable person:"
>
> i.e. anyone who is NOT a LNer.
Anyone who is not a kook.
> "Which of the above two scenarios is the most logical, believable, and
> "reasonable" to believe?"
>
> Come on Dave, you must be laughing hard at this ridiculous statement.
>
> > >>> "What is inside the bag as Montgomery is carrying it quite oddly and it is erect. An empty bag that had been folded shouldn't stand up like this if empty. Why did he NOT leave it folded when transporting it out of the TSBD?" <<<
>
> "Goodie! A CTer is looking at stuff sideways again and thinks
> something is fishy. What's new? It's yet another "Why Didn't He Do It
> This Way Instead Of This Way?" CT moment."
>
> How about answering the question? Shock me and actually address the
> point for once.
>
> "And SHAME on L.D. Montgomery for carrying the bag in a manner that
> doesn't meet a kook's rigid standards!"
>
> Nice duck and jive routine, but you didn't answer why a bag that HUGE
> would NOT be seen by so many officers, did you?
JFK didn`t suffer a paper cut. They weren`t searching for boxes or
bags, they were looking for guns, bullets, shells, ect. The bag on the
clutter of the sixth floor would blend in with all the other packing
type containers.
> > >>> "Was something smuggled out of the TSBD in this bag?" <<<
>
> "And you think that Montgomery was "smuggling" something
> conspiratorial out of the TSBD in the bag, in FULL VIEW OF THE
> CAMERA(S) that were filming him doing this?? Is that your theory?"
>
> He could have, it was totally erect so something had to be keeping the
> back from falling over at the middle.
Perhaps it took a Viagra.
> The Mauser is my guess.
Thats what I would think, if I were an idiot.
> "Was Montgomery just careless? Or maybe he just didn't give a shit who
> photographed him (up close!) as he "smuggled" stuff out of the
> building, huh?"
>
> Please, like anyone was thinking of that at that point, they had the
> biggest case of their lives. Only many years later has it been asked
> what was in that bag?
Thats the kook game, isn`t it? Plug in theories now that the dust
has settled, and all the evidence is on the table in plain sight. All
this vast Mega-conspiracy hinges on Mongomery not tripping, and
ruining all that work.
> "INSTANT REPLAY:
>
> > >>> "Was something smuggled out of the TSBD in this bag?" <<<
>
> "Probably Oswald's curtain rods."
>
> Anwer this (don't expect it as you duck all the questions I ask) for
> me then, when did LHO take the bag to the Paines? Frazier said LHO
> had NO bag on Thursday night, so when did he get it from the TSBD
> (WC's alledged place for the making of the bag) to the Paines' garage?
There is evidence that Oswald took the rifle looking for a gunshop
wrapped in a paper bag. The bag could have been constructed for that
purpose. Or, possibly the bag could have been constructed as an option
for transporting the rifle to shoot someone else, before a suitable
target appeared on his work`s doorstep.
> "Or:
>
> Maybe it was Oswald's lunch being smuggled out by Montgomery (you
> know, the lunch that Oswald told Wes Frazier he DIDN'T take to work on
> November 22)."
Frazier said he didn`t see Oz with a lunchbag. It`s not something Oz
told him.
> Sure, little LHO ate a lunch out of a bag that HUGE!! Good one.
>
> > >>> "We know the M-C has already been taken out by Lt. Day; could the famous "Mauser" be in this bag?" <<<
>
> "There was no Mauser (of course)."
>
> Explain the police officers that signed affadavits stating a Mauser
> was found then. (I don't expect it as you never do)
How that occurred has been explained many times. Will one more time
help you?
> "But if I were a CT-Kook like you, I'd still vote for the curtain rods
> being in the bag."
>
> Sure, and how did the curtain rods get into the Paines' garage again?
> Who saw him bring them there again?
>
> "Go for it."
>
> My thoughts exactly. Prove your assertions for once.
>
> http://s217.photobucket.com/albums/cc151/David_Von_Pein/JFK%20Assassi...
>
> > >>> "What about that package found on 12/4/63 in the post office?" <<<
>
> "Where do you want to go with this "mystery package", Rob? Down
> "Conspiracy Avenue" I'll bet, right?"
>
> We don't have to go anywhere Dave, just explain why it was sent to
> LHO.
What can you make of it?
> > >>> "It was addressed to LHO and was in the dead-letter section of the Irving Post Office. According to an FBI report (CD 205), the package was addressed to Oswald at 601 W. Nassaus Street in Dallas, a non-existent address. The package contained a "brown paper bag made of fairly heavy brown paper which bag was open at both ends," which was approximately 18" in length. Hmm." <<<
>
> "Don't just stop at "Hmm", Robby. Tell us your theory regarding this
> mystery bag. Who sent it to Oswald (at a "non-existent" address)?"
>
> I have no idea who sent it to him, but it obvious why it was sent to
> me, to frame him. I'm sure it was meant to be found much sooner as it
> had the "bag" making material in it, but since it wasn't the WC had to
> come up with the incorrect theory of LHO making it at the TSBD.
Never heard about this bag. You say it has material to make a bag
in it? Makes me wonder if Oz mailed the incriminating material himself
to get it out of the Paines.
> "Was a member of the huge "Let's Frame Oswald" team trying to make it
> look like "Oswald Alone" killed the President by mailing him some
> brown paper two weeks after the assassination occurred?"
>
> It was not delivered because the address was incorrect, who knows when
> it was actually sent, but I would guess closer to the assassination.
> It was discovered weeks later, but that doesn't mean it was sent weeks
> after the assassination.
>
> "And how was Oswald supposed to get this package if somebody mailed it
> to a "non-existent" address?"
>
> He wasn't, it was meant to be discovered (I would guess sooner than a
> few weeks) so two and two could be put together to frame LHO. If you
> don't buy this, and I know you won't, explain another reason for the
> package.
The unknown package to the unknown address sent by an unknown
person? Pack up all your "unknowns" and head towards the promised land
of conspiracy.
> "Or: Did Oswald mail the brown bag to HIMSELF for some reason (and
> sent it to an address that never existed)?"
I just speculated this above. But I don`t really know much about
the particulars of this package, never heard of it before.
> That makes as much sense as your official theory, now doesn't it?
>
> "Where do we go with this shit? Where? I'm just curious to know."
>
> You tell me, give me a good explanation for the package then.
Meaningless unless you can connect it to the assassination.
Bud
It should look like other paper around the TSBD, Oz used the paper
from his work to make the bag he used to conceal the rifle he took
into the TSBD to shoot Kennedy and Connally.
Walt
Greg....My comments weren't meant as criticism ...just imparting info.
What I meant by shutting off all electrical accessories and racing the
engine before shutting it off was just a "ritual" that may or may not
have been necessary. If a person didn't really understand what he
was doing he would just do it because that's the way grandpa taught
him to shut of the old Model A Ford. I've run into many people in my
life who do stuff simply because that's the way they were taught and
"we've always done it that way" ( My wife is one of those who does
things without knowing why, she does them because some "expert" said
that's the way it should be done.
Buell's battery may have been fully charged that morning when they got
to the TSBD, but he'd been taught to "always throw a charge into the
battery before you shut off the engine, if you've been driving with
yer headlights and wipers on"......
> >>greghttp://reopenjfkcase.interodent.com-Hide quoted text -
>
> >>- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
robcap...@netscape.com
> robcap...@netscape.com wrote:
> > On Mar 11, 5:57�pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > "The paper bag (with Lee Oswald's two prints on it) was positively
> > found in the Sniper's Nest. Lt. Day's and Bob Studebaker's
> > corroborating testimony verifies that fact."
>
> > What was the quality of those prints again? Even if they were good,
> > and I have my doubts, he worked there and the paper sack was the type
> > that held books inside the cartons,
>
"Can you show this?"
Show what? That he worked there and part of his usual duty was to
move and unload boxes?
> > so they could have gotten there
> > when he unloaded books.
>
> > "The reason why more officers said they didn't see the bag in the
> > corner of the SN (when we KNOW it was there, per Day/Studebaker)??? I
> > can't say. They just didn't notice it. That's all."
>
> > Didn't notice it? It was huge, how in the world could they NOT notice
> > it?
>
> It was folded when found.
>
> > "But I'd rather believe the "ordinary" explanation of...."
>
> > Of course you would, but your belief is NOT an "ordinary" explanation,
> > it is a made up story to support your made up theory.
>
"Still waiting for you kooks to put a theory on the table that
accounts for all these things."
The proof that your theory is made up is known as the Warren
Commission report, you really should read it sometime.
>
> > "The bag was definitely found in the Nest, but some of the officers
> > (for some reason[s]) just didn't notice the empty bag in the Nest."
>
> > Prove it then. The officer who found the Nest said he did NOT see it,
>
"Didn`t you just say it looked like something that belonged there?"
This is how it was described by Johnson, but NOT Mooney who discovered
the SN as he said there was NO bag there.
It was made of paper common to that building. The cops were looking
for metal, not paper."
Whatever this means and how it pertains to the alleged bag is beyond
me. More kook talk I guess.
From Mooney's affadavit:
" I then went on back to the 6th floor and went direct to the far
corner and then discovered a cubby hole which had been constructed out
of cartons which protected it from sight and found where someone had
been in an area of perhaps 2 feet surrounded by cardboard cartons of
books. Inside this cubby hole affair was three more boxes so arranged
as to provide what appeared to be a rest for a rifle. On one of these
cartons was a half-eaten piece of chicken. The minute that I saw the
expended shells on the floor, I hung my head out of the half opened
window and signaled to Sheriff Bill Decker and Captain Will Fritz who
were outside the building and advised them to send up the Crime Lab
Officers at once that I had located the area from which the shots had
been fired. At this time, Officers Webstr, Victory, and McCurley came
over to this spot and we guarded this spot until Crime Lab Officers
got upstairs within a matter of a few minutes. We then turned this
area over to Captain Fritz and his officers for processing."
Do you read a mention of a paper bag? I don't. WC testimony:
Mr. MOONEY - And how come I get off the sixth floor, I don't know yet.
But, anyway, I stopped on six, and didn't even know what floor I was
on.
Mr. BALL - You were alone?
Mr. MOONEY - I was alone at that time.
Mr. BALL - Was there any reason for you to go to the sixth floor?
Mr. MOONEY - No, sir. That is what I say. I don't know why. I just
stopped on that particular floor. I thought I was pretty close to the
top.
Mr. BALL - Were there any other officers on the floor?
Mr. MOONEY - I didn't see any at that time. I assume there had been
other officers up there. But I didn't see them. And I begin criss-
crossing it, round and round, through boxes, looking at open windows---
some of them were open over on the south side. And I believe they had
started laying some flooring up there.
I was checking the fire escapes. And criss-crossing back and forth.
And then I decided--I saw there was another floor. And I said I would
go up. So I went on up to the seventh floor. I approached Officers
Webster and Vickery. They were up there in this little old stairway
there that leads up into the attic. So we climbed up in there and
looked around right quick. We didn't climb all the way into the attic,
almost into it. We said this is too dark, we have got to have
floodlights, because we can't see. And so somebody made a statement
that they believed floodlights was on the way. And I later found out
that probably Officers Boone and Walters had gone after lights. I
heard that.
And so we looked around up there for a short time. And then I says I
am going back down on six.
At that time, some news reporter, or press, I don't know who he was--
he was calming up with a camera. Of course he wasn't taking any
pictures. He was just looking, too, I assume. So I went back down
ahead of Officers Vickery and Webster. They come in behind me down to
the sixth floor. I went straight across to the southeast corner of the
building, and I saw all these high boxes. Of course they were stacked
all the way around over there. And I squeezed between two. And the
minute I squeezed between these two stacks of boxes, I had to turn
myself sideways to get in there that is when I saw the expended shells
and the boxes that were stacked up looked to be a rest for the weapon.
And, also, there was a slight crease in the top box. Whether the
recoil made the crease or it was placed there before the shots were
fired, I don't know. But, anyway, there was a very slight crease in
the box, where the rifle could have lain--at the same angle that the
shots were fired from.
So, at that time, I didn't lay my hands on anything, because I wanted
to save every evidence we could for fingerprints. So I leaned out the
window, the same window from which the shots were fired, looked down,
and I saw Sheriff Bill Decker and Captain Will Fritz standing right on
the ground. Well, so I hollered, or signaled I hollered, I more or
less hollered. I whistled a time or two before I got anybody to see
me. And yet they was all looking that way, too except the sheriff,
they wasn't looking up.
See any mention of a paper bag here? I don't. He would be shown eight
pictures during his testimony (CE508-515) that do NOT show a paper bag
and he never says, "Hey, there was a paper bag there that is not in
the pictures", how come? Nor was he questioned about a paper bag, how
come?
Finally, CE 2003 shows what each person discovered, look at the last
entry on the left-hand side for Mooney (http://history-matters.com/
archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh24/html/WH_Vol24_0134a.htm) do you see a paper
bag mentioned? I don't. They give "credit" to Johnson on the right-
hand side.
> > he did NOT list it in his inventory, how come?
>
> Produce an inventory list with the bag not on it.
>
> > Studebaker did NOT
> > photograph it, how come?
>
> What good would the answers to these questions do you? You`d
> disregard them anyway.
>
> > "....Instead of believing the "extraordinary" explanation of....
>
> > There was no bag in the Nest at all following the shooting and the
> > cops planted (or faked) the bag,
>
"How do you know Martians didn`t?"
Makes as much sense as Dave's comment you are responding to. LOL!!!
>
> > and then Day, Studebaker, and
> > Montgomery got together and decided to tell a bunch of lies about the
> > bag.
>
> When you need to go to "the whole world was picking on Oswald",
> doesn`t it make more sense to admit he was just guilty?
>
> >And: The cops somehow managed to plant Oswald's 2 prints on the
> > fake bag too."
>
> How? Did they have his fingers?
>
> > This is EXACTLY what the evidence shows though, doesn't it? You can't
> > produce one witness who was first on the scene who saw the bag in the
> > SN area, not one.
>
"There can only be one officer first on the scene, nimrod."
This is Bud's word of the day - nimrod - and he is too dense to know
there can be more than one officer who is first on the scene, i.e.
their partner. Read the testimony of Mooney again, I know it is tough
and you have NEVER read the WCR but you'll have to bite the bullet
here.
>
> > You can't produce a photo of the sack in the place
> > it was allegedly found, why?
>
"Because it wasn`t photographed in place. Even you should have gotten
that one."
Why wasn't it? It is standard police procedure to photograph the
scene before moving and touching things. Even you should know this.
>
> > It is NOT included in the inventory of
> > officer Mooney discovery list, why?
>
"Try Day. He had it, and intitialed it."
He wasn't given credit for finding it though, was he? It still
doesn't prove it was in the SN as the first officer there, Mooney,
makes no mention of ever seeing it.
I can't even find the energy to respond to the rest of your tripe, it
is real bad as tripe goes.
> Meaningless unless you can connect it to the assassination.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Bud
robcap...@netscape.com wrote:
> On Mar 11, 7:22 pm, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
> > robcap...@netscape.com wrote:
> > > On Mar 11, 5:57�pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> >
> > > "The paper bag (with Lee Oswald's two prints on it) was positively
> > > found in the Sniper's Nest. Lt. Day's and Bob Studebaker's
> > > corroborating testimony verifies that fact."
> >
> > > What was the quality of those prints again? Even if they were good,
> > > and I have my doubts, he worked there and the paper sack was the type
> > > that held books inside the cartons,
> >
>
> "Can you show this?"
>
> Show what?
What you claimed. That the paper sack found was of the type that
held books inside the cartons.
> That he worked there and part of his usual duty was to
> move and unload boxes?
>
>
> > > so they could have gotten there
> > > when he unloaded books.
> >
> > > "The reason why more officers said they didn't see the bag in the
> > > corner of the SN (when we KNOW it was there, per Day/Studebaker)??? I
> > > can't say. They just didn't notice it. That's all."
> >
> > > Didn't notice it? It was huge, how in the world could they NOT notice
> > > it?
> >
> > It was folded when found.
> >
> > > "But I'd rather believe the "ordinary" explanation of...."
> >
> > > Of course you would, but your belief is NOT an "ordinary" explanation,
> > > it is a made up story to support your made up theory.
> >
>
> "Still waiting for you kooks to put a theory on the table that
> accounts for all these things."
>
> The proof that your theory is made up is known as the Warren
> Commission report, you really should read it sometime.
Yah, I know that is on the table. I asked for the kook theory to be
put up, to compare with the WC report.
> > > "The bag was definitely found in the Nest, but some of the officers
> > > (for some reason[s]) just didn't notice the empty bag in the Nest."
> >
> > > Prove it then. The officer who found the Nest said he did NOT see it,
> >
>
> "Didn`t you just say it looked like something that belonged there?"
>
> This is how it was described by Johnson, but NOT Mooney who discovered
> the SN as he said there was NO bag there.
>
> It was made of paper common to that building. The cops were looking
> for metal, not paper."
>
> Whatever this means and how it pertains to the alleged bag is beyond
> me. More kook talk I guess.
Wasn`t written for you benefit. Nothing I write is.
> From Mooney's affadavit:
>
> " I then went on back to the 6th floor and went direct to the far
> corner and then discovered a cubby hole which had been constructed out
> of cartons which protected it from sight and found where someone had
> been in an area of perhaps 2 feet surrounded by cardboard cartons of
> books. Inside this cubby hole affair was three more boxes so arranged
> as to provide what appeared to be a rest for a rifle. On one of these
> cartons was a half-eaten piece of chicken. The minute that I saw the
> expended shells on the floor, I hung my head out of the half opened
> window and signaled to Sheriff Bill Decker and Captain Will Fritz who
> were outside the building and advised them to send up the Crime Lab
> Officers at once that I had located the area from which the shots had
> been fired. At this time, Officers Webstr, Victory, and McCurley came
> over to this spot and we guarded this spot until Crime Lab Officers
> got upstairs within a matter of a few minutes. We then turned this
> area over to Captain Fritz and his officers for processing."
>
> Do you read a mention of a paper bag?
I don`t see shells mentioned either. You can throw them out also.
Interesting about the chicken, that was found a few windows over
where Bonnie Ray Williams ate. Also, the SN window wasn`t open half
way.
He probably didn`t mention it because he didn`t take notice of it.
You`ll notice that as soon as he convinced himself that he found the
location the shots were fired from, he notified his superiors and left
the area.
> Finally, CE 2003 shows what each person discovered, look at the last
> entry on the left-hand side for Mooney (http://history-matters.com/
> archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh24/html/WH_Vol24_0134a.htm) do you see a paper
> bag mentioned? I don't. They give "credit" to Johnson on the right-
> hand side.
So it`s listed.
> > > he did NOT list it in his inventory, how come?
> >
> > Produce an inventory list with the bag not on it.
> >
> > > Studebaker did NOT
> > > photograph it, how come?
> >
> > What good would the answers to these questions do you? You`d
> > disregard them anyway.
> >
> > > "....Instead of believing the "extraordinary" explanation of....
> >
> > > There was no bag in the Nest at all following the shooting and the
> > > cops planted (or faked) the bag,
> >
>
> "How do you know Martians didn`t?"
>
> Makes as much sense as Dave's comment you are responding to. LOL!!!
You think Dave claimed the bag was planted? Seems more a stupid
thing you would say.
> > > and then Day, Studebaker, and
> > > Montgomery got together and decided to tell a bunch of lies about the
> > > bag.
> >
> > When you need to go to "the whole world was picking on Oswald",
> > doesn`t it make more sense to admit he was just guilty?
> >
> > >And: The cops somehow managed to plant Oswald's 2 prints on the
> > > fake bag too."
> >
> > How? Did they have his fingers?
> >
> > > This is EXACTLY what the evidence shows though, doesn't it? You can't
> > > produce one witness who was first on the scene who saw the bag in the
> > > SN area, not one.
> >
>
> "There can only be one officer first on the scene, nimrod."
>
> This is Bud's word of the day - nimrod - and he is too dense to know
> there can be more than one officer who is first on the scene, i.e.
> their partner.
You see him mentioning anyone else squeezing into the SN with him,
nimrod?
> Read the testimony of Mooney again, I know it is tough
> and you have NEVER read the WCR but you'll have to bite the bullet
> here.
>
>
> >
> > > You can't produce a photo of the sack in the place
> > > it was allegedly found, why?
> >
>
> "Because it wasn`t photographed in place. Even you should have gotten
> that one."
>
> Why wasn't it? It is standard police procedure to photograph the
> scene before moving and touching things. Even you should know this.
Again, you argue against what did happen with what you think should
have happened.
> > > It is NOT included in the inventory of
> > > officer Mooney discovery list, why?
> >
>
> "Try Day. He had it, and intitialed it."
>
> He wasn't given credit for finding it though, was he? It still
> doesn't prove it was in the SN as the first officer there, Mooney,
> makes no mention of ever seeing it.
The only things that could be there were things he mentioned, eh?
> I can't even find the energy to respond to the rest of your tripe, it
> is real bad as tripe goes.
Then I win.
robcap...@netscape.com
> robcap...@netscape.com wrote:
> > On Mar 11, 7:22 pm, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
> > > robcap...@netscape.com wrote:
> > > > On Mar 11, 5:57�pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > > "The paper bag (with Lee Oswald's two prints on it) was positively
> > > > found in the Sniper's Nest. Lt. Day's and Bob Studebaker's
> > > > corroborating testimony verifies that fact."
>
> > > > What was the quality of those prints again? Even if they were good,
> > > > and I have my doubts, he worked there and the paper sack was the type
> > > > that held books inside the cartons,
>
> > "Can you show this?"
>
> > Show what?
>
"What you claimed. That the paper sack found was of the type that held
books inside the cartons."
Detective Johnson said this in his WC testimony, I know you have not
read it or anything else in the WC that is why it was pasted for you
earlier.
> > That he worked there and part of his usual duty was to
> > move and unload boxes?
>
> > > > so they could have gotten there
> > > > when he unloaded books.
>
> > > > "The reason why more officers said they didn't see the bag in the
> > > > corner of the SN (when we KNOW it was there, per Day/Studebaker)??? I
> > > > can't say. They just didn't notice it. That's all."
>
> > > > Didn't notice it? It was huge, how in the world could they NOT notice
> > > > it?
>
> > > It was folded when found.
>
> > > > "But I'd rather believe the "ordinary" explanation of...."
>
> > > > Of course you would, but your belief is NOT an "ordinary" explanation,
> > > > it is a made up story to support your made up theory.
>
> > "Still waiting for you kooks to put a theory on the table that
> > accounts for all these things."
>
> > The proof that your theory is made up is known as the Warren
> > Commission report, you really should read it sometime.
>
"Yah, I know that is on the table. I asked for the kook theory to be
put up, to compare with the WC report."
One of these days Bud you will learn that the kook theory is the WC
report.
I'm sorry Bud, you really do have reading issues, I will go slower in
the future, because in the above paragraph it says, "... The minute
that I saw the
expended shells on the floor".
"Interesting about the chicken, that was found a few windows over
where Bonnie Ray Williams ate. Also, the SN window wasn`t open
halfway."
So Bud knows better than the man who actually found the SN and saw it
up close? You are just like the WC aren't you?
Sure, he missed a huge bag (at least 17 inches if folded in half) but
saw small little shell casings, right?
> > Finally, CE 2003 shows what each person discovered, look at the last
> > entry on the left-hand side for Mooney (http://history-matters.com/
> > archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh24/html/WH_Vol24_0134a.htm) do you see a paper
> > bag mentioned? I don't. They give "credit" to Johnson on the right-
> > hand side.
>
"So it`s listed."
It is listed but NOT where they claim it was found or by the officer
who discovered where the bag was allegedly found. You keep missing
this point.
> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
David Von Pein
>>> "Frazier said he didn`t see Oz with a lunchbag. It`s not something Oz told him." <<<
Actually, Bud, you were responding to my point here, not Rob-Kook's.
And Frazier, btw, was indeed TOLD BY OSWALD that he (Oswald) took no
lunch bag to work on 11/22. That is some of the strongest "LHO LIED"
evidence in the case, IMO. Unless we want to believe Frazier was a
liar too, which I don't believe for one second.
Or, we'd have to believe that Frazier had a brain cramp regarding the
exact date when he said he remembered ASKING Oswald "Where's your
lunch?" on the morning of Nov. 22.
Here's that Oz-incriminating testimony of Frazier's re. the "lunch"
subject:
"He {LHO} didn't take his lunch because I remember right when I
got in the car I asked him where was his lunch and he said he was
going to buy his lunch that day." -- Buell Frazier
Bud
David Von Pein wrote:
> >>> "Frazier said he didn`t see Oz with a lunchbag. It`s not something Oz told him." <<<
>
>
> Actually, Bud, you were responding to my point here, not Rob-Kook's.
Yah, rob is messing up the ">"s.
> And Frazier, btw, was indeed TOLD BY OSWALD that he (Oswald) took no
> lunch bag to work on 11/22. That is some of the strongest "LHO LIED"
> evidence in the case, IMO. Unless we want to believe Frazier was a
> liar too, which I don't believe for one second.
I was under the impression that it was an observation of Frazier`s
that Oz carried no lunch bag. My bad.
David Von Pein
Beats me. But it's obvious that it was there (Day/Studebaker/
Montgomery/LHO's prints), regardless of how many people failed to
notice it initially.
The WC and HSCA considered that bag to be "real evidence" in the case
(i.e., NOT PLANTED or tampered with). Why don't you believe that too?*
* = Don't answer that. I just ate. And I don't want to hurl.
>>> "Your belief is NOT an "ordinary" explanation, it is a made-up story to support your made-up theory." <<<
Goodie! A kook, as per usual, is turning the ordinary into the
extraordinary....with the kook thinking it's MORE "ordinary" to have
multiple police officers tell a boatful of LIES (under oath) than it
is to simply have some police officers not noticing a paper bag on the
floor.
Nice.
(And it's especially nice for the guilty murderer that will be leaving
prison soon, because you, one of his jurors, decided to become a
conspiracy kook at some point in your life.)
>>> "The officer who found the Nest said he did NOT see it {CE142; the paper bag}, he did NOT list it in his inventory, how come? Studebaker did NOT photograph it, how come?" <<<
It was all part of the vast "Let's Get Ozzie" cover-up conspiracy I
guess. That's what you believe anyway.
Of course, once again (just like the "Mystery Bag" discussion that
comes later in this post), the plotters who are framing Oswald are
doing things that FAR EXCEED the things they really need to do in
order to frame the guy.
Let's take a "patsy" inventory:
They've got his rifle (C2766).
They've got the bullet shells in the Nest (from C2766).
They've got CE399. (You, being a kook, naturally think it's a "plant";
well, okay, but they've still got that bullet too, right?)
They've got the two fragments in the limo (from C2766).
They've got tons of witnesses (coerced?) who all say that Oswald
killed Tippit or that Oz was the only person waving a gun fleeing the
scene of the crime.
They've got the shells from Ozzie's gun on 10th Street. (You think
those are "plants" too, naturally; but for the sake of this fairy-tale
discussion, who cares? The plotters STILL have that evidence to nail
the sap/patsy too, right? Right.)
They've even got Oswald brandishing a pistol in the theater (which he
entered without paying!) and fighting with the cops just 80 minutes
after JFK's murder and just 35 minutes after Tippit's murder. So it
appears that the "patsy" HIMSELF is cooperating nicely with the pre-
arranged "Let's Blame Oz" plan. He goes along with the plan and ACTS
AS GUILTY AS HELL OF SOMETHING when he's arrested.
Of course, being the Super-Kook you are, you don't find Oswald's
post-12:30 PM actions on Nov. 22nd "suspicious" at all...do you Mr.
Kook? His actions in the theater (and in front of Johnny Brewer's shoe
store) don't indicate anything other than TOTAL INNOCENCE on Sweet
Oswald's part....do they, kook?
After all, per Robby, "LHO shot no one that day [Nov. 22, 1963]".
Therefore, it was just a routine Friday afternoon for Lee Harvey: Get
out of work at midday; go to the movies (without paying for the very
cheap ticket); act "funny" and "scared" outside of Brewer's store; and
then fight like mad with several police officers when merely told by
Officer McDonald to "get on your feet" (nothing else was said to
Oswald at that point; but Oswald goes berserk and starts pulling out
guns and fighting like a condemned man anyhow; go figure that behavior
coming from a man who "SHOT NO ONE THAT DAY").
Meh. Just an average, ordinary November afternoon for the innocent Lee
Harvey Oswald. Right, Mr. Kook?
>>> "It {the bag held by Montgomery outside the TSBD} was totally erect, so something had to be keeping the back from falling over at the middle. The Mauser is my guess." <<<
A stupid guess too. (Seeing as how no Mauser existed at all.)
What would be your second-best guess? A Springfield 30.06 maybe? Yeah,
try that one. It's another of the make-believe rifles that CTers have
talked themselves into believing was really used by the brain-dead
plotters who were attempting to FRAME ONLY OSWALD for the murder of
President Kennedy.
Maybe Lee was supposed to be some kind of circus-like "Trick Shooter"
-- he had the ability to fire not 1, not 2, but THREE different rifles
at the President at the same time! A Carcano; a Mauser; and a
Springfield!
Wanna try for four?
>>> "Please, like anyone was thinking of that at that point, they had the biggest case of their lives. Only many years later has it been asked: What was in that bag?" <<<
LOL time. Robby doesn't seem to realize the "Kook Box" he just painted
himself into there. (I.E., only YEARS LATER has any of this kookshit
become the least bit important to bored, conspiracy-happy
nuthatches...like Robby perhaps?)
>>> "Anwer this (don't expect it as you duck all the questions I ask) for me then: when did LHO take the bag to the Paines? Frazier said LHO had NO bag on Thursday night, so when did he get it from the TSBD (WC's alleged place for the making of the bag) to the Paines' garage?" <<<
Probably Thursday night. Hence, the "folds" in the bag. Oswald
probably folded the empty bag and probably hid it under his jacket or
shirt or someplace where Frazier never noticed it.
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh16/pages/WH_Vol16_0269a.jpg
The empty paper bag COULD have conceivably been at the Paine house
prior to Thursday, 11/21....but I doubt that very much. And for one
very big reason: I don't think Oswald had it in his mind to even shoot
the President until (at the very earliest) Tuesday, November 19th,
which is the first day he could have had any knowledge of the exact
motorcade route (via the Dallas newspapers).
And we know that Oswald did NOT go to the Paine house the previous
weekend (Nov. 15-17), because of the birthday party that Ruth Paine
was having for one of her children. (Which, btw, leads to another one
of LHO's lies that he told after he was arrested, when he told the
police that the children's birthday party was planned for the weekend
of November 22-24, when he knew full well that was not the case at
all.)
Therefore, if Oswald wasn't even planning on shooting JFK prior to
approx. November 19th (which I think is correct--he wasn't planning it
before at least that date), it means that the paper bag had to have
either already been (coincidentally) located at the Paine house before
LHO decided to kill the President, or: Oswald took the bag to Irving
on Thursday, November 21st, the only day he was known to have gone
there AFTER the weekend of November 8-9-10.
>>> "Sure, little LHO ate a lunch out of a bag that HUGE!! Good one." <<<
Several CTers I've talked to have postulated that Oswald had his lunch
inside that big bag he took to work. (Along with the phantom "curtain
rods" too, of course.)
Looks like Robby missed out on a kooky theory. Hard to imagine that
ever happening.
>>> "Explain the police officers that signed affidavits stating a Mauser was found." <<<
They originally did think that a Mauser was found. (Duh.)
They later realized their error....and said so. (Except Super Liar
Roger D. Craig, that is.)
But, of course, Roger C. is in a "Liar" category all to himself, as we
all know. All non-lying cops who first said they observed a "Mauser"--
Boone and Weitzman--reversed themselves completely in that regard, and
said so in public many times.
Naturally, Kook-Rob believes every word spouted by a verified and
PROVEN liar (R. Craig), while disregarding the other non-lying police
officers.
Par for the Kook Kourse, of course.
>>> "How did the curtain rods get into the Paines' garage again?" <<<
Let me think (this one's a real toughie).....
Ruth Paine or Michael Paine bought them and placed them in the Paine
garage.
www.maryferrell.org/wiki/index.php?title=Photos_-_NARA_Evidence_-_Blanket_Bag_Rods
What's your CTer-skewed theory regarding Ruth Paine's rods?
Let me guess -- CONSPIRACY!
Am I close?
>>> "Who saw him bring them there again?" <<<
By "him", I suppose you automatically mean Patsy Oswald, right?
But why would you mean him?
There's nothing in the record (or anywhere else) that indicates that
Oswald took any curtain rods to the Paine home. And, more importantly,
there's nothing in the record to indicate that Oswald took any curtain
rods OUT of the Paine home on November 22, 1963.
Oswald never said a word to Mrs. Paine or to Marina about coming to
Irving on Thursday in order to get "curtain rods". Which is actually
kind of odd too -- because Oswald COULD have very well utilized that
alibi and made it a PARTLY-TRUE alibi as well....if he had merely
TAKEN THOSE RODS OUT OF THE PAINE GARAGE on November 22 and then taken
them into the TSBD (along with the rifle).
Go ask Patsy Lee why he didn't think of that. It would have reduced
his large list of "provable lies" by at least a few.
>>> "We don't have to go anywhere Dave..." <<<
And you do that very well. All the time.
>>> "...{we, the CT-Kooks} just have just explain why it was sent to LHO." <<<
And you've done this, have you? Where? I haven't seen it.
>>> "It {the "Mystery Package" supposedly mailed to LHO in early Dec. '63} was meant to be discovered (I would guess sooner than a few weeks) so two-&-two could be put together to frame LHO." <<<
And you think that the people who saw this mystery package after 11/22
(and thus would KNOW that such a totally-meaningless brown paper
package was sent by an OBVIOUS CONSPIRATOR of some sort, per your
eternal "Let's Frame LHO" posture) were just going to ignore this
connection to an OBVIOUS CONSPIRATOR?
Somebody lend Rob their brain. He's lost his (again).
>>> "I have no idea who sent it {the "Mystery Bag"} to him, but it's obvious why it was sent to me {it was sent to you, eh? I guess Rob is a conspirator now, huh?}, to frame him." <<<
So these stumblebum plotters think that it was WISE to send some
package to Lee Oswald (which was a meaningless endeavor, of course, in
that it doesn't prove a damn thing with respect to LHO shooting people
in November), which was done within the internal "plotter" mindset of:
WE NEED TO FRAME LEE OSWALD AND MAKE PEOPLE THINK THAT HE (LHO) ACTED
ALONE ON NOVEMBER 22ND.
And by somebody ELSE (obviously) sending the "solo patsy" a shady-
looking package, it was going to make it look MORE like Oswald did the
killing BY HIMSELF???
Is that your current posture re. the Mystery Bag, Mr. Kook?
Rob needs that replacement brain....fast. He actually thinks that the
plotters would tip their hand by sending Oswald something in the mail.
Did the plotters think that the cops would later think that LHO did,
in fact, send the Mystery Bag to HIMSELF?
But, given the "CT Mindset" re. the JFK case, I guess I shouldn't
laugh (too loudly). After all, Robby and many other people actually
think that "LHO SHOT NO ONE THAT DAY" and also think that some
goofball band of assassins would WANT to shoot up Dealey Plaza by
using multiple guns to kill the President within the pre-arranged "WE
ARE FRAMING ONLY OSWALD" context.
Now THAT'S where the laughing really gets heavy.
>>> "You tell me, give me a good explanation for the package then." <<<
Well, off the top of my head, I'd have to say this is my best
explanation:
Who the fuck cares?
(Sorry, it's the best I can do, given the "It Goes Nowhere" sign that
hangs over that mystery package.)
Final Thought......
Thanks for letting me bash your kooky head against your make-believe
"Conspiracy" wall for the umpteenth time, Rob. I enjoyed it. As
always.
David Von Pein
>>> "I was under the impression that it was an observation of Frazier`s that Oz carried no lunch bag." <<<
Well, yes, technically, you're correct here. But in addition to that
observation of Frazier's (re. LHO having no lunch sack with him on
11/22), Frazier also said he specifically remembered ASKING Oswald
"where's your lunch today?" (or words similar to those)....with LHO,
in effect, admitting (from his own lips, via Frazier's memory) that he
carried no lunch to work at all on the 22nd.
I guess this WOULD be considered "hearsay" (from a legal standpoint).
But that is what the record reflects....a big ol' lie from Ozzie's own
mouth as remembered by Wesley Frazier.
That's a key point that CTers like to totally ignore...i.e., the fact
that Oswald, himself, told us he didn't take any food for his lunch to
work on the morning of JFK's assassination. And then, of course,
Oswald is caught in one of his many lies after he's arrested, when he
told Fritz (et al) that he did take his lunch to work that day:
CAPT. FRITZ -- "He {LHO} said he didn't have any kind of a package but
his lunch. He said he had his lunch and that is all he had, and Mr.
Frazier told me that he got out of the car with that package, he saw
him go toward the building with this long package. I asked him {LHO},
I said, "Did you go toward the building carrying a long package?" He
said, "No. I didn't carry anything but my lunch"."
greg
Bud
robcap...@netscape.com wrote:
> On Mar 11, 8:42 pm, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
> > robcap...@netscape.com wrote:
> > > On Mar 11, 7:22 pm, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
> > > > robcap...@netscape.com wrote:
> > > > > On Mar 11, 5:57�pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > > "The paper bag (with Lee Oswald's two prints on it) was positively
> > > > > found in the Sniper's Nest. Lt. Day's and Bob Studebaker's
> > > > > corroborating testimony verifies that fact."
> >
> > > > > What was the quality of those prints again? Even if they were good,
> > > > > and I have my doubts, he worked there and the paper sack was the type
> > > > > that held books inside the cartons,
> >
> > > "Can you show this?"
> >
> > > Show what?
> >
>
> "What you claimed. That the paper sack found was of the type that held
> books inside the cartons."
>
> Detective Johnson said this in his WC testimony,
Quote him saying the paper sack found was of the type that held
books inside the cartons.
> I know you have not
> read it or anything else in the WC that is why it was pasted for you
> earlier.
>
> > > That he worked there and part of his usual duty was to
> > > move and unload boxes?
> >
> > > > > so they could have gotten there
> > > > > when he unloaded books.
> >
> > > > > "The reason why more officers said they didn't see the bag in the
> > > > > corner of the SN (when we KNOW it was there, per Day/Studebaker)??? I
> > > > > can't say. They just didn't notice it. That's all."
> >
> > > > > Didn't notice it? It was huge, how in the world could they NOT notice
> > > > > it?
> >
> > > > It was folded when found.
> >
> > > > > "But I'd rather believe the "ordinary" explanation of...."
> >
> > > > > Of course you would, but your belief is NOT an "ordinary" explanation,
> > > > > it is a made up story to support your made up theory.
> >
> > > "Still waiting for you kooks to put a theory on the table that
> > > accounts for all these things."
> >
> > > The proof that your theory is made up is known as the Warren
> > > Commission report, you really should read it sometime.
> >
>
> "Yah, I know that is on the table. I asked for the kook theory to be
> put up, to compare with the WC report."
>
> One of these days Bud you will learn that the kook theory is the WC
> report.
You still don`t present a contender.
Yah, I missed it.
> "Interesting about the chicken, that was found a few windows over
> where Bonnie Ray Williams ate. Also, the SN window wasn`t open
> halfway."
>
> So Bud knows better than the man who actually found the SN and saw it
> up close?
Apparently. Photos of the SN show no chicken. Photos where BRW said
he ate chicken do show chicken. Being a kook, you need to go into
contortions over these things, even when the simple answer that the
witness was wrong is available.
> You are just like the WC aren't you?
No, that was composed of several people, I am only one. Idiot.
That is what the evidence shows. Do you know where the bag was
actually found, nimrod? It wasn`t under foot beneath the windows like
the shells.
> > > Finally, CE 2003 shows what each person discovered, look at the last
> > > entry on the left-hand side for Mooney (http://history-matters.com/
> > > archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh24/html/WH_Vol24_0134a.htm) do you see a paper
> > > bag mentioned? I don't. They give "credit" to Johnson on the right-
> > > hand side.
> >
>
> "So it`s listed."
>
> It is listed but NOT where they claim it was found or by the officer
> who discovered where the bag was allegedly found. You keep missing
> this point.
It`s pointless to argue that he should have saw it when he
obviously didn`t see it.