Randal/Frazier and The Bag, Revisited
Bud
Looking at the material concerning the witnesses who saw Oswald carrying
a paper bag the morning of the 22nd, and I found a few things I found
interesting, although some of them I`m not sure what to make of.
The first has been discussed before, whether LMR could have seen Oswald
put the bag into her brother`s car like she claimed. Here is view she
would have from her kitchen doorway...
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/jfkinfo3/exhibits/ce446.jpg
Keep in mind that Frazier`s car was on the other side of the far wall,
and that LMR said that Oswald went to the far side of that car and put the
package in the backseat of Frazier`s car. That puts a wall (a wall with
open slats, but a wall nonetheless) and two cars between LMR and Oswald.
According to the scale on one exhibit, Oswald would have been 20-25 feet
from LMR, and the further you are from the open slats, the harder it would
be to discern activity on the other side (think venetian blinds). Seems to
me she could probably discern motion, but not make the actual observations
she claimed. Perhaps she heard the car door open and close, perhaps
Frazier told her the package was in the backseat, and this combination of
information turned it into more than it actually was in her mind.
Secondly, i came across a curious discrepancy between Frazier`s
testimony and his affidavit. In his affidavit, he said that he noticed the
bag in the backseat of his car before he entered the car. yet he told the
WC that he noticed it in the backseat when he turned to back out of the
driveway.
Thirdly, I came across a passage I always felt was curious in the FBI
report of WBF`s interview, and gave it some consideration. The passage is
where Frazier demonstrates how much of the package he could see walking
behind Oswald, and that area is measured to be one inch by nine inches. It
struck me that this is very similar to the dimensions of the end of the
bag found in the TSBD. That made me wonder whether Oswald was carrying the
bag like this...
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d4/Sufer_carrying_surfboard_along_the_beach.JPG
Sorry, thats the only thing i could find to convey the concept. If
Oswald had the bag like an infrantryman advancing, the only part visible
to Frazier walking behind him would be the end. That would account for the
package going from Oswald`s hand to under his armpit. Oswald`s other arm
would be supporting the bulk of the package out in front of him.
WBurg...@aol.com
>
> Sorry, thats the only thing i could find to convey the concept. If
> Oswald had the bag like an infrantryman advancing, the only part visible
> to Frazier walking behind him would be the end. That would account for the
> package going from Oswald`s hand to under his armpit. Oswald`s other arm
> would be supporting the bulk of the package out in front of him.
Other good questions are:
Who saw Oswald carry the bag into the TSBD?; what did he do with it;
and why has not been made of the "paperbags" mailed to Oswald near
addresses after the assassination? I await the LN response.
Burgundy
avon
>
> Sorry, thats the only thing i could find to convey the concept. If
> Oswald had the bag like an infrantryman advancing, the only part visible
> to Frazier walking behind him would be the end. That would account for the
> package going from Oswald`s hand to under his armpit. Oswald`s other arm
> would be supporting the bulk of the package out in front of him.
i can only talk about point 2. Frazier repeatedly says he didnt pay
much attention to the bag. Its like this. suppose you and i work
together, with you giving me lifts once a week. One day i turn up
with a bag and i tell you it had a fishing rod in it and put it on the
back seat of your car. You have worked with me for a while, know me
as an honest person who, to the best of your knowledge, has never lied
to you. how much attention would you be paying to me and my bag? very
little. Frazier repetedly says things like "i didnt pay it much
attention". Remember, for him, this is just another day at work. who
care whats in the bag, its friday and it will soon be the weekend. so
to return to me and my fishing rod in your car, if later the police
came and questioned you about our journey, and you mention a bag, how
much detail will you recall, and how accurate will it be? not very,
you would be saying similar things to Frazier.
interestingly, frazier says that after they got to dallas, he stopped
to watch the trains (or something - i am not very conversant on train
terminology) while Oswald sped off on his own. Did anyone see him
with the bag in the reception, stairway/elevator or on any floors with
the bag? and where did he hide it before lunch time? any ideas guys?
Also, if the other guy was eating chicken on the 6th floor, how much
time did LHO have to retrieve the rifle and get set up? also how did
he carry the bullets in? can you just carry them in your pocket?
(sorry, i am english so have no experience with guns and ammo.)
Bud
Wesley Buell Frazier did.
> what did he do with it;
Obviously at some point he took it to the sixth floor of his work,
took the rifle from it, assembled the rifle, and shot Kennedy with it.
> and why has not been made of the "paperbags" mailed to Oswald near
> addresses after the assassination? I await the LN response.
Wouldn`t mailed paper bags have postage on them?
> Burgundy
Anthony Marsh
Sure, but if you expect to see a 4 foot long fishing rod, you'll be
surprised by the foot long bag and ask how they could make one so small.
What is it, a Ron Popeel telescoping rod?
The Dutchman
The only thing I can add is, was she walking down some steps as she
saw the bag? (if she did see the bag) In other words, have you ever
moved your head up and down to "see through" partially open venetian
blinds? I do it all the time as people walk by my apartment window.
Is LMR still alive? Perhaps she could be reached, although maybe
she's fed up with the whole assassination scenario by now. The factor
of one's fading memory over decades would have to be taken into
account, I would think, also.
As for no one seeing the bag once Oswald got in the building, imagine
yourself at 8 AM having just arrived at work. Are you completely
alert? Couldn't it be possible that a person could walk right by you
with a bag, and it might not even register with you? A compliment to
this idea is that if you were LHO, you might very well stash the bag
as soon as you got inside, and then, when there was little or no human
traffic, try to get it upstairs. Once you're alone on the elevator
with bag, you're just about home free, aren't you?
.
Bud
Point number two was the discrepancy in two of his accounts about
where he was when he noticed the paper bag in the backseat of his car.
His Nov 22nd affidavit has...
"Before I got in my car, I glanced in the backseat, and saw a big
sack."
(Note to Tony Marsh: Notice Frazier selects the qualifier "big",
denoting a large size.)
Yet when he related the event to the Warren Commission, he said...
"Lets see, when I got in the car I kind of have a habit of glancing
over my shoulder and so at that time I noticed there was a package
laying on the backseat, I didn`t pay attention and I said "whats the
package, Lee?".
In one account he is outside the car when he notices the package, in
the other inside. Now, if I was Don Willis, I could twist this change
in Frazier`s story into something sinister.
But, also notice in his WC testimony that even when he glanced at
the package in the backseat, he makes the point that he didn`t pay
attention to it. Likely he just looked at it long enough to identify
it for what it was. Unlikely he could have picked up these "landmarks"
or "benchmarks" or whatever it is that some CTers seem to think lend
validity to his estimates.
> Frazier repeatedly says he didnt pay
> much attention to the bag. Its like this. suppose you and i work
> together, with you giving me lifts once a week. One day i turn up
> with a bag and i tell you it had a fishing rod in it and put it on the
> back seat of your car. You have worked with me for a while, know me
> as an honest person who, to the best of your knowledge, has never lied
> to you. how much attention would you be paying to me and my bag? very
> little. Frazier repetedly says things like "i didnt pay it much
> attention". Remember, for him, this is just another day at work. who
> care whats in the bag, its friday and it will soon be the weekend. so
> to return to me and my fishing rod in your car, if later the police
> came and questioned you about our journey, and you mention a bag, how
> much detail will you recall, and how accurate will it be? not very,
> you would be saying similar things to Frazier.
>
> interestingly, frazier says that after they got to dallas, he stopped
> to watch the trains (or something - i am not very conversant on train
> terminology)
I think "trains" is the correct technological jargon.
> while Oswald sped off on his own. Did anyone see him
> with the bag in the reception, stairway/elevator or on any floors with
> the bag? and where did he hide it before lunch time? any ideas guys?
> Also, if the other guy was eating chicken on the 6th floor, how much
> time did LHO have to retrieve the rifle and get set up? also how did
> he carry the bullets in? can you just carry them in your pocket?
No. Lint sets them off.
> (sorry, i am english
No need to apologize, you can`t help where you`re born.
Anthony Marsh
No. You don't have to put postage on something to mail it.
And the report was of a "bag" not "bags."
How about if Oswald mailed himself his uncompleted diary as insurance?
>> Burgundy
>
>
Clark
> Looking at the material concerning the witnesses who saw Oswald carrying
> a paper bag the morning of the 22nd, and I found a few things I found
> interesting, although some of them I`m not sure what to make of.
>
> The first has been discussed before, whether LMR could have seen Oswald
> put the bag into her brother`s car like she claimed. Here is view she
> would have from her kitchen doorway...
>
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/jfkinfo3/exhibits/ce446.jpg
>
> Keep in mind that Frazier`s car was on the other side of the far wall,
> and that LMR said that Oswald went to the far side of that car and put the
> package in the backseat of Frazier`s car. That puts a wall (a wall with
> open slats, but a wall nonetheless) and two cars between LMR and Oswald.
> According to the scale on one exhibit, Oswald would have been 20-25 feet
> from LMR, and the further you are from the open slats, the harder it would
> be to discern activity on the other side (think venetian blinds).
Think venetian blinds that are open. Are you going to claim you
couldn't see a person walk by those open slats?
And, if you had bothered to read her testimony you would see where she
obviously refers to the slats obstructing her view:
"I didn't recognize him as he walked across my carport..."
(page 248)
> Seems to
> me she could probably discern motion, but not make the actual observations
That's what she did. She could obviously tell where his motion
stopped (as the picture you posted shows) relative to the car and saw
the motion of the door opening.
You'd know that if you had read her testimony.
> she claimed. Perhaps she heard the car door open and close, perhaps
> Frazier told her the package was in the backseat, and this combination of
> information turned it into more than it actually was in her mind.
Again, just for for something "new and different to do", Bud, you
might want to read her testimony for what she actually said versus
what you think she might have said. Here! I'll post it for you.
Mr. BALL. Did you see Lee?
Mrs. RANDLE. Yes, I did.
Mr. BALL. Where did you see him?
Mrs. RANDLE. I saw him as he crossed the street and come across my
driveway to where Wesley had his car parked by the carport.
Mr. BALL. What street did he cross to go over?
Mrs. RANDLE. He crossed Westbrook.
Mr. BALL. And you saw him walking along, did you?
Mrs. RANDLE. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. Was he carrying any package?
Mrs. RANDLE. Yes; he was.
Mr. BALL. What was he carrying?
Mrs. RANDLE. He was carrying a package in a sort of a heavy brown
bag, heavier than a grocery bag it looked to me. It was about, if I
might measure, about this long, I suppose, and he carried it in his
right hand, had the top sort of folded down and had a grip like this,
and the bottom, he carried it this way, you know, and it almost
touched the ground as he carried it.
Mr. BALL. Let me see. He carried it in his right hand, did he?
Mrs. RANDLE. That is right.
Mr. BALL. And where was his hand gripping the middle of the package?
Mrs. RANDLE. No, sir; the top with just a little bit sticking up. You
know just like you grab something like that.
Mr. BALL. And he was grabbing it with his right hand at the top of
the package and the package almost touched the ground?
Mrs. RANDLE. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. He walked over to your house, did he?
Mrs. RANDLE. Well, I saw him as he started crossing the street. Where
he come from then I couldn't say.
Mr. BALL. You don't know where he went from that?
Mrs. RANDLE. Where he went?
Mr. BALL. Did you see him go to the car?
Mrs. RANDLE. Yes.
Now, Bud! At what point in this testimony did the slatted carport
come between her and Oswald? Because, according to you, he was at all
times on the other side of the carport and couldn't be seen by her.
Is that true, Bud?
>
> Secondly, i came across a curious discrepancy between Frazier`s
> testimony and his affidavit. In his affidavit, he said that he noticed the
> bag in the backseat of his car before he entered the car. yet he told the
> WC that he noticed it in the backseat when he turned to back out of the
> driveway.
>
WOW! How many years in prison should we give him for this?
And, BTW, Bud, what is the significance of the discrepancy? He said
he noticed a package on the backseat of his car. What monumental
change do we have here?
And, of course, you never stopped to think that Frazier might have
noticed the bag on the backseat of the car before he got in and then
noticed it again as turned to back out of the driveway?
No you didn't. No explanations necessary, Bud. I've read your posts
before.
> Thirdly, I came across a passage I always felt was curious in the FBI
> report of WBF`s interview, and gave it some consideration. The passage is
> where Frazier demonstrates how much of the package he could see walking
> behind Oswald, and that area is measured to be one inch by nine inches. It
> struck me that this is very similar to the dimensions of the end of the
> bag found in the TSBD. That made me wonder whether Oswald was carrying the
> bag like this...
>
> http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d4/Sufer_carrying_sur...
If, as you suggest, Oswald held the side of the bag when observed by
Randall and latter carried the bag by the bottom and the side then he
would
have deposited three prints on the bag. Clearly evidence of this
scenario is
missing.
Just a fact.
::Clark::
Clark
> Bud makes a good point concerning whether LMR could have seen the bag.
> The only thing I can add is, was she walking down some steps as she
> saw the bag? (if she did see the bag) In other words, have you ever
> moved your head up and down to "see through" partially open venetian
> blinds? I do it all the time as people walk by my apartment window.
> Is LMR still alive? Perhaps she could be reached, although maybe
> she's fed up with the whole assassination scenario by now. The factor
> of one's fading memory over decades would have to be taken into
> account, I would think, also.
She had a perfectly good view of him. Here she correctly identifies
what he was wearing and the type of paper the bag was made out of:
Mr. BALL. What did he do?
Mrs. RANDLE. He opened the right back door and I just saw that he
was laying the package down so I closed the door. I didn't recognize him
as he walked across my carport and I at that moment I wondered who was
fixing to come to my back door so I opened the door slightly and saw that
it--I assumed he was getting in the car but he didn't, so he come back and
stood on the driveway.
Mr. BALL. He put the package in the car.
Mrs. RANDLE. Yes, sir; I don't know if he put it on the seat or on
the floor but I just know he put it in the back.
Mr. BALL. We have got a package here which is marked Commission
Exhibit No. 364. You have seen this before, I guess, haven't you, I think
the FBI showed it to you?
Mrs. RANDLE. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. Was the color of that package in any way similar to the
color of this package which is 364?
Mrs. RANDLE. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. Similar kind of paper, wasn't it?
Mrs. RANDLE. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. Now, was the length of it any similar, anywhere near
similar?
Mrs. RANDLE. Well, it wasn't that long, I mean it was folded down
at the top as I told you. It definitely wasn't that long.
Mr. BALL. How about the width?
Mrs. RANDLE. The width is about right.
Mr. BALL. The width is about right.
Can you stand up here and show us how he was carrying it. Using
this package as an example only?
Mrs. RANDLE. What he had in there, it looked too long.
Mr. BALL. This looks too long?
Mrs. RANDLE. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. About how long would you think the package would be,
just measure it right on there.
Mrs. RANDLE. I would say about like this.
Mr. BALL. You mean from here to here?
Mrs. RANDLE. Yes, sir; with that folded down with this much for
him to grip in his hand.
Mr. BALL. This package is about the span of my hand, say 8 inches,
is that right? He would have about this much to grip?
Mrs. RANDLE. What I remember seeing is about this long, sir, as I
told you it was folded down so it could have been this long.
Mr. BALL. I see. You figure about 2 feet long, is that right?
Mrs. RANDLE. A little bit more.
Mr. BALL. A little more than 2 feet.
There is another package here. You remember this was shown you. It
is a discolored bag, which is Exhibit No. 142, and remember you were asked
by the Federal Bureau of Investigation agents if this looked like the
package; do you remember?
Mrs. RANDLE. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. Now, first of all with color, you told them the bag was
not the color?
Mrs. RANDLE Yes.
Mr. BALL. But they showed you a part of the bag that had not been
discolored, didn't they?
Mrs. RANDLE. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. Looking at this part of the bag which has not been
discolored does that appear similar to the color of the bag you saw Lee
carrying that morning?
Mrs. RANDLE. Yes; it is a heavy type of wrapping paper.
Mr. BALL. Now, with reference to the width of this bag, does that
look about the width of the bag that he was carrying?
Mrs. RANDLE. I would say so; yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. What about length?
Mrs. RANDLE. You mean the entire bag?
Mr. BALL. Yes.
Mrs. RANDLE. There again you have the problem of all this down
here. It was folded down, of course, if you would take it from the
bottom--
Mr. BALL. Fold it to about the size that you think it might be.
Mrs. RANDLE. This is the bottom here, right. This is the bottom,
this part down here.
Mr. BALL. I believe so, but I am not sure. But let's say it is.
Mrs. RANDLE. And this goes this way, right? Do you want me to hold
it?
Mr. BALL. Yes.
Mrs. RANDLE. About this.
Mr. BALL. Is that about right? That is 28 1/2 inches.
Mrs. RANDLE. I measured 27 last time.
Mr. BALL. You measured 27 once before?
Mrs. RANDLE. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. How was Lee dressed that morning?
Mrs. RANDLE. He had on a white T-shirt, I just saw him from the
waist up, I didn't pay any attention to his pants or anything, when he was
going with the package. I was more interested in that. But he had on a
white T-shirt and I remember some sort of brown or tan shirt and he had a
gray jacket, I believe.
Mr. BALL. A gray jacket. I will show you some clothing here.
First, I will show you a gray jacket. Does this look anything like the
jacket he had on?
Mrs. RANDLE. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. That morning?
Mrs. RANDLE. Similar to that. I didn't pay an awful lot of
attention to it.
Mr. BALL. Was it similar in color?
Mrs. RANDLE. Yes, sir; I think so. It had big sleeves.
Mr. BALL. Take a look at these sleeves. Was it similar in color?
Mrs. RANDLE. I believe so.
Mr. BALL. What is the Commission Exhibit on this jacket?
Mrs. RANDLE. It was gray, I am not sure of the shade.
Mr. BALL. 163.
I will show you another shirt which is Commission No. 150.
Does this look anything like the shirt he had on?
Mrs. RANDLE. Well now, I don't remember it being that shade of
brown. It could have been but I was looking through the screen and out the
window but I don't remember it being exactly that. I thought it was a
solid color.
Mr. BALL. Here is another jacket which is a gray jacket, does this
look anything like the jacket he had on?
Mrs. RANDLE. No, sir; I remember its being gray.
Mr. BALL. Well, this one is gray but of these two the jacket I
last showed you is Commission Exhibit No. 162, and this blue gray is 163,
now if you had to choose between these two?
Mrs. RANDLE. I would choose the dark one.
Mr. BALL. You would choose the dark one?
Mrs. RANDLE. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. Which is 163, as being more similar to the jacket he
had?
Mrs. RANDLE. Yes, sir; that I remember. But I, you know, didn't
pay an awful lot of attention to his jacket. I remember his T-shirt and
the shirt more so than I do the jacket.
Mr. BALL. The witness just stated that 163 which is the gray-blue
is similar to the jacket he had on. 162, the light gray jacket was not.
Mrs. RANDLE. Yes.
Mr. BALL. I have no further questions.
Her reference to Lee wearing a "gray jacket" with "big sleeves" is
identical to Frazier's. LNer's would have us believe that she and her
brother collaborated on their stories by being interviewed together and
simply invented this mutual description. In fact, she approached the
police at Paine's at about 3PM because what she had seen that morning
aroused her suspicions: namely, Oswald placing a package in the backseat
of Frazier's car. Thus, she provided this story to the police before she
and her brother were taken down to the station. That's why she was at the
station because of what she had said she saw.
>
> As for no one seeing the bag once Oswald got in the building, imagine
> yourself at 8 AM having just arrived at work. Are you completely
> alert? Couldn't it be possible that a person could walk right by you
> with a bag, and it might not even register with you?
Jack Dougherty disagrees with you. He watched Lee come in with no
disassembled rifle.
>A compliment to
> this idea is that if you were LHO, you might very well stash the bag
> as soon as you got inside, and then, when there was little or no human
> traffic, try to get it upstairs. Once you're alone on the elevator
> with bag, you're just about home free, aren't you?
>
It is interesting so see LNer's refute their own witnesses as to how
the rifle got into the TSBD as unreliable.
Just a thought.
::Clark::
Clark
Is a 28.5 inch long bag "big" or "little"?
>
> Yet when he related the event to the Warren Commission, he said...
>
> "Lets see, when I got in the car I kind of have a habit of glancing
> over my shoulder and so at that time I noticed there was a package
> laying on the backseat, I didn`t pay attention and I said "whats the
> package, Lee?".
>
> In one account he is outside the car when he notices the package, in
> the other inside. Now, if I was Don Willis, I could twist this change
> in Frazier`s story into something sinister.
Isn't that what you're trying to do, Bud?
Make your noted discrepancy out to be of some sinister significance
when, in fact, it's of no significance at all?
>
> But, also notice in his WC testimony that even when he glanced at
> the package in the backseat, he makes the point that he didn`t pay
> attention to it. Likely he just looked at it long enough to identify
> it for what it was. Unlikely he could have picked up these "landmarks"
> or "benchmarks" or whatever it is that some CTers seem to think lend
> validity to his estimates.
But he did pick up the benchmarks and landmarks. The FBI confirmed this.
So your "Unlikely" is likely wrong.
You're a typical LNer, Bud. You have to have Lee bring the rifle into the
TSBD to show he acted alone and the only way he could bring it in was by
the paperbag. So you have to have it in the paperbag. So you say, "Yes!
All the eyewitnesses were right in seeing the paperbag."
But the rifle won't fit in the bag - a slight contradiction. So then you
have to claim the rifle was disassembled and put in the bag. Do you have
any evidence for this? No. In fact, every single eyewitness to the bag
testified that Lee had folded the top down - And the the fold still exists
and can be measured. The disassembled rifle will not fit in the bag as
folded and as confirmed by the eyewitnesses. You lose again.
So now you're forced to question your own witnesses - Witnesses you have
to have for Lee to have acted alone. They must be wrong. Why don't you
just cut to the quick, Bud, and call them LIARS? Because that's what they
have to be for your hypothesis to work.
Notice, I called it a "hypothesis" and not a theory. A theory is
supported by evidence. You have no evidence there was a rifle in that
bag. All you have is evidence there wasn't. You have no theory on how
the rifle entered the TSBD. Therefore, you have no evidence Lee acted
alone.
> > while Oswald sped off on his own. Did anyone see him
> > with the bag in the reception, stairway/elevator or on any floors with
> > the bag? and where did he hide it before lunch time? any ideas guys?
> > Also, if the other guy was eating chicken on the 6th floor, how much
> > time did LHO have to retrieve the rifle and get set up? also how did
> > he carry the bullets in? can you just carry them in your pocket?
>
> No. Lint sets them off.
A typical reply for you.
For the poster who asked this question, no one saw Lee with the bag inside
the TSBD. The rifle would have been hidden on an upper floor that other
book fillers weren't working (either the fifth or sixth floor) lest they
accidentally discovered it. The rifle was already fully assembled (It was
never disassembled) at the time " the other guy was eating chicken on the
6th floor" as it was seen at about this time. Lee went down to the first
floor with the others at lunch, something he would not have done if he had
to find and put a rifle back together. The ammunition is held in the clip
within the rifle, whether it's assembled or not.
Just a thought.
::Clark::
soilysound
The point that always gets me about the bag is how enormous that thing
was. This bag was HUGE, Half Oswald's height. It's the kind of thing that
would be notable and invite comment, yet nobody at the TSBD sees this bag,
which is virtually unthinkable considering its large size. The bag Frazier
says he saw is about halfway in size between the TSBD bag and a large
lunchbag, which Oswald said he was carrying. Isn't it possible that
Frazier simply overestimated the size of a lunchbag he glanced on the back
seat rather than underestimated the size of a huge bag containing a rifle?
The other thing that really bothers me about the whole bag is how the
Dallas police managed to take photos of the crime scene, and right were
the bag should be, is no bag. That immediately arouses suspicion.
In my opinion a credible possible scenario is as follows:
- Oswald goes to work on the 22nd with a lunchbag as per his testimony.
- Frazier glances at the bag and post assassination subconsciously
overestimates its size, possibly due to the implication that must have
struck him connecting bag and assassination.
- Amongst many things extracted from the TSBD is a large piece of packing
paper or a packing bag, completely unrelated to the assassination.
- In the days following the assassination, the DPD are worried that their
case against Oswald is falling apart. At this point no fingerprints have
been found on the rifle and the paraffin tests suggest Oswald hadn't fired
a rifle.
- They fabricate the bag to shore up their case, using paper from the
TSBD. How did Oswald's prints get on the bag? How about they handed him
the paper whilst he was been interrogated and asked him 'can you identify
this?'
Not saying any of that did happen, but its hardly a far fetched scenario.
A straightforward, even mundane possibility.
soilysound
considered is that the DP/FBI fabricated evidence against Oswald even
though he was guilty.
In England in the 70s, police 'helping' the evidence along if they thought
their guy was guilty wasn't not uncommon. I don't think its out of the
question that the DP/FBI 'helped' the evidence along in this case because
they genuinely did think Oswald was guilty. The point is, fabricating
evidence does not immediately have equate to fitting an innocent man up.
soilysound
morning prior to getting into Frazier's car, and that's Linnie Mae
Randal's mother Essie. She told the FBI she saw Lee, and he had no
bag.
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=95672&relPageId=148
Please remember how huge this bag was. It's essentially impossible to
see anyone carrying the bag in question and not see the bag.
John McAdams
wrote:
OK, so Wes Frazner and Linnie Mae Randle were both lying?
You understand that you are a "no bag theorist," in contrast to the
"too short bag" theorists, right?
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Anthony Marsh
Please cite and quote for me where Oswald said he was carrying a large
lunchbag that morning.
He told Frazier it was curtain rods. He said nothing about it being his
lunch. Your version would produce TWO bags.
> Frazier simply overestimated the size of a lunchbag he glanced on the back
> seat rather than underestimated the size of a huge bag containing a rifle?
>
> The other thing that really bothers me about the whole bag is how the
> Dallas police managed to take photos of the crime scene, and right were
> the bag should be, is no bag. That immediately arouses suspicion.
>
It shouldn't. It's routine incompetence. No mystery.
> In my opinion a credible possible scenario is as follows:
>
> - Oswald goes to work on the 22nd with a lunchbag as per his testimony.
>
Oswald gave no testimony. We don't know what he said during the
interrogations because the DPD refused to record them.
> - Frazier glances at the bag and post assassination subconsciously
> overestimates its size, possibly due to the implication that must have
> struck him connecting bag and assassination.
>
I've never seen a lunchbag two feet long and rectangular. Frazier
obviously saw nothing inconsistent with it being curtain rods.
> - Amongst many things extracted from the TSBD is a large piece of packing
> paper or a packing bag, completely unrelated to the assassination.
>
> - In the days following the assassination, the DPD are worried that their
> case against Oswald is falling apart. At this point no fingerprints have
> been found on the rifle and the paraffin tests suggest Oswald hadn't fired
> a rifle.
>
Wrong. Within hours they had Oswald's fingerprints on the rifle.
> - They fabricate the bag to shore up their case, using paper from the
> TSBD. How did Oswald's prints get on the bag? How about they handed him
> the paper whilst he was been interrogated and asked him 'can you identify
> this?'
>
The bag is not necessary to convict Oswald. It is necessary to cover up
their incompetence.
> Not saying any of that did happen, but its hardly a far fetched scenario.
> A straightforward, even mundane possibility.
>
Pretty silly.
I assume that's your purpose here.
Bud
This witness called it "big". The other witness used the qualifier
"large". Some CT-leaning poster was questioning why the witnesses were
using such qualifiers to denote the size of the bag. The answer is that
they were.
Tony Marsh, as he is wont to do, was trying to insert the word
"smallish" into the discussion, quite the opposite of what the witnesses
were indicating.
> > Yet when he related the event to the Warren Commission, he said...
>
> > "Lets see, when I got in the car I kind of have a habit of glancing
> > over my shoulder and so at that time I noticed there was a package
> > laying on the backseat, I didn`t pay attention and I said "whats the
> > package, Lee?".
>
> > In one account he is outside the car when he notices the package, in
> > the other inside. Now, if I was Don Willis, I could twist this change
> > in Frazier`s story into something sinister.
>
> Isn't that what you're trying to do, Bud?
No, Clark, I said I don`t know what to make of it. You react the way the
old religious fanatics used to do when someone asked about a difficulty in
the Bible. Attack the person trying to make sense of the words used.
> Make your noted discrepancy out to be of some sinister significance
> when, in fact, it's of no significance at all?
By "no significance at all", you mean of no use for your silly theories,
right Clark?
And of course it is significant, as it speaks to his memory, and his
observations of the bag. You want it both ways, tout the details he
related as important, yet ignore the context surrounding those related
details.
But you are in a sense right, nothing Frazier related is significant
other than that he drove Oswald to work, and that Oswald had a big bag.
> > But, also notice in his WC testimony that even when he glanced at
> > the package in the backseat, he makes the point that he didn`t pay
> > attention to it. Likely he just looked at it long enough to identify
> > it for what it was. Unlikely he could have picked up these "landmarks"
> > or "benchmarks" or whatever it is that some CTers seem to think lend
> > validity to his estimates.
>
> But he did pick up the benchmarks and landmarks. The FBI confirmed this.
They confirmed nothing. There was no way possible they could unless
they rode with Frazier that morning.
> So your "Unlikely" is likely wrong.
No, he said he didn`t pay attention to the bag when he looked into the
backseat. Thats the context Clark. Likely, he looked at it just long
enough to make out what it was. Unlikely he was noting these landmarks
that seem to exist only in CT imagination.
> You're a typical LNer, Bud.
Thanks Clark. And you are a typical CTer.
> You have to have Lee bring the rifle into the
> TSBD to show he acted alone and the only way he could bring it in was by
> the paperbag.
It`s what Oswald obviously did, Clark, it isn`t about me. I didn`t
need Oswald to kill anyone, and I don`t see any use in pretending he
didn`t.
> So you have to have it in the paperbag. So you say, "Yes!
> All the eyewitnesses were right in seeing the paperbag."
Yah, that is the only information that it is reasonable to believe
is reliable.
> But the rifle won't fit in the bag - a slight contradiction.
No, just a claim. The rifle does fit in the bag.
>So then you
> have to claim the rifle was disassembled and put in the bag.
The rifle was designed to be easily disassembled.
> Do you have
> any evidence for this? No.
Did they have any direct evidence that OJ touched a knife the day
his wife was killed? No, just the fact that his wife was stabbed to
death and the other information indicating he was the one who did it.
> In fact, every single eyewitness to the bag
> testified that Lee had folded the top down -
The bag does have a flap at the top.
> And the the fold still exists
> and can be measured. The disassembled rifle will not fit in the bag as
> folded and as confirmed by the eyewitnesses. You lose again.
Only if you can`t tell the difference between mush and concrete.
> So now you're forced to question your own witnesses -
I don`t expect exact details like measurements from any casual
witness. Or clothing details. Or heights and weights or any of the
other mush CTers have been using to make absolute statements about
over the years.
>Witnesses you have
> to have for Lee to have acted alone. They must be wrong. Why don't you
> just cut to the quick, Bud, and call them LIARS? Because that's what they
> have to be for your hypothesis to work.
They have to be human, and I have to look at what they said in that
context.
> Notice, I called it a "hypothesis" and not a theory. A theory is
> supported by evidence. You have no evidence there was a rifle in that
> bag. All you have is evidence there wasn't. You have no theory on how
> the rifle entered the TSBD. Therefore, you have no evidence Lee acted
> alone.
Obviously, Oswald took the rifle to work in that bag.
> > > while Oswald sped off on his own. Did anyone see him
> > > with the bag in the reception, stairway/elevator or on any floors with
> > > the bag? and where did he hide it before lunch time? any ideas guys?
> > > Also, if the other guy was eating chicken on the 6th floor, how much
> > > time did LHO have to retrieve the rifle and get set up? also how did
> > > he carry the bullets in? can you just carry them in your pocket?
>
> > No. Lint sets them off.
>
> A typical reply for you.
<snicker>
> For the poster who asked this question, no one saw Lee with the bag inside
> the TSBD. The rifle would have been hidden on an upper floor that other
> book fillers weren't working (either the fifth or sixth floor) lest they
> accidentally discovered it.
There you go. Claiming to know something would "have to be", when it
is really unknowable.
> The rifle was already fully assembled (It was
> never disassembled) at the time " the other guy was eating chicken on the
> 6th floor" as it was seen at about this time. Lee went down to the first
> floor with the others at lunch, something he would not have done if he had
> to find and put a rifle back together.
Who said Oswald went down with the others at lunch? I`ve never seen
anything like this anywhere.
Bud
> On Oct 4, 5:50 pm, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Looking at the material concerning the witnesses who saw Oswald carrying
> > a paper bag the morning of the 22nd, and I found a few things I found
> > interesting, although some of them I`m not sure what to make of.
>
> > The first has been discussed before, whether LMR could have seen Oswald
> > put the bag into her brother`s car like she claimed. Here is view she
> > would have from her kitchen doorway...
>
> > http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/jfkinfo3/exhibits/ce446.jpg
>
> > Keep in mind that Frazier`s car was on the other side of the far wall,
> > and that LMR said that Oswald went to the far side of that car and put the
> > package in the backseat of Frazier`s car. That puts a wall (a wall with
> > open slats, but a wall nonetheless) and two cars between LMR and Oswald.
> > According to the scale on one exhibit, Oswald would have been 20-25 feet
> > from LMR, and the further you are from the open slats, the harder it would
> > be to discern activity on the other side (think venetian blinds).
>
> Think venetian blinds that are open. Are you going to claim you
> couldn't see a person walk by those open slats?
Likely you could discern movement, but not activity. Two cars and a
wall between Randal to the far side of her brother`s car.
> And, if you had bothered to read her testimony you would see where she
> obviously refers to the slats obstructing her view:
>
> "I didn't recognize him as he walked across my carport..."
> (page 248)
What she is probably referring to here is seeing Oswald walk across the
open front of the carport.
You really need to think about the whole episode. She is at the kitchen
sink looking out her kitchen window. She sees Oswald walk catty-corner
across the street, walking across her field of vision. Now, anybody who
has ever looked out their window, and seen someone cross a street has a
rough idea both of how long she could have observed Oswald, and what
details she could gather in this short amount of time. If I looked out my
window and saw a person carrying an umbrella, and you asked me in the
afternoon details about it, you could forget it. I might remember they had
one, I might remember what hand they carried it in, how far off the ground
and things of that nature, I could guess if pressed, but speak with
assurances that the information I was supplying was accurate? Forget it.
Anyway, she sees Oswald disappear from sight, and she moves to her
kitchen door that opens out into the car port where her husband`s car is
parked. The door is about eight feet, I think, from the window, so by the
time she gets there, it is likely just in time to see Oswald disappear
behind the wall of the carport where Frazier`s car is parked. This is
probably why she didn`t recognize him as he walked across her carport,
because she just got a glimpse of him. Now, once Oswald is behind the
wall, her vantage I believe is about three feet up from the carport floor.
She can probably see over her husband`s car, possibly make out movement
between the slats, but there is no was she can see through the roof of
Frazier car to see Oswald open the far door, and put the bag in the
backseat.
All in all, it is unlikely she saw Oswald for more than 15 seconds with
the bag. Don`t believe me, look out a window, watch someone walk across a
street, count the seconds.
Anyone interested can find the map and photos of Randal`s home in the
Commission Exhibits. Those that find reality inconvenient can ignore this
information.
Why`d you stop there, Clark, it was just fixing to get good. You must
have saw where she said "He opened the right back door and I just saw that
he was laying the package down so I closed the door". But I don`t suppose
you`d find it significant whether this is possible or not. But wait, this
sounds as if she is saying she observed Oswald put the package in. Yet she
told the FBI on 12-2...
"She noticed Oswald open the far side of her brother`s car, and
presuming he was getting into the car, she turned back to the sink after
hearing the door shut".
She doesn`t seem to be telling the FBI she saw Oswald put the package
into the car. Hmmm, probably insignificant.
> Now, Bud! At what point in this testimony did the slatted carport
> come between her and Oswald?
When Oswald walked behind it. You do know Frazier`s car was parked on
the other side of the carport wall from Linnie Mae`s kitchen door, right?
> Because, according to you, he was at all
> times on the other side of the carport and couldn't be seen by her.
<snicker> I never said any such thing. Read the original post.
> Is that true, Bud?
Of course not. I was referring to just the portion where she claimed
to see Oswald put the package into her brother`s car.
> > Secondly, i came across a curious discrepancy between Frazier`s
> > testimony and his affidavit. In his affidavit, he said that he noticed the
> > bag in the backseat of his car before he entered the car. yet he told the
> > WC that he noticed it in the backseat when he turned to back out of the
> > driveway.
>
> WOW! How many years in prison should we give him for this?
I`d let him off with a warning this time, since he is obviously just a
fallible human being, and one shouldn`t expect humans to observe details
or recall things perfectly.
> And, BTW, Bud, what is the significance of the discrepancy? He said
> he noticed a package on the backseat of his car. What monumental
> change do we have here?
I thought I said I didn`t know what to make of it. Why don`t you
listen better?
> And, of course, you never stopped to think that Frazier might have
> noticed the bag on the backseat of the car before he got in and then
> noticed it again as turned to back out of the driveway?
<snicker> You`re kidding, right? He took note of it, then he took
note of it again?
> No you didn't. No explanations necessary, Bud. I've read your posts
> before.
>
> > Thirdly, I came across a passage I always felt was curious in the FBI
> > report of WBF`s interview, and gave it some consideration. The passage is
> > where Frazier demonstrates how much of the package he could see walking
> > behind Oswald, and that area is measured to be one inch by nine inches. It
> > struck me that this is very similar to the dimensions of the end of the
> > bag found in the TSBD. That made me wonder whether Oswald was carrying the
> > bag like this...
>
> >http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d4/Sufer_carrying_sur...
>
> If, as you suggest, Oswald held the side of the bag when observed by
> Randall and latter carried the bag by the bottom and the side then he
> would
> have deposited three prints on the bag. Clearly evidence of this
> scenario is
> missing.
Yah, but paper yields few prints (that according to "Fingerprints
for Dummies") .
> Just a fact.
>
> ::Clark::
Bud
> On Oct 5, 12:27 pm, The Dutchman <kks44910...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > The only thing I can add is, was she walking down some steps as she
> > saw the bag? (if she did see the bag) In other words, have you ever
> > moved your head up and down to "see through" partially open venetian
> > blinds? I do it all the time as people walk by my apartment window.
> > Is LMR still alive? Perhaps she could be reached, although maybe
> > she's fed up with the whole assassination scenario by now. The factor
> > of one's fading memory over decades would have to be taken into
> > account, I would think, also.
>
> She had a perfectly good view of him.
She saw him briefly from her kitchen window. It was an unobstructed
view, but it was likely dark. The sun rose at 7:03, and the
observation done around 7:15 on a rainy, overcast day.
> Here she correctly identifies
> what he was wearing and the type of paper the bag was made out of:
<snicker> Correctly identifies? Are you saying it is established what
clothes Oswald was wearing at the time? Or that the bag she saw is
established?
And hadn`t she handled the bag prior to giving this identification?
But different to what she said the day of the murders. She said he
was wearing a brown or tan shirt.
http://jfk.ci.dallas.tx.us/05/0506-001.gif
Perhaps discussions she had with her brother changed her story from
"shirt" to "jacket".
Also, they were both shown CE 163. LMR said it was similar to the
jacket she saw Oswald wearing, Frazier rejected it as the jacket
Oswald was wearing.
> LNer's would have us believe that she and her
> brother collaborated on their stories by being interviewed together and
> simply invented this mutual description.
Clark has problems understanding LN arguments.
> In fact, she approached the
> police at Paine's at about 3PM because what she had seen that morning
> aroused her suspicions: namely, Oswald placing a package in the backseat
> of Frazier's car.
Yah, thats the point I made, that it seems unlikely she could have
seen this.
> Thus, she provided this story to the police before she
> and her brother were taken down to the station.
She told cops she saw Oswald with a bag that morning. LNers don`t
dispute this.
> That's why she was at the
> station because of what she had said she saw.
Yah, seeing Oswald with a large bag that morning made her
suspicious. Maybe because it seemed to contain something heavy, like
she told the FBI.
> > As for no one seeing the bag once Oswald got in the building, imagine
> > yourself at 8 AM having just arrived at work. Are you completely
> > alert? Couldn't it be possible that a person could walk right by you
> > with a bag, and it might not even register with you?
>
> Jack Dougherty disagrees with you. He watched Lee come in with no
> disassembled rifle.
Saw Oswald come in out of the corner of his eye from across a
cluttered room.
> >A compliment to
> > this idea is that if you were LHO, you might very well stash the bag
> > as soon as you got inside, and then, when there was little or no human
> > traffic, try to get it upstairs. Once you're alone on the elevator
> > with bag, you're just about home free, aren't you?
>
> It is interesting so see LNer's refute their own witnesses as to how
> the rifle got into the TSBD as unreliable.
As I said, it is unlikely to report someone as carrying a bag who
wasn`t.
> Just a thought.
>
> ::Clark::
soilysound
> On 17 Oct 2009 20:36:20 -0400, soilysound <soilyso...@googlemail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Let's not forget there was actually third person to see LHO that
> >morning prior to getting into Frazier's car, and that's Linnie Mae
> >Randal's mother Essie. She told the FBI she saw Lee, and he had no
> >bag.
>
>
> >Please remember how huge this bag was. It's essentially impossible to
> >see anyone carrying the bag in question and not see the bag.
>
> OK, so Wes Frazner and Linnie Mae Randle were both lying?
>
> You understand that you are a "no bag theorist," in contrast to the
> "too short bag" theorists, right?
>
> .John
> --------------http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
According to the notes that survive from his interrogation, Oswald
said he had a lunch-bag. He doesnlt say anything about having curtain
rods.
I'm saying it's perfectly possible for two different people to glance
at Oswald carrying a lunch bag and 1 person doesn't notice it and
another does notice it and retrospectively exaggerates its size in
their mind.
I contend Oswald carrying the huge bag alleged to contain the rifle
could not be glanced at by anyone without noticing said bag. Its just
too big not to see. Isn't this just obvious to anyone?
So if you say I say that Frazier must be lying, then you must be
saying that Jack Dougherty and Essie Randal must be lying.
In reality I think nobody is lying. I think the Oswald was carrying a
largish lunchbag, just as he said. That scenario can be squared with
all the testimony, wheres Oswald carrying the huge bag cannot.
Anthony Marsh
You're not trying hard enough, Mr. Cover-up. Why don't you point out that
her kitchen windows were all steamed up from her boiling water on the
stove so it distorted what she saw? That way a 5 foot long package
suddenly looks like 2 feet long. Yeah, that's it!
Bud
Have you considered that maybe Oswald wasn`t carrying the bag when Essie
and Doughtery saw him? Or, more likely to me, not when Doughtery saw him,
since Essie only caught a glimpse, and according to her daughter Oswald
had the bag down by his side.
The door Frazier saw Oswald go into work with the bag is not the same
door that Dougherty would see him come through. There is a corridor
between the two doors, affording Oswald the opportunity to stash the bag
before entering the door Dougherty saw Oswald come through.
> In reality I think nobody is lying. I think the Oswald was carrying a
> largish lunchbag, just as he said. That scenario can be squared with
> all the testimony, wheres Oswald carrying the huge bag cannot.
A lunchbag that only clears the ground by a few inches? Was Oz trick or
treating?
It isn`t realistic to think that anyone can see someone carrying a
lunchbag, and use the ground as a reference to the bottom of the lunchbag.
You`d only use the ground as a reference to something close to it. And why
would Oswald put a lunchbag in the backseat, isn`t that the kind of thing
you just carry?
Jean
> Let's not forget there was actually third person to see LHO that
> morning prior to getting into Frazier's car, and that's Linnie Mae
> Randal's mother Essie. She told the FBI she saw Lee, and he had no
> bag.
>
She didn't say he had no bag. She said she "got a quick
glimspe" of Oswald through the kitchen window while they were having
breakfast. Frazier and Randle's testimony indicates that Oswald had
already put his package into Frazier's car *before* he walked over to the
window. The FBI report says that Essie "did not see this person carrying
anything," which is true, but it doesn't mean there was no package.
Jean
Anthony Marsh
> On Oct 17, 10:50 am, Clark <clarkwilk...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On Oct 5, 12:27 pm, The Dutchman <kks44910...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Budmakes a good point concerning whether LMR could have seen the bag.
>>> The only thing I can add is, was she walking down some steps as she
>>> saw the bag? (if she did see the bag) In other words, have you ever
>>> moved your head up and down to "see through" partially open venetian
>>> blinds? I do it all the time as people walk by my apartment window.
>>> Is LMR still alive? Perhaps she could be reached, although maybe
>>> she's fed up with the whole assassination scenario by now. The factor
>>> of one's fading memory over decades would have to be taken into
>>> account, I would think, also.
>> She had a perfectly good view of him.
>
> She saw him briefly from her kitchen window. It was an unobstructed
> view, but it was likely dark. The sun rose at 7:03, and the
> observation done around 7:15 on a rainy, overcast day.
>
Now that's better. Never admit anything. Think up any silly excuse.
Maybe it was still raining that morning. Maybe it was snowing. Maybe
there was a solar eclipse. Anything to deny that she saw the package.
>> Here she correctly identifies
>> what he was wearing and the type of paper the bag was made out of:
>
> <snicker> Correctly identifies? Are you saying it is established what
> clothes Oswald was wearing at the time? Or that the bag she saw is
> established?
>
What jacket? Why don't you claim that she couldn't tell the difference
between blue and white. Why don't you claim that Belin showed her the
WRONG jacket? Gee, this is fun.
Anthony Marsh
> On Oct 18, 1:40 am, John McAdams <john.mcad...@marquette.edu> wrote:
>> On 17 Oct 2009 20:36:20 -0400, soilysound <soilyso...@googlemail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Let's not forget there was actually third person to see LHO that
>>> morning prior to getting into Frazier's car, and that's Linnie Mae
>>> Randal's mother Essie. She told the FBI she saw Lee, and he had no
>>> bag.
>>> http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=956...
>>> Please remember how huge this bag was. It's essentially impossible to
>>> see anyone carrying the bag in question and not see the bag.
>> OK, so Wes Frazner and Linnie Mae Randle were both lying?
>>
>> You understand that you are a "no bag theorist," in contrast to the
>> "too short bag" theorists, right?
>>
>> .John
>> --------------http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
>
> According to the notes that survive from his interrogation, Oswald
> said he had a lunch-bag. He doesnlt say anything about having curtain
> rods.
Oh yeah? Prove it. And prove that the notes (you won't say whose notes)
are 100% accurate.
>
> I'm saying it's perfectly possible for two different people to glance
> at Oswald carrying a lunch bag and 1 person doesn't notice it and
> another does notice it and retrospectively exaggerates its size in
> their mind.
>
Yeah, and your average lunch bag is 3 feet long?
> I contend Oswald carrying the huge bag alleged to contain the rifle
> could not be glanced at by anyone without noticing said bag. Its just
> too big not to see. Isn't this just obvious to anyone?
>
People did notice it.
> So if you say I say that Frazier must be lying, then you must be
> saying that Jack Dougherty and Essie Randal must be lying.
>
Nobody is lying. Not everyone is accurate.
> In reality I think nobody is lying. I think the Oswald was carrying a
> largish lunchbag, just as he said. That scenario can be squared with
> all the testimony, wheres Oswald carrying the huge bag cannot.
>
Oswald said nothing about carrying a largish lunchbag or any lunchbag.
soilysound
Essie's statement give us no clue as to when she saw Oswald so you might
be might be right. Equally she could have seen Oswald carrying a normal
lunch bag and not the huge TSBD bag, which even at a glance could not
possibly be missed.
Bud
Sorry Tony, I know you conspiracy mongers get all woozy when you are
forced to view information realistically. You can go back to thinking that
lighting has no effect on observing, or that lighting is good at daybreak
on an overcast rainy day, or whatever it is you are more comfortable
believing.
>Why don't you point out that
> her kitchen windows were all steamed up from her boiling water on the
> stove so it distorted what she saw?
Why would I do that when I could just show CE444? How could she see out
that window at all?
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?absPageId=138992
> That way a 5 foot long package
> suddenly looks like 2 feet long. Yeah, that's it!
Why not say a 50 foot package that looks one inch while you are
exaggerating Tony?
The actual difference between LMR`s estimate and how long the bag would
need to be to hold the disassembled rifle is eight inches. The length of a
pencil.
soilysound
Right so Oswald stashes this huge bag somewhere before been seen by
Dougherty? Where? And when does he go retrieve the bag ad how did nobody
see him doing this?
As for the lunchbag, it entirely depends on how a person is carrying it
and what distance and angle you see them. Can you really not imagine how
someone might be able to carry, say, a 12 inch long bag and its near the
floor? As for Essie wasn't she the one who alerted Frazier to Oswald's
arrival? How could Oswald have put the bag in the car before Frazier knew
he was there?
Bud
> Bud wrote:
> > On Oct 17, 10:50 am, Clark <clarkwilk...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Oct 5, 12:27 pm, The Dutchman <kks44910...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>> Budmakes a good point concerning whether LMR could have seen the bag.
> >>> The only thing I can add is, was she walking down some steps as she
> >>> saw the bag? (if she did see the bag) In other words, have you ever
> >>> moved your head up and down to "see through" partially open venetian
> >>> blinds? I do it all the time as people walk by my apartment window.
> >>> Is LMR still alive? Perhaps she could be reached, although maybe
> >>> she's fed up with the whole assassination scenario by now. The factor
> >>> of one's fading memory over decades would have to be taken into
> >>> account, I would think, also.
> >> She had a perfectly good view of him.
>
> > She saw him briefly from her kitchen window. It was an unobstructed
> > view, but it was likely dark. The sun rose at 7:03, and the
> > observation done around 7:15 on a rainy, overcast day.
>
> Now that's better. Never admit anything. Think up any silly excuse.
What a devastating rebuttal to the point I raised. Wait a minute, it
doesn`t speak to the issue I raised at all. Whew, that was close!
> Maybe it was still raining that morning. Maybe it was snowing. Maybe
> there was a solar eclipse. Anything to deny that she saw the package.
Are you trying to create an army of strawmen? Nobody here said that
she didn`t see the package.
> >> Here she correctly identifies
> >> what he was wearing and the type of paper the bag was made out of:
>
> > <snicker> Correctly identifies? Are you saying it is established what
> > clothes Oswald was wearing at the time? Or that the bag she saw is
> > established?
>
> What jacket? Why don't you claim that she couldn't tell the difference
> between blue and white.
You can make the argument if you like. I`ve seen you make worse.
> Why don't you claim that Belin showed her the
> WRONG jacket?
You can make that argument if you like.
>Gee, this is fun.
Enjoy yourself. And when you are finished making suggestions about
what I can say you might want to actually try to say something
yourself.
> ...
>
> read more »
Anthony Marsh
Hey, here's a possibility you didn't consider. Maybe there wasn't ANYTHING
in the bag at all. Maybe all Oswald was doing was stealing paper. Yeah,
that's it, Oswald was a professional shipping paper thief. Highly
specialized, I know, but little competition.
Jean
> On Oct 19, 3:39 am, Jean <jean.davis...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Oct 17, 7:36 pm, soilysound <soilyso...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Let's not forget there was actually third person to see LHO that
> > > morning prior to getting into Frazier's car, and that's Linnie Mae
> > > Randal's mother Essie. She told the FBI she saw Lee, and he had no
> > > bag.
>
> > >http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=956...
>
> > She didn't say he had no bag. She said she "got aquick
> > glimspe" of Oswald through the kitchen window while they were having
> > breakfast. Frazier and Randle's testimony indicates that Oswald had
> > already put his package into Frazier's car *before* he walked over to the
> > window. The FBI report says that Essie "did not see this person carrying
> > anything," which is true, but it doesn't mean there was no package.
>
> > Jean
>
> Essie's statement give us no clue as to when she saw Oswald so you might
> be might be right.
It says exactly when she saw him -- when he came to the
kitchen window.
The report also says "she could not furnish any information
concerning Oswald or the brown bag he supposedly had been carrying *prior
to her seeing him.*" A report on Linnie Mae on the preceding page says,
"Her mother did get a glimpse of him as he passed by the kitchen window,
but at that point OSWALD had already put the package in the car."
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=95672&relPageId=147
> Equally she could have seen Oswald carrying a normal
> lunch bag and not the huge TSBD bag, which even at a glance could not
> possibly be missed.
The report you linked to says "She did not see this person
carrying *anything*..."
Jean
Clark
Thank you, Jean. Lee stood outside the door and was seen outside the
window after putting the bag in the car. Hence, Essie did not see a
bag. It's a very simple and obvious explanation.
Now compare it to Bud's where he has Linnie watch Oswald come down her
driveway with the paperbag, pass the carport, and then come and stand
outside her window without the bag. Bud can't figure out what
happened to the bag. It seems to be a mystery to him. Can you help
him figure out where it is?
Thanks in advance.
::Clark::
soilysound
>
> > Equally she could have seen Oswald carrying a normal
> > lunch bag and not the huge TSBD bag, which even at a glance could not
> > possibly be missed.
>
> The report you linked to says "She did not see this person
> carrying *anything*..."
>
> Jean
Yes and my point all along has been that if 4 different people saw a
man at various distances and angles carrying a lunch-bag, its
perfectly reasonable that 2 of them may not have noticed it at all and
2 of them did, and exaggerated its size retrospectively. Someone
carrying the HUGE bag Oswald was said to have had could not be seen,
or even glanced, by anyone without noticing the bag as the single most
notable thing about that person.
So what you have to do is have the 2 witnesses see Oswald without the
bag, even though he should have had it at the time they saw him.
Bud
Possible.
> Where?
Who knows? But when a person is seen with something at one point,
and not seen with it at another, putting it somewhere must be on the
list of possibilities.
If Oswald put it along the corridor somewhere, must Frazier see it?
It`s a loading dock area, there is often packing debris and trashcans
and pallets and such. If Oswald put it behind the door Frazier saw him
enter in, wouldn`t Frazier go right past it? Also, it is a brown paper
object in a building that contains all sorts of brown paper and
cardboard objects. You might be able to leave it in plain sight
without anyone paying much attention to it.
Possible Oswald stashed temporarily, just to go in and see who was
around. One person was in the room. Maybe Oswald waited for Dougherty
to leave, and then retrieved it and carried it up. People present
these things as monumental difficulties without really knowing how
difficult these things would be.
> And when does he go retrieve the bag ad how did nobody
> see him doing this?
Who is around at any given time? People were asked how often they
saw him, many said they saw him once or not at all all day. Oswald was
probably observed 15 minutes in the whole 4 hours he was at work.
<Attention Tony Marsh; insert squawk about this estimate here>
> As for the lunchbag, it entirely depends on how a person is carrying it
> and what distance and angle you see them. Can you really not imagine how
> someone might be able to carry, say, a 12 inch long bag and its near the
> floor?
Oswald packs the "Fred Flintstone" lunch? He said he had cheese,
thats a lot of cheese.
But even such a large bag, with the arm held straight down would put
the bag too far from the ground to use the ground to determine the
size of the bag.
>As for Essie wasn't she the one who alerted Frazier to Oswald's
> arrival?
She said she caught a glimpse. If Oswald had the bag like LMR said
he did, down at his side, if it was on the far side from Essie, she
might miss it with only a glimpse.
>How could Oswald have put the bag in the car before Frazier knew
> he was there?
By putting the bag inside Frazier`s car while he was eating
breakfast in the house. Apparently, the car doors were not locked.
soilysound
What a cheeky blighter! Although I guess if you're going to kill the
Pres, letting yourself into someone else's car is nothing.
Oswald got real lucky that day didn't he? Carrying such a huge bag yet
nobody noticed it, except 2 people both of whom were adamant it was
too small to carry a rifle.
Clark
Incorrect description of your post. You made no effort to make sense
of the words used.
> > Make your noted discrepancy out to be of some sinister significance
> > when, in fact, it's of no significance at all?
>
> By "no significance at all", you mean of no use for your silly theories,
> right Clark?
You posted Frazier saw the bag in the back before getting in the car and
then again he saw the bag while backing his car up. That's seeing it
twice. He noticed it contained something and asked Oswald what it was.
That is the significance of it. I don't call him a liar nor do I see any
discrepancy.
But him telling the truth does not support your silly theories, right,
Bud?
But go ahead, Bud. Tell us what significant thing you found that's of
no use to me? I'll wait.
>
> And of course it is significant, as it speaks to his memory, and his
> observations of the bag. You want it both ways, tout the details he
> related as important, yet ignore the context surrounding those related
> details.
All I did was repeat what you said - That Frazier saw a bag in the back of
his car when he got in and saw a bag in the back of his car when when he
turned to back up. As an LNer you consider that significant as it speaks
to his memory. I agree, It means he noiticed the bag on the back of his
seat twice, noticed it contained something (and noticed it covered half of
his back seat) and asked Lee what was in the bag. It speaks well of his
memory and his observations of the bag. Yet you disagree and say I have
the context and his memory wrong. Where did I make my mistake?
1) Frazier didn't see a paperbag in the backseat of his car on getting
in because there was no car. Frazier drove a 38" long paperbag to
work.
2) Frazier didn't see a bag in his back set when he turned and backed
up because it was a cloudy and raining inside his car that morning.
3) Frazier failed to remember 1 and 2 above.
>
> But you are in a sense right, nothing Frazier related is significant
> other than that he drove Oswald to work, and that Oswald had a big bag.
Big enough that it occupied approximately one half of a 54" wide seat.
Do the math, Bud.
I'll wait while you run find a calculater.
>
> > > But, also notice in his WC testimony that even when he glanced at
> > > the package in the backseat, he makes the point that he didn`t pay
> > > attention to it. Likely he just looked at it long enough to identify
> > > it for what it was. Unlikely he could have picked up these "landmarks"
> > > or "benchmarks" or whatever it is that some CTers seem to think lend
> > > validity to his estimates.
>
> > But he did pick up the benchmarks and landmarks. The FBI confirmed this.
>
> They confirmed nothing. There was no way possible they could unless
> they rode with Frazier that morning.
They measured the width of the seat at 54". Then asked him how much of
the seat it occupied. He said half. The FBI confirmed that half of 54"
is 27". He was asked if his estimate could have included 38". He said no.
He pointed where the bag ended on the seat. They measured and it was
28.5". The FBI confirmed that 28.5" is less than 38".
>
> > So your "Unlikely" is likely wrong.
>
> No, he said he didn`t pay attention to the bag when he looked into the
> backseat. Thats the context Clark.
He looked at it twice. He saw it contained something. He noticed its
length. He noticed it was distinctively shorter than the bag in evidence.
That's the context of his testimony of the bag on the backseat.
> Likely, he looked at it just long
> enough to make out what it was. Unlikely he was noting these landmarks
> that seem to exist only in CT imagination.
He pointed them out to the FBI who measured them. I guess I just
imagined that, huh?
>
> > You're a typical LNer, Bud.
>
> Thanks Clark. And you are a typical CTer.
>
> > You have to have Lee bring the rifle into the
> > TSBD to show he acted alone and the only way he could bring it in was by
> > the paperbag.
>
> It`s what Oswald obviously did, Clark, it isn`t about me. I didn`t
> need Oswald to kill anyone, and I don`t see any use in pretending he
> didn`t.
Lee obviously did not bring the rifle in by the bag. If he did, LNer's
would show it.
So let's pretend Oswald killed JFK acting alone. How did he get the rifle
into the TSBD? Start from when he made the bag, to when he put the rifle
in it, to when he took it up to the sixth floor.
>
> > So you have to have it in the paperbag. So you say, "Yes!
> > All the eyewitnesses were right in seeing the paperbag."
>
> Yah, that is the only information that it is reasonable to believe
> is reliable.
Why is it unreasonable to believe that the eyewitness description of the
length of the bag is unreliable when the bag was folded at the very length
the eyewitnesses put the length of the bag? And why, when both witnesses
state the bag they saw was shorter than the bag shown them, is that
unreliable?
>
> > But the rifle won't fit in the bag - a slight contradiction.
>
> No, just a claim. The rifle does fit in the bag.
No. A 40" rifle will not fit in a 38" long bag. Buy yourself a
calculater.
>
> >So then you
> > have to claim the rifle was disassembled and put in the bag.
>
> The rifle was designed to be easily disassembled.
What's your evidence it was disassembled on 11/22/63?
And, BTW, it easily falls into 11 parts when disassembled.
>
> > Do you have
> > any evidence for this? No.
>
> Did they have any direct evidence that OJ touched a knife the day
> his wife was killed? No, just the fact that his wife was stabbed to
> death and the other information indicating he was the one who did it.
<snicker>
Bud has no evidence.
Imagine my surprise.
>
> > In fact, every single eyewitness to the bag
> > testified that Lee had folded the top down -
>
> The bag does have a flap at the top.
The bag is taped for 30" of its length. That's an 8" flap at the
top. Will the disassembled rifle fit in such a bag with the top fold
down at 28.5" as shown by the fold mark in the bag?
>
> > And the the fold still exists
> > and can be measured. The disassembled rifle will not fit in the bag as
> > folded and as confirmed by the eyewitnesses. You lose again.
>
> Only if you can`t tell the difference between mush and concrete.
No argument, Bud?
As I said, you lose again.
>
> > So now you're forced to question your own witnesses -
>
> I don`t expect exact details like measurements from any casual
> witness. Or clothing details. Or heights and weights or any of the
> other mush CTers have been using to make absolute statements about
> over the years.
So, if Randell and Frazier both testified that Lee carried a 8" lunch
bag, you would say they were both wrong and that it measured 38".
Right, Bud?
>
> >Witnesses you have
> > to have for Lee to have acted alone. They must be wrong. Why don't you
> > just cut to the quick, Bud, and call them LIARS? Because that's what they
> > have to be for your hypothesis to work.
>
> They have to be human, and I have to look at what they said in that
> context.
They both saw the same thing - a 38" long paperbag folded at 28.5"
with the fold mark in evidence on the bag. How did you decide that
they were right that they saw a 38" long paperbag but wrong when they
said it was folded at 28.5"?
>
> > Notice, I called it a "hypothesis" and not a theory. A theory is
> > supported by evidence. You have no evidence there was a rifle in that
> > bag. All you have is evidence there wasn't. You have no theory on how
> > the rifle entered the TSBD. Therefore, you have no evidence Lee acted
> > alone.
>
> Obviously, Oswald took the rifle to work in that bag.
Then post your evidence he did.
<snicker>
>
> > > > while Oswald sped off on his own. Did anyone see him
> > > > with the bag in the reception, stairway/elevator or on any floors with
> > > > the bag? and where did he hide it before lunch time? any ideas guys?
> > > > Also, if the other guy was eating chicken on the 6th floor, how much
> > > > time did LHO have to retrieve the rifle and get set up? also how did
> > > > he carry the bullets in? can you just carry them in your pocket?
>
> > > No. Lint sets them off.
>
> > A typical reply for you.
>
> <snicker>
>
>
> Who said Oswald went down with the others at lunch? I`ve never seen
> anything like this anywhere.
>
You've never seen anything like this anywhere? It's in the WR.
But that probably explains why you don't know about it.
Just a thought.
::Clark::
Clark
> On Oct 18, 5:56 pm, soilysound <soilyso...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
> > I contend Oswald carrying the huge bag alleged to contain the rifle
> > could not be glanced at by anyone without noticing said bag. Its just
> > too big not to see. Isn't this just obvious to anyone?
>
> > So if you say I say that Frazier must be lying, then you must be
> > saying that Jack Dougherty and Essie Randal must be lying.
>
> Have you considered that maybe Oswald wasn`t carrying the bag when Essie
> and Doughtery saw him?
So finish your "consideration", Bud. If Oswald wasn't carrying the 38"
long paperbag while standing outside Frazier's window, WHERE WAS IT?
I'll bet Jean knows. I'll bet Anthony knows. I'll bet John McAdams
knows. Do you?
Just curious.
::Clark::
Bud
> On Oct 18, 7:39 pm, Jean <jean.davis...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Oct 17, 7:36 pm, soilysound <soilyso...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Let's not forget there was actually third person to see LHO that
> > > morning prior to getting into Frazier's car, and that's Linnie Mae
> > > Randal's mother Essie. She told the FBI she saw Lee, and he had no
> > > bag.
>
> > >http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=956...
>
> > She didn't say he had no bag. She said she "got a quick
> > glimspe" of Oswald through the kitchen window while they were having
> > breakfast. Frazier and Randle's testimony indicates that Oswald had
> > already put his package into Frazier's car *before* he walked over to the
> > window. The FBI report says that Essie "did not see this person carrying
> > anything," which is true, but it doesn't mean there was no package.
>
> > Jean
>
> Thank you, Jean. Lee stood outside the door and was seen outside the
> window after putting the bag in the car. Hence, Essie did not see a
> bag. It's a very simple and obvious explanation.
Which needs Oswald to go stand where he could be seen again by the
kitchen window after dropping off the bag. Why would he go there?
> Now compare it to Bud's where he has Linnie watch Oswald come down her
> driveway with the paperbag, pass the carport, and then come and stand
> outside her window without the bag. Bud can't figure out what
> happened to the bag. It seems to be a mystery to him. Can you help
> him figure out where it is?
Is misrepresentation the best you can do, Clark?
Why not address the point I actually raised, that it seems very
unlikely that LMR could see Oswald put the bag into the car as she
told the authorities.
> Thanks in advance.
>
> ::Clark::
Bud
I don`t think the two people who saw it offered any opinion as to
whether it held a rifle. They`d have to see inside it for that.
Bud
Sure, in Frazier`s car. I didn`t dispute he put it there, I disputed
whether LMR could see him put it there like she claimed. I have no idea
what prevents you from understanding this.
> Just curious.
>
> ::Clark::
Anthony Marsh
You are suggesting that Oswald was HIDING the entire time? For what
purpose? This wasn't like Reily.
>> As for the lunchbag, it entirely depends on how a person is carrying it
>> and what distance and angle you see them. Can you really not imagine how
>> someone might be able to carry, say, a 12 inch long bag and its near the
>> floor?
>
> Oswald packs the "Fred Flintstone" lunch? He said he had cheese,
> thats a lot of cheese.
>
Who said? Who said what?
As for cheese I believe he once said he liked cheese sandwiches, which
fit between two pieces of white bread. Now, if you just want to make up
some funny arguments, how about those old food pantry blocks of cheese
the government used to give away? Those were a couple of feet long, right?
And he ATE all of that cheese for lunch? Maybe that was the motive, like
the Twinky defense.
Clark
> On Oct 19, 10:46 pm, soilysound <soilyso...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
>
> > Right so Oswald stashes this huge bag somewhere before been seen by
> > Dougherty?
>
> Possible.
>
> > Where?
>
> Who knows? But when a person is seen with something at one point,
> and not seen with it at another, putting it somewhere must be on the
> list of possibilities.
Hold that thought, Bud, challenge though that is. Lee was seen with a
paperbag crossing the street to Frazier's house. Yet Lee is not seen with
a paperbag while waiting outside Frazier's window.
Apply the above logic and tell us the possibilities.
> >As for Essie wasn't she the one who alerted Frazier to Oswald's
> > arrival?
>
> She said she caught a glimpse. If Oswald had the bag like LMR said
> he did, down at his side, if it was on the far side from Essie, she
> might miss it with only a glimpse.
So, Bud? Do you think Lee is holding the 38" long bag where Essie
can't see it?
>
> >How could Oswald have put the bag in the car before Frazier knew
> > he was there?
>
> By putting the bag inside Frazier`s car while he was eating
> breakfast in the house. Apparently, the car doors were not locked.
Or do you think it's in Frazier's car?
This has to be a tough call for Bud.
:)
Just curious.
::Clark::
"LNer's: Breakfast food of CT."
ShutterBun
"Adamant"? I believe both of them gave testimony to the effect that
they "didn't pay much attention." And since you're using Randall &
Frazier as fodder, why merely focus on that single part of their
testimony (i.e. the length of the bag) that bolsters an "Oswald is
innocent" viewpoint?
Why not consider these other aspects of their testimony:
1. Oswald walked to Frazier's car, which was unprecidented
2. Oswald *did* have a "long package" in his arms.
3. Oswald specifically told Frazier he did not bring a lunch, which
was unusual.
4. Oswald specifically told Frazier (on two occasions) that he planned
to bring curtain rods with him (which I hope we can all agree never
existed)
Bearing that in mind, what is your opinion of the following:
1. Did Oswald carry a long package with him that day or not?
2. If not, why would Frazier and his sister lie?
3. If he did, what was in it?
4. If your answer to #3 is "curtain rods," where are they?
5. Why did Oswald (according to Fritz's notes) deny bringing a long
package to work that day? Why not stick to the "curtain rods" story
he told Frazier?
6. How did Oswald's prints get on the paper sack?
And finally, how do you account for the fact that the ONLY reason
there is ANY question about Oswald carrying the package into work is
that Frazier and his sister both underestimated its length, (a
phenomenon which has been scientifically proven to be true of most
human estimates of length)
David Von Pein
>>> "Lee [Oswald] obviously did not bring the rifle in by the bag. If he
did, LNer's would show it." <<<
Lee Harvey Oswald quite obviously DID carry his Mannlicher-Carcano rifle
into the Texas School Book Depository in the paper bag seen by Wes Frazier
and Linnie Randle on the morning of 11/22/63. To believe otherwise is the
very essence of denial.
=======================================
"And it's obvious that Oswald carried that rifle into the building
that day in that large brown paper bag. It couldn't be more obvious. As
far as Mr. Frazier's testimony about Oswald carrying the bag under his
armpit, he conceded he never paid close attention to just how Oswald was
carrying that bag. He didn't have any reason to." -- Vincent Bugliosi;
July 1986; Via Closing Arguments to the jury during the TV docu-trial "On
Trial: Lee Harvey Oswald"
=======================================
Related excerpts from an Internet post I wrote in October 2007:
Via [Wesley] Frazier's 11/22/63 affidavit, we find something interesting
regarding the bag:
"Before I got in the car, I glanced in the back seat, and saw a big
sack. It must have been about 2 feet long, and the top of the sack was
sort of folded up, and the rest of the sack had been kind of folded under.
I asked Lee what was in the sack, and he said "curtain rods", and I
remembered that he had told me the day before that he was going to bring
some curtain rods."
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/frazierb4.htm
The intriguing part of the above affidavit, IMO, is:
"The top of the sack was sort of folded up, and the rest of the sack
had been kind of folded under."
Therefore, Frazier is saying via his affidavit comments made on the very
same day he saw Oswald with the paper bag that the "2-foot"-long bag had
at least one of its ends "folded" in some fashion, which would certainly
make the overall length of the bag longer when the bag is completely
unfolded.
Frazier's other "folded" remark in his affidavit is a bit more ambiguous
and hard to figure out.....
"And the rest of the sack had been kind of folded under."
The "folded under" comment could indicate the bottom being "folded under",
I suppose. But it would seem he's referring to the bulk of the LENGTH of
the bag in that "folded under" comment. I'm not quite sure.
But that could also explain why Frazier said that the full width of the
bag looked too wide when he was shown the unfolded bag by the WC. If the
WHOLE bag, for the most part, had been "folded under" itself in some
fashion, then when Frazier saw Oswald with the bag on November 22, the bag
would obviously have looked NOT AS WIDE in Frazier's eyes.
The above "folded" comments in Wes Frazier's November 22nd affidavit seem
to have been overlooked by many CTers who are bent on clearing dear, sweet
Lee Harvey of the Presidential murder he so obviously committed with the
object that was stuffed inside that paper bag (with multiple "folds") that
he put in Frazier's car on the morning of November 22, 1963.
BTW, a man who is 5'9" tall can't fit a "27-inch" object or a 24-inch
object under his armpit while also cupping it in his hand (unless he's got
monkeys for close relatives). So, the Randle/Frazier estimates as to the
length of the package they saw are almost certainly WRONG--even from a
"CT" POV.
In other words, Frazier can't possibly be exactly correct about BOTH
things -- i.e., "under the armpit and cupped in his right hand" AND
"roughly about two feet long" (via his WC testimony).
Both of those things cannot be 100% true. But CTers like to think that
Frazier's and Randle's bag-length estimates ARE, indeed, spot-on accurate.
And isn't it funny that the empty 6th-Floor bag just happened to have the
RIGHT PALMPRINT of Lee Oswald on it....perfectly matching the way Wes
Frazier said Oz carried the bag "cupped in his right hand".
The "under the armpit" observation of Frazier's was obviously a
mistake....and he said so, under oath:
VINCENT BUGLIOSI (during the 1986 Docu-Trial in London) -- "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."
VB -- "Okay, so he carried the bag right next to his body....on the right
side?"
BWF -- "Yes sir. On the right side."
VB -- "Was it cupped in his hand and under his armpit? I think you've said
that in the past."
BWF -- "Yes sir."
VB -- "Mr. Frazier, is it true that you paid hardly any attention to
this bag?"
BWF -- "That is true."
VB -- "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?"
BWF -- "That is true."
www.YouTube.com/watch?v=c0XWKbag5A4
And now a passage from VB's "Reclaiming History":
"Frazier's statements that the rifle was tucked under Oswald's
armpit is hardly as definitive as the critics claim. While Frazier's
description of how Oswald carried the rifle was consistent in all of
his statements to investigators, it was clearly inferable from his
Warren Commission testimony that this was only an assumption on his
part based on his limited view.
"Frazier told the Commission that "the only time" he saw the way
Oswald was carrying the package was from the back, and that all that
was visible was "just a little strip [of the package] running down"
along the inside of Oswald's arm. ....
"Since he could only see this small portion of the package under
Oswald's right arm, and because he didn't notice any part of the
package sticking above his right shoulder...Frazier assumed that it
must have been tucked under his armpit, telling the Commission, "I
don't see how you could have it anywhere other than under your
armpit."
"Although the critics have been quick to embrace Frazier's
conclusion, it should be repeated that he told the Commission over and
over (no less than five separate times) that he didn't pay much
attention to the package or to the way Oswald carried it. ....
"In other words, and understandably, Frazier was confused. So we
don't even know, for sure, how Oswald was carrying the rifle in front
of his body, which Frazier could not see. At the London trial {in
1986} I asked Frazier, "So the bag could have been protruding out in
front of his body and you wouldn't have been able to see it?" and he
responded, "That's true."
"The most likely scenario was postulated well by Dan Rather {of
CBS News in June 1967}, who rhetorically told his audience, "You can
decide whether Frazier, walking some fifty feet behind and, in his own
words, not paying much attention, might have missed the few inches of
the narrow end of such a package sticking up past Oswald's shoulder"."
-- Vincent Bugliosi; Pages 409-410 of "Reclaiming History" (Via the
Endnotes on CD-ROM)(c.2007)
www.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/025a3639eb985034
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/118eaf60b3c0c0aa
Anyway, my earlier comment, which was.....
"And BOTH [Randle/Frazier] confirmed that the bag found on the
6th Floor after the assassination generally looked like the bag they
saw Oz carrying on 11/22." [DVP; 10/13/2007]
.....wasn't referring to the exact LENGTH of the sixth-floor bag
(quite obviously). I was referring to the TYPE and GENERAL LOOK of the
brown paper bag (CE142) that was shown to Frazier and Randle by the
Warren Commission.
Frazier, in his usual confused, odd, and hard-to-understand way of
expressing himself, told the WC that the color of the bag Oswald
carried closely matched the color of the replica bag made by the FBI
for general identification purposes (CE364).
And Frazier said that the untreated and lighter portion of CE142 (the
actual Sniper's-Nest bag) "could have been, and it couldn't have been"
similar to the color of the bag he saw in the back seat of his car on
the morning of November 22nd.*
* = Yes, once more, we're forced to try and figure out some of Wesley
Frazier's rather odd phraseology. But the words "could have been" are
certainly in there. So use your proverbial grain of salt here, as we
should do with all of Frazier's testimony to a certain extent,
especially when he starts to talk in strange ways, which he often did
in front of the WC.
Now, with respect to Linnie Mae Randle's Warren Commission testimony
re. the general look and color of the paper bag:
JOE BALL -- "Looking at this part of the bag which has not been
discolored, does that appear similar to the color of the bag you saw
Lee carrying that morning?"
LINNIE MAE RANDLE -- "Yes; it is a heavy type of wrapping paper."
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh16/pages/WH_Vol16_0269a.jpg
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh16/pages/WH_Vol16_0492b.jpg
I'll offer up this common-sense question once again, because it's
worth repeating numerous times:
I wonder what the odds are of Lee Oswald having carried a DIFFERENT
brown bag into work from the one WITH HIS TWO IDENTIFIABLE PRINTS ON
IT that was found by the cops in the Sniper's Nest on the 6th Floor?
Care to guess at what those odds might be? They must be close to "O.J.
DNA" type numbers (in favor of the empty brown bag that was found by
the police on the 6th Floor of the Book Depository being the very same
bag that Buell Wesley Frazier and Linnie Mae Randle saw in Lee Harvey
Oswald's hands on the morning of November 22nd, 1963 AD).
I'm eagerly awaiting the logical and believable conspiracy-slanted
explanation that will answer the question of why a 38-inch empty paper
bag (which could house Oswald's 34.8-inch disassembled rifle), which
was an empty bag with Oswald's fingerprints on it, was in the place
where it was found after the assassination (the sixth-floor Sniper's
Nest) and yet still NOT have Lee Oswald present at that sniper's
window on 11/22/63.
I, for one, cannot think of a single "Oswald Is Innocent" explanation
for that empty paper sack being where it was found after the
assassination of John Kennedy....AND with Oswald's fingerprints on it.
Can you?
David Von Pein
October 14, 2007
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/fb8cfb984a9b889c
David Von Pein
>>> "If Oswald wasn't carrying the 38" long paper bag while standing
I can't believe this particular sub-topic is even surfacing.
The bag was already in Frazier's car by the time Wesley's mother saw
Oswald standing at the window.
That fact couldn't be any more obvious via Linnie Mae Randle's testimony.
Oswald went directly to Frazier's car after crossing the street:
Mrs. RANDLE. I saw him as he crossed the street and come across my
driveway to where Wesley had his car parked by the carport.
[....]
Mr. BALL. Did you see him go to the car?
Mrs. RANDLE. Yes.
Mr. BALL. What did he do?
Mrs. RANDLE. He opened the right back door and I just saw that he was
laying the package down so I closed the door. I didn't recognize him as he
walked across my carport and...at that moment I wondered who was fixing to
come to my back door, so I opened the door slightly. .... I assumed he was
soilysound
You like odds Davey boy, what are the odds that the DPD would take
loads of photos of the crime scene, and not *one* photo shows any bag,
despite the fact it should be right there on the floor in most of
them. And what are the odds that when interviewed, all the cops who
were allegedly involved with finding the bag can;t tell anything other
than a completely incoherent, nonsense story about where the bag was
found, who found it, who picked it up etc.
And what are the odds that Oswald could carry a huge bag into work
without been seen by anyone, except two people, both who are adamant
the bag was far too short to carry a rifle?
And what are the odds that Oswald could make the bag at the TSBD,
despite the fact the guy who manned the paper and tape desk never left
his desk all day, (except for a trip to the little boys room) and
never saw Oswald?
All you really have is some paper of extremely dubious provenance,
with a couple of smudged prints on. So don't pretend there aren't any
problems with the bag story.
Bud
Are you suggesting you don`t know the difference between "unseen"
and "hiding"?
Bud
> On Oct 20, 10:17 am,Bud<sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>
> > On Oct 19, 10:46 pm, soilysound <soilyso...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Right so Oswald stashes this huge bag somewhere before been seen by
> > > Dougherty?
>
> > Possible.
>
> > > Where?
>
> > Who knows? But when a person is seen with something at one point,
> > and not seen with it at another, putting it somewhere must be on the
> > list of possibilities.
>
> paperbag crossing the street to Frazier's house. Yet Lee is not seen with
> a paperbag while waiting outside Frazier's window.
>
> Apply the above logic and tell us the possibilities.
I won`t do that, but I`ll expand on why I think it is unlikely that
Essie saw Oswald after he put the bag in car. After Oswald put it in
the car he is seen at the kitchen door. I just don`t see him wandering
out to the street during this time. He might wait by the car for
Frazier, maybe out front of the carport, maybe in the carport, but I
think it unlikely he wandered to where he could be seen from the
kitchen window again. Possible, but seems unlikely to me.
> > >As for Essie wasn't she the one who alerted Frazier to Oswald's
> > > arrival?
>
> > She said she caught a glimpse. If Oswald had the bag like LMR said
> > he did, down at his side, if it was on the far side from Essie, she
> > might miss it with only a glimpse.
>
> So,Bud? Do you think Lee is holding the 38" long bag where Essie
> can't see it?
As I explained above, yah, I do. If Essie caught a glimpse of Oswald
when he had the bag down on the far side away from her she could miss
it, seeing as Oswald is bigger than the bag. Even if some bag could be
seen, she could miss it in a glimpse.
> > >How could Oswald have put the bag in the car before Frazier knew
> > > he was there?
>
> > By putting the bag inside Frazier`s car while he was eating
> > breakfast in the house. Apparently, the car doors were not locked.
>
> Or do you think it's in Frazier's car?
>
> This has to be a tough call forBud.
How would you know, Clark? Apparently you can`t understand a thing I
write.
Bud
> >>> "If Oswald wasn't carrying the 38" long paper bag while standing
>
> outside Frazier's window, WHERE WAS IT?" <<<
>
> I can't believe this particular sub-topic is even surfacing.
>
> The bag was already in Frazier's car by the time Wesley's mother saw
> Oswald standing at the window.
I`m not so sure about that, Essie could have been to LMR`s left at
the window (the kitchen floor is a few feet above the ground level
outside, I think), and not have had as good a view. If Essie was
standing back some, she might only see Oswald from the waist up.
One thing to consider, if Oswald put the rifle in the car, he
wouldn`t be apt to be wandering where he could be seen from the
kitchen window again.
> That fact couldn't be any more obvious via Linnie Mae Randle's testimony.
> Oswald went directly to Frazier's car after crossing the street:
>
> Mrs. RANDLE. I saw him as he crossed the street and come across my
> driveway to where Wesley had his car parked by the carport.
>
> [....]
>
> Mr. BALL. Did you see him go to the car?
>
> Mrs. RANDLE. Yes.
>
> Mr. BALL. What did he do?
>
> Mrs. RANDLE. He opened the right back door and I just saw that he was
> laying the package down so I closed the door.
Do you think it is possible for her to have seen this, David?
David Von Pein
>>> "I`ll expand on why I think it is unlikely that Essie [Buell Wesley
Frazier's mother] saw Oswald after he put the bag in car. After Oswald put
it in the car he is seen at the kitchen door. I just don`t see him
wandering out to the street during this time. He might wait by the car for
Frazier, maybe out front of the carport, maybe in the carport, but I think
it unlikely he wandered to where he could be seen from the kitchen window
again. Possible, but seems unlikely to me." <<<
In the final analysis concerning this matter, I think Linnie Mae Randle's
testimony settles the issue about when Lee Oswald went to Buell Wesley
Frazier's car and put the rifle package in the back seat.
Linnie Mae said that she saw Oswald AS HE CROSSED WESTBROOK STREET heading
toward the Randle house. And right after crossing the street, Oswald
headed straight for Frazier's car.
To believe that Oswald still had the package with him when Frazier's
mother (Essie Mae Williams) saw him through the kitchen window, we'd have
to believe that Oswald crossed the street....went directly to Frazier's
car....opened the back door of the car....and then walked back toward the
Randle house (the kitchen side) with the bag still with him.
That's just silly, because the only reason for Oswald to go to Frazier's
car would be to put the bag inside the car. What other possible reason
would he have for going to Frazier's car immediately after crossing the
street?
>>> "Do you think it is possible for her [Linnie Mae Randle] to have seen
t his [LHO putting the package in the back seat of Frazier's 1953
Chevrolet s edan], David?" <<<
I'm not sure. But I certainly think it's possible, given the amount of
space between the slats in the carport (as seen in the photo below):
www.MaryFerrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=10897&relPageI
d=17
I certainly don't think Linnie Mae was lying at all. She possibly HEARD
more than she SAW.
I.E.,
She peeks out the kitchen door and HEARS the person who she just saw walk
toward her brother's car (Lee Oswald). It's obvious that the person at
Frazier's car at that point in time was the person Randle just saw cross
the street (Oswald).
Randle then HEARS the door of Frazier's car being opened. It's also
possible that she gets enough of a glimpse of Oswald through the slats of
the carport to see at least a portion of Oswald as he places the bag in
the car.
So, the combination of HEARING what Oswald was doing at the car and very
likely SEEING a little bit of Oswald through the slats was certainly
enough information, IMO, for Mrs. Linnie Mae Randle to reasonably testify
in the following manner:
"He opened the right back door and I just saw that he was laying the
package down, so I closed the door."
>>> "One thing to consider, if Oswald put the rifle in the car, he
wouldn`t be apt to be wandering where he could be seen from the kitchen
window again." <<<
Why not? At that point, he wasn't still carrying the rifle package for
everybody to see. So there's no real reason he should cower and hide in a
corner someplace at that point in time.
As I think about this situation some more, here are some of my additional
thoughts on it (as I try to look at things from Oswald's point-of-view):
Oswald was probably getting a little bit anxious as he waited outside
Frazier's house on the morning of November 22nd. According to Frazier's
testimony:
"I just thought maybe, you know, he [Lee Oswald] just left a little
bit earlier, but when I looked up and saw that the clock was...I knew I
was the one who was running a little bit late because, as I say, I was
talking, sitting there eating breakfast and talking to the little nieces,
it was later than I thought it was."
So, if Frazier is correct about running a little later than usual on
11/22/63, I can certainly envision Oswald possibly deliberately WANTING to
make himself visible to people (Frazier particularly) inside the Randle
house after LHO put the bag in the car. So it doesn't seem surprising to
me that Oswald might want to move out in front of the kitchen window where
he could reasonably assume Wes Frazier might see him.
If it had gotten a little bit later, I can also envision Oswald knocking
on the door to remind Wesley that it's time to leave for work.
It's also quite possible that Oswald was anxious to get to work a little
EARLIER than usual on November 22nd.
Why?
Because if he gets there early, he'd have a better chance to stash his
rifle package somewhere without anybody seeing him with the package (or at
the very least, fewer people than normal would be apt to see Oswald coming
in the back door with a long bag if he got to work early), since most of
the Depository workers would be coming in after Oswald arrives.
This particular theory assumes that the doors to the Texas School Book
Depository Building would be open to any employee prior to 8:00 AM (or
possibly even prior to approximately 7:30 AM, given this "early arrival"
theory).
I would assume that an employee could arrive early if he wanted to,
without having to wait for the doors to be unlocked, but I have no
personal knowledge if this is true or not. Perhaps Gary Mack knows. (I
wouldn't be surprised if he did have this tidbit of information, seeing as
how Mr. Mack is "The Walking TSBD/Dealey Plaza Encyclopedia".)
This is all pure speculation, of course. And in the long run, this type of
nit-picking and conjecture about Oswald's movements don't amount to
anything substantial at all. But it is fun to engage in this kind of
guesswork from time to time. Heck, conspiracy theorists specialize in such
speculative endeavors regarding things far more important than this topic.
;)
=====================================
ADDITIONAL (FUN) SPECULATION --- A LEE HARVEY OSWALD "TIMELINE":
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/3a3d654f3c43ed16
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/679eb16f02238b52
=====================================
Anthony Marsh
Oswald was a worker who went all over the TSBD. And then you claim that
no one ever saw him. Simply impossible.
Clark
> >>> "Lee [Oswald] obviously did not bring the rifle in by the bag. If he
>
> did, LNer's would show it." <<<
>
> Lee Harvey Oswald quite obviously DID carry his Mannlicher-Carcano rifle
> into the Texas School Book Depository in the paper bag seen by Wes Frazier
> and Linnie Randle on the morning of 11/22/63. To believe otherwise is the
> very essence of denial.
You proved he didn't below.
>
> =======================================
>
> "And it's obvious that Oswald carried that rifle into the building
> that day in that large brown paper bag. It couldn't be more obvious. As
> far as Mr. Frazier's testimony about Oswald carrying the bag under his
> armpit, he conceded he never paid close attention to just how Oswald was
> carrying that bag. He didn't have any reason to." -- Vincent Bugliosi;
> July 1986; Via Closing Arguments to the jury during the TV docu-trial "On
> Trial: Lee Harvey Oswald"
Frazier stated how he carried it. He didn't have any reason to make
that up.
>
> www.On-Trial-LHO.blogspot.com
>
> =======================================
>
> Related excerpts from an Internet post I wrote in October 2007:
>
> Via [Wesley] Frazier's 11/22/63 affidavit, we find something interesting
> regarding the bag:
>
> "Before I got in the car, I glanced in the back seat, and saw a big
> sack. It must have been about 2 feet long, and the top of the sack was
> sort of folded up, and the rest of the sack had been kind of folded under.
> I asked Lee what was in the sack, and he said "curtain rods", and I
> remembered that he had told me the day before that he was going to bring
> some curtain rods."
>
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/frazierb4.htm
>
> The intriguing part of the above affidavit, IMO, is:
>
> "The top of the sack was sort of folded up, and the rest of the sack
> had been kind of folded under."
Count the number of folds.
>
> Therefore, Frazier is saying via his affidavit comments made on the very
> same day he saw Oswald with the paper bag that the "2-foot"-long bag had
> at least one of its ends "folded" in some fashion, which would certainly
> make the overall length of the bag longer when the bag is completely
> unfolded.
"At least one of its ends "folded" in some fashion, which would
certainly make the overall length of the bag longer when the bag is
completely unfolded."
Yes - At least one - or did he describe two?
Read it again:
"The top of the sack was sort of folded up, and the rest of the sack
had been kind of folded under."
There is one fold up and one fold down.
That's two folds. The two folds marks were still in the bag when it
was photographed as a WC exhibit.
>
> Frazier's other "folded" remark in his affidavit is a bit more ambiguous
> and hard to figure out.....
>
> "And the rest of the sack had been kind of folded under."
>
> The "folded under" comment could indicate the bottom being "folded under",
> I suppose. But it would seem he's referring to the bulk of the LENGTH of
> the bag in that "folded under" comment. I'm not quite sure.
It occupied approximately one half of a 54" wide seat, making it roughly
27" long. If one takes the two top existing fold marks on the bag as
found, folds them at the marks, one up and one down, the bag will measure
28.5" long on Frazier's seat or approximately half of the width of the
seat. It will match Frazier's description.
>
> But that could also explain why Frazier said that the full width of the
> bag looked too wide when he was shown the unfolded bag by the WC. If the
> WHOLE bag, for the most part, had been "folded under" itself in some
> fashion, then when Frazier saw Oswald with the bag on November 22, the bag
> would obviously have looked NOT AS WIDE in Frazier's eyes.
That is correct. Shortening the bag from 38" to 28.5" inches creates
the optical illusion of a wider bag.
>
> The above "folded" comments in Wes Frazier's November 22nd affidavit seem
> to have been overlooked by many CTers who are bent on clearing dear, sweet
> Lee Harvey of the Presidential murder he so obviously committed with the
> object that was stuffed inside that paper bag (with multiple "folds") that
> he put in Frazier's car on the morning of November 22, 1963.
The above "folded" comments in Wes Frazier's November 22nd affidavit seem
to have been overlooked by many LNers who are bent on convicting dear,
sweet Lee Harvey of the Presidential murder he so obviously couldn't
commit with the object that was stuffed inside that paper bag (with
multiple "folds") that he put in Frazier's car on the morning of November
22, 1963.
>
> BTW, a man who is 5'9" tall can't fit a "27-inch" object or a 24-inch
> object under his armpit while also cupping it in his hand (unless he's got
> monkeys for close relatives). So, the Randle/Frazier estimates as to the
> length of the package they saw are almost certainly WRONG--even from a
> "CT" POV.
No. He can't. But he can carry a 14" long object under his armpit while
also cupping it in his hand (without the need for monkeys for close
relatives). And the bag was folded here again - as photographed by the WC
- allowing Lee to carry it exactly as Frazier described. Yet it is
impossible for Lee to have done this if the bag contained disassembld MC
rifle. Thus, the Frazier estimate as to the length of the bag is almost
certainly RIGHT and is confirmed by the actual folds in the bag, the
amount of space it took up on his backseat, and by the way he saw Lee
carry it. Every single one of these points excludes that it contained a
rifle, disassembled or not.
>
> In other words, Frazier can't possibly be exactly correct about BOTH
> things -- i.e., "under the armpit and cupped in his right hand" AND
> "roughly about two feet long" (via his WC testimony).
Incorrect. The fold marks in the bag show that Frazier can be absolutely
right on BOTH things - i.e., "under the armpit and cupped in his right
hand" AND "roughly about two feet long" (via his WC testimony). As well
as being right on the bag being about 27" long on his back seat. The bag
in evidence confirms every point Frazier made about it.
>
> Both of those things cannot be 100% true. But CTers like to think that
> Frazier's and Randle's bag-length estimates ARE, indeed, spot-on accurate.
The fold marks in the bag show that Frazier's and Randle's bag-length
estimates ARE, indeed, spot-on accurate.
>
> And isn't it funny that the empty 6th-Floor bag just happened to have the
> RIGHT PALMPRINT of Lee Oswald on it....perfectly matching the way Wes
> Frazier said Oz carried the bag "cupped in his right hand".
The bag does have such a palmprint. It is the bag Lee carried into the
TSBD. But you just proved it didn't contain a disassembled rifle again as
Lee can't possibly carry the bag as Frazier described "cupped in his right
hand" with the rifle in it nor could the bag have been folded as found.
The folds in the bag and Frazier's testimony demonstrate that Lee, on
taking the bag out of Frazier's car, folded it in half ( 14.25"), tucked
it under his arm, and carried it cupped under his right palm and armpit
and carried it into the TSBD. This is confirmed not only by this fold
being found in the bag but also by Jack Dougherty who Lee watched Lee come
into the TSBD ahead of Frazier.
The bag cannot possibly contain a rifle. If it it did, LNer's would have
made a case for it now.
None have.
>
> The "under the armpit" observation of Frazier's was obviously a
> mistake....and he said so, under oath:
>
> VINCENT BUGLIOSI (during the 1986 Docu-Trial in London) -- "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."
>
> VB -- "Okay, so he carried the bag right next to his body....on the right
> side?"
>
> BWF -- "Yes sir. On the right side."
>
> VB -- "Was it cupped in his hand and under his armpit? I think you've said
> that in the past."
>
> BWF -- "Yes sir."
22 years later and Frazier still remembers it the same way.
>
> And now a passage from VB's "Reclaiming History":
>
> "Frazier's statements that the rifle was tucked under Oswald's
> armpit is hardly as definitive as the critics claim. While Frazier's
> description of how Oswald carried the rifle was consistent in all of
> his statements to investigators, it was clearly inferable from his
> Warren Commission testimony that this was only an assumption on his
> part based on his limited view.
And confirmed by the folds in the bag which are not "assumed" to
exist. They're there and confirm EVERYTHING Frazier said.
>
> "Frazier told the Commission that "the only time" he saw the way
> Oswald was carrying the package was from the back, and that all that
> was visible was "just a little strip [of the package] running down"
> along the inside of Oswald's arm. ....
That would be be the 14" long bag under the inside of Oswald's arm.
>
> "Since he could only see this small portion of the package under
> Oswald's right arm, and because he didn't notice any part of the
> package sticking above his right shoulder...Frazier assumed that it
> must have been tucked under his armpit, telling the Commission, "I
> don't see how you could have it anywhere other than under your
> armpit."
And the folds in the bag and Oswald's palm print on the bottom support
this is exactly how it was carried.
>
> "Although the critics have been quick to embrace Frazier's
> conclusion, it should be repeated that he told the Commission over and
> over (no less than five separate times) that he didn't pay much
> attention to the package or to the way Oswald carried it. ....
Except he described it the same way in in 1986 as he did in 1964. 22
years later and nothing has changed.
>
> "In other words, and understandably, Frazier was confused.
There is ZERO evidence Frazier was confused.
He is supported 100% by the folds in the bag, four FBI reports, Linnie
Randall, Jack Dougherty, and Gordon Arnold (taking Arnold's name from
memory here).
No one has produced ANY EVIDENCE Frazier was confused. If he was
"confused" then he was was "confused" 100% of the time as was everyone
else.
It is the LNer's who are confused. They can't figure out why Frazier
cites a bag that can't possibly contain a rifle. They have two
choices:
1) The bag did not contain a rifle.
2) Frazier and all the other witnesses were "confused"
They choose #2. Do they they have any evidence at all to support
that? NOPE!
They ignore #1. Is there any evidence to support it did not contain a
rifle? YES!
> So we
> don't even know, for sure, how Oswald was carrying the rifle in front
> of his body, which Frazier could not see. At the London trial {in
> 1986} I asked Frazier, "So the bag could have been protruding out in
> front of his body and you wouldn't have been able to see it?" and he
> responded, "That's true."
That is true. But, if he's carrying it cupped under his right palm
and leaning forward, where is his left palm print on the bag to keep
it from falling forward? And why doesn't Jack Dougherty see this?
>
> "The most likely scenario was postulated well by Dan Rather {of
> CBS News in June 1967}, who rhetorically told his audience, "You can
> decide whether Frazier, walking some fifty feet behind and, in his own
> words, not paying much attention, might have missed the few inches of
> the narrow end of such a package sticking up past Oswald's shoulder"."
> -- Vincent Bugliosi; Pages 409-410 of "Reclaiming History" (Via the
> Endnotes on CD-ROM)(c.2007)
It's 38" inches high from his right palm. That's even with the top of
his head!
>
> Anyway, my earlier comment, which was.....
>
> "And BOTH [Randle/Frazier] confirmed that the bag found on the
> 6th Floor after the assassination generally looked like the bag they
> saw Oz carrying on 11/22." [DVP; 10/13/2007]
It is the same bag. That further proves Lee did not bring a rifle
into the TSBD using it. Had Lee used any other bag but this one, it
might have contained a rifle.
But this one did not.
<Snip>
>
> * = Yes, once more, we're forced to try and figure out some of Wesley
> Frazier's rather odd phraseology. But the words "could have been" are
> certainly in there. So use your proverbial grain of salt here, as we
> should do with all of Frazier's testimony to a certain extent,
> especially when he starts to talk in strange ways, which he often did
> in front of the WC.
"Strange ways?" Did Frazier speak in tongues to the WC?
>
> Now, with respect to Linnie Mae Randle's Warren Commission testimony
> re. the general look and color of the paper bag:
>
> JOE BALL -- "Looking at this part of the bag which has not been
> discolored, does that appear similar to the color of the bag you saw
> Lee carrying that morning?"
>
> LINNIE MAE RANDLE -- "Yes; it is a heavy type of wrapping paper."
>
It's the same bag Lee carried into into the TSBD. That demonstrates
it didn't contain a rifle - Not that it did.
>
> I'm eagerly awaiting the logical and believable conspiracy-slanted
> explanation that will answer the question of why a 38-inch empty paper
> bag (which could house Oswald's 34.8-inch disassembled rifle), which
> was an empty bag with Oswald's fingerprints on it, was in the place
> where it was found after the assassination (the sixth-floor Sniper's
> Nest) and yet still NOT have Lee Oswald present at that sniper's
> window on 11/22/63.
Gordon Arnold (Hopefully I have his name right) testified to that.
He'a another one you'll have to call "confused".
>
> I, for one, cannot think of a single "Oswald Is Innocent" explanation
> for that empty paper sack being where it was found after the
> assassination of John Kennedy....AND with Oswald's fingerprints on it.
He carried it into the TSBD. That's why it has his fingerprints on
it. That proves he carried that bag. It does not prove he carried it
with a rifle inside. You have offered ZERO evidence it contained a
rifle while posting a preponderance of evidence it did not.
Just a fact.
::Clark::
"The simplest way to disprove an LNer's theory is with his own
evidence."
Clark
> >>> "If Oswald wasn't carrying the 38" long paper bag while standing
>
> outside Frazier's window, WHERE WAS IT?" <<<
>
> I can't believe this particular sub-topic is even surfacing.
And it's coming from YOUR SIDE.
Look at Bud's reply to you. Everything you say below didn't happen.
You and Jean are both WRONG.
Don't take it up it up with me. Take it up with Bud. He dug himself
his own hole. I just handed him the shovel.
Everything below is pure fantasy in "Bud Land":
>
> The bag was already in Frazier's car by the time Wesley's mother saw
> Oswald standing at the window.
>
> That fact couldn't be any more obvious via Linnie Mae Randle's testimony.
> Oswald went directly to Frazier's car after crossing the street:
>
> Mrs. RANDLE. I saw him as he crossed the street and come across my
> driveway to where Wesley had his car parked by the carport.
>
> [....]
>
> Mr. BALL. Did you see him go to the car?
>
> Mrs. RANDLE. Yes.
>
> Mr. BALL. What did he do?
>
> Mrs. RANDLE. He opened the right back door and I just saw that he was
> laying the package down so I closed the door. I didn't recognize him as he
> walked across my carport and...at that moment I wondered who was fixing to
> come to my back door, so I opened the door slightly. .... I assumed he was
> getting in the car but he didn't, so he come back and stood on the
> driveway.
Never happened. Ask Bud. In fact, he's already told you you're wrong.
What happened, never happened.
Lee is standing out in front of the Randall's front window holding an
invisible bag. And further, when Lee looked in the through the window and
everyone saw him looking in, he wasn't THERE! Read Bud's reply to me.
Not only is the bag invisible but so is Lee.
I can only imagine what Jean is thinking.
As for me, I'm ROFLMAO!
Just a fact.
::Clark::
Clark
> On Oct 20, 11:37 pm, Clark <clarkwilk...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Oct 20, 10:17 am,Bud<sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>
> > > On Oct 19, 10:46 pm, soilysound <soilyso...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Right so Oswald stashes this huge bag somewhere before been seen by
> > > > Dougherty?
>
> > > Possible.
>
> > > > Where?
>
> > > Who knows? But when a person is seen with something at one point,
> > > and not seen with it at another, putting it somewhere must be on the
> > > list of possibilities.
>
> > Hold that thought,Bud, challenge though that is. Lee was seen with a
> > paperbag crossing the street to Frazier's house. Yet Lee is not seen with
> > a paperbag while waiting outside Frazier's window.
>
> > Apply the above logic and tell us the possibilities.
>
> I won`t do that,
<snicker>
Couldn't hold that thought, huh?
I knew it would be a challenge.
>but I`ll expand on why I think it is unlikely that
> Essie saw Oswald after he put the bag in car. After Oswald put it in
> the car he is seen at the kitchen door. I just don`t see him wandering
> out to the street during this time. He might wait by the car for
> Frazier, maybe out front of the carport, maybe in the carport, but I
> think it unlikely he wandered to where he could be seen from the
> kitchen window again. Possible, but seems unlikely to me.
So, in your version of the WR (presumably the comic book version
written in crayon), Lee couldn't be seen from the Randall front window
after he put the bag in the car?
>
> > > >As for Essie wasn't she the one who alerted Frazier to Oswald's
> > > > arrival?
>
> > > She said she caught a glimpse. If Oswald had the bag like LMR said
> > > he did, down at his side, if it was on the far side from Essie, she
> > > might miss it with only a glimpse.
>
> > So,Bud? Do you think Lee is holding the 38" long bag where Essie
> > can't see it?
>
> As I explained above, yah, I do.
David? Jean? Anyone?
Do you agree with this?
[quote]
> If Essie caught a glimpse of Oswald
> when he had the bag down on the far side away from her she could miss
> it, seeing as Oswald is bigger than the bag. Even if some bag could be
> seen, she could miss it in a glimpse.
>
But he's holding the bag?
David? Jean? Anyone?
> > > >How could Oswald have put the bag in the car before Frazier knew
> > > > he was there?
>
> > > By putting the bag inside Frazier`s car while he was eating
> > > breakfast in the house. Apparently, the car doors were not locked.
>
> > Or do you think it's in Frazier's car?
>
> > This has to be a tough call forBud.
>
> How would you know, Clark? Apparently you can`t understand a thing I
> write.
>
I wonder why?
Just a thought.
Clark
> On Oct 20, 11:45 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > >>> "If Oswald wasn't carrying the 38" long paper bag while standing
>
> > outside Frazier's window, WHERE WAS IT?" <<<
>
> > I can't believe this particular sub-topic is even surfacing.
>
> > The bag was already in Frazier's car by the time Wesley's mother saw
> > Oswald standing at the window.
>
> I`m not so sure about that, Essie could have been to LMR`s left at
> the window (the kitchen floor is a few feet above the ground level
> outside, I think), and not have had as good a view. If Essie was
> standing back some, she might only see Oswald from the waist up.
>
> One thing to consider, if Oswald put the rifle in the car, he
> wouldn`t be apt to be wandering where he could be seen from the
> kitchen window again.
>
>
Absolutey! Otherwise, someone might get the idea he's waiting for
Wesely Frazier to come out.
Bud, you're on a roll! David Von Pein has met his match! Throw in
the towel, Dave! You can't beat this.
>
>
>
> > That fact couldn't be any more obvious via Linnie Mae Randle's testimony.
> > Oswald went directly to Frazier's car after crossing the street:
>
> > Mrs. RANDLE. I saw him as he crossed the street and come across my
> > driveway to where Wesley had his car parked by the carport.
>
> > [....]
>
> > Mr. BALL. Did you see him go to the car?
>
> > Mrs. RANDLE. Yes.
>
> > Mr. BALL. What did he do?
>
> > Mrs. RANDLE. He opened the right back door and I just saw that he was
> > laying the package down so I closed the door.
>
> Do you think it is possible for her to have seen this, David?
>
That's right, David. Bud's got you beat. She's LYING!
Lee is now hiding the bag from Essie outside the door. He still has
it. It's so obvious! Why didn't any of us think of this before?
And Jean is reading this and not correcting him, so he must be right.
This so GOOD! I'm going to take this post of Bud's and frame it!
ROFLMAO!
Just a fact.
::Clark::
"LN: Breakfast food of CT."
Clark
name in my two previous posts. My error. My apology.
::Clark::
Clark
> >>> "I`ll expand on why I think it is unlikely that Essie [Buell Wesley
>
> Frazier's mother] saw Oswald after he put the bag in car. After Oswald put
> it in the car he is seen at the kitchen door. I just don`t see him
> wandering out to the street during this time. He might wait by the car for
> Frazier, maybe out front of the carport, maybe in the carport, but I think
> it unlikely he wandered to where he could be seen from the kitchen window
> again. Possible, but seems unlikely to me." <<<
>
> In the final analysis concerning this matter, I think Linnie Mae Randle's
> testimony settles the issue about when Lee Oswald went to Buell Wesley
> Frazier's car and put the rifle package in the back seat.
>
> Linnie Mae said that she saw Oswald AS HE CROSSED WESTBROOK STREET heading
> toward the Randle house. And right after crossing the street, Oswald
> headed straight for Frazier's car.
Here's Bud's answer to that in his exchange with Tony:
On Oct 19, 3:58 pm, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
> On Oct 18, 8:25 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >Why don't you point out that
> > her kitchen windows were all steamed up from her boiling water on the
> > stove so it distorted what she saw?
>
> Why would I do that when I could just show CE444? How could she see out
> that window at all?
And then he posted this link as supporting evidence:
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?absPageId..
Now, Dave? How can you possibly argue against CE444? Bud thinks he's
got you nailed to the wall.
Go ahead and click on it. She can't see Lee.
I guess he's right. I looked at CE444 and, sure enough, I couldn't
see Lee either.
>
> To believe that Oswald still had the package with him when Frazier's
> mother (Essie Mae Williams) saw him through the kitchen window, we'd have
> to believe that Oswald crossed the street....went directly to Frazier's
> car....opened the back door of the car....and then walked back toward the
> Randle house (the kitchen side) with the bag still with him.
Why not? He brought it to the window so that he could hide it from
Essie. Read Bud's post.
>
> That's just silly, because the only reason for Oswald to go to Frazier's
> car would be to put the bag inside the car. What other possible reason
> would he have for going to Frazier's car immediately after crossing the
> street?
Here's your opening, Bud. Go for the kill! Show he's wrong.
ROFLMAO
>
> >>> "Do you think it is possible for her [Linnie Mae Randle] to have seen
>
> t his [LHO putting the package in the back seat of Frazier's 1953
> Chevrolet s edan], David?" <<<
>
> I'm not sure. But I certainly think it's possible, given the amount of
> space between the slats in the carport (as seen in the photo below):
>
> www.MaryFerrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=10897&relP...
> d=17
>
> I certainly don't think Linnie Mae was lying at all.
She would have had to be lying.
>She possibly HEARD
> more than she SAW.
>
> I.E.,
>
> She peeks out the kitchen door and HEARS the person who she just saw walk
> toward her brother's car (Lee Oswald). It's obvious that the person at
> Frazier's car at that point in time was the person Randle just saw cross
> the street (Oswald).
>
> Randle then HEARS the door of Frazier's car being opened. It's also
> possible that she gets enough of a glimpse of Oswald through the slats of
> the carport to see at least a portion of Oswald as he places the bag in
> the car.
She can't possibly HEAR him place a package on the backseat. She's lying.
Ask Bud. When she went to the police at 3:00 PM voluntarily with her
information, and without having spoken with her brother, she made the
whole the story up to the police. She can't see through the kitchen
window (CE444) and she can't see through the carport slats and two cars.
If I'm misquoting Bud, somebody correct me.
ROFLMAO
>
> So, the combination of HEARING what Oswald was doing at the car and very
> likely SEEING a little bit of Oswald through the slats was certainly
> enough information, IMO, for Mrs. Linnie Mae Randle to reasonably testify
> in the following manner:
>
> "He opened the right back door and I just saw that he was laying the
> package down, so I closed the door."
Bud says she can't see. I say she can't hear a package being laid on
the seat.
I've opened the door for you, Bud. Finish him off.
ROFLMAO
>
> >>> "One thing to consider, if Oswald put the rifle in the car, he
>
> wouldn`t be apt to be wandering where he could be seen from the kitchen
> window again." <<<
>
> Why not?
Because he's hiding the bag from Essie. Read Bud's posts.
ROFLMAO
>At that point, he wasn't still carrying the rifle package for
> everybody to see.
He wasn't carrying it for everybody to see. He was hiding it from
Essie. Read Bud's post. Linnie LIED.
ROFLMAO
> So there's no real reason he should cower and hide in a
> corner someplace at that point in time.
But he did. That's why hid the bag from Essie. Read Bud's post.
Give Bud a shovel and he'll dig himself all the way to China.
And I just happened to be selling shovels this week.
Just a fact.
Clark
> So, if Frazier is correct about running a little later than usual on
> 11/22/63, I can certainly envision Oswald possibly deliberately WANTING to
> make himself visible to people (Frazier particularly) inside the Randle
> house after LHO put the bag in the car. So it doesn't seem surprising to
> me that Oswald might want to move out in front of the kitchen window where
> he could reasonably assume Wes Frazier might see him.
You're not getting it. You have to get on Bud's conspiracy theory
bandwagen. In "Bud Land", Oswald doesn't go to the window. He has posted
this THREE TIMES. Allow me to demonstrate:
The first:
>On Oct 20, 8:20 pm, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>> On Oct 20, 1:15 pm, Clark <clarkwilk...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > Thank you, Jean. Lee stood outside the door and was seen outside the
> > window after putting the bag in the car. Hence, Essie did not see a
> > bag. It's a very simple and obvious explanation.
>
> Which needs Oswald to go stand where he could be seen again by the
>kitchen window after dropping off the bag. Why would he go there?
The second:
>> On Oct 20, 11:37 pm, Clark <clarkwilk...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Oct 20, 10:17 am,Bud<sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
> >Hold that thought,Bud, challenge though that is. Lee was seen with a
> >paperbag crossing the street to Frazier's house. Yet Lee is not seen with
> >a paperbag while waiting outside Frazier's window.
> >Apply the above logic and tell us the possibilities.
> I won`t do that, but I`ll expand on why I think it is unlikely that
Essie saw Oswald after he put the bag in car. After Oswald put it in the
car he is seen at the kitchen door. I just don`t see him wandering out to
the street during this time. He might wait by the car for Frazier, maybe
out front of the carport, maybe in the carport, but I think it unlikely he
wandered to where he could be seen from the kitchen window again.
Possible, but seems unlikely to me.
>
The third:
> On Oct 21, 6:15 am, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
> One thing to consider, if Oswald put the rifle in the car, he
> wouldn`t be apt to be wandering where he could be seen from the
> kitchen window again.
So, when Frazier looked up and saw Oswald, it's UNLIKELY he saw Oswald
who PROBABLY wasn't there but, IF HE WAS THERE, he was holding the bag
and hiding it from Essie (See Bud's previous posts.).
Are we clear here?
Next, Linnie LIED. Bud has posted his proof and you have failed to refute
it. She never saw Lee put the rifle in the car. She made that story up.
She's in on the conspiracy. Lee and her brother planned out the
assassination. That's why Frazier got Lee the job at the TSBD. But now
Frazier had to get Lee to the Paine's garage to get his rifle so Frazier
had to drive him home Thursday night. It was Frazier who made the
paperbag at the TSBD. That's how Linnie knew what the bag looked like
when Frazier brought it inside Thursday night. Friday morning, the bag is
hidden from Essie and Frazier put the rifle in the bag and in the backseat
and off he and Oswald drove. We know it was Frazier who did it because,
to protect her brother, Linnie lied to the police and said she saw Lee put
it in the car - An impossibility. And the only reason for her to tell
this lie is if Frazier did it. Bud has figured it out. All these years
and who'd have thought Bud would break the case?
I'll leave you LNer's to either accept defeat or prove Bud wrong.
Meanwhile, I'll just ROFLMAO.
Good luck!
Bud
No, simply another strawman to add to your growing army. I never
said no one ever saw him.
davidemerling
> > "And it's obvious that Oswald carried that rifle into the building
> > that day in that large brown paper bag. It couldn't be more obvious. As
> > far as Mr. Frazier's testimony about Oswald carrying the bag under his
> > armpit, he conceded he never paid close attention to just how Oswald was
> > carrying that bag. He didn't have any reason to." -- Vincent Bugliosi;
> > July 1986; Via Closing Arguments to the jury during the TV docu-trial "On
> > Trial: Lee Harvey Oswald"
>
> Frazier stated how he carried it. He didn't have any reason to make
> that up.
Frazier probably was just trying to convey, generally, how he recalled
Oswald carrying the rifle and probably just added some unintended
specifics, not realizing the ramifications.
You have to remember that this would have been an imminently unmemorable
event to Wesley Frazier at the time. Hell, I could spend all day with
somebody and, at the end of the day, half the time I couldn't tell what
kind of shoes they were wearing or even the color of their shirt. That's
because there is nothing important about it to cause specific things to
stick in your memory.
Wesley Frazier, over the years, when questioned about that specific
statement has consistently said that he really did not pay that much
attention EXACTLY how Oswald held the package.
The key point is this: It was an elongated package!
Just exactly what is the conspiracy argument here? That it was an
elongated package but just LONGER than it should have been? Then what the
hell was it? Oswald denied carrying anything more than his sack lunch to
work that day.
Or, is the conspiracy argument that Frazier (AND his sister) were
completely lying about the elongated package altogether? Why would anybody
assume that they would lie about that and formulate that lie so quickly?
This is aspect of the Kennedy assassination debate that really highlights
the desperate nature of those who want Oswald to be completely innocent.
There seems no boundaries to their ridiculous assertions.
Actually, this subject comes in 2nd place to the even sillier Mauser-
vs-Carcano controversy.
David Emerling
Memphis, TN
David Von Pein
>>> "Why do you assume that Essie saw Oswald out the window at a different time than LMR?" <<<
Bud,
Because Oswald was MOVING when Linnie Mae saw him. He wasn't
stationary.
Do you think that a MOVING Oswald would have been able to be seen by
Linnie Mae and Essie...with then there being enough time before the
moving Oswald left their field of vision for Essie to ask Wesley "Who
is that?" and then for Wesley to look out the window and still see the
moving Oswald as he headed for the carport area?
I'm dubious about Essie and Wesley seeing a MOVING Oswald. I'd bet he
was standing pretty much still when Essie and Wesley saw him out the
window.
Plus, there's the fact that Linnie Mae would have possibly blocking
out part of the view of Wesley and Essie because Linnie Mae was
standing in front of the kitchen window (at the counter, preparing
lunches; see photo below) when she saw Oswald crossing the street:
www.MaryFerrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=10897&relPageId=14
And it sure looks like a fairly small window to me. Hence, it seems
likely to me that a MOVING Oswald would only appear in that window for
a fleeting moment to anyone who wasn't standing right at the window.
www.MaryFerrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=10897&relPageId=16
>>> "Nor is there any reason for him [Oswald] to wander away from that important item back into view of the kitchen window." <<<
Bud, you're talking as if the carport area and the street (Westbrook)
are miles from each other. They're not. The carport is very close to
the street itself (see photo below). If Oswald had walked just a few
feet away from Wesley Frazier's car, he would have been in the street:
www.MaryFerrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=10897&relPageId=13
soilysound
Yes I know how you *need* this to be all very simple. Unfortunately it
isnt very simple for the Dallas Police was it? If they hadn't had such
a massive problem with the bag themselves we probably wouldn't be
discussing it now. If everything really is so simple, why did they
make such a total mess of the whole issue, why have they acted so
suspiciously?
But even disregarding the woeful behavior of the DPD, we still have a
MASSIVE paper bag, half a mans height, taken into a building were
nearly 80 people work and not one single person sees it. Magic bullet,
magic bag. We have a magic bag, that contains the bits of a
disassembled 'well oiled' rifle, rattling about on the back seat of a
car for 15 miles, yet the bag contains not a single microscopic speck,
scratch or trace that there was ever anything in it. What's 'simple'
and 'obvious' to LNs is 'magic' to everyone else.
Bud
<snicker> I was joking, Clark. Tony was saying I was bringing up (or
making up) anything I could to cast doubt on LMR`s observations. I
offered that if that was my purpose, I`d just show this photo to show
LMR couldn`t see the street at all (because of the blinds)...
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=10897&relPageId=16
But I messed up, and it was actually CE445.
> I guess he's right. I looked at CE444 and, sure enough, I couldn't
> see Lee either.
>
>
>
> > To believe that Oswald still had the package with him when Frazier's
> > mother (Essie Mae Williams) saw him through the kitchen window, we'd have
> > to believe that Oswald crossed the street....went directly to Frazier's
> > car....opened the back door of the car....and then walked back toward the
> > Randle house (the kitchen side) with the bag still with him.
>
> Why not? He brought it to the window so that he could hide it from
> Essie. Read Bud's post.
Then explain what I said to Clark.
> > That's just silly, because the only reason for Oswald to go to Frazier's
> > car would be to put the bag inside the car. What other possible reason
> > would he have for going to Frazier's car immediately after crossing the
> > street?
>
> Here's your opening, Bud. Go for the kill! Show he's wrong.
>
> ROFLMAO
He is wrong, or at least he missed my point. I wasn`t contesting
this.
> > >>> "Do you think it is possible for her [Linnie Mae Randle] to have seen
>
> > t his [LHO putting the package in the back seat of Frazier's 1953
> > Chevrolet s edan], David?" <<<
>
> > I'm not sure. But I certainly think it's possible, given the amount of
> > space between the slats in the carport (as seen in the photo below):
>
> >www.MaryFerrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=10897&relP...
> > d=17
>
> > I certainly don't think Linnie Mae was lying at all.
>
> She would have had to be lying.
Not at all. She may have believed what she said was true, but what
she said may have been untrue. This is possible for much of the
information she gave.
A point that so far Clark has failed to offer anything against. I`ve
offered up reasons she could not, and you have countered with nothing.
Do you believe that just because a witness says something, that makes
what they said fact?
> I say she can't hear a package being laid on
> the seat.
She said she heard the car door close. I think she drew the correct
conclusion, I just don`t see how she could have made an observation of
Oswald putting the package in the car.
> I've opened the door for you, Bud. Finish him off.
>
> ROFLMAO
>
>
>
> > >>> "One thing to consider, if Oswald put the rifle in the car, he
>
> > wouldn`t be apt to be wandering where he could be seen from the kitchen
> > window again." <<<
>
> > Why not?
>
> Because he's hiding the bag from Essie. Read Bud's posts.
Then explain them to Clark.
> ROFLMAO
>
> >At that point, he wasn't still carrying the rifle package for
> > everybody to see.
>
> He wasn't carrying it for everybody to see. He was hiding it from
> Essie. Read Bud's post. Linnie LIED.
Is misrepresentation the best you can do, Clark? Easier than
rebuttal, I guess.
> ROFLMAO
>
> > So there's no real reason he should cower and hide in a
> > corner someplace at that point in time.
>
> But he did. That's why hid the bag from Essie. Read Bud's post.
>
> Give Bud a shovel and he'll dig himself all the way to China.
> And I just happened to be selling shovels this week.
You can`t claim victory over the things I write until you actually
address the things I write. And for you to address the things I write,
you`d first have to understand the things i write. I`m not holding out
hope for that.
> Just a fact.
>
> ::Clark::
>
> "LNer's: Breakfast food of CT."
You must not eat until lunch.
Bud
> On Oct 20, 8:45 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > >>> "If Oswald wasn't carrying the 38" long paper bag while standing
>
> > outside Frazier's window, WHERE WAS IT?" <<<
>
> > I can't believe this particular sub-topic is even surfacing.
>
> And it's coming from YOUR SIDE.
This was never anything I advanced. I think "sollysound" wrote what
David responded to. I`m not sure what "side" he is on.
> Look at Bud's reply to you.
Yah, Clark, look at it. David is offering evidence and reasoning to
support his position. I am doing the same for mine. You should try it
sometime.
David and I are engaging on this topic over at the nuthouse. I`ll be
responding to his latest offering later today, I would think.
> Everything you say below didn't happen.
> You and Jean are both WRONG.
I think it is unlikely that Essie saw Oswald without the bag (after
he put it in the car) from the kitchen window. Jean and David feel
it`s likely he did. hats all.
> Don't take it up it up with me. Take it up with Bud. He dug himself
> his own hole. I just handed him the shovel.
>
> Everything below is pure fantasy in "Bud Land":
>
>
>
>
>
> > The bag was already in Frazier's car by the time Wesley's mother saw
> > Oswald standing at the window.
>
> > That fact couldn't be any more obvious via Linnie Mae Randle's testimony.
> > Oswald went directly to Frazier's car after crossing the street:
>
> > Mrs. RANDLE. I saw him as he crossed the street and come across my
> > driveway to where Wesley had his car parked by the carport.
>
> > [....]
>
> > Mr. BALL. Did you see him go to the car?
>
> > Mrs. RANDLE. Yes.
>
> > Mr. BALL. What did he do?
>
> > Mrs. RANDLE. He opened the right back door and I just saw that he was
> > laying the package down so I closed the door. I didn't recognize him as he
> > walked across my carport and...at that moment I wondered who was fixing to
> > come to my back door, so I opened the door slightly. .... I assumed he was
> > getting in the car but he didn't, so he come back and stood on the
> > driveway.
>
> Never happened. Ask Bud. In fact, he's already told you you're wrong.
> What happened, never happened.
Can you support that LMR saw Oswald put the package in the backseat,
Clark. Thats the point i raised weeks ago, and you haven`t touched it
once. Nobody would mistake scoffing with rebuttal, would they?
> Lee is standing out in front of the Randall's front window holding an
> invisible bag. And further, when Lee looked in the through the window and
> everyone saw him looking in, he wasn't THERE! Read Bud's reply to me.
> Not only is the bag invisible but so is Lee.
>
> I can only imagine what Jean is thinking.
Probably hoping to avoid being dragged into this petty bickering, I
would imagine.
Bud
> On Oct 21, 6:14 am, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Oct 20, 11:37 pm, Clark <clarkwilk...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Oct 20, 10:17 am,Bud<sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>
> > > > On Oct 19, 10:46 pm, soilysound <soilyso...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > Right so Oswald stashes this huge bag somewhere before been seen by
> > > > > Dougherty?
>
> > > > Possible.
>
> > > > > Where?
>
> > > > Who knows? But when a person is seen with something at one point,
> > > > and not seen with it at another, putting it somewhere must be on the
> > > > list of possibilities.
>
> > > Hold that thought,Bud, challenge though that is. Lee was seen with a
> > > paperbag crossing the street to Frazier's house. Yet Lee is not seen with
> > > a paperbag while waiting outside Frazier's window.
>
> > > Apply the above logic and tell us the possibilities.
>
> > I won`t do that,
>
> <snicker>
>
> Couldn't hold that thought, huh?
>
> I knew it would be a challenge.
I didn`t see any reason to repeat myself.
> >but I`ll expand on why I think it is unlikely that
> > Essie saw Oswald after he put the bag in car. After Oswald put it in
> > the car he is seen at the kitchen door. I just don`t see him wandering
> > out to the street during this time. He might wait by the car for
> > Frazier, maybe out front of the carport, maybe in the carport, but I
> > think it unlikely he wandered to where he could be seen from the
> > kitchen window again. Possible, but seems unlikely to me.
>
> So, in your version of the WR (presumably the comic book version
> written in crayon), Lee couldn't be seen from the Randall front window
> after he put the bag in the car?
You mean the rear kitchen window when you say "front window"?
But I`ll repeat the point once more, using smaller words, in the
hope it won`t be lost on you once more. I find it unlikely that Oswald
would move to where he could be seen from the kitchen window after he
put the bag in the car. I feel it is more likely that Essie saw Oswald
from the window at the same time LMR did.
> > > > >As for Essie wasn't she the one who alerted Frazier to Oswald's
> > > > > arrival?
>
> > > > She said she caught a glimpse. If Oswald had the bag like LMR said
> > > > he did, down at his side, if it was on the far side from Essie, she
> > > > might miss it with only a glimpse.
>
> > > So,Bud? Do you think Lee is holding the 38" long bag where Essie
> > > can't see it?
>
> > As I explained above, yah, I do.
>
> David? Jean? Anyone?
>
> Do you agree with this?
Both expressed a contrary position (the point in contention being
when Essie saw Oswald). Doubtful it can be resolved with certainty
with what is in evidence.
> [quote]
>
> > If Essie caught a glimpse of Oswald
> > when he had the bag down on the far side away from her she could miss
> > it, seeing as Oswald is bigger than the bag. Even if some bag could be
> > seen, she could miss it in a glimpse.
>
> But he's holding the bag?
>
> David? Jean? Anyone?
I think they both agree that Oswald was holding the bag.
> > > > >How could Oswald have put the bag in the car before Frazier knew
> > > > > he was there?
>
> > > > By putting the bag inside Frazier`s car while he was eating
> > > > breakfast in the house. Apparently, the car doors were not locked.
>
> > > Or do you think it's in Frazier's car?
>
> > > This has to be a tough call forBud.
>
> > How would you know, Clark? Apparently you can`t understand a thing I
> > write.
>
> I wonder why?
Perhaps because it isn`t written in crayon.
Bud
>
>
>
> > On Oct 20, 11:45 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > >>> "If Oswald wasn't carrying the 38" long paper bag while standing
>
> > > outside Frazier's window, WHERE WAS IT?" <<<
>
> > > I can't believe this particular sub-topic is even surfacing.
>
> > > The bag was already in Frazier's car by the time Wesley's mother saw
> > > Oswald standing at the window.
>
> > I`m not so sure about that, Essie could have been to LMR`s left at
> > the window (the kitchen floor is a few feet above the ground level
> > outside, I think), and not have had as good a view. If Essie was
> > standing back some, she might only see Oswald from the waist up.
>
> > One thing to consider, if Oswald put the rifle in the car, he
> > wouldn`t be apt to be wandering where he could be seen from the
> > kitchen window again.
>
> Absolutey! Otherwise, someone might get the idea he's waiting for
> Wesely Frazier to come out.
>
> Bud, you're on a roll! David Von Pein has met his match! Throw in
> the towel, Dave! You can't beat this.
I pointed out where I felt it was more likely for him to wait. Out
by the car, in the car, in the carport (because of the drizzle), ect.
Don`t see outside the kitchen window as a likely spot. A minor point,
and one that could never be positively resolved by what is in
evidence. I just feel that Essie and Randle both seeing Oswald out the
kitchen window at the same time best explains what is in evidence.
> > > That fact couldn't be any more obvious via Linnie Mae Randle's testimony.
> > > Oswald went directly to Frazier's car after crossing the street:
>
> > > Mrs. RANDLE. I saw him as he crossed the street and come across my
> > > driveway to where Wesley had his car parked by the carport.
>
> > > [....]
>
> > > Mr. BALL. Did you see him go to the car?
>
> > > Mrs. RANDLE. Yes.
>
> > > Mr. BALL. What did he do?
>
> > > Mrs. RANDLE. He opened the right back door and I just saw that he was
> > > laying the package down so I closed the door.
>
> > Do you think it is possible for her to have seen this, David?
>
> That's right, David. Bud's got you beat. She's LYING!
Why look for others to do your dirty work, Clark? Why don`t you take
a crack at the question? Can you establish she could see Oswald put
the bag in the car like she claimed?
> Lee is now hiding the bag from Essie outside the door. He still has
> it. It's so obvious! Why didn't any of us think of this before?
>
> And Jean is reading this and not correcting him, so he must be right.
Jean`s imput is always welcome.
Bud
> On Oct 21, 1:06 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > So, if Frazier is correct about running a little later than usual on
> > 11/22/63, I can certainly envision Oswald possibly deliberately WANTING to
> > make himself visible to people (Frazier particularly) inside the Randle
> > house after LHO put the bag in the car. So it doesn't seem surprising to
> > me that Oswald might want to move out in front of the kitchen window where
> > he could reasonably assume Wes Frazier might see him.
>
> You're not getting it. You have to get on Bud's conspiracy theory
> bandwagen. In "Bud Land", Oswald doesn't go to the window. He has posted
> this THREE TIMES. Allow me to demonstrate:
The only thing you about to demonstrate is that you can`t read.
> The first:
>
> >On Oct 20, 8:20 pm, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
> >> On Oct 20, 1:15 pm, Clark <clarkwilk...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > Thank you, Jean. Lee stood outside the door and was seen outside the
> > > window after putting the bag in the car. Hence, Essie did not see a
> > > bag. It's a very simple and obvious explanation.
>
> > Which needs Oswald to go stand where he could be seen again by the
>
> >kitchen window after dropping off the bag. Why would he go there?
Clark, notice the word "again"? That means I am accepting that he
went past the window once. I am contesting that he went to where he
could be seen from the kitchen window after he put the bag into the
car.
> The second:
>
> >> On Oct 20, 11:37 pm, Clark <clarkwilk...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > On Oct 20, 10:17 am,Bud<sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
> > >Hold that thought,Bud, challenge though that is. Lee was seen with a
> > >paperbag crossing the street to Frazier's house. Yet Lee is not seen with
> > >a paperbag while waiting outside Frazier's window.
> > >Apply the above logic and tell us the possibilities.
>
> > I won`t do that, but I`ll expand on why I think it is unlikely that
> Essie saw Oswald after he put the bag in car. After Oswald put it in the
> car he is seen at the kitchen door. I just don`t see him wandering out to
> the street during this time. He might wait by the car for Frazier, maybe
> out front of the carport, maybe in the carport, but I think it unlikely he
> wandered to where he could be seen from the kitchen window again.
> Possible, but seems unlikely to me.
>
>
>
> The third:
>
> > On Oct 21, 6:15 am, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
> > One thing to consider, if Oswald put the rifle in the car, he
> > wouldn`t be apt to be wandering where he could be seen from the
> > kitchen window again.
>
> So, when Frazier looked up and saw Oswald, it's UNLIKELY he saw Oswald
> who PROBABLY wasn't there but, IF HE WAS THERE, he was holding the bag
> and hiding it from Essie (See Bud's previous posts.).
>
> Are we clear here?
I am. Why aren`t you? Oz walks by the kitchen window, and LMR and
Essie see him. He goes to the car and drops off the bag. The question
is, where does he go then? Back to where he can be seen from the
kitchen window? I don`t see this as likely.
> Next, Linnie LIED. Bud has posted his proof and you have failed to refute
> it. She never saw Lee put the rifle in the car. She made that story up.
In a few sentences, Clark foists four false positions I never took
on me. One might wonder why he never addresses what I actually write.
> She's in on the conspiracy. Lee and her brother planned out the
> assassination. That's why Frazier got Lee the job at the TSBD. But now
> Frazier had to get Lee to the Paine's garage to get his rifle so Frazier
> had to drive him home Thursday night. It was Frazier who made the
> paperbag at the TSBD. That's how Linnie knew what the bag looked like
> when Frazier brought it inside Thursday night. Friday morning, the bag is
> hidden from Essie and Frazier put the rifle in the bag and in the backseat
> and off he and Oswald drove. We know it was Frazier who did it because,
> to protect her brother, Linnie lied to the police and said she saw Lee put
> it in the car - An impossibility. And the only reason for her to tell
> this lie is if Frazier did it. Bud has figured it out. All these years
> and who'd have thought Bud would break the case?
You haven`t touched a point I made yet, Clark, why is that? Can you
support the idea that LMR could see Oswald put the bag in the car? I
haven`t seen you try.
David Von Pein
A question for Bud that I just thought of this minute.....
Was Mr. Bill Randle's car parked in the carport on the morning of
11/22/63? Can this be verified? (I'm not sure it can be.)
If Mr. Randle's car wasn't inside the carport that particular morning
(for whatever reason), then Linnie Mae would probably have been able
to see more of what Oswald was doing on the other side of the carport.
Jean
Could be, but mostly I've been getting ready for a trip starting
early tomorrow. I'll try to catch up when I can. Carry on, Bud!
Jean
Bud
> On Oct 20, 8:44 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > >>> "Lee [Oswald] obviously did not bring the rifle in by the bag. If he
>
> > did, LNer's would show it." <<<
>
> > Lee Harvey Oswald quite obviously DID carry his Mannlicher-Carcano rifle
> > into the Texas School Book Depository in the paper bag seen by Wes Frazier
> > and Linnie Randle on the morning of 11/22/63. To believe otherwise is the
> > very essence of denial.
>
> You proved he didn't below.
>
>
>
> > =======================================
>
> > "And it's obvious that Oswald carried that rifle into the building
> > that day in that large brown paper bag. It couldn't be more obvious. As
> > far as Mr. Frazier's testimony about Oswald carrying the bag under his
> > armpit, he conceded he never paid close attention to just how Oswald was
> > carrying that bag. He didn't have any reason to." -- Vincent Bugliosi;
> > July 1986; Via Closing Arguments to the jury during the TV docu-trial "On
> > Trial: Lee Harvey Oswald"
>
> Frazier stated how he carried it. He didn't have any reason to make
> that up.
Accessory to murder is a damn good reason.
He glanced, and said he didn`t pay much attention to it when he
glanced. Trying to cut a diamond with a rubber hammer.
No, it`s possible Frazier saw the end of the package, and it was
horizontal, not vertical. He told the FBI from behind he could only
see 1 inch by 9 inches of the bag. That could have been the end of the
package. Oswald could have the bag cupped in his hand and under his
armpit if he carried the bag horizontal.
Frazier might think to this day that the bag was made of cheap,
crinkly five and dime paper if he hadn`t been shown to be wong.
LMR also said the bag appeared to contain something heavy.
Bud
You know I will (carry on, that is). Enjoy your trip, Jean!
-Bud
> Jean
Barb Junkkarinen
>On Oct 5, 1:50�am, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>> � Looking at the material concerning the witnesses who saw Oswald carrying
>> a paper bag the morning of the 22nd, and I found a few things I found
>> interesting, although some of them I`m not sure what to make of.
>>
>> � The first has been discussed before, whether LMR could have seen Oswald
>> put the bag into her brother`s car like she claimed. Here is view she
>> would have from her kitchen doorway...
>>
>> � � �http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/jfkinfo3/exhibits/ce446.jpg
>>
>> � Keep in mind that Frazier`s car was on the other side of the far wall,
>> and that LMR said that Oswald went to the far side of that car and put the
>> package in the backseat of Frazier`s car. That puts a wall (a wall with
>> open slats, but a wall nonetheless) and two cars between LMR and Oswald.
>> According to the scale on one exhibit, Oswald would have been 20-25 feet
>> from LMR, and the further you are from the open slats, the harder it would
>> be to discern activity on the other side (think venetian blinds). Seems to
>> me she could probably discern motion, but not make the actual observations
>> she claimed. Perhaps she heard the car door open and close, perhaps
>> Frazier told her the package was in the backseat, and this combination of
>> information turned it into more than it actually was in her mind.
>>
>> � Secondly, i came across a curious discrepancy between Frazier`s
>> testimony and his affidavit. In his affidavit, he said that he noticed the
>> bag in the backseat of his car before he entered the car. yet he told the
>> WC that he noticed it in the backseat when he turned to back out of the
>> driveway.
>>
>> � � Thirdly, I came across a passage I always felt was curious in the FBI
>> report of WBF`s interview, and gave it some consideration. The passage is
>> where Frazier demonstrates how much of the package he could see walking
>> behind Oswald, and that area is measured to be one inch by nine inches. It
>> struck me that this is very similar to the dimensions of the end of the
>> bag found in the TSBD. That made me wonder whether Oswald was carrying the
>> bag like this...
>>
>> http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d4/Sufer_carrying_sur...
>>
>> � Sorry, thats the only thing i could find to convey the concept. If
>> Oswald had the bag like an infrantryman advancing, the only part visible
>> to Frazier walking behind him would be the end. That would account for the
>> package going from Oswald`s hand to under his armpit. Oswald`s other arm
>> would be supporting the bulk of the package out in front of him.
>
>i can only talk about point 2. Frazier repeatedly says he didnt pay
>much attention to the bag. Its like this. suppose you and i work
>together, with you giving me lifts once a week. One day i turn up
>with a bag and i tell you it had a fishing rod in it and put it on the
>back seat of your car. You have worked with me for a while, know me
>as an honest person who, to the best of your knowledge, has never lied
>to you. how much attention would you be paying to me and my bag? very
>little.
Agreed. But since I noted it on the back seat of my car, I might be
able to later estimate its length had I noticed where it fell on the
seat .... from here to there. Which Frazier said he did.
Your argument is with Frazier.
>Frazier repetedly says things like "i didnt pay it much
>attention". Remember, for him, this is just another day at work. who
>care whats in the bag, its friday and it will soon be the weekend. so
>to return to me and my fishing rod in your car, if later the police
>came and questioned you about our journey, and you mention a bag, how
>much detail will you recall, and how accurate will it be? not very,
>you would be saying similar things to Frazier.
Frazier adamantly maintained the things he DID notice ... flat out,
nad when asked about something he had not paid much attention to, he
said so.
You are reaching ... and arguing with Frazier.
>
>interestingly, frazier says that after they got to dallas, he stopped
>to watch the trains (or something - i am not very conversant on train
>terminology) while Oswald sped off on his own.
No, Frazier did NOT say Oswald "sped off on his own" ... in fact,
Frazier said quite the opposite. It appears you are not very
conversant in Frazier's testimony either. But perhaps are quite well
read on Posner.
Barb :-)
> Did anyone see him
>with the bag in the reception, stairway/elevator or on any floors with
>the bag? and where did he hide it before lunch time? any ideas guys?
>Also, if the other guy was eating chicken on the 6th floor, how much
>time did LHO have to retrieve the rifle and get set up? also how did
>he carry the bullets in? can you just carry them in your pocket?
>(sorry, i am english so have no experience with guns and ammo.)
>
Bud
> A question for Bud that I just thought of this minute.....
>
> Was Mr. Bill Randle's car parked in the carport on the morning of
> 11/22/63? Can this be verified? (I'm not sure it can be.)
I just made a quick look, and couldn`t find anything in the testimony,
affidavits or FBI reports saying for certain.
> If Mr. Randle's car wasn't inside the carport that particular morning
> (for whatever reason), then Linnie Mae would probably have been able
> to see more of what Oswald was doing on the other side of the carport.
Well, Bill isn`t at breakfast. He may have left already. Or he works a
different shift, or gets up later.
The photos and the maps show his car in the carport. Frazier parks
outside probably to allow Bill use of the carport. LMR says the carport
fits two cars, but it would probably be tight, and hard to open car doors.
Bud
wrote:
Never. Frazier never said he noted that one of the bag hit this point on
the seat, and the other end hit another point on the seat.
What he said he did was take a brief look, and admitted he didn`t pay
much attention to the item during that brief look.
> Your argument is with Frazier.
> >Frazier repetedly says things like "i didnt pay it much
> >attention". Remember, for him, this is just another day at work. who
> >care whats in the bag, its friday and it will soon be the weekend. so
> >to return to me and my fishing rod in your car, if later the police
> >came and questioned you about our journey, and you mention a bag, how
> >much detail will you recall, and how accurate will it be? not very,
> >you would be saying similar things to Frazier.
>
> Frazier adamantly maintained the things he DID notice ...
Impressions, even wrong ones, can become more solid in the mind the
more they thought on.
Clark
> On Oct 21, 5:55 pm, Clark <clarkwilk...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > "And it's obvious that Oswald carried that rifle into the building
> > > that day in that large brown paper bag. It couldn't be more obvious. As
> > > far as Mr. Frazier's testimony about Oswald carrying the bag under his
> > > armpit, he conceded he never paid close attention to just how Oswald was
> > > carrying that bag. He didn't have any reason to." -- Vincent Bugliosi;
> > > July 1986; Via Closing Arguments to the jury during the TV docu-trial "On
> > > Trial: Lee Harvey Oswald"
>
> > Frazier stated how he carried it. He didn't have any reason to make
> > that up.
>
> Frazier probably was just trying to convey, generally, how he recalled
> Oswald carrying the rifle and probably just added some unintended
> specifics, not realizing the ramifications.
But you realize the ramifications now because those ramifications
contradict LN claims the bag contained a rifle, disassembled or otherwise.
You are forced to "pick and choose" your selections of Frazier testimony
("Yes. He was right about seeing a bag but - No - he was wrong on every
single thing he saw about it.") while providing no supporting evidence for
why we should believe he was wrong. Any effort you use by imaginary means
of lengthening the bag he saw, I can use the same imaginary means to
shorten the bag he saw.
>
> You have to remember that this would have been an imminently unmemorable
> event to Wesley Frazier at the time. Hell, I could spend all day with
> somebody and, at the end of the day, half the time I couldn't tell what
> kind of shoes they were wearing or even the color of their shirt. That's
> because there is nothing important about it to cause specific things to
> stick in your memory.
I could use the above argument to say the bag Frazier saw was 14" long in
the backseat of his car and quote Officer Studebacker as a supporting
witness as well as the 14" fold mark in the bag. The only reason Frazier
failed to note the bag was 14" long was because "You have to remember that
this would have been an imminently unmemorable event to Wesley Frazier at
the time. Hell, I could spend all day with somebody and, at the end of the
day, half the time I couldn't tell what kind of shoes they were wearing or
even the color of their shirt. That's because there is nothing important
about it to cause specific things to stick in your memory." Therefore,
the bag in the backseat of the car was 14" long.
Again, there's no argument you can use to lengthen the bag that I
can't use to shorten it.
You are dealing without evidence and its showing.
>
> Wesley Frazier, over the years, when questioned about that specific
> statement has consistently said that he really did not pay that much
> attention EXACTLY how Oswald held the package.
Wesley has consistently stated over the years what he saw and changed
nothing of what he said.
>
> The key point is this: It was an elongated package!
A 14"x6" package is an elongated package.
>
> Just exactly what is the conspiracy argument here? That it was an
> elongated package but just LONGER than it should have been? Then what the
> hell was it? Oswald denied carrying anything more than his sack lunch to
> work that day.
Oswald carried the bag in evidence into the TSBD. The question is can you
produce any evidence it contained a rifle, disassembled or otherwise.
Here! I'll make it easier for you. I'll say the bag contained the
Russian battleship, Marat, complete with her entire crew. You present
your evidence the bag contained a rifle and I'll present mine it contained
the Marat.
How can you possibly lose?
>
> Or, is the conspiracy argument that Frazier (AND his sister) were
> completely lying about the elongated package altogether? Why would anybody
> assume that they would lie about that and formulate that lie so quickly?
Read Bud's posts.
She's obviously covering for her brother's guilt. But Bud's your problem
- Not mine. He has provided me with a month's worth of laughs already.
Why stop him now?
>
> This is aspect of the Kennedy assassination debate that really highlights
> the desperate nature of those who want Oswald to be completely innocent.
> There seems no boundaries to their ridiculous assertions.
Bud's assertions may be "ridiculous" but I believe he's waiting for an
answer.
I'll watch while you provide it. :)
Meanwhile, I'll just wait while ROFLMAO.
Just a fact.
::Clark::
Clark
Have a safe and pleasant trip. We'll miss you while you're gone.
Always a pleasure.
::Clark::
Clark
All the photos taken by the FBI indicate both cars were in the
driveway, including one drawing:
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=10897&relPageId=12
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=10897&relPageId=17
Keep trying, guys.
I'll watch.
::Clark::
Clark
If you had been joking, Bud, you'd have included your <snicker>
trademark.
>Tony was saying I was bringing up (or
> making up) anything I could to cast doubt on LMR`s observations. I
> offered that if that was my purpose, I`d just show this photo to show
> LMR couldn`t see the street at all (because of the blinds)...
>
> http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=108...
>
> But I messed up, and it was actually CE445.
Oh! You messed up!
Now that I can believe. No further explaination necessary.
>
> > I guess he's right. I looked at CE444 and, sure enough, I couldn't
> > see Lee either.
>
> > > To believe that Oswald still had the package with him when Frazier's
> > > mother (Essie Mae Williams) saw him through the kitchen window, we'd have
> > > to believe that Oswald crossed the street....went directly to Frazier's
> > > car....opened the back door of the car....and then walked back toward the
> > > Randle house (the kitchen side) with the bag still with him.
>
> > Why not? He brought it to the window so that he could hide it from
> > Essie. Read Bud's post.
>
> Then explain what I said to Clark.
Earth to Bud:
I'm Clark. You have either messed up again or you want me to explain
to me what you said.
In your defense, both explanations work equally well...
>
> > > I certainly don't think Linnie Mae was lying at all.
>
> > She would have had to be lying.
>
> Not at all. She may have believed what she said was true, but what
> she said may have been untrue. This is possible for much of the
> information she gave.
>
How do you preclude she didn't lie?
>
> > She can't possibly HEAR him place a package on the backseat. She's lying.
> > Ask Bud. When she went to the police at 3:00 PM voluntarily with her
> > information, and without having spoken with her brother, she made the
> > whole the story up to the police. She can't see through the kitchen
> > window (CE444) and she can't see through the carport slats and two cars.
> > If I'm misquoting Bud, somebody correct me.
And no one corrects me...
>
> > ROFLMAO
>
> > > So, the combination of HEARING what Oswald was doing at the car and very
> > > likely SEEING a little bit of Oswald through the slats was certainly
> > > enough information, IMO, for Mrs. Linnie Mae Randle to reasonably testify
> > > in the following manner:
>
> > > "He opened the right back door and I just saw that he was laying the
> > > package down, so I closed the door."
>
> > Bud says she can't see.
>
> A point that so far Clark has failed to offer anything against. I`ve
> offered up reasons she could not, and you have countered with nothing.
Gee! You finally NOTICED?
Keep digging, Bud. China's only a few more feet.
>
> > I say she can't hear a package being laid on
> > the seat.
>
> She said she heard the car door close. I think she drew the correct
> conclusion, I just don`t see how she could have made an observation of
> Oswald putting the package in the car.
<snicker>
Why didn't she conclude he got in the car?
> > > >>> "One thing to consider, if Oswald put the rifle in the car, he
>
> > > wouldn`t be apt to be wandering where he could be seen from the kitchen
> > > window again." <<<
>
> > > Why not?
>
> > Because he's hiding the bag from Essie. Read Bud's posts.
>
> Then explain them to Clark.
I will next time I see me.
ROFLMAO!
>
> > ROFLMAO
>
> > >At that point, he wasn't still carrying the rifle package for
> > > everybody to see.
>
> > He wasn't carrying it for everybody to see. He was hiding it from
> > Essie. Read Bud's post. Linnie LIED.
>
> Is misrepresentation the best you can do, Clark? Easier than
> rebuttal, I guess.
Is misrepresentation the best you can do, Bud? In what previous post
did you say Linnie was telling the truth about seeing Oswald put the
bag in the car?
You got her nailed to the wall, Bud.
I love your CT!
ROFLMAO!
>
> > > So there's no real reason he should cower and hide in a
> > > corner someplace at that point in time.
>
> > But he did. That's why hid the bag from Essie. Read Bud's post.
>
> > Give Bud a shovel and he'll dig himself all the way to China.
> > And I just happened to be selling shovels this week.
>
> You can`t claim victory over the things I write until you actually
> address the things I write. And for you to address the things I write,
> you`d first have to understand the things i write. I`m not holding out
> hope for that.
Maybe if I hit myself in the head with that shovel you're holding?
:)
::Clark::
Clark
> On Oct 21, 10:24 pm, Clark <clarkwilk...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > You're not getting it. You have to get on Bud's conspiracy theory
> > bandwagen. In "Bud Land", Oswald doesn't go to the window. He has posted
> > this THREE TIMES. Allow me to demonstrate:
>
> The only thing you about to demonstrate is that you can`t read.
>
> > The first:
>
> > >On Oct 20, 8:20 pm, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
> > >> On Oct 20, 1:15 pm, Clark <clarkwilk...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > Thank you, Jean. Lee stood outside the door and was seen outside the
> > > > window after putting the bag in the car. Hence, Essie did not see a
> > > > bag. It's a very simple and obvious explanation.
>
> > > Which needs Oswald to go stand where he could be seen again by the
>
> > >kitchen window after dropping off the bag. Why would he go there?
>
> Clark, notice the word "again"? That means I am accepting that he
> went past the window once. I am contesting that he went to where he
> could be seen from the kitchen window after he put the bag into the
> car.
>
>
The only thing you demonstrated was that you can't read. Here is what
I said again, taken directly from above and what you replied to:
"In "Bud Land", Oswald doesn't go to the window."
Quote anything you've written that contradicts the above.
Meanwhile, don't stop digging on my account.
I hear the sound of a shovel digging...
>
> > Next, Linnie LIED. Bud has posted his proof and you have failed to refute
> > it. She never saw Lee put the rifle in the car. She made that story up.
>
> In a few sentences, Clark foists four false positions I never took
> on me. One might wonder why he never addresses what I actually write.
I cut and pasted what you actually wrote.
Missed that fact did you?
Imagine my surprise.
>
> > She's in on the conspiracy. Lee and her brother planned out the
> > assassination. That's why Frazier got Lee the job at the TSBD. But now
> > Frazier had to get Lee to the Paine's garage to get his rifle so Frazier
> > had to drive him home Thursday night. It was Frazier who made the
> > paperbag at the TSBD. That's how Linnie knew what the bag looked like
> > when Frazier brought it inside Thursday night. Friday morning, the bag is
> > hidden from Essie and Frazier put the rifle in the bag and in the backseat
> > and off he and Oswald drove. We know it was Frazier who did it because,
> > to protect her brother, Linnie lied to the police and said she saw Lee put
> > it in the car - An impossibility. And the only reason for her to tell
> > this lie is if Frazier did it. Bud has figured it out. All these years
> > and who'd have thought Bud would break the case?
>
> You haven`t touched a point I made yet, Clark, why is that? Can you
> support the idea that LMR could see Oswald put the bag in the car? I
> haven`t seen you try.
>
Earth to Bud:
Why should I?
I've even backed you up with David - pointing out Linnie can't possibly
hear Lee lay a bag down in Frazier's car and then posting that the FBI
shows the car is in the garage. I'm on your side, Bud.
That's why I handed you the shovel.
Just keep right on digging. You're almost there.
Clark
> On Oct 21, 6:55 pm, Clark <clarkwilk...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> > Frazier stated how he carried it. He didn't have any reason to make
> > that up.
>
> Accessory to murder is a damn good reason.
>
Demonstrate how Lee carried the bag makes Frazier an "Accessory to
murder".
<SNIP>
> No, it`s possible Frazier saw the end of the package, and it was
> horizontal, not vertical. He told the FBI from behind he could only
> see 1 inch by 9 inches of the bag. That could have been the end of the
> package. Oswald could have the bag cupped in his hand and under his
> armpit if he carried the bag horizontal.
>
Do you accept the 9" figure? If so, why?
Just curious.
::Clark::
Bud
> On Oct 22, 8:06 pm, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>
> > On Oct 21, 6:55 pm, Clark <clarkwilk...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Frazier stated how he carried it. He didn't have any reason to make
> > > that up.
>
> > Accessory to murder is a damn good reason.
>
> Demonstrate how Lee carried the bag makes Frazier an "Accessory to
> murder".
Distancing himself from the murder weapon. If he can supply
information in a way that removes the possibility of the rifle being
in the bag, it also removes the chance he can be associated with the
crime commited with the rifle that was in the bag.
Also, besides any possible criminal charges for transporting the
murderer and the murder weapon to where a preplanned murder was
committed, there is also the stigma of helping an assassin accomplish
his goal of killing a popular President.
To say that Frazier had no reason to lie to make up information is
just wrong, he had a personal stake in this thing. That, of course, is
not to say that he did purposely give misinformation, just that
reasons for him to do so did exist.
> <SNIP>
>
> > No, it`s possible Frazier saw the end of the package, and it was
> > horizontal, not vertical. He told the FBI from behind he could only
> > see 1 inch by 9 inches of the bag. That could have been the end of the
> > package. Oswald could have the bag cupped in his hand and under his
> > armpit if he carried the bag horizontal.
>
> Do you accept the 9" figure? If so, why?
It is just an estimate to convey the general idea that Frazier could
not see much of the bag (just like the estimate of the package in the
backseat conveys the general idea that it contained a longish package)
when Oswald was walking towards the TSBD. Only a CTer would figure
these estimates are hard data with which to work with.
What we really have to work with (along with LMR`s brief
observations of Oswald and the bag) is the glance Frazier took into
his backseat, at which time he said he didn`t pay much attention to
the object in it. Then, when they reached work, Oswald turned and
headed in as soon as Frazier left the car, Frazier wasn`t paying much
attention to Oswald and the bag during the trip in, and Frazier
couldn`t see much of the bag at all from behind when he did look. This
is the stuff you are constructing theories and making absolute
statements about.
And for the hell of it, a little elaboration. If Oswald was carrying
the bag horizontal like I suggest, and Frazier looked toward him, and
saw only a small bit of the bag (the end), and didn`t see the bag
extend over his shoulder, what the mind will sometimes do is fill in
information. So, he thinks the bag is upright (but how can he tell for
sure, seeing only such a small area?), but the bag does not extend
over Oswald`s shoulder. His mind comes up with the explanation that
the package must end up under his armpit, and satisfied with this
explanation, moves on to something else.
I looked into memory a little bit, and there are two things that
influence memory, what the mind brings to the table from previous
experience, and influences that occur post event. The information
Frazier mind gathered on the walk in could influence his impression of
the object in the backseat. He looked at Oswald carrying the package,
he lost sight of it under his armpit, he noticed it didn`t extend over
his shoulder, so his mind comes up with the package being about two
feet long (the estimate he conveys in words, the estimate he conveys
in demonstration is longer). What he thinks he sees in the walk in
influences his observation of the object in the backseat.
> Just curious.
>
> ::Clark::
Bud
> On Oct 22, 5:15 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > A question for Bud that I just thought of this minute.....
>
> > Was Mr. Bill Randle's car parked in the carport on the morning of
> > 11/22/63? Can this be verified? (I'm not sure it can be.)
>
> > If Mr. Randle's car wasn't inside the carport that particular morning
> > (for whatever reason), then Linnie Mae would probably have been able
> > to see more of what Oswald was doing on the other side of the carport.
>
> All the photos taken by the FBI indicate both cars were in the
> driveway, including one drawing:
>
>
> http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=108...
>
> Keep trying, guys.
>
> I'll watch.
Do you suppose those photos were taken and drawings made at 7:15 on
the 22nd?
DVP asks a valid question. Bill is nowhere in sight at breakfast. It
seems likely the car was there, since it is included in photos, but
that alone can`t establish it as fact.
And since you accept LMR`s husband`s car was there, perhaps you can
explain how she saw oswald put the package in her brother`s car on the
other side of it (and the wall).
> ::Clark::
Bud
> On Oct 21, 7:49 pm, davidemerling <davidemerl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Oct 21, 5:55 pm, Clark <clarkwilk...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > "And it's obvious that Oswald carried that rifle into the building
> > > > that day in that large brown paper bag. It couldn't be more obvious. As
> > > > far as Mr. Frazier's testimony about Oswald carrying the bag under his
> > > > armpit, he conceded he never paid close attention to just how Oswald was
> > > > carrying that bag. He didn't have any reason to." -- Vincent Bugliosi;
> > > > July 1986; Via Closing Arguments to the jury during the TV docu-trial "On
> > > > Trial: Lee Harvey Oswald"
>
> > > Frazier stated how he carried it. He didn't have any reason to make
> > > that up.
>
> > Frazier probably was just trying to convey, generally, how he recalled
> > Oswald carrying the rifle and probably just added some unintended
> > specifics, not realizing the ramifications.
>
> But you realize the ramifications now because those ramifications
> contradict LN claims the bag contained a rifle, disassembled or otherwise.
>
> You are forced to "pick and choose" your selections of Frazier testimony
Thats a tough place to be, forced to make reasonable decisions about
what information Frazier gave that it is realistic to believe must be
correct, and that which it is unrealistic to think must be
correct.Likely for him to get that Oswald was carrying the bag,
unlikely for his to nail minute details about that bag.
> ("Yes. He was right about seeing a bag but - No - he was wrong on every
> single thing he saw about it.") while providing no supporting evidence for
> why we should believe he was wrong.
Of course I have been offering a lot of support, namely the complete
context of the observations. Clark chooses to ignore this, because it
is inconvenient to his theories.
> Any effort you use by imaginary means
> of lengthening the bag he saw, I can use the same imaginary means to
> shorten the bag he saw.
Exactly why the only reasonable thing you can glean from these
witnesses is that Oswald carried a longish bag into work that day.
Everything else is just working with an exactitude that just doesn`t
exist in evidence.
> > You have to remember that this would have been an imminently unmemorable
> > event to Wesley Frazier at the time. Hell, I could spend all day with
> > somebody and, at the end of the day, half the time I couldn't tell what
> > kind of shoes they were wearing or even the color of their shirt. That's
> > because there is nothing important about it to cause specific things to
> > stick in your memory.
>
> I could use the above argument to say the bag Frazier saw was 14" long in
> the backseat of his car and quote Officer Studebacker as a supporting
> witness as well as the 14" fold mark in the bag. The only reason Frazier
> failed to note the bag was 14" long was because "You have to remember that
> this would have been an imminently unmemorable event to Wesley Frazier at
> the time. Hell, I could spend all day with somebody and, at the end of the
> day, half the time I couldn't tell what kind of shoes they were wearing or
> even the color of their shirt. That's because there is nothing important
> about it to cause specific things to stick in your memory." Therefore,
> the bag in the backseat of the car was 14" long.
LMR called it "long", Frazier called it "big". Unlikely to believe
they would use these qualifiers to describe a 14" bag.
I never made that argument, nor could you prove it had no merit if I
did.
Bud
Where would you be without making absolute statements that are
wrong? I use it more often to denote sarcasm or derision at another`s
ideas. I joke a lot more than I use <snicker>.
> >Tony was saying I was bringing up (or
> > making up) anything I could to cast doubt on LMR`s observations. I
> > offered that if that was my purpose, I`d just show this photo to show
> > LMR couldn`t see the street at all (because of the blinds)...
>
> > http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=108...
>
> > But I messed up, and it was actually CE445.
>
> Oh! You messed up!
> Now that I can believe. No further explaination necessary.
Well, both exhibits were on the page I linked to.
> > > I guess he's right. I looked at CE444 and, sure enough, I couldn't
> > > see Lee either.
>
> > > > To believe that Oswald still had the package with him when Frazier's
> > > > mother (Essie Mae Williams) saw him through the kitchen window, we'd have
> > > > to believe that Oswald crossed the street....went directly to Frazier's
> > > > car....opened the back door of the car....and then walked back toward the
> > > > Randle house (the kitchen side) with the bag still with him.
>
> > > Why not? He brought it to the window so that he could hide it from
> > > Essie. Read Bud's post.
>
> > Then explain what I said to Clark.
>
> Earth to Bud:
>
> I'm Clark. You have either messed up again or you want me to explain
> to me what you said.
Obviously I was continuing your thought to DVP.
I`m not sure she could discern any activity on the far side of
Frazier`s car, I thought I pointed this out.
> > > > >>> "One thing to consider, if Oswald put the rifle in the car, he
>
> > > > wouldn`t be apt to be wandering where he could be seen from the kitchen
> > > > window again." <<<
>
> > > > Why not?
>
> > > Because he's hiding the bag from Essie. Read Bud's posts.
>
> > Then explain them to Clark.
>
> I will next time I see me.
>
> ROFLMAO!
>
>
>
> > > ROFLMAO
>
> > > >At that point, he wasn't still carrying the rifle package for
> > > > everybody to see.
>
> > > He wasn't carrying it for everybody to see. He was hiding it from
> > > Essie. Read Bud's post. Linnie LIED.
>
> > Is misrepresentation the best you can do, Clark? Easier than
> > rebuttal, I guess.
>
> Is misrepresentation the best you can do, Bud? In what previous post
> did you say Linnie was telling the truth about seeing Oswald put the
> bag in the car?
In what previous post did i say LMR was lying? Only to your limited
imagination are the two the only choices on the menu. You never
address what I am actually saying, it`s easier to assign me positions
and attack them. If I had wanted to call LMR a liar, I would have done
so.
> You got her nailed to the wall, Bud.
>
> I love your CT!
>
> ROFLMAO!
>
>
>
> > > > So there's no real reason he should cower and hide in a
> > > > corner someplace at that point in time.
>
> > > But he did. That's why hid the bag from Essie. Read Bud's post.
>
> > > Give Bud a shovel and he'll dig himself all the way to China.
> > > And I just happened to be selling shovels this week.
>
> > You can`t claim victory over the things I write until you actually
> > address the things I write. And for you to address the things I write,
> > you`d first have to understand the things i write. I`m not holding out
> > hope for that.
>
> Maybe if I hit myself in the head with that shovel you're holding?
You are welcome to hit yourself in the head with anything you like,
if you think that will help.
> :)
>
> ::Clark::
Bud
> On Oct 17, 7:11 pm, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>
> > On Oct 17, 12:19 pm, Clark <clarkwilk...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Oct 5, 3:28 pm, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
> > > > where he was when he noticed the paper bag in the backseat of his car.
> > > > His Nov 22nd affidavit has...
>
> > > > "Before I got in my car, I glanced in the backseat, and saw a big
> > > > sack."
>
> > > > (Note to Tony Marsh: Notice Frazier selects the qualifier "big",
> > > > denoting a large size.)
>
> > > Is a 28.5 inch long bag "big" or "little"?
>
> > This witness called it "big". The other witness used the qualifier
> > "large". Some CT-leaning poster was questioning why the witnesses were
> > using such qualifiers to denote the size of the bag. The answer is that
> > they were.
>
> > Tony Marsh, as he is wont to do, was trying to insert the word
> > "smallish" into the discussion, quite the opposite of what the witnesses
> > were indicating.
>
> > > > Yet when he related the event to the Warren Commission, he said...
>
> > > > "Lets see, when I got in the car I kind of have a habit of glancing
> > > > over my shoulder and so at that time I noticed there was a package
> > > > laying on the backseat, I didn`t pay attention and I said "whats the
> > > > package, Lee?".
>
> > > > In one account he is outside the car when he notices the package, in
> > > > the other inside. Now, if I was Don Willis, I could twist this change
> > > > in Frazier`s story into something sinister.
>
> > > Isn't that what you're trying to do, Bud?
>
> > No, Clark, I said I don`t know what to make of it. You react the way the
> > old religious fanatics used to do when someone asked about a difficulty in
> > the Bible. Attack the person trying to make sense of the words used.
>
> Incorrect description of your post. You made no effort to make sense
> of the words used.
Sure I did. You were just more than happy to gloss over the
difficulty I was highlighting.
It reflected poorly on the things you wish to believe, like LMR being
an infallible witness.
> > > Make your noted discrepancy out to be of some sinister significance
> > > when, in fact, it's of no significance at all?
>
> > By "no significance at all", you mean of no use for your silly theories,
> > right Clark?
>
> You posted Frazier saw the bag in the back before getting in the car and
> then again he saw the bag while backing his car up.
Two different accounts of the same event.
> That's seeing it
> twice.
Thats him describing when he first saw it two different ways.
> He noticed it contained something and asked Oswald what it was.
> That is the significance of it. I don't call him a liar nor do I see any
> discrepancy.
Of course you don`t, it is inconvenient to what you want to believe,
so you rule it "insignificant". But it is a discrepancy, whether you
accept it as one or not.
> But him telling the truth does not support your silly theories, right,
> Bud?
>
> But go ahead, Bud. Tell us what significant thing you found that's of
> no use to me? I'll wait.
You wish to pretend these witnesses are flawless and accurate
recounters of details. So when they give information that is
obviously wrong (with only one of Frazier`s accounts of where he was
when he first noticed the package as being correct), you need to claim
it is of no significance.
> > And of course it is significant, as it speaks to his memory, and his
> > observations of the bag. You want it both ways, tout the details he
> > related as important, yet ignore the context surrounding those related
> > details.
>
> All I did was repeat what you said -
No, you didn`t. The idea was laid out in the first post, quoting the
two sources, and pointing out where the discrepancy occurred. You
should familiarize yourself with the idea I presented, I don`t need to
keep repeating the concept in the hope it will sink into to you.
>That Frazier saw a bag in the back of
> his car when he got in and saw a bag in the back of his car when when he
> turned to back up.
Not according to his affidavit...
Before I got into the car, I glanced in the backseat and saw a big
sack."
This source puts seeing the sack before he got in, and you are
placing it after he got in. You seem to think there is no difference
between the two.
> As an LNer you consider that significant as it speaks
> to his memory. I agree, It means he noiticed the bag on the back of his
> seat twice, noticed it contained something (and noticed it covered half of
> his back seat) and asked Lee what was in the bag. It speaks well of his
> memory and his observations of the bag. Yet you disagree and say I have
> the context and his memory wrong. Where did I make my mistake?
Every point. He glanced into the backseat, and didn`t pay much
attention to the object in his backseat when he did. Out of this, you
ascribe all sorts of powers of observation.
> 1) Frazier didn't see a paperbag in the backseat of his car on getting
> in because there was no car. Frazier drove a 38" long paperbag to
> work.
> 2) Frazier didn't see a bag in his back set when he turned and backed
> up because it was a cloudy and raining inside his car that morning.
> 3) Frazier failed to remember 1 and 2 above.
You never address the actual points I make, why is that Clark?
He looked in his backseat and saw a big bag. That is all the
information that can be reasonably gleaned from what he offered.
I`ll try to explain once more, for others more than you. If I go
into a public restroom in the morning, and use the urinal, and later
on that day you ask me how high from the floor it was, and how far
away from the closest wall it was, I could guess, but there is no real
reason to believe my guesses will be accurate. My memory might be
influenced by other urinals I`ve used in the past, and since I
probably wasn`t in there focusing much on my surrounding anyway (nor
would it matter much if I were). And later on, you question someone
else who used that urinal, their estimates might come close to mine.
That does not "confirm" my guesses (as you like to misuse the word),
it only makes his guesses similar to mine, not speak very loudly about
the accuracy of my guesses.
We just don`t note the details about the world around us like this,
not well anyway. We see hundreds of thousands of things each day, we
are going to nail the distances between these things?
> > But you are in a sense right, nothing Frazier related is significant
> > other than that he drove Oswald to work, and that Oswald had a big bag.
>
> Big enough that it occupied approximately one half of a 54" wide seat.
> Do the math, Bud.
Did Frazier?
> I'll wait while you run find a calculater.
>
>
>
> > > > But, also notice in his WC testimony that even when he glanced at
> > > > the package in the backseat, he makes the point that he didn`t pay
> > > > attention to it. Likely he just looked at it long enough to identify
> > > > it for what it was. Unlikely he could have picked up these "landmarks"
> > > > or "benchmarks" or whatever it is that some CTers seem to think lend
> > > > validity to his estimates.
>
> > > But he did pick up the benchmarks and landmarks. The FBI confirmed this.
>
> > They confirmed nothing. There was no way possible they could unless
> > they rode with Frazier that morning.
>
> They measured the width of the seat at 54". Then asked him how much of
> the seat it occupied. He said half. The FBI confirmed that half of 54"
> is 27".
They recorded his estimate. They confirmed this to be his estimate.
They didn`t confirm that the package he saw was 27".
> He was asked if his estimate could have included 38". He said no.
> He pointed where the bag ended on the seat.
That just isn`t true. He pointed to an approximate spot he felt it
came to. What an amazing world to would be if a person could nail such
a thing with a glance.
> They measured and it was
> 28.5". The FBI confirmed that 28.5" is less than 38".
It`s tough to get something like that past them.
> > > So your "Unlikely" is likely wrong.
>
> > No, he said he didn`t pay attention to the bag when he looked into the
> > backseat. Thats the context Clark.
>
> He looked at it twice. He saw it contained something. He noticed its
> length. He noticed it was distinctively shorter than the bag in evidence.
> That's the context of his testimony of the bag on the backseat.
Only if you ignore the circumstances and context of his
observations. Once there are looked at, your contentions fall apart.
Which is why you don`t look at them.
> > Likely, he looked at it just long
> > enough to make out what it was. Unlikely he was noting these landmarks
> > that seem to exist only in CT imagination.
>
> He pointed them out to the FBI who measured them. I guess I just
> imagined that, huh?
What were these "landmarks", Clark? The Eiffel Tower and the
Leaning Tower of Pisa?
>
> > > You're a typical LNer, Bud.
>
> > Thanks Clark. And you are a typical CTer.
>
> > > You have to have Lee bring the rifle into the
> > > TSBD to show he acted alone and the only way he could bring it in was by
> > > the paperbag.
>
> > It`s what Oswald obviously did, Clark, it isn`t about me. I didn`t
> > need Oswald to kill anyone, and I don`t see any use in pretending he
> > didn`t.
>
> Lee obviously did not bring the rifle in by the bag. If he did, LNer's
> would show it.
He carried a large bag into work from where the rifle was stored to
where it was used. He showed it by killing Kennedy with the rifle the
bag contained.
> So let's pretend Oswald killed JFK acting alone. How did he get the rifle
> into the TSBD? Start from when he made the bag, to when he put the rifle
> in it, to when he took it up to the sixth floor.
None of these things are really in evidence. They didn`t know for
sure where OJ got the knife he used, or whther he carried it in his
front pocket or back, whether it was in a sheath or was a folding
knife. They concluded he stabbed his wife to death without having
positive answers to all questions.
> > > So you have to have it in the paperbag. So you say, "Yes!
> > > All the eyewitnesses were right in seeing the paperbag."
>
> > Yah, that is the only information that it is reasonable to believe
> > is reliable.
>
> Why is it unreasonable to believe that the eyewitness description of the
> length of the bag is unreliable when the bag was folded at the very length
> the eyewitnesses put the length of the bag?
Because it is unrealistic to say that people can take brief looks at
things, and nail the length of them. Try it sometimes and you find
just what an unlikely occurrence this really is. Everything we see
during the course of a day is precise distances from other things. If
you were to question someone at the end of there day about the
distances of the things around them, how often would they nail things,
one percent of the time, even less?
> And why, when both witnesses
> state the bag they saw was shorter than the bag shown them, is that
> unreliable?
It isn`t a large enough pool of information to see a trend. Who
knows if 5 more people saw it, they wouldn`t estimate it longer? In my
"urinal" example, what if me and the other person said it was 30
inches from the floor, and it turned out to be 24? Does our guess draw
into question the actual distance?
> > > But the rifle won't fit in the bag - a slight contradiction.
>
> > No, just a claim. The rifle does fit in the bag.
>
> No. A 40" rifle will not fit in a 38" long bag. Buy yourself a
> calculater.
Apprise yourself of your opponents position. LNer do not believe
there was a 40" rifle in the bag Oswald carried. You just find it
easier to misrepresent your opponents than address their actual
positions.
> > >So then you
> > > have to claim the rifle was disassembled and put in the bag.
>
> > The rifle was designed to be easily disassembled.
>
> What's your evidence it was disassembled on 11/22/63?
The bag.
> And, BTW, it easily falls into 11 parts when disassembled.
It can be transported as two pieces.
> > > Do you have
> > > any evidence for this? No.
>
> > Did they have any direct evidence that OJ touched a knife the day
> > his wife was killed? No, just the fact that his wife was stabbed to
> > death and the other information indicating he was the one who did it.
>
> <snicker>
> Bud has no evidence.
>
> Imagine my surprise.
I`ve walked you through the reasons to believe Oswald had the rifle
in the bag before.
> > > In fact, every single eyewitness to the bag
> > > testified that Lee had folded the top down -
>
> > The bag does have a flap at the top.
>
> The bag is taped for 30" of its length. That's an 8" flap at the
> top. Will the disassembled rifle fit in such a bag with the top fold
> down at 28.5" as shown by the fold mark in the bag?
The rifle would prevent any such folding at that point. The fold is
likely pre-existing.
> > > And the the fold still exists
> > > and can be measured. The disassembled rifle will not fit in the bag as
> > > folded and as confirmed by the eyewitnesses. You lose again.
>
> > Only if you can`t tell the difference between mush and concrete.
>
> No argument, Bud?
I didn`t see you make any. You can`t establish the bag was folded at
any of the places folds are shown on the bag while Oswald carried it.
> As I said, you lose again.
>
>
>
> > > So now you're forced to question your own witnesses -
>
> > I don`t expect exact details like measurements from any casual
> > witness. Or clothing details. Or heights and weights or any of the
> > other mush CTers have been using to make absolute statements about
> > over the years.
>
> So, if Randell and Frazier both testified that Lee carried a 8" lunch
> bag, you would say they were both wrong and that it measured 38".
>
> Right, Bud?
No, it is as unlikely they could be that wrong as it is unlikely
they could be as right as your theories require. That Oswald was seen
carrying a "large" and "big" bag is all that can be said with
certainty. Absolute determinations of details is impossible in the
context of their observations. The further you try to go with the
details, the weaker the ground you are on.
> > >Witnesses you have
> > > to have for Lee to have acted alone. They must be wrong. Why don't you
> > > just cut to the quick, Bud, and call them LIARS? Because that's what they
> > > have to be for your hypothesis to work.
>
> > They have to be human, and I have to look at what they said in that
> > context.
>
> They both saw the same thing - a 38" long paperbag folded at 28.5"
> with the fold mark in evidence on the bag.
I am aware of your theory by now, Clark.
>How did you decide that
> they were right that they saw a 38" long paperbag but wrong when they
> said it was folded at 28.5"?
Quote them both saying the bag was folded at 28.5
> > > Notice, I called it a "hypothesis" and not a theory. A theory is
> > > supported by evidence. You have no evidence there was a rifle in that
> > > bag. All you have is evidence there wasn't. You have no theory on how
> > > the rifle entered the TSBD. Therefore, you have no evidence Lee acted
> > > alone.
>
> > Obviously, Oswald took the rifle to work in that bag.
>
> Then post your evidence he did.
> <snicker>
>
>
>
> > > > > while Oswald sped off on his own. Did anyone see him
> > > > > with the bag in the reception, stairway/elevator or on any floors with
> > > > > the bag? and where did he hide it before lunch time? any ideas guys?
> > > > > Also, if the other guy was eating chicken on the 6th floor, how much
> > > > > time did LHO have to retrieve the rifle and get set up? also how did
> > > > > he carry the bullets in? can you just carry them in your pocket?
>
> > > > No. Lint sets them off.
>
> > > A typical reply for you.
>
> > <snicker>
>
> > Who said Oswald went down with the others at lunch? I`ve never seen
> > anything like this anywhere.
>
> You've never seen anything like this anywhere? It's in the WR.
<snicker> That narrows it down. Can you quote one of the workers
from the 6th floor saying Oswald accompanied them down to lunch?
> But that probably explains why you don't know about it.
>
> Just a thought.
>
> ::Clark::
Bud
> On Oct 20, 6:01 pm, Clark <clarkwilk...@hotmail.com> wrote:
TOP POST: two mistakes to clean up...
"LMR" should have been "WBF".
Actuallly, not in the initial post of Oct 4th, but a follow up post
on Oct 5th....
> ...
>
> read more »
David Von Pein
>>> " "LMR" should have been "WBF"." <<<
To be perfectly accurate, it should have been "BWF". Wesley is
Frazier's middle name. Buell is his first name. ;)
Barb Junkkarinen
Ruth and Michael Paine were separated.
Barb :-)
Barb Junkkarinen
He said ... and pointed it out ... to Bardwell and Odum.
FBI statement/report, CE 2009 .... vol 24, I think:
"...FRAZIER glanced back and noticed a long package,
light brown in color, lying on the back of the rear
seat and extending from approximately the right rear
door to about the center of the seat...FRAZIER design-
ated an approximate spot on the back seat where he
felt the package extended to from the right rear door
and measurement by Special Agents BARDWELL D. ODUM and
GIBBON E. MC NEELY determined that this spot was 27
inches from the inside of the right rear door,
indicating that FRAZIER estimates that as the length
of the package."
Again, I am not arguing anything one way or the other as regards this
bag. I just prefer accuracy in representing what a witness did or did
not say or do.
Barb :-)
Bud
wrote:
So do I, which is why I objected to the way you portrayed the
information he supplied.
You said "noted", and I don`t see Frazier saying he noted any such
thing. You also act as if Frazier can tell locations on in backseat.
The only way he could do that is by using something else as a
reference, likely the distance from the doors. So whether he is
guessing the length of the bag, or guessing how much space from the
end of the bag to the door, he is still guessing, not noting.
Again, Frazier glanced into his backseat, and said he didn`t pay
much attention to the bag when he did. How confident do you suppose
Frazier was that he was nailing where the ends of the bag came to that
morning when he related that information to the FBI?
> Barb :-)
Bud
wrote:
These are Linnie Mae and Bill Randle we are discussing, Barb. We are
wondering whether Bill Randle`s car was in the Randle carport when
Oswald carried the bag to Frazier`s car.
> Barb :-)
Clark
> On Oct 20, 6:01 pm, Clark <clarkwilk...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
You top posted you meant Frazier above and not LMR. You should have
stayed with LMR. Anyone looking above can see you posted this
exchange:
Bud: In one account he is outside the car when he notices the
package, in the other inside. Now, if I was Don Willis, I could twist
this change in Frazier`s story into something sinister.
Clark: Isn't that what you're trying to do, Bud?
Bud: No, Clark, I said I don`t know what to make of it. You react the
way the old religious fanatics used to do when someone asked about a
difficulty in the Bible. Attack the person trying to make sense of the
words used.
So Bud? First you said you didn't know what to make of it and now you
do, saying it reflects poorly on Frazier being an infallible witness.
Let me explain to you the SECOND RULE of being an LNer. When
misleading and deceiving your readers, don't let them know you did it
- at least not in the same post.
>
> > > > Make your noted discrepancy out to be of some sinister significance
> > > > when, in fact, it's of no significance at all?
>
> > > By "no significance at all", you mean of no use for your silly theories,
> > > right Clark?
>
> > You posted Frazier saw the bag in the back before getting in the car and
> > then again he saw the bag while backing his car up.
>
> Two different accounts of the same event.
Prove it's not one account of the same event.
It's your accusation. Back it up.
>
> > That's seeing it
> > twice.
>
> Thats him describing when he first saw it two different ways.
So he saw it twice on the way to work. So what? It's your obligation
to prove otherwise.
>
> > He noticed it contained something and asked Oswald what it was.
> > That is the significance of it. I don't call him a liar nor do I see any
> > discrepancy.
>
> Of course you don`t, it is inconvenient to what you want to believe,
> so you rule it "insignificant". But it is a discrepancy, whether you
> accept it as one or not.
It's only a discrepancy if you prove it to be one. But I like you're
approach. It's right in line with the third rule:
"If you can't prove it, pretend you can."
>
> > But him telling the truth does not support your silly theories, right,
> > Bud?
>
> > But go ahead, Bud. Tell us what significant thing you found that's of
> > no use to me? I'll wait.
>
> You wish to pretend these witnesses are flawless and accurate
> recounters of details. So when they give information that is
> obviously wrong (with only one of Frazier`s accounts of where he was
> when he first noticed the package as being correct), you need to claim
> it is of no significance.
If it's "obviously wrong" then you should be able to prove that. Give
us your evidence Frazier never looked at the bag twice.
Post it right here.
I'll wait but I'm thinking you just broke the third LN rule.
>
> > > And of course it is significant, as it speaks to his memory, and his
> > > observations of the bag. You want it both ways, tout the details he
> > > related as important, yet ignore the context surrounding those related
> > > details.
>
> > All I did was repeat what you said -
>
> No, you didn`t. The idea was laid out in the first post, quoting the
> two sources, and pointing out where the discrepancy occurred. You
> should familiarize yourself with the idea I presented, I don`t need to
> keep repeating the concept in the hope it will sink into to you.
The concept is that you have not shown that Frazier didn't look at the
bag twice. I'll repeat it for you as long as necessary.
>
> >That Frazier saw a bag in the back of
> > his car when he got in and saw a bag in the back of his car when when he
> > turned to back up.
>
> Not according to his affidavit...
He didn't say it was raining in his affidavit either. Was he
concealing that too? How does that mean he didn't see the bag twice?
You're grabbing at straws.
>
> Before I got into the car, I glanced in the backseat and saw a big
> sack."
>
> This source puts seeing the sack before he got in, and you are
> placing it after he got in. You seem to think there is no difference
> between the two.
The difference is time.
Demonstrate both events did not happen. It's your claim. Back it up.
I'll wait.
>
> > As an LNer you consider that significant as it speaks
> > to his memory. I agree, It means he noiticed the bag on the back of his
> > seat twice, noticed it contained something (and noticed it covered half of
> > his back seat) and asked Lee what was in the bag. It speaks well of his
> > memory and his observations of the bag. Yet you disagree and say I have
> > the context and his memory wrong. Where did I make my mistake?
>
> Every point. He glanced into the backseat, and didn`t pay much
> attention to the object in his backseat when he did. Out of this, you
> ascribe all sorts of powers of observation.
You mean like the uncanny ability to see the bag occupied half the
seat?
He looked at a bag, saw it contained something, and asked what was in
it. That means he looked at the bag with curiosity for what it
contained. His observations support that curiosity.
>
> > 1) Frazier didn't see a paperbag in the backseat of his car on getting
> > in because there was no car. Frazier drove a 38" long paperbag to
> > work.
> > 2) Frazier didn't see a bag in his back set when he turned and backed
> > up because it was a cloudy and raining inside his car that morning.
> > 3) Frazier failed to remember 1 and 2 above.
>
> You never address the actual points I make, why is that Clark?
Because you don't have any?
I keep asking you to post evidence for your apparently imagined points
but you keep refusing. Why is that, Bud?
>
> He looked in his backseat and saw a big bag. That is all the
> information that can be reasonably gleaned from what he offered.
>
> I`ll try to explain once more, for others more than you. If I go
> into a public restroom in the morning, and use the urinal, and later
> on that day you ask me how high from the floor it was, and how far
> away from the closest wall it was, I could guess, but there is no real
> reason to believe my guesses will be accurate. My memory might be
> influenced by other urinals I`ve used in the past, and since I
> probably wasn`t in there focusing much on my surrounding anyway (nor
> would it matter much if I were). And later on, you question someone
> else who used that urinal, their estimates might come close to mine.
> That does not "confirm" my guesses (as you like to misuse the word),
> it only makes his guesses similar to mine, not speak very loudly about
> the accuracy of my guesses.
> We just don`t note the details about the world around us like this,
> not well anyway. We see hundreds of thousands of things each day, we
> are going to nail the distances between these things?
Now let's include what you omitted from the above - Curiosity. You're
at that same urinal and you see something in it and you ask the guy
next to you (Whose name happens to be Lee), "What is that?"
Do you think you won't remember that incident by the end of the day?
And what it looked like?
Because that's what Frazier asked Lee.
>
> > > But you are in a sense right, nothing Frazier related is significant
> > > other than that he drove Oswald to work, and that Oswald had a big bag.
>
> > Big enough that it occupied approximately one half of a 54" wide seat.
> > Do the math, Bud.
>
> Did Frazier?
The FBI did it for him. Maybe they lied too?
Just curious.
::Clark::
Clark
> On Oct 24, 12:34 am, Clark <clarkwilk...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Oct 22, 10:12 am, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>
> > > On Oct 21, 10:19 pm, Clark <clarkwilk...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Here's Bud's answer to that in his exchange with Tony:
>
> > > > On Oct 19, 3:58 pm, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Oct 18, 8:25 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > > > > >Why don't you point out that
> > > > > > her kitchen windows were all steamed up from her boiling water on the
> > > > > > stove so it distorted what she saw?
>
> > > > > Why would I do that when I could just show CE444? How could she see out
> > > > > that window at all?
>
> > > > And then he posted this link as supporting evidence:
>
> > > > http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?absPageId..
>
> > > > Now, Dave? How can you possibly argue against CE444? Bud thinks he's
> > > > got you nailed to the wall.
> > > > Go ahead and click on it. She can't see Lee.
>
> > > <snicker> I was joking, Clark.
>
> > If you had been joking, Bud, you'd have included your <snicker>
> > trademark.
>
> Where would you be without making absolute statements that are
> wrong? I use it more often to denote sarcasm or derision at another`s
> ideas. I joke a lot more than I use <snicker>.
>
My statement is absolutley correct. Yours is absolutely wrong
Here you claim it is a joke but down below you claim it's a
"mistake". And you, indeed, make both claims absolutely.
> > >Tony was saying I was bringing up (or
> > > making up) anything I could to cast doubt on LMR`s observations. I
> > > offered that if that was my purpose, I`d just show this photo to show
> > > LMR couldn`t see the street at all (because of the blinds)...
>
> > > http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=108...
>
> > > But I messed up, and it was actually CE445.
>
> > Oh! You messed up!
> > Now that I can believe. No further explaination necessary.
>
> Well, both exhibits were on the page I linked to.
>
Joke or mistake, Bud? I know this is a difficult thought for you to
grasp, Bud. But you can't have it both ways. Especially when you
claim it "ABSOLUTELY".
<SNIP>
>
>
>
>
> > > Then explain what I said to Clark.
>
> > Earth to Bud:
>
> > I'm Clark. You have either messed up again or you want me to explain
> > to me what you said.
>
> Obviously I was continuing your thought to DVP.
>
>
Pay attention, Bud. Your reply is "obviously" addressed to me and not
DVP.
<SNIP>
> > > > > I certainly don't think Linnie Mae was lying at all.
>
> > > > She would have had to be lying.
>
> > > Not at all. She may have believed what she said was true, but what
> > > she said may have been untrue. This is possible for much of the
> > > information she gave.
>
> > How do you preclude she didn't lie?
>
What? No answer, Bud? How do you preclude she's not lying?
It's your theory, Bud.
I'm listening.
> > > > She can't possibly HEAR him place a package on the backseat. She's lying.
> > > > Ask Bud. When she went to the police at 3:00 PM voluntarily with her
> > > > information, and without having spoken with her brother, she made the
> > > > whole the story up to the police. She can't see through the kitchen
> > > > window (CE444) and she can't see through the carport slats and two cars.
> > > > If I'm misquoting Bud, somebody correct me.
>
> > And no one corrects me...
And I still go uncorrected.
>
> > > She said she heard the car door close. I think she drew the correct
> > > conclusion, I just don`t see how she could have made an observation of
> > > Oswald putting the package in the car.
>
> > <snicker>
>
> > Why didn't she conclude he got in the car?
>
> I`m not sure she could discern any activity on the far side of
> Frazier`s car, I thought I pointed this out.
>
>
You said she heard the door close. You say she can't "discern any
activity on the far side of
Frazier`s car". So why didn't she conclude he got in the car?
It's your theory, Bud.
You explain it.
> > > > >At that point, he wasn't still carrying the rifle package for
> > > > > everybody to see.
>
> > > > He wasn't carrying it for everybody to see. He was hiding it from
> > > > Essie. Read Bud's post. Linnie LIED.
>
> > > Is misrepresentation the best you can do, Clark? Easier than
> > > rebuttal, I guess.
>
> > Is misrepresentation the best you can do, Bud? In what previous post
> > did you say Linnie was telling the truth about seeing Oswald put the
> > bag in the car?
>
> In what previous post did i say LMR was lying? Only to your limited
> imagination are the two the only choices on the menu. You never
> address what I am actually saying, it`s easier to assign me positions
> and attack them. If I had wanted to call LMR a liar, I would have done
> so.
You said you don't believe her and, when asked how you precluded she's
lying, refused to answer. I conclude you don't believe her and you
don't preclude she's lying. If I assign you positions that you claim
are incorrect but arrived at by your own posts, that's your own
doing. Don't blame me for what you wrote. So again I ask.
If you don't believe she's telling the truth, how do your preclude
Linnie's not lying?
Just curious.
::Clark::
<SNIP>
Clark
> On Oct 24, 12:36 am, Clark <clarkwilk...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Oct 22, 8:06 pm, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>
> > > On Oct 21, 6:55 pm, Clark <clarkwilk...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Frazier stated how he carried it. He didn't have any reason to make
> > > > that up.
>
> > > Accessory to murder is a damn good reason.
>
> > Demonstrate how Lee carried the bag makes Frazier an "Accessory to
> > murder".
>
> Distancing himself from the murder weapon. If he can supply
> information in a way that removes the possibility of the rifle being
> in the bag,
Then you admit the information he supplied "removes the possibility of
the rifle being in the bag"?
And, in "Bud Land", he deliberately provided the misleading
information in order to avoid becoming an "Accessory to
murder"?
> it also removes the chance he can be associated with the
> crime commited with the rifle that was in the bag.
>
> Also, besides any possible criminal charges for transporting the
> murderer and the murder weapon to where a preplanned murder was
> committed, there is also the stigma of helping an assassin accomplish
> his goal of killing a popular President.
Was Oswald charged with assassinating JFK at the time Wesley gave his
statement on 11/22/63?
>
> To say that Frazier had no reason to lie to make up information is
> just wrong, he had a personal stake in this thing. That, of course, is
> not to say that he did purposely give misinformation, just that
> reasons for him to do so did exist.
So Frazier lied in your opinion?
Why did he say he saw a bag at all if he thought it would incriminate
him? And how did he know the bag length he described would be too
short to contain a rifle? The M1 Paratrooper carbine was widely
available at the time.
>
> > <SNIP>
>
> > > No, it`s possible Frazier saw the end of the package, and it was
> > > horizontal, not vertical. He told the FBI from behind he could only
> > > see 1 inch by 9 inches of the bag. That could have been the end of the
> > > package. Oswald could have the bag cupped in his hand and under his
> > > armpit if he carried the bag horizontal.
>
> > Do you accept the 9" figure? If so, why?
>
> It is just an estimate to convey the general idea that Frazier could
> not see much of the bag (just like the estimate of the package in the
> backseat conveys the general idea that it contained a longish package)
> when Oswald was walking towards the TSBD. Only a CTer would figure
> these estimates are hard data with which to work with.
Only an LNer would preclude Frazier from being able to estimate the
bag occupied half his car seat or that he didn't notice the bag "must
have been about 2' long, and the top of the sack was sort of folded
up, and the rest of the sack had been kind of folded under" as he
stated on 11/22/63. The folds he described are still to be seen in
CE142 and CE 1304. The tape measure in CE1304 allows us to measure
the folds as well as see their direction. Frazier stated the bag had
been folded twice at the top. The two folds can be measured and their
directions seen. The top two inches of the bag was folded down. The
second fold is also down and at about 28-28.5" from the bottom of the
bag or about 8" below the first fold.
Lying on the seat so folded, the 2" fold would be "folded up" and "the
rest of the sack folded under" and it would have measured just about
2' long (28"). How does that compare to Frazier's description of the
bag:
"It must have been about 2' long, and the top of the sack was sort of
folded up, and the rest of the sack had been kind of folded under."
I assume you use the fact that the bag confirms his observations as
additional evidence he's lying?
> What we really have to work with (along with LMR`s brief
> observations of Oswald and the bag) is the glance Frazier took into
> his backseat, at which time he said he didn`t pay much attention to
> the object in it.
Other than to note it's length, folds, paper construction, and that it
contained something.
Otherwise, he didn't pay much attention to it and accepted Oswald's
explanation for what was in it.
> Then, when they reached work, Oswald turned and
> headed in as soon as Frazier left the car, Frazier wasn`t paying much
> attention to Oswald and the bag during the trip in, and Frazier
> couldn`t see much of the bag at all from behind when he did look. This
> is the stuff you are constructing theories and making absolute
> statements about.
Other than the fact that he was carrying it in his right hand and that
it didn't rise above his shoulder. He seemed pretty absolute about
that and he maintained that belief always.
>
> And for the hell of it, a little elaboration. If Oswald was carrying
> the bag horizontal like I suggest, and Frazier looked toward him, and
> saw only a small bit of the bag (the end), and didn`t see the bag
> extend over his shoulder, what the mind will sometimes do is fill in
> information. So, he thinks the bag is upright (but how can he tell for
> sure, seeing only such a small area?), but the bag does not extend
> over Oswald`s shoulder. His mind comes up with the explanation that
> the package must end up under his armpit, and satisfied with this
> explanation, moves on to something else.
Hmmm! Maybe you should stop here. You see, when I told you the bag
was folded at 14", I was just handing you another shovel. At some
point, the 28" long bag was folded again at 19" and then folded
again. It was 9.5" long when found in the TSBD.
Let's say Lee added those two folds as he took the bag out of the car,
tucked it under his arm, and walked ahead. If carried upright, it
will measure 9.5" high by what - 1" wide?
Here's Frazier's description you posted:
"He told the FBI from behind he could only see 1 inch by 9 inches of
the bag."
Did you just dig yourself another hole?
So Frazier missed the correct length of the folded bag by .5" as Lee
carried it into the TSBD and missed the correct length of the bag
(28") by 1" as it lay on his backseat. And, recall Lee was wearing
his gray jacket with the "big. puffy sleeves" that day. If Lee is
carrying a 9.5" bag upright under his arm as he entered the loading
area, Jack Dougherty could easily miss seeing the bag under the big,
puffy sleeve, which he did. That the bag was 9.5" long as it was
carried into the TSBD is confirmed by the folds, Frazier's testimony,
Jack Dougherty's testimony, and Officer Studebaker's testimony who
found the bag, still folded, at 9.5" on the 6th floor.
What evidence do you have that the bag measured 36" long when Lee
carried it in?
Post your evidence here.
I'm having a sale on shovels next week if you're interested.
>
> I looked into memory a little bit, and there are two things that
> influence memory, what the mind brings to the table from previous
> experience, and influences that occur post event. The information
> Frazier mind gathered on the walk in could influence his impression of
> the object in the backseat. He looked at Oswald carrying the package,
> he lost sight of it under his armpit, he noticed it didn`t extend over
> his shoulder, so his mind comes up with the package being about two
> feet long (the estimate he conveys in words, the estimate he conveys
> in demonstration is longer). What he thinks he sees in the walk in
> influences his observation of the object in the backseat.
>
You don't think his failure to see the bag above Oswald's shoulder
influenced his thinking on how long it was? Because he specifically
noted that.
Just curious.
Clark
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Oct 22, 5:15 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > A question for Bud that I just thought of this minute.....
>
> > > Was Mr. Bill Randle's car parked in the carport on the morning of
> > > 11/22/63? Can this be verified? (I'm not sure it can be.)
>
> > > If Mr. Randle's car wasn't inside the carport that particular morning
> > > (for whatever reason), then Linnie Mae would probably have been able
> > > to see more of what Oswald was doing on the other side of the carport.
>
> > All the photos taken by the FBI indicate both cars were in the
> > driveway, including one drawing:
>
> >http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=108...
>
> >http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=108...
>
> > Keep trying, guys.
>
> > I'll watch.
>
> Do you suppose those photos were taken and drawings made at 7:15 on
> the 22nd?
No. But it wouldn't surprise me if you thought so.
>
> DVP asks a valid question. Bill is nowhere in sight at breakfast. It
> seems likely the car was there, since it is included in photos, but
> that alone can`t establish it as fact.
And since it was also drawn in and Randal's car is shown backed up, as
he stated it was on November 22, 1963, it seems to strongly suggest
the car is in the garage. But - Go ahead! - argue the opposite.
I'll watch.
>
> And since you accept LMR`s husband`s car was there, perhaps you can
> explain how she saw oswald put the package in her brother`s car on the
> other side of it (and the wall).
>
I'm on your side, Bud. That's why I stated the car is the garage and
she can't hear Lee lay a package down.
Go for it! You have the LNer's on the ropes. She never saw Oswald
put anything in the car. He never came to the window. Frazier never
saw a package in the back of the car as he said and he knows he's an
accomplice to murder.
Need more shovels?
Just curious.
::Clark::
Clark
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Oct 21, 7:49 pm, davidemerling <davidemerl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Oct 21, 5:55 pm, Clark <clarkwilk...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > "And it's obvious that Oswald carried that rifle into the building
> > > > > that day in that large brown paper bag. It couldn't be more obvious. As
> > > > > far as Mr. Frazier's testimony about Oswald carrying the bag under his
> > > > > armpit, he conceded he never paid close attention to just how Oswald was
> > > > > carrying that bag. He didn't have any reason to." -- Vincent Bugliosi;
> > > > > July 1986; Via Closing Arguments to the jury during the TV docu-trial "On
> > > > > Trial: Lee Harvey Oswald"
>
> > > > Frazier stated how he carried it. He didn't have any reason to make
> > > > that up.
>
> > > Frazier probably was just trying to convey, generally, how he recalled
> > > Oswald carrying the rifle and probably just added some unintended
> > > specifics, not realizing the ramifications.
>
> > But you realize the ramifications now because those ramifications
> > contradict LN claims the bag contained a rifle, disassembled or otherwise.
>
> > You are forced to "pick and choose" your selections of Frazier testimony
>
> Thats a tough place to be, forced to make reasonable decisions about
> what information Frazier gave that it is realistic to believe must be
> correct, and that which it is unrealistic to think must be
> correct.
No. It's very simple, Bud. Nothing tough about it at all. Just do as
you do below and accept everything he said that supports your theory as
true and everything he said that doesn't support your theory as false.
>Likely for him to get that Oswald was carrying the bag,
> unlikely for his to nail minute details about that bag.
See how simple that was?
You have just mastered the first required step of being an LNer.
Congratulations!
>
> > ("Yes. He was right about seeing a bag but - No - he was wrong on every
> > single thing he saw about it.") while providing no supporting evidence for
> > why we should believe he was wrong.
>
> Of course I have been offering a lot of support, namely the complete
> context of the observations. Clark chooses to ignore this, because it
> is inconvenient to his theories.
Hmmm! I guess I'm a little confused here. I thought we were talking
about your theory?
And you offered supporting what? Supporting evidence? I must have
missed that evidence. Could you post it again?
Right here is fine:
Or maybe you're referring to "supporting context"? Let's see, Frazier
didn't see the top of the bag over Lee's shoulder so it MUST HAVE BEEN
pointed out in front of him, a context supporting that Lee carried a 60
foot rifle into the TSBD. The supporting context for this would be that
Frazier wasn't paying attention to the bag in the back seat and therefore
missed the fact that 55 feet of it was hanging out of the back window.
In addition, Linnie was lying/imagining, making up her testimony about the
bag being 28" so, therefore, it must have been 60 feet long.
Do I have your use of supporting context right?
You have certainly explained how Oswald didn't miss with his rifle
using that context.
> > Any effort you use by imaginary means
> > of lengthening the bag he saw, I can use the same imaginary means to
> > shorten the bag he saw.
>
> Exactly why the only reasonable thing you can glean from these
> witnesses is that Oswald carried a longish bag into work that day.
> Everything else is just working with an exactitude that just doesn`t
> exist in evidence.
>
The bag with the folds exist in evidence.
>
>
>
>
> > > You have to remember that this would have been an imminently unmemorable
> > > event to Wesley Frazier at the time. Hell, I could spend all day with
> > > somebody and, at the end of the day, half the time I couldn't tell what
> > > kind of shoes they were wearing or even the color of their shirt. That's
> > > because there is nothing important about it to cause specific things to
> > > stick in your memory.
>
> > I could use the above argument to say the bag Frazier saw was 14" long in
> > the backseat of his car and quote Officer Studebacker as a supporting
> > witness as well as the 14" fold mark in the bag. The only reason Frazier
> > failed to note the bag was 14" long was because "You have to remember that
> > this would have been an imminently unmemorable event to Wesley Frazier at
> > the time. Hell, I could spend all day with somebody and, at the end of the
> > day, half the time I couldn't tell what kind of shoes they were wearing or
> > even the color of their shirt. That's because there is nothing important
> > about it to cause specific things to stick in your memory." Therefore,
> > the bag in the backseat of the car was 14" long.
>
> LMR called it "long", Frazier called it "big". Unlikely to believe
> they would use these qualifiers to describe a 14" bag.
>
>
Before Lee folded it down from 28", it was long.
Or we can go with your counter conjecture that fits all the context
and say the bag was 60 feet long and nobody noticed.
>
>
>
> > Again, there's no argument you can use to lengthen the bag that I
> > can't use to shorten it.
>
> > You are dealing without evidence and its showing.
And it's still showing...
>
>
> > > Or, is the conspiracy argument that Frazier (AND his sister) were
> > > completely lying about the elongated package altogether? Why would anybody
> > > assume that they would lie about that and formulate that lie so quickly?
>
> > Read Bud's posts.
>
> > She's obviously covering for her brother's guilt.
>
> I never made that argument, nor could you prove it had no merit if I
> did.
>
You made it in your last posts. You stated Frazier was motivated to lie
about the length of the bag as an "Accomplice to murder". You have stated
Linnie lied/made up/ or imagined seeing Lee put the bag into the back of
Frazier's car. If she didn't do this to protect her brother from arrest
for "Accomplice to murder" as your theory leads us to believe, please tell
us what your theory is that explains why she lied, imagined, or made up
seeing Oswald put the rifle into the car?
You can post it right here:
I'll wait.
Just a fact.
::Clark::
Clark
>
> Again, Frazier glanced into his backseat, and said he didn`t pay
> much attention to the bag when he did. How confident do you suppose
> Frazier was that he was nailing where the ends of the bag came to that
> morning when he related that information to the FBI?
>
Confident enough to repeat it to the WC.
Just a fact.
::Clark::
Bud
I`ve always understood human beings to be fallible, the demonstration of
Frazier fallibility was for your benefit, not mine.
I rejected that the idea that the discrepancy had sinister origins, but
I still understood it to be a discrepancy. Have you got that far yet
Clark, understanding it was a discrepancy?
> Let me explain to you the SECOND RULE of being an LNer. When
> misleading and deceiving your readers, don't let them know you did it
> - at least not in the same post.
Ignoring a point made isn`t rebuttal, Clark.
> > > > > Make your noted discrepancy out to be of some sinister significance
> > > > > when, in fact, it's of no significance at all?
>
> > > > By "no significance at all", you mean of no use for your silly theories,
> > > > right Clark?
>
> > > You posted Frazier saw the bag in the back before getting in the car and
> > > then again he saw the bag while backing his car up.
>
> > Two different accounts of the same event.
>
> Prove it's not one account of the same event.
> It's your accusation. Back it up.
You mean with cites, like I have already?
> > > That's seeing it
> > > twice.
>
> > Thats him describing when he first saw it two different ways.
>
> So he saw it twice on the way to work. So what? It's your obligation
> to prove otherwise.
I`ve shown the discrepancy, Clark. Your "I don`t see no discrepancy"
notwithstanding.
> > > He noticed it contained something and asked Oswald what it was.
> > > That is the significance of it. I don't call him a liar nor do I see any
> > > discrepancy.
>
> > Of course you don`t, it is inconvenient to what you want to believe,
> > so you rule it "insignificant". But it is a discrepancy, whether you
> > accept it as one or not.
>
> It's only a discrepancy if you prove it to be one. But I like you're
> approach. It's right in line with the third rule:
>
> "If you can't prove it, pretend you can."
If you can`t counter the point, pretend it hasn`t been made.
> > > But him telling the truth does not support your silly theories, right,
> > > Bud?
>
> > > But go ahead, Bud. Tell us what significant thing you found that's of
> > > no use to me? I'll wait.
>
> > You wish to pretend these witnesses are flawless and accurate
> > recounters of details. So when they give information that is
> > obviously wrong (with only one of Frazier`s accounts of where he was
> > when he first noticed the package as being correct), you need to claim
> > it is of no significance.
>
> If it's "obviously wrong" then you should be able to prove that. Give
> us your evidence Frazier never looked at the bag twice.
I know he looked at the bag more than once, Clark. But he could only
notice the bag in the car once, the first time he saw it in the car.
> Post it right here.
>
> I'll wait but I'm thinking you just broke the third LN rule.
>
>
>
> > > > And of course it is significant, as it speaks to his memory, and his
> > > > observations of the bag. You want it both ways, tout the details he
> > > > related as important, yet ignore the context surrounding those related
> > > > details.
>
> > > All I did was repeat what you said -
>
> > No, you didn`t. The idea was laid out in the first post, quoting the
> > two sources, and pointing out where the discrepancy occurred. You
> > should familiarize yourself with the idea I presented, I don`t need to
> > keep repeating the concept in the hope it will sink into to you.
>
> The concept is that you have not shown that Frazier didn't look at the
> bag twice. I'll repeat it for you as long as necessary.
>
>
>
> > >That Frazier saw a bag in the back of
> > > his car when he got in and saw a bag in the back of his car when when he
> > > turned to back up.
>
> > Not according to his affidavit...
>
> He didn't say it was raining in his affidavit either. Was he
> concealing that too? How does that mean he didn't see the bag twice?
You think Frazier had short term memory loss, do you?
> You're grabbing at straws.
You can only take note of something once. In his affidavit he states
that he noticed the package in his backseat before he got in his car.
Yet he told the WC it was when he turned to back out that he noticed
it. These are undeniably two different accounts of when he noticed
the bag. It is only possible for one of the accounts to be accurate.
> > Before I got into the car, I glanced in the backseat and saw a big
> > sack."
>
> > This source puts seeing the sack before he got in, and you are
> > placing it after he got in. You seem to think there is no difference
> > between the two.
>
> The difference is time.
>
> Demonstrate both events did not happen. It's your claim. Back it up.
>
> I'll wait.
You might better spend the time looking up the word "notice".
> > > As an LNer you consider that significant as it speaks
> > > to his memory. I agree, It means he noiticed the bag on the back of his
> > > seat twice, noticed it contained something (and noticed it covered half of
> > > his back seat) and asked Lee what was in the bag. It speaks well of his
> > > memory and his observations of the bag. Yet you disagree and say I have
> > > the context and his memory wrong. Where did I make my mistake?
>
> > Every point. He glanced into the backseat, and didn`t pay much
> > attention to the object in his backseat when he did. Out of this, you
> > ascribe all sorts of powers of observation.
>
> You mean like the uncanny ability to see the bag occupied half the
> seat?
How could he tell such a thing from a glance at an object he didn`t
pay much attention to? Even if you said to him "I want you to pay
close attention and determine as best you can the dimensions of the
bag in relation to the seat" it is vastly unlikely he (or anyone else)
would do well.
> He looked at a bag, saw it contained something, and asked what was in
> it.
And thats about all that can be said. Details about where it sat in
relation to anything else is a joke. People just don`t note the distances
of all the tens of thousands of items they see in the course of a day that
well, they just don`t. I walk up my front steps every single day, have
made thousands of trips up and down them, you think I can give accurate
dimensions for them? Or how far it is from the front of them to the curb?
If you press me, I will give my best guess, but any confidence of nailing
any of these distances is just unrealistic.
>That means he looked at the bag with curiosity for what it
> contained. His observations support that curiosity.
>
>
>
> > > 1) Frazier didn't see a paperbag in the backseat of his car on getting
> > > in because there was no car. Frazier drove a 38" long paperbag to
> > > work.
> > > 2) Frazier didn't see a bag in his back set when he turned and backed
> > > up because it was a cloudy and raining inside his car that morning.
> > > 3) Frazier failed to remember 1 and 2 above.
>
> > You never address the actual points I make, why is that Clark?
>
> Because you don't have any?
>
> I keep asking you to post evidence for your apparently imagined points
> but you keep refusing. Why is that, Bud?
Like Frazier`s affidavit and testimony that I produced? You can`t
see it when it is in black and white right in front of you, why would
I waste my time?
> > He looked in his backseat and saw a big bag. That is all the
> > information that can be reasonably gleaned from what he offered.
>
> > I`ll try to explain once more, for others more than you. If I go
> > into a public restroom in the morning, and use the urinal, and later
> > on that day you ask me how high from the floor it was, and how far
> > away from the closest wall it was, I could guess, but there is no real
> > reason to believe my guesses will be accurate. My memory might be
> > influenced by other urinals I`ve used in the past, and since I
> > probably wasn`t in there focusing much on my surrounding anyway (nor
> > would it matter much if I were). And later on, you question someone
> > else who used that urinal, their estimates might come close to mine.
> > That does not "confirm" my guesses (as you like to misuse the word),
> > it only makes his guesses similar to mine, not speak very loudly about
> > the accuracy of my guesses.
> > We just don`t note the details about the world around us like this,
> > not well anyway. We see hundreds of thousands of things each day, we
> > are going to nail the distances between these things?
>
> Now let's include what you omitted from the above - Curiosity. You're
> at that same urinal and you see something in it and you ask the guy
> next to you (Whose name happens to be Lee), "What is that?"
>
> Do you think you won't remember that incident by the end of the day?
> And what it looked like?
>
> Because that's what Frazier asked Lee.
Yah, and that is why I accept that Frazier saw Oswald with a big bag
that day. He saw it and asked about it. You`ve just got all the
reliable information you are going to get. If you press him for
details he will give his best guesses, but there is no reason to
expect Frazier will nail anything with the images he is dredging from
his consciousness.
> > > > But you are in a sense right, nothing Frazier related is significant
> > > > other than that he drove Oswald to work, and that Oswald had a big bag.
>
> > > Big enough that it occupied approximately one half of a 54" wide seat.
> > > Do the math, Bud.
>
> > Did Frazier?
>
> The FBI did it for him.
They just weren`t there on the morning of the 22nd, Clark. All they
did was record Frazier`s guesses.
Bud
> On Oct 24, 11:52 am, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Oct 24, 12:36 am, Clark <clarkwilk...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Oct 22, 8:06 pm, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>
> > > > On Oct 21, 6:55 pm, Clark <clarkwilk...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > Frazier stated how he carried it. He didn't have any reason to make
> > > > > that up.
>
> > > > Accessory to murder is a damn good reason.
>
> > > Demonstrate how Lee carried the bag makes Frazier an "Accessory to
> > > murder".
>
> > Distancing himself from the murder weapon. If he can supply
> > information in a way that removes the possibility of the rifle being
> > in the bag,
>
> Then you admit the information he supplied "removes the possibility of
> the rifle being in the bag"?
Try reading the whole sentence.
> And, in "Bud Land", he deliberately provided the misleading
> information in order to avoid becoming an "Accessory to
> murder"?
>
> > it also removes the chance he can be associated with the
> > crime commited with the rifle that was in the bag.
>
> > Also, besides any possible criminal charges for transporting the
> > murderer and the murder weapon to where a preplanned murder was
> > committed, there is also the stigma of helping an assassin accomplish
> > his goal of killing a popular President.
>
> Was Oswald charged with assassinating JFK at the time Wesley gave his
> statement on 11/22/63?
>
>
>
> > To say that Frazier had no reason to lie to make up information is
> > just wrong, he had a personal stake in this thing. That, of course, is
> > not to say that he did purposely give misinformation, just that
> > reasons for him to do so did exist.
>
> So Frazier lied in your opinion?
Not at all, and that had nothing to do with the point. The point was
that you were wrong when you said Frazier had no reason to make stuff
up.
> Why did he say he saw a bag at all if he thought it would incriminate
> him?
His sister already approached the cops, removing any chance of
claiming "no bag" without calling his sister a liar. The best they
could hope for at that point would be to collude on "short bag".
> And how did he know the bag length he described would be too
> short to contain a rifle? The M1 Paratrooper carbine was widely
> available at the time.
Is that the rifle that was being held up for the media?
> > > <SNIP>
>
> > > > No, it`s possible Frazier saw the end of the package, and it was
> > > > horizontal, not vertical. He told the FBI from behind he could only
> > > > see 1 inch by 9 inches of the bag. That could have been the end of the
> > > > package. Oswald could have the bag cupped in his hand and under his
> > > > armpit if he carried the bag horizontal.
>
> > > Do you accept the 9" figure? If so, why?
>
> > It is just an estimate to convey the general idea that Frazier could
> > not see much of the bag (just like the estimate of the package in the
> > backseat conveys the general idea that it contained a longish package)
> > when Oswald was walking towards the TSBD. Only a CTer would figure
> > these estimates are hard data with which to work with.
>
> Only an LNer would preclude Frazier from being able to estimate the
> bag occupied half his car seat or that he didn't notice the bag "must
> have been about 2' long, and the top of the sack was sort of folded
> up, and the rest of the sack had been kind of folded under" as he
> stated on 11/22/63. The folds he described are still to be seen in
> CE142 and CE 1304. The tape measure in CE1304 allows us to measure
> the folds as well as see their direction. Frazier stated the bag had
> been folded twice at the top. The two folds can be measured and their
> directions seen. The top two inches of the bag was folded down. The
> second fold is also down and at about 28-28.5" from the bottom of the
> bag or about 8" below the first fold.
Wow, what a rant. We know your theory Clark, why are you so unable to
address the points I made? Frazier made it clear he could see much of the
bag from behind. Why is it that whenever there is information the
witnesses give that is of no use to your theories, you ignore it and go
back to your spiel about "folds"? I know you like how you have the
information arranged and all, but you are stuck with everything they
supplied, not just the bits useful to your theories.
> Lying on the seat so folded, the 2" fold would be "folded up" and "the
> rest of the sack folded under" and it would have measured just about
> 2' long (28"). How does that compare to Frazier's description of the
> bag:
The bag Frazier said he didn`t pay much attention to lying in his
backseat?
> "It must have been about 2' long, and the top of the sack was sort of
> folded up, and the rest of the sack had been kind of folded under."
>
> I assume you use the fact that the bag confirms his observations as
> additional evidence he's lying?
The folds in the bag confirm nothing about Frazier`s estimates.
> > What we really have to work with (along with LMR`s brief
> > observations of Oswald and the bag) is the glance Frazier took into
> > his backseat, at which time he said he didn`t pay much attention to
> > the object in it.
>
> Other than to note it's length,
What makes you think he noted the length of the object in the
backseat? That he was willing to offer a guess?
> folds, paper construction, and that it
> contained something.
> Otherwise, he didn't pay much attention to it and accepted Oswald's
> explanation for what was in it.
You don`t think the fact that he says he didn`t pay attention to the
bag when he looked at it draws into question all those observation you
claim on his behalf?
> > Then, when they reached work, Oswald turned and
> > headed in as soon as Frazier left the car, Frazier wasn`t paying much
> > attention to Oswald and the bag during the trip in, and Frazier
> > couldn`t see much of the bag at all from behind when he did look. This
> > is the stuff you are constructing theories and making absolute
> > statements about.
>
> Other than the fact that he was carrying it in his right hand and that
> it didn't rise above his shoulder. He seemed pretty absolute about
> that and he maintained that belief always.
It wouldn`t have stuck out above Oswalds should if what Frazier saw
was actually the end of the bag, and Oswald was carrying it
horizontal..
Boy, this idea I`ve offered really has you frightened, doesn`t it?
It`s got you rambling, but you really aren`t touching the point at
all,
> > I looked into memory a little bit, and there are two things that
> > influence memory, what the mind brings to the table from previous
> > experience, and influences that occur post event. The information
> > Frazier mind gathered on the walk in could influence his impression of
> > the object in the backseat. He looked at Oswald carrying the package,
> > he lost sight of it under his armpit, he noticed it didn`t extend over
> > his shoulder, so his mind comes up with the package being about two
> > feet long (the estimate he conveys in words, the estimate he conveys
> > in demonstration is longer). What he thinks he sees in the walk in
> > influences his observation of the object in the backseat.
>
> You don't think his failure to see the bag above Oswald's shoulder
> influenced his thinking on how long it was? Because he specifically
> noted that.
Yah, that was the point. The package not sticking over Oswald`s
shoulder is what could have given him the impression that the bag was
shorter than it really was. If Oswald was carrying the package like
the guy in yellow in this photo is carrying the surfboard...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/devon/content/images/2006/09/19/woolacombe_surfdudes_lead_203x152.jpg
Then the package would not be sticking over his shoulder, only a small
area of the bag could be seen from behind, and Oswald hand would be cupped
under it, with it ending up under his armpit. All points satisfied, and
the bag remains long, not shortened.
Bud
No, it was wrong, I don`t always use "snicker" when I`m joking, in
fact I rarely do.
> Yours is absolutely wrong
>
> Here you claim it is a joke but down below you claim it's a
> "mistake".
It was a joke, but I referenced the wrong commission exhibit in
making it.
> And you, indeed, make both claims absolutely.
>
> > > >Tony was saying I was bringing up (or
> > > > making up) anything I could to cast doubt on LMR`s observations. I
> > > > offered that if that was my purpose, I`d just show this photo to show
> > > > LMR couldn`t see the street at all (because of the blinds)...
>
> > > > http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=108...
>
> > > > But I messed up, and it was actually CE445.
>
> > > Oh! You messed up!
> > > Now that I can believe. No further explaination necessary.
>
> > Well, both exhibits were on the page I linked to.
>
> Joke or mistake, Bud?
Explained, Clark.
> I know this is a difficult thought for you to
> grasp, Bud. But you can't have it both ways. Especially when you
> claim it "ABSOLUTELY".
>
> <SNIP>
>
>
>
> > > > Then explain what I said to Clark.
>
> > > Earth to Bud:
>
> > > I'm Clark. You have either messed up again or you want me to explain
> > > to me what you said.
>
> > Obviously I was continuing your thought to DVP.
>
> Pay attention, Bud. Your reply is "obviously" addressed to me and not
> DVP.
I had to work off your words, how could I extend your thought
otherwise?
> <SNIP>
>
> > > > > > I certainly don't think Linnie Mae was lying at all.
>
> > > > > She would have had to be lying.
>
> > > > Not at all. She may have believed what she said was true, but what
> > > > she said may have been untrue. This is possible for much of the
> > > > information she gave.
>
> > > How do you preclude she didn't lie?
>
> What? No answer, Bud? How do you preclude she's not lying?
<snicker> "preclude"? Is that what I need to do? How do I go about
doing that, Clark?
> It's your theory, Bud.
> I'm listening.
>
> > > > > She can't possibly HEAR him place a package on the backseat. She's lying.
> > > > > Ask Bud. When she went to the police at 3:00 PM voluntarily with her
> > > > > information, and without having spoken with her brother, she made the
> > > > > whole the story up to the police. She can't see through the kitchen
> > > > > window (CE444) and she can't see through the carport slats and two cars.
> > > > > If I'm misquoting Bud, somebody correct me.
>
> > > And no one corrects me...
>
> And I still go uncorrected.
Could she see Oswald put the bag in the backseat like she claimed,
Clark? That was the question I asked, why not address the point I raised
for once, just to see what it would be like?
> > > > She said she heard the car door close. I think she drew the correct
> > > > conclusion, I just don`t see how she could have made an observation of
> > > > Oswald putting the package in the car.
>
> > > <snicker>
>
> > > Why didn't she conclude he got in the car?
>
> > I`m not sure she could discern any activity on the far side of
> > Frazier`s car, I thought I pointed this out.
>
> You said she heard the door close. You say she can't "discern any
> activity on the far side of
> Frazier`s car". So why didn't she conclude he got in the car?
She didn`t say. But she did tell the WC "..I only opened the door
briefly and what made me establish the door on Wesley`s car, it is an old
car, the window is broken and everything, and it is hard to close, so that
cinched in my mind what car door it was, too." Since she identified which
door it was (whether by sound or by visual clues through the slats is
unclear), this may have led her to dismiss Oswald getting in. It wasn`t a
cab, Oswald wouldn`t get in the back and have Frazier drive him to work.
> It's your theory, Bud.
> You explain it.
>
>
>
> > > > > >At that point, he wasn't still carrying the rifle package for
> > > > > > everybody to see.
>
> > > > > He wasn't carrying it for everybody to see. He was hiding it from
> > > > > Essie. Read Bud's post. Linnie LIED.
>
> > > > Is misrepresentation the best you can do, Clark? Easier than
> > > > rebuttal, I guess.
>
> > > Is misrepresentation the best you can do, Bud? In what previous post
> > > did you say Linnie was telling the truth about seeing Oswald put the
> > > bag in the car?
>
> > In what previous post did i say LMR was lying? Only to your limited
> > imagination are the two the only choices on the menu. You never
> > address what I am actually saying, it`s easier to assign me positions
> > and attack them. If I had wanted to call LMR a liar, I would have done
> > so.
>
> You said you don't believe her and, when asked how you precluded she's
> lying, refused to answer.
Can you tell me how I can preclude she is lying? Is there some lie
detector test that can be done on testimony?
> I conclude you don't believe her and you
> don't preclude she's lying. If I assign you positions that you claim
> are incorrect but arrived at by your own posts, that's your own
> doing.
I`m not responsible for your erroneous conclusions.
> Don't blame me for what you wrote. So again I ask.
>
> If you don't believe she's telling the truth,
Did I say this? Do you think telling the truth means the same as
giving 100% accurate information?
>how do your preclude
> Linnie's not lying?
"preclude" as in "rule out"? I don`t think I ever said I ruled out
that LMR was lying.
> Just curious.
>
> ::Clark::
>
> <SNIP>