Oswald's Carcano & The Paper Bag
David Von Pein
The FBI Report ("Commission Document 1") contains several photographic
exhibits, with one such exhibit being a picture of Lee Harvey Oswald's
disassembled Carcano rifle, lying alongside the paper bag that was found
in the Sniper's Nest in the TSBD.
As can easily be seen in this FBI exhibit (below), the lengthiest section
of Oswald's rifle, when broken down into pieces, certainly did not exceed
the length of the paper sack:
www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?absPageId=327309
Some CTers feel that Oswald's rifle could not possibly have even fit
inside CE142 (the bag found by police in the Sniper's Nest). The above
photo should forever erase that thought from everyone's head.
Anthony Marsh
If that is the right bag. Do you think Oswald had a rifle in that bag?
Explain when and how he got it out to Irving. Look at the folds. Three
folds to the whole bag. So it would have compacted to about 8 X 10 inches.
Too big to fit in his pocket. And Frazier did not see such a folded up bag
when he drove Oswald out to Irving.
Tall guy
You are right the gun would JUST fit in the paper sack but there is no way
that the top of that sack could be folded over with the rifle inside.
ScottO
"David Von Pein" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:49ab887d-4cdb-4dc7...@e39g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
Wanna bet?
ScottO..
David Von Pein
>>> "You are right the gun would JUST fit in the paper sack but there is
no way that the top of that sack could be folded over with the rifle
inside." <<<
Excuses, excuses.
Gee, what a surprise. Excuses from CTers who want to deny the obvious.
Imagine that.
geovu...@gmail.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
Can you think of any other possible way that something 8x10 could be
concealed on one's person? You're right, there is no way that you
could hide something the size of a small notebook.
Jas
the rifle inside."
The proof is never enough, is it? Here we have a photo that completely
blows any conspiracist argument to the contrary out of the water, and now
the weapon only just fits."
Now I've heard everything :>D
And, just an observation: Isn't it funny how the conspiracists here are
strangely silent as to the contents of this photo? Just a couple months
ago this same argument came up, and when the photo couldn't be found on
the web to show here (thank DVP for it being found), but was mentioned to
appear in Bugliosi's book, all kinds of conspiracist naysayers came out of
the woodwork to scoff.
James
"Tall guy" <dean...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:5f3bfef2-34ca-452e...@w1g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
ScottO
<geovu...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:61424618-3e04-4644...@2g2000hsn.googlegroups.com...
On May 1, 11:47 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
> David Von Pein wrote:
>
> > Some CTers feel that Oswald's rifle could not possibly have even fit
> > inside CE142 (the bag found by police in the Sniper's Nest). The above
> > photo should forever erase that thought from everyone's head.
>
>>Can you think of any other possible way that something 8x10 could be
concealed on one's person? You're right, there is no way that you
could hide something the size of a small notebook.<<
Then why bother folding it anyway? Maybe he stuffed it in his pants, or
put it in his armpit with a jacket over it?
I used to carry 8 x 10 envelopes filled with cash back to the cashier at a
department store I worked at in my early 20's. It's amazing how easy it is
to hide.
ScottO.
greg
That must be the replica bag made on Dec 1 due (so the story went) to the
original being too discolored from testing to show to witnesses.
Cadigan testified only to it being similar to the bag found. He was not
asked specifically about its dimentions.
Why didn't they put the original beside the broken down rifle and blanket?
Of course, this was the same replica the FBI used to flim-flam Frazier
with.
When shown the original by the DPD on the night of the 22nd, Frazier had
been adamant it was not the bag Oswald had carried.
greg
David Von Pein
>>> "That must be the replica bag made on Dec 1 due (so the story went) to
the original being too discolored from testing to show to witnesses." <<<
Look, ma! More CTer excuses! What a surprise!
Of course, Greg is 100% wrong. The photo in CD1 specifically tells us
(with words that are written right on the photo itself) that the bag in
the picture is the "WRAPPING PAPER BAG FOUND ON 6TH FLOOR OF TEXAS SCHOOL
BOOK DEPOSITORY BUILDING".
The FBI was lying their asses off in Commission Document #1, is that it
Greg?
Is there any end to the CT madness that this murder cases evokes? Any end
at all?
geovu...@gmail.com
> <geovult...@gmail.com> wrote in message
Sorry, my sarcasm didn't come across very well. Clearly it would not have
been hard to hide a folded piece of paper under your shirt or under a
jacket or any number of other ways. That was my point. Thank you for
restating it sans my cryptic sarcasm.
greg
As I said, David, that must be the replica. The oroginal was badly
discolored from testing.
Here is the original:
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh16/html/WH_Vol16_0269a.htm
Here is the replica:
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh16/html/WH_Vol16_0492b.htm
Which one of those is the same color as the bag shown between the
blanket and rifle?
Are you going to believe the FBI or your own eyes?
And here's something else for you to chew on:
Mr. EISENBERG. The same room.
Did you examine this paper to see how it compared---that is, the paper
in the replica bag, which has already been admitted as Commission
Exhibit 364---to see how it compared with the paper in the bag found on
the sixth floor of the TSBD, which is Commission's Exhibit 142?
Mr. CADIGAN. Yes.
Mr. EISENBERG. What was your conclusion?
Mr. CADIGAN. That they were different in color, visual color,
felting--that is, the pattern that you see through transmitted light,
and they were different under ultraviolet light.
So, the replica bag was different in color to the original, even before
the original was discolored.
Yet here is what Frazier told the FBI on Dec 1: "He noted that the color
of the replica sack was the same color as the package which he had seen
in possession of Oswald on the morning of November 22nd."
ScottO
<geovu...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:dabd7fe7-7d8e-439e...@8g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
I had a feeling it was.
Scott
Anthony Marsh
> Tall guy wrote: "You are right the gun would JUST fit in the paper sack
> but there is no way that the top of that sack could be folded over with
> the rifle inside."
>
> The proof is never enough, is it? Here we have a photo that completely
> blows any conspiracist argument to the contrary out of the water, and
> now the weapon only just fits."
>
> Now I've heard everything :>D
>
> And, just an observation: Isn't it funny how the conspiracists here are
> strangely silent as to the contents of this photo? Just a couple months
Isn't it peculiar how you simply ignore the very specific objections that
the conspiracists make about your assumptions concerning that photo?
> ago this same argument came up, and when the photo couldn't be found on
> the web to show here (thank DVP for it being found), but was mentioned
> to appear in Bugliosi's book, all kinds of conspiracist naysayers came
> out of the woodwork to scoff.
>
The photo found where? On a WC defender Web site? Not bloody likely.
Anthony Marsh
Clearly it would not have been hard to carry a 40 inch rifle into the TSBD
unnoticed.
Again, why did Frazier not see the paper bag and comment on it the way he
asked about the package Oswald put on the back seat? Well? Can't hear you.
Anthony Marsh
>
>>>> "That must be the replica bag made on Dec 1 due (so the story went) to
> the original being too discolored from testing to show to witnesses." <<<
>
>
> Look, ma! More CTer excuses! What a surprise!
>
> Of course, Greg is 100% wrong. The photo in CD1 specifically tells us
> (with words that are written right on the photo itself) that the bag in
> the picture is the "WRAPPING PAPER BAG FOUND ON 6TH FLOOR OF TEXAS SCHOOL
> BOOK DEPOSITORY BUILDING".
>
> The FBI was lying their asses off in Commission Document #1, is that it
> Greg?
>
When you have a choice it is always the FBI which lies.
David Von Pein
The photo in question comes straight out of "COMMISSION DOCUMENT
#1" (Vol. 2; Page 14), which is the 12/9/63 FBI Report:
And since when is the Mary Ferrell website a "WC defender Web site"?
Far from it, of course.
Geez.
(And/or Geesh.)
yeuhd
> Again, why did Frazier not see the paper bag and comment on it the way he
> asked about the package Oswald put on the back seat? Well? Can't hear you.
In our home, folded empty paper bags just aren't conversation
starters. Never have been, probably never will be. And we're talking
about two guys who were so seldom spoke when commuting (or at work)
that Wes Frazier didn't know Oswald's last name until after the
assassination.
It's hard to tell from the photo, but it looks to me like not only was
the bag folded in three, but it may have also been thereafter folded
in half the other way, making it easy to place under one's jacket.
ScottO
"Anthony Marsh" <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:VvSdnQYQt4wtjoPV...@comcast.com...
> geovu...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On May 3, 12:13 am, "ScottO" <scott.....@cox.net> wrote:
. Clearly it would not have
>> been hard to hide a folded piece of paper under your shirt or under a
>> jacket or any number of other ways. >>
> Clearly it would not have been hard to carry a 40 inch rifle into the TSBD
> unnoticed.
>
> Again, why did Frazier not see the paper bag and comment on it the way he
> asked about the package Oswald put on the back seat? Well? Can't hear you.
>
I think that question was answered or else I'm misunderstanding your
question?
ScottO.
Anthony Marsh
No, it was not. The question is how could Frazier not have noticed
Oswald taking a paper bag OUT to Irving.
> ScottO.
>
>
Anthony Marsh
> On May 4, 7:37 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> Again, why did Frazier not see the paper bag and comment on it the way he
>> asked about the package Oswald put on the back seat? Well? Can't hear you.
>
> In our home, folded empty paper bags just aren't conversation
> starters. Never have been, probably never will be. And we're talking
> about two guys who were so seldom spoke when commuting (or at work)
> that Wes Frazier didn't know Oswald's last name until after the
> assassination.
>
Wimpy. The question is not about how close they were as buddies. Frazier
said that they did talk about WHY Oswald wanted the ride out on Thursday
instead of Friday, and Frazier did notice the package in the back seat and
ask Lee what it was. So, how could Frazier have not noticed Oswald take
with him a paper bag folded up. Not like a grocery bag.
> It's hard to tell from the photo, but it looks to me like not only was
> the bag folded in three, but it may have also been thereafter folded
> in half the other way, making it easy to place under one's jacket.
>
OK, show me. So your theory is that Oswald had a secret compartment inside
his jacket?
pjsp...@aol.com
> "Anthony Marsh" <anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>
> news:VvSdnQYQt4wtjoPV...@comcast.com...> geovult...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> On May 3, 12:13 am, "ScottO" <scott.....@cox.net> wrote:
>
> . Clearly it would not have
>
> >> been hard to hide a folded piece of paper under your shirt or under a
> >> jacket or any number of other ways. >>
> > Clearly it would not have been hard to carry a 40 inch rifle into the TSBD
> > unnoticed.
>
> > Again, why did Frazier not see the paper bag and comment on it the way he
> > asked about the package Oswald put on the back seat? Well? Can't hear you.
>
> I think that question was answered or else I'm misunderstanding your
> question?
>
> ScottO.
Has anyone actually folded up the stiff brown wrapping paper and stuck it
down their shirt or pants? And then walked around with it? And then
climbed in a car with it? Wouldn't there be tell-tale creases? Wouldn't
Frazier have heard sounds or noticed a stiffness to Oswald's appearance?
And what about the creation of this "bag"? How and where did Oswald create
it? The tape wasn't the tape found at the depository, nor was this tape
found at the Paines. And how, could Oswald have created this bag in
either location without anyone noticing? Shipping tables aren't hidden in
corners. If Oswald had created the bag at the shipping table someone
almost certainly would have seen him.
And then there are the issues raised by Ian Griggs in his book No Case to
Answer. Ian, a retired English detective, has re-created the bag many
times, and placed his disassembled rifle inside the bag. He insists that
this inevitably leaves major scratches inside the bag, scratches unseen in
the bag found in the depository.
The bag story is an educated guess, at best. Why this wasn't tested
further by the FBI and WC can only be explained by their being scared to
find out that their guess was a wrong one.
yeuhd
> yeuhd wrote:
> > On May 4, 7:37 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >> Again, why did Frazier not see the paper bag and comment on it the way he
> >> asked about the package Oswald put on the back seat? Well? Can't hear you.
>
> > In our home, folded empty paper bags just aren't conversation
> > starters. Never have been, probably never will be. And we're talking
> > about two guys who were so seldom spoke when commuting (or at work)
> > that Wes Frazier didn't know Oswald's last name until after the
> > assassination.
>
> said that they did talk about WHY Oswald wanted the ride out on Thursday
> instead of Friday, and Frazier did notice the package in the back seat and
> ask Lee what it was. So, how could Frazier have not noticed Oswald take
> with him a paper bag folded up. Not like a grocery bag.
And my reply again is that a folded up, empty paper bag (vs. a paper bag
containing an arm-length object) is not a likely conversation starter.
> OK, show me. So your theory is that Oswald had a secret compartment inside
> his jacket?
No "secret compartment". Once folded in three, and then folded in half,
the paper bag could easily sit stuffed into the waist of his pants. Or
even sitting freely inside his jacket, given that most zip- up jackets are
gathered at the waist. I've often carried papers that way when caught in
the rain, with just my hand in the jacket pocket pressing against them to
get them from slipping out. No big effort. You've probably done the same.
ScottO
Maybe he stuffed it in his pants and pulled his shirt over it? Certainly
as a teenager you'd snuck a Playboy magazine into your parents house at
one time?
ScottO.
yeuhd
> Has anyone actually folded up the stiff brown wrapping paper and stuck it
> down their shirt or pants? And then walked around with it? And then
> climbed in a car with it? Wouldn't there be tell-tale creases?
Well, there *are* creases in the bag.
> Wouldn't
> Frazier have heard sounds or noticed a stiffness to Oswald's appearance?
No, not necessarily.
> And what about the creation of this "bag"? How and where did Oswald create
> it?
At the TSBD. When? Who knows. Lunch time maybe.
> The tape wasn't the tape found at the depository, nor was this tape
> found at the Paines.
Not so!
Warren Commission Report, p. 579:
"In the absence of watermarks or other distinctive characteristics, it is
impossible to determine whether two samples of paper came from the same
manufacturer. The homemade paper bag found on the sixth floor of the Texas
School Book Depository following the assassination was made out of heavy
brown paper and glue-bearing brown paper tape, neither of which contained
watermarks or other distinctive characteristics. However, Cadigan [FBI
expert James C. Cadigan] compared the questioned paper and tape in the
paper bag with known paper and tape samples obtained from the shipping
department of the Texas School Book Depository on November 22, 1963, to
see if the questioned items could have come from the shipping room. . . .
"The questioned and known items were identical in all the properties
measured by these tests. (The width of the type on the paper sack was 3
inches, while the width of the sample tape was 2.975, or twenty-five
thousandths of an inch smaller; however, this was not a significant
difference). . . .
"Examination of the tape revealed other significant factors indicating
that it could have come from the Texas School Book Depository shipping
room. There were several strips of tape on the bag. All but two of the
ends of these strips were irregularly torn; the remaining two ends had
machine-cut edges. This indicated that the person who made the bag had
drawn a long strip of tape from a dispensing machine and had torn it by
hand into several smaller strips. Confirmation that the tape had been
drawn from a dispensing machine was supplied by the fact that a series of
small markings in the form of half-inch lines ran down the center of the
tape like ties on a railroad track. Such lines are made by a ridged wheel
in a tape dispenser which is constructed so that when a hand lever is
pulled, the wheel, which is connected to the lever, pulls the tape from
its roll and dispenses it. Such dispensers are usually found only in
commercial establishments. A dispenser of this type was located in the
Texas School Book Depository shipping room. The length of the lines and
the number of lines per inch on the tape from the paper bag was identical
to the length of the lines and the number of lines per inch on the tape
obtained from the dispenser in the Texas School Book Depository shipping
room."
> And how, could Oswald have created this bag in
> either location without anyone noticing? Shipping tables aren't hidden in
> corners. If Oswald had created the bag at the shipping table someone
> almost certainly would have seen him.
Pure conjecture. Neither of us worked at the TSBD, or knows the work
routines of the employees while in the shipping area, what times of day it
might have been sparsely occupied or unoccupied (e.g. lunch), whether
other employees took any notice of what other employees were doing in the
shipping area, etc. Oswald's fellow employees paid little or no attention
to him on the morning of Nov. 22; would they have any better recollections
of what he did on Nov. 20 or 21?
tomnln
"yeuhd" <wal...@mailbag.com> wrote in message
news:669d4270-46f7-4cb5...@m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
Even the WCR did NOT "Speculate" that far.
pjsp...@aol.com
I'll have to re-read Griggs and a few other sources, but I remember
there being some problems with the tape. I seem to recall that the
wheel markings didn't actually match the TSBD machine, or some such
thing, although it was originally claimed that they did..
As far as not knowing the routines of the TSBD employees, this isn't
exactly true. Troy West spent his lunches at the shipping table. He
was there on 11-22. The WC never could figure out how or when Oswald
made the bag, so they just acted as though they had, and hoped the
country would assume the same.
Mr. BELIN - When did you quit for lunch that day?
Mr. WEST - Well, we always quit at 12 o'clock in the day.
Mr. BELIN - Is that when you quit on November 22nd?
Mr. WEST - Yes, sir.
Mr. BELIN - Then what did you do?
Mr. WEST - Well, I went in and washed my hands and face and then got
ready to put my coffee on. I always made coffee at 12. Make it in the
morning, and then I make it about 12, between 12 and 12:30.
Mr. BELIN - Then what did you do? Did you put your coffee on?
Mr. WEST - Yes, sir.
Mr. BELIN - In the west part of the floor where you generally work?
Mr. WEST - Yes.
Mr. BELIN - Then what did you do?
Mr. WEST - Well, I went to get my lunch to eat a bite.
Mr. BELIN - Where did you get your lunch?
Mr. WEST - Well, I always kept my lunch right there close by my
machine, by my wrapping machine that I use all the time, that I always
kept my lunch. I have a little place underneath and I keep it there
all the time.
Mr. BELIN - Are you the only one that wraps the books for mailing, or
wraps them up for mailing?
Mr. WEST - Well, no, sir; I am not the only one, but mine is that way
just every day.
Mr. BELIN - You do it all the time?
Mr. WEST - Yes; I do that.
Mr. BELIN - Are you the only one who does it all the time?
Mr. WEST - I am the only one that is steady, wraps mail all the time,
although I have help, you know, when it gets stacked.
Mr. BELIN - Did Lee Harvey Oswald ever help you wrap mail?
Mr. WEST - No, sir; he never did.
Mr. BELIN - Do you know whether or not he ever borrowed or used any
wrapping paper for himself?
Mr. WEST - No, sir; I don't.
Mr. BELIN - You don't know?
Mr. WEST - No; I don't.
Mr. BELIN - Did you ever see him around these wrapper rolls or wrapper
roll machines, or not?
Mr. WEST - No, sir; I never noticed him being around.
Mr. BELIN - Are they paper machines with the rolls of wrapping paper?
You have some gum there too, for taping it? When you wrap it, would
you tape it with some tape?
Mr. WEST - No, sir; I never seen him.
Mr. BELIN - Did you do that? Did you put tape on the wrapping paper
when it was being shipped? When you wrap the books up with paper, did
you have any gum tape that you put on it?
Mr. WEST - No, sir; I had a machine that I placed it on the machine
and tied it with, and the machine tied it with a string.
Mr. BELIN - With string?
Mr. WEST - Yes, sir.
Mr. BELIN - Didn't you have any gummed tape by your machine?
Mr. WEST - Sir?
Mr. BELIN - Did you have any kind of tape, sticky tape that you would
put on the paper to keep it together, or was that somewhere else?
Mr. WEST - Oh, yes, sir; I used some of that wide tape.
Mr. BELIN - Is that sticky tape?
Mr. WEST - Yes, sir.
Mr. BELIN - To seal the package with?
Mr. WEST - Yes, sir; that's right. And then I tie it, put it on the
machine and tie it.
Mr. BELIN - Is yours the only place that they have the sticky tape?
Mr. WEST - Well, that is the only place that is supposed to be, you
know.
Mr. BELIN - Could other employees come and pick up some of the tape
for themselves?
Mr. WEST - Yes, sir; they could come get it if they wanted to use it,
but all the time it was there where it is supposed to be.
Mr. BELIN - Did other employees from time to time come and borrow some
of that tape at all, or use it? Would other employees ever use any of
the tape for themselves?
Mr. WEST - Not as far as I know of now.
Mr. BELIN - If I wanted to use any of that tape, you know the tape you
use to seal it, is there a way to make the tape wet so I don't have to
lick it myself with my tongue to make it wet and sticky? Or how do you
get it to be sticky and stick together?
Mr. WEST - Well, we have those machines with the little round ball
that we fill them up with water, and so we set them up. In to--other
words, I got a rack that we set them in, and so we put out tape in a
machine, and whenever we pull the tape through, why then the water
gets, you know, it gets water on it as we pull it through.
Mr. BELIN - If I wanted to pull the tape, pull off a piece without
getting water on it, would I just lift it up without going over the
wet roller and get the tape without getting it wet?
Mr. WEST - You would have to take it out. You would have to take it
out of the machine. See, it's put on there and then run through a
little clamp that holds it down, and you pull it, well, then the
water, it gets water on it.
Mr. BELIN - Is this an electrical machine or is it just kind of a
little apparatus for just pulling it through by hand?
Mr. WEST - Well, it is not electric, no, sir.
Mr. BELIN - No going back to November 22, you said you quit for lunch
around noon on that day on Friday, November 22?
Mr. WEST - Yes. About 12 o'clock we always quit for lunch.
Mr. BELIN - Do you remember any of the men coming down the elevator
that day? Bonnie Ray Williams or James Jarman Jr., or Danny Arce, or
any one else coming down that morning? Charlie Givens? Do you remember
them coming down the elevator, or don't you remember.
Mr. WEST - I don't remember.
Mr. BELIN - Now, after you quit for lunch, you made the coffee then?
Mr. WEST - Yes, sir.
Mr. BELIN - Were did you make the coffee?
Mr. WEST - I made the coffee right there close to the wrapping mail
table where I wrap mail.
Mr. BELIN - Then what did you do?
Mr. WEST - Well, I sit down to eat my lunch.
Mr. BELIN - Then what did you do?
Mr. WEST - Well, I had just, after I made coffee, I just had started
to eat my lunch because I was a little hungry - I didn't anything that
morning before I went to work - and I had started to eat my lunch.
But before I got through, well, all of this was, I mean, the police
and things was coming in, and I was just spellbound. I just didn't
know what was the matter. So I didn't get through eating. I had to eat
about half my lunch, and that is all.
Mr. BELIN - Did you hear any shots fired?
Mr. WEST - I didn't hear a one. Didn't hear a one.
Mr. BELIN - Did you see anyone else on the first floor while you were
eating your lunch? Anyone else at all did you see on the first floor?
Mr. WEST - It wasn't anybody. I didn't see anybody around at that
time.
Anthony Marsh
>
> "yeuhd" <wal...@mailbag.com> wrote in message
> news:669d4270-46f7-4cb5...@m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
> On May 6, 3:41 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> yeuhd wrote:
>> > On May 4, 7:37 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> >> Again, why did Frazier not see the paper bag and comment on it the
>> way >> he
>> >> asked about the package Oswald put on the back seat? Well? Can't
>> hear >> you.
>>
>> > In our home, folded empty paper bags just aren't conversation
>> > starters. Never have been, probably never will be. And we're talking
>> > about two guys who were so seldom spoke when commuting (or at work)
>> > that Wes Frazier didn't know Oswald's last name until after the
>> > assassination.
>>
>> The question is not about how close they were as buddies. Frazier
>> said that they did talk about WHY Oswald wanted the ride out on Thursday
>> instead of Friday, and Frazier did notice the package in the back seat
>> and
>> ask Lee what it was. So, how could Frazier have not noticed Oswald take
>> with him a paper bag folded up. Not like a grocery bag.
>
> And my reply again is that a folded up, empty paper bag (vs. a paper bag
> containing an arm-length object) is not a likely conversation starter.
>
And my reply again is that someone taking his lunch to work in a paper bag
is not a conversation starter. So why did Frazier ask Oswald about the
paper bag in the back seat. And various posters are claiming that Frazier
and Oswald never talked. Yet Frazier goes into depth about how they were
discussing why Oswald wanted the ride out to Irving on Thursday afternoon.
>> OK, show me. So your theory is that Oswald had a secret compartment
>> inside
>> his jacket?
>
> No "secret compartment". Once folded in three, and then folded in half,
> the paper bag could easily sit stuffed into the waist of his pants. Or
> even sitting freely inside his jacket, given that most zip- up jackets
> are gathered at the waist. I've often carried papers that way when
You presume a lot of things without any evidence to support them.
> caught in the rain, with just my hand in the jacket pocket pressing
> against them to get them from slipping out. No big effort. You've
> probably done the same.
>
>
> Even the WCR did NOT "Speculate" that far.
>
>
The WC did not even address the issue of how Oswald got the paper out to
Irving. They dare not.
>
Anthony Marsh
> "Anthony Marsh" <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:GM2dnRN1A9E8_73V...@comcast.com...
>> ScottO wrote:
>>> "Anthony Marsh" <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>>> news:VvSdnQYQt4wtjoPV...@comcast.com...
>>>> geovu...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>> On May 3, 12:13 am, "ScottO" <scott.....@cox.net> wrote:
>
>>> I think that question was answered or else I'm misunderstanding your
>>> question?
>>>
>> No, it was not. The question is how could Frazier not have noticed Oswald
>> taking a paper bag OUT to Irving.
>>
>>
>
> Maybe he stuffed it in his pants and pulled his shirt over it? Certainly
> as a teenager you'd snuck a Playboy magazine into your parents house at
> one time?
>
And usually kinda obvious. Frazier never noticed it?
> ScottO.
>
>
tomnln
"yeuhd" <wal...@mailbag.com> wrote in message
news:14d97773-760e-46e0...@27g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
Jas
For all we know, the bag could have been made in a bathroom at the TSBD.
Also, a bathroom could have been where Oswald re-assembled the firearm,
which we can infer he did because he was good at doing this, being an
ex-Marine.
No matter how hard you try, there will be times when no one saw Oswald
actually doing certain things, so we can't say for sure. And common sense
(there's that "CS" word again that conspiracists love to hate) says that
Oswald was bright enough to figure out that any suspicious activities in
front of other people may be noticed, possibly reported to the managers,
thus thwarting an assassination attempt. And of course, this "common
sense" includes hiding a disassembled weapon while carrying it into the
TSBD, ergo the bag.
When you stumble into these kinds of assassination arguments, since no one
knows for sure, it's up for any interpretation, and ultimately it's just
more speculation. There are a number of different ways things can be done,
you know that, so why belabor the point?
James
"pjsp...@AOL.COM" <pjsp...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:c4e67ed1-7e38-4198...@w34g2000prm.googlegroups.com...
greg
Looks like David concedes that the bag used was the replica.
David Von Pein
>>> "Various posters are claiming that Frazier and Oswald never talked.
Yet Frazier goes into depth about how they were discussing why Oswald
wanted the ride out to Irving on Thursday afternoon." <<<
Slightly off-topic, but related (re: Oswald & Frazier talking to each
other):
During the filming of David L. Wolper's 1964 feature motion picture for
United Artists ("Four Days In November"), Buell Wesley Frazier said the
following with respect to the drive to work on 11/22/63:
"The only comments made on the way to work were about babies and the
weather. It was a hazy day, and I said [to Oswald], 'It sure is gonna be a
bad day'. .... The only other comment made was about children, because it
seemed like he [LHO] was very fond of them. And I asked him if he had fun
playing with the babies? And he said 'Oh, yeah', and kinda chuckled to
himself."*
* = Slightly paraphrased. Taken from DVP's memory only.
www.amazon.com/FOUR-DAYS-DVP/review/R1ACSVLKDMJIL2
www.amazon.com/FOUR-DAYS-DVP/review/RW4LAECVAW7I9
yeuhd
> Thje paper did NOT match the paper in the TSBD.
Oh yes it did. In every measured property the bag's paper matched.
I refer you to p. 579 of the Warren Commission Report:
"Cadigan compared the questioned paper and tape in the paper bag with
known paper and tape samples obtained from the shipping department of the
Texas School Book Depository on November 22, 1963, to see if the
questioned items could have come from the shipping room. The questioned
and known items were examined visually by normal, incidental, and
transmitted natural and electric light, and under ultraviolet light;
examined microscopically for surface, paper structure, color, and
imperfections; examined for their felting pattern, which is the pattern of
light and dark areas caused by the manner in which the fibers become
felted at the beginning stages of paper manufacture; measured for
thickness with a micrometer sensitive to one one-thousandth of an inch,
subjected to a fiber analysis to determine the type of fibers of which
they were composed, and whether the fibers were bleached or unbleached;
and examined spectrographically to determine what metallic ions were
present. The questioned and known items were identical in all the
properties measured by these tests."
http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0302a.htm
http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh4/html/WC_Vol4_0049a.htm
http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh4/html/WC_Vol4_0050b.htm
http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh4/html/WC_Vol4_0052a.htm
http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh4/html/WC_Vol4_0054b.htm
yeuhd
http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0154a.htm
That would make the 38 by 8 inch bag into a 4.75 by 8 inch packet.
(Note: in the photo, the bag has been split open to examine the
interior.)
Anthony Marsh
> Going by CE 626, it appears the bag was folded into eight:
>
> http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0154a.htm
>
> That would make the 38 by 8 inch bag into a 4.75 by 8 inch packet.
>
OK. And how thick? Too big to put into any pocket.
ScottO
> yeuhd wrote:
>> Going by CE 626, it appears the bag was folded into eight:
>>
>> http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0154a.htm
>>
>> That would make the 38 by 8 inch bag into a 4.75 by 8 inch packet.
>>
>
> OK. And how thick? Too big to put into any pocket.
>
pocket it was therefore impossible to hide?
ScottO
groov...@gmail.com
> Pat, I'm afraid you're reaching way too much.
>
> For all we know, the bag could have been made in a bathroom at the TSBD.
> Also, a bathroom could have been where Oswald re-assembled the firearm,
> which we can infer he did because he was good at doing this, being an
> ex-Marine.
>
> No matter how hard you try, there will be times when no one saw Oswald
> actually doing certain things, so we can't say for sure. And common sense
> (there's that "CS" word again that conspiracists love to hate) says that
> Oswald was bright enough to figure out that any suspicious activities in
> front of other people may be noticed, possibly reported to the managers,
> thus thwarting an assassination attempt. And of course, this "common
> sense" includes hiding a disassembled weapon while carrying it into the
> TSBD, ergo the bag.
>
> When you stumble into these kinds of assassination arguments, since no one
> knows for sure, it's up for any interpretation, and ultimately it's just
> more speculation. There are a number of different ways things can be done,
> you know that, so why belabor the point?
>
> James
>
So, James, you're saying that because we ASSUME it's possible for someone
to sneak into an area of a building and steal some tape and some stiff
brown paper, and not be noticed, and then fold them up beneath his clothes
and carry them around, and not be noticed, and then sneak them out of his
pants in a really small home and not be noticed, and then sneak into the
garage of this really small home filled with other people and not be
noticed, and then turn this tape and paper into a bag and not be noticed,
and then put a rifle in this bag, we should accept that this happened,
even if the only two witnesses to see this bag insisted the bag was too
small to hold the rifle. Where's the LN who will dare to try this out? Who
will walk around with a large bag in his clothes to see if anyone will
notice? Do we have any volunteers?
David Von Pein
brown paper, and not be noticed, and then fold them up beneath his clothes
and carry them around, and not be noticed, and then sneak them out of his
pants in a really small home and not be noticed, and then sneak into the
garage of this really small home filled with other people and not be
noticed, and then turn this tape and paper into a bag and not be noticed,
and then put a rifle in this bag, we should accept that this happened,
even if the only two witnesses to see this bag insisted the bag was too
small to hold the rifle." <<<
I guess maybe we should take this "And not be noticed" scenario one step
further (and deeper into the "absurd" category) with respect to the
assassins that many CTers think were able to sneak into the TSBD and up to
the 6th Floor AND NOT GET THEMSELVES NOTICED by anybody, including the
EXTRA people on that very 6th Floor from which "they" would be attempting
to frame their "patsy".
The "extra" people being the floor-laying crew, who would not normally
have been occupying the 6th Floor for an extended period of time during a
regular work day in the TSBD, but they did on November 22. Meaning that
the "real killers" up on that 6th Floor would have undoubtedly had MORE
Depository workers than normal to contend with that day as they tried to
go about the task of shooting the President and framing that schnook named
Lee Harvey for the crime they committed.
So, it's more amazing luck for the non-LHO assassins (whoever they might
have been).
And then more luck comes the "real killers'" way....when, after the
assassination, every one of these "real killers" who occupied the sixth
floor at 12:30 managed to NOT BE NOTICED by Sandra Styles or Vickie Adams,
or anybody else in the building after the murder.*
* = And if you want to believe Oliver Stone's fairy tale (as some want to
do), I think Oliver has FOUR "technicians"/plotters up there on the 6th
Floor planting evidence, etc. (it's at least three anyway), with tool
boxes to hide the rifle that the boobs decided to shoot Kennedy with, even
though they're trying to frame LHO with the Carcano. (Great Patsy Plot
there indeed. If you're a brain-dead plotter, that is.)
Did the good fortune that was bestowed upon that (imagined) band of
reckless assassins/patsy-framers in Dallas in '63 ever run out--even to
this day?
Evidently, the answer to that last inquiry is a robust "No", to be sure.
Question:
Who's more likely to GET THEMSELVES NOTICED? ---
1.) A batch of strangers with tool boxes who had to go UP six flights to
the next-to-top floor within the Book Depository, construct the Sniper's
Nest around the southeast corner window, hide somewhere from Bonnie Ray
Williams while Williams ate his lunch on that very same 6th Floor (all
four "real TSBD killers" managed to hide from Williams, per Oliver Stone,
evidently), shoot JFK, disassemble their weapon(s), "plant" all of the
LHO-incriminating evidence, and then travel back DOWN those same six
flights again in order to get out of the building?
Or:
2.) Lee Harvey Oswald carrying around some innocuous wrapping paper THE
DAY BEFORE the President's assassination takes place?
The high-tech, galaxy-hopping travellers in Star Trek can't hold a candle
to the "cloaking" devices employed by Oliver Stone's Depository bad guys.
I think even most CTers can agree with me there.
Anthony Marsh
>>>> "So...you're saying that because we ASSUME it's possible for someone
> to sneak into an area of a building and steal some tape and some stiff
> brown paper, and not be noticed, and then fold them up beneath his clothes
> and carry them around, and not be noticed, and then sneak them out of his
> pants in a really small home and not be noticed, and then sneak into the
> garage of this really small home filled with other people and not be
> noticed, and then turn this tape and paper into a bag and not be noticed,
> and then put a rifle in this bag, we should accept that this happened,
> even if the only two witnesses to see this bag insisted the bag was too
> small to hold the rifle." <<<
>
>
>
>
>
> I guess maybe we should take this "And not be noticed" scenario one step
> further (and deeper into the "absurd" category) with respect to the
> assassins that many CTers think were able to sneak into the TSBD and up to
> the 6th Floor AND NOT GET THEMSELVES NOTICED by anybody, including the
> EXTRA people on that very 6th Floor from which "they" would be attempting
> to frame their "patsy".
>
They were noticed, by spectators shortly before the shooting. Look at
Oswald in his T-shirt and tell me he could be mistaken for a Secret
Service agent.
> The "extra" people being the floor-laying crew, who would not normally
> have been occupying the 6th Floor for an extended period of time during a
> regular work day in the TSBD, but they did on November 22. Meaning that
> the "real killers" up on that 6th Floor would have undoubtedly had MORE
> Depository workers than normal to contend with that day as they tried to
> go about the task of shooting the President and framing that schnook named
> Lee Harvey for the crime they committed.
>
So what? They could just go a floor higher or up on the roof.
How do you imagine Oswald would know he would have the 6th floor all to
himself? What if Givens had gone up there to get his cigarettes?
Anthony Marsh
Hide where? In his pants? Is that your explanation?
Frazier noticed the paper bag Oswald took to work the next day. Oswald
did not hide that one.
> ScottO
>
>
David Von Pein
Was Oz supposed to hide the rifle down his pants and walk to work as
"pegleg the pirate"?
ScottO
I'd say he probably hid it in his clothing somewhere.
He didn't have to hide the paper bag the next day. It was full of gun or
curtain rods. Take your pick.
ScottO
yeuhd
> yeuhd wrote:
> > Going by CE 626, it appears the bag was folded into eight:
>
>
> > That would make the 38 by 8 inch bag into a 4.75 by 8 inch packet.
>
> OK. And how thick? Too big to put into any pocket.
>
How do you know whether it would be too thick to put it into any
pocket?
I refer you to my post of May 6, above:
No "secret compartment". Once folded in three, and then folded in half,
the paper bag could easily sit stuffed into the waist of his pants. Or
even sitting freely inside his jacket, given that most zip- up jackets are
gathered at the waist. I've often carried papers that way when caught in
Anthony Marsh
> On May 9, 3:28 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> yeuhd wrote:
>>> Going by CE 626, it appears the bag was folded into eight:
>>> http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_01...
>>> That would make the 38 by 8 inch bag into a 4.75 by 8 inch packet.
>> OK. And how thick? Too big to put into any pocket.
>>
>
> How do you know whether it would be too thick to put it into any
> pocket?
>
Because we know what clothes he was wearing.
yeuhd
> yeuhd wrote:
> > On May 9, 3:28 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >> yeuhd wrote:
> >>> Going by CE 626, it appears the bag was folded into eight:
> >>>http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_01...
> >>> That would make the 38 by 8 inch bag into a 4.75 by 8 inch packet.
> >> OK. And how thick? Too big to put into any pocket.
>
> > How do you know whether it would be too thick to put it into any
> > pocket?
>
> Because we know what clothes he was wearing.
>
The kraft paper of Oswald's sack, and the kraft paper sample taken
from the TSBD on November 22, both measured 0.0057 inch thick:
http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh4/html/WC_Vol4_0051a.htm
Folded in 8 parts, the sack would be 0.0456 inch thick. One-twentieth
of an inch. But let's say the folds weren't perfectly flat: let's say
instead that the sack is one-tenth of an inch thick. Enormous! How
could anyone carry such an unwieldy object?
And what clothing was Oswald wearing home from work on the afternoon
November 21? I see nothing about that in Wes Frazier's WC testimony,
just what Oswald was wearing on November 22. Ruth Paine was asked
about what Oswald was wearing when she first saw him, but Oswald had
arrived at the Paine residence when Ruth was out. Lee, Marina, and
June were playing in the front yard when Ruth first saw him.
Marina Oswald testified that by her memory Oswald *was* wearing a
jacket on November 21:
Mr. RANKIN. Do you recall any of these clothes that your husband was
wearing when he came home Thursday night, November 21, 1963?
Mrs. OSWALD. On Thursday I think he wore this shirt.
Mr. RANKIN. Is that Exhibit 150?
Mrs. OSWALD. Yes.
Mr. RANKIN. Do you remember anything else he was wearing at that time?
Mrs. OSWALD. It seems he had that jacket, also.
Mr. RANKIN. Exhibit 162?
Mrs. OSWALD. Yes.
Mr. RANKIN. And the pants, Exhibit 157?
Mrs. OSWALD. Yes. But I am not sure. This is as much as I can
remember.
You seem very determined to make the carrying of a 4.75 by 8 by 0.05
inch packet under his jacket an impossible task. It's not.
Anthony Marsh
I didn't say impossible. And my criticism was about putting it in his
pockets. I said that Frazier would have noticed it.
yeuhd
that the sack was made of two ply. So: it was 0.0912 inch thick
unfolded, and 0.7296 inch folded in eight.