Radio Debate: John McAdams vs. James DiEugenio
David Von Pein
www.BlackOpRadio.com/black442a.ram
www.BlackOpRadio.com/black442b.ram
www.Box.net/static/flash/box_explorer.swf?widget_hash=88cm88qq0r
JFK conspiracy theorist (and Jim Garrison supporter) James DiEugenio
squared off against lone-assassin believer John McAdams in Part 1 of a
radio debate on Len Osanic's "Black Op Radio" program on Thursday
evening, September 24, 2009 (linked above).
The debate is scheduled to continue for another couple of hours on the
October 1, 2009, "Black Op" show (if you're reading this archived post
after 10/1/09, the audio links to Part 2 of the debate will already be
available at the "Box.net" link shown above).
The 2-hour "Part 1" of the DiEugenio/McAdams debate contained some
pretty basic stuff associated with the 1963 assassination of President
John F. Kennedy, with all of the expected responses from both
participants. The questions that the debaters were confronted with are
outlined at the "BlackOpForum" link below:
www.BlackOpForum.info/index.php/topic,379.0.html
The best part of the debate was when Professor McAdams asked the Black
Op listeners (just as he had done during another radio debate against
conspiracist Tom Rossley on April 5, 2009) to please take note of all
of the many people whom Jim DiEugenio has accused of being involved in
some kind of "plot" or "cover-up" relating to the JFK case -- e.g.,
the autopsy doctors, the Warren Commission, the HSCA, and the Dallas
Police Department (and just about everybody and anybody in-between who
had any "official" connection in any way to the investigation of
President Kennedy's murder).
As Mr. McAdams said a few times during the 9/24/09 debate when
responding to DiEugenio's silliness and "factoids" -- it's "absurd".
My second favorite portion of the debate was when Jim DiEugenio
admitted that he believed Lee Harvey Oswald was innocent of killing
Dallas policeman J.D. Tippit. Such a misguided belief definitely
places Mr. DiEugenio in the "Kook" category for all time.
As it turns out, my predictions from one month ago concerning the
debate's likely outcome have proven to be perfectly accurate. Here's
what I said in two separate Internet posts in August 2009:
"Jim DiEugenio couldn't possibly win a debate about the JFK
assassination, because he believes in stuff that never happened (such
as his belief that some kind of "New Orleans plot" was afoot to kill
John Kennedy in the summer and fall of 1963).
"Furthermore, DiEugenio sinks even further into the CT Abyss
when he makes silly statements like this one below, which appears in
"Part 5b" of his review of Bugliosi's book:
"Kennedy is murdered at 12:30 PM. Oswald is almost undoubtedly
on the first floor at the time." -- James DiEugenio
"And yet I think it's Mr. DiEugenio's opinion that Oswald was,
indeed, being set up as the "patsy" for Kennedy's murder far in
advance of the assassination. And yet the architects of this grandiose
"patsy" plot apparently don't give a damn that their one and only fall
guy is wandering around the FIRST FLOOR of the building (even though
the conspirators are planning to frame him as the SIXTH-FLOOR sniper).
Brilliant, huh?
"In short, John McAdams (or any LNer) could be half asleep and
still rip DiEugenio (or any CTer) to pieces in a Kennedy-assassination
debate. Of course, it's really always been that way. But CTers,
naturally, would be of the opinion that DiEugenio won the debate after
it took place. And, as usual, they will be 100% incorrect in that
opinion." -- DVP; August 19, 2009
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/b938763feab9f12e
=========================
"Every CTer is going to declare DiEugenio the "winner" of the
debate by a mile, while all the LNers (including myself, guaranteed)
will declare McAdams the victor. No doubt about that. In fact, I've
already declared Prof. McAdams the winner (just as Jim DiEugenio
predicted I would do on the 8/20/09 Black Op show).
"And the reason I can be so sure of that foregone conclusion is
quite simple -- it's because I already know the stuff that McAdams
will be saying when countering all of DiEugenio's pro-CT bullshit.
It's all been said thousands of times by many LNers in the past.
"McAdams will talk in a common-sense manner, and he will cite
the actual, factual evidence of Lee Oswald's sole guilt in the JFK and
Tippit murders, [while] DiEugenio will claim that none of the factual
evidence against Lee Oswald can be trusted. It's all either "fake",
"fraudulent", "manufactured", "mysterious", "questionable", or
"tainted" in some manner. EVERY single rock-solid piece of evidence
against Oswald will be declared null & void by DiEugenio. Wait and
see.
"DiEugenio will undoubtedly spout off something about the
supposed "New Orleans" plot to kill President Kennedy, with the names
"Shaw", "Ferrie", and "Banister" rising to the surface (even though
Jim Garrison's case against Clay Shaw was a total failure, but
DiEugenio doesn't give a damn about that fact, so Jim D. will still
pretend that there's actually some definitive evidence of some kind
with which he can still prop up King Kook Garrison 40 years after
Garrison knowingly prosecuted an innocent man for conspiracy to commit
murder). ....
"Final Results -- Since McAdams has ALL of the hard evidence
(and DiEugenio has absolutely none)....John McAdams will win the
debate. That is a foregone conclusion (unless the unthinkable happens,
and Prof. McAdams decides to switch over to the CT side before
debating Jimmy D.; and I doubt that's going to happen)." -- DVP;
August 21, 2009
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/d89c3f37af584baf
=========================
BACK TO THE PRESENT DAY (9/25/09):
Regarding Jim DiEugenio's belief that an assassination plot against
JFK was hatched in New Orleans in the summer of 1963 (with David
Ferrie, Guy Banister, and Clay Shaw evidently being the top three
"conspirators"), I will again repeat the following common-sense
question that I first posed in July 2009 (which is a question that no
conspiracy theorist, including James DiEugenio, can possibly answer
without being forced to fall back on 100% pure speculation and
unsupportable guesswork):
"Even if we were to make the assumption (just for the sake of
this particular discussion, although I'm not conceding this to be a
true fact at all) that Lee Oswald WAS acquainted with the various "New
Orleans" characters that Jim DiEugenio thinks LHO was acquainted with
in the summer of 1963 (e.g., Clay Shaw, David Ferrie, and Guy
Banister).....that would still be a million miles away from proving
that ANY of those New Orleans characters had ANY INVOLVEMENT, IN ANY
WAY, WITH THE ASSASSINATION OF PRESIDENT KENNEDY IN DALLAS ON NOVEMBER
22, 1963.
"And the reason the above paragraph is the truth is because
(once Perry Russo's lie is tossed aside, as it must be) there isn't a
shred of evidence that CONNECTS any of those New Orleans individuals
to the planning and/or carrying out of the murder of John F. Kennedy
in Dallas, Texas. No evidence whatsoever.
"Everything Lee Harvey Oswald did on 11/21/63 and 11/22/63
indicates that he was a LONE ASSASSIN in Dallas. And that fact would
still be true even IF Oswald had been pals with ALL of the three
previously-named New Orleans-based people (Shaw, Ferrie, and
Banister).
"In other words -- Where is Jim DiEugenio's (or anyone's) BRIDGE
and/or UMBILICAL CORD that allows conspiracy theorists to make the
grand leap from this:
""LEE HARVEY OSWALD KNEW CLAY SHAW, DAVID FERRIE, AND GUY
BANISTER",
"....to this:
""SHAW, FERRIE, AND BANISTER WERE CO-CONSPIRATORS IN THE
ASSASSINATION OF PRESIDENT KENNEDY"?
"Given the physical and circumstantial evidence that exists of
ONLY OSWALD'S GUILT in the assassination of JFK, such a monumental
leap of faith like the one suggested above is, to put it bluntly,
monumentally ridiculous." -- David Von Pein; July 31, 2009
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/af30e9a70409f7c1
www.google.com/group/Reclaiming-History/browse_thread/thread/863ee417ecb1633f
Peter Fokes
wrote:
>
>www.BlackOpRadio.com/black442a.ram
>
>www.BlackOpRadio.com/black442b.ram
>
>www.Box.net/static/flash/box_explorer.swf?widget_hash=88cm88qq0r
I thought John McAdams won the debate.
Some CTs spend too much time on nonsense and seem unwilling to accept
any facts at all.
PF
garyb
> On 25 Sep 2009 13:59:51 -0400, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com>
I agree that the second statement does not follow logically from the
first. But I also believe that the first statement is true, and calls into
serious question the official biography of Oswald. There is quite a lot of
evidence that Banister was running Oswald in New Orleans, which doesn't
fit very well with the lone Communist defector portrait.
>
> > "Given the physical and circumstantial evidence that exists of
> >ONLY OSWALD'S GUILT in the assassination of JFK, such a monumental
> >leap of faith like the one suggested above is, to put it bluntly,
> >monumentally ridiculous." -- David Von Pein; July 31, 2009
>
> >www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/af30e9a70409f7c1
>
> >www.google.com/group/Reclaiming-History/browse_thread/thread/863ee417...
>
> >www.DavidVonPein.blogspot.com- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
cdddraftsman
>
> >www.DavidVonPein.blogspot.com- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Great article DVP !
It isn't any new news here that not only did the assassination turn into a
political abstraction for CTer's many years ago , but lets face it , it's
their own fault for providing too many answers to questions never asked .
An impartial observer might also see this effort as suspicious .
These types of setups were a new and exciting discovery precipitates a
deluge of new books , video's and articles is at a end . Not able to
garner interest in used and recycled theorys , remarketed or not , the
future for conspiracy , at this point in time , as springboard for further
loitering on the stage , doesn't look rosy .
Thats the good news . The bad news is that it's going to take more than
CPR to revive that dead horse . For all the exciting things happening in
the world , putting ones efforts into a parlor game , that can result in
no additional worthwhile gains will be looked upon in retrospect as a
tragedy bigger than demising of Camelot itself .
end ....
tl
soilysound
>
> > - Show quoted text -
Jim won that debate by a mile. Whilst Jim talks specifics, John,(who let
me say now I admire as one the genuine authorities on the subject) resorts
time and time again to appeals to authority and the rather well worn 'ohh
well if what you say is true EVERYONE must be in on some grand
conspiracy", which is a begging the question of the grandest nature.
Anthony Marsh
Well, if you are unsuccessful with one attack, just keep switching
attack arguments every day until you find one that works.
Greg Jaynes
You almost need a different format. When Jim gets his turn to speak he
rambles off all those factoids enroute to his conclusion. John could
hardly address it all in his time to respond to it. However, after already
having heard it all before John anticipated the SBT criticisms and
addressed some of them before Jim responded to the SBT issue. Then Jim
promptly blew through his factoid list citing some of the points John had
just addressed as if he hadn't addressed them.
Jim also has this annoying habit of speaking with a rising crescendo to
conclude a point. It's like he is saying this but finds it so incredulous
his voice raises several octaves. This probably sells to a sympathetic
audience. But I don't think it serves him well in a rational debate. (if
that's what this was supposed to be)
DiEugenio "wanted" McAdams. Ok, he got him. Now what? McAdams easily came
off the best.
Respectfully,
Greg Jaynes
pamela
Translation: in your opinion McAdams made better use of the time- tested
WC apologist tactics than Jim D did trying to explain his understanding of
the conspiracy.
WhiskyJoe
I'm a little bit confused about the debates
this year of John McAdams with Tom Rossley
and Jim DiEugenio. Weren't Tom and Jim
supposed to be talking about the same case?
Wait, on closer inspection, I see that they
were both talking about the Kennedy
assassination. But at a glance, it sure
doesn't seem like it. Rossley brings up a
incredible list of "facts" that "prove"
multiple shooters and DiEugenio comes up
with almost a wholly different list of
"facts" that do the same. There does not
seem to be a whole lot of overlap in the
cases they present.
Some may see this as what is to be expected
when there is so much evidence of conspiracy.
The conspirators did seem to mess up whenever
it was possible. They can't even make and plant
a paper bag that supposedly held the rifle
properly. After Oswald is arrested, they make
multiple bags and one of them gets mailed to
Oswald at a wrong address. What's up with that.
But I look at it like this is what one would
expect if the whole thing was nonsense.
Naturally, they could come up with a bunch
of bogus issues. Naturally they would like to
make up for a lack of quality arguments with
quantity.
I think if we lived in a police state were it
was suddenly illegal to use any Pro Conspiracy
argument that had been used in the past, or
Black Op Radio insisted on a debate that used
only fresh issues, the pro CT debater could not
used any argument that had ever been used in the
past, even once, I don't think that would prove
to be much of a problem. They could effortless
discover a whole batch of new witnesses or
authentic autopsy photographs that had been
hidden up to now or whatever and have no
problem filling up a two hour program which
proves that there was a conspiracy.
David Von Pein
Additional translation:
McAdams has all the solid facts, and DiEugenio has none. (As always.)
~Mark VII~
David Von Pein
www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,1185.msg16089.html#msg16089
>>> "I was surprised that McAdams did not know apparently of the 3 paper
bags." <<<
Jim DiEugenio, like most conspiracists, enjoys basking in conspiracy-
tinged speculation, such as with the "paper bag" issue. Jim evidently
thinks that fellow CTer Pat Speer has proven that the bag that Lt.
Montgomery of the DPD carried out of the TSBD on the afternoon of JFK's
assassination (as seen in photographs) is not and could not be the same
bag as the "Sniper's Nest" bag that is currently in evidence (which is
CE142).
Pat Speer, of course, couldn't be more wrong on this issue, as he is
attempting to do something with 2-dimensional photographs that simply
cannot be done -- he's attempting to extract 3-dimensional information
from a 2D picture. Ask anyone who knows a lot about photo analysis and
photogrammetry (Dale Myers comes to mind), and they'll tell you how
hopeless such an endeavor truly is:
"I don’t know how many ways to say it, but let me try it this way
-- no one can deduce a three dimensional angle in space by holding a ruler
or protractor against a two dimensional photograph or computer monitor.
The principles of photogrammetry explain why this methodology leads to
false results." -- Dale K. Myers; August 20, 2008
www.jfkfiles.com/jfk/html/faq_01.htm
But DiEugenio WANTS to believe that there was some "mystery bag" removed
from the Depository, and Pat Speer's incorrect photo analysis serves Jim's
purpose just fine, thank you.
In reality, of course, there were TWO paper bags that were assign "CE"
numbers by the Warren Commission in 1964 -- CE142 (which is the bag seen
in the Sniper's Nest by policemen Carl Day and Bob Studebaker, with Lt.
Day's handwritten notations appearing on that bag).
And there is CE364, which is a "replica" bag that was made by the FBI at
the TSBD on December 1, 1963. And the reason for the replica bag being
created was fully and logically explained by James Cadigan of the FBI
during his Warren Commission testimony:
JAMES CADIGAN -- "Commission Exhibit 364...is a paper sack similar to
Commission Exhibit 142. It was made at the Texas School Book Depository on
December 1, 1963, by special agents of the FBI in Dallas to show to
prospective witnesses, because Commission's Exhibit 142 was dark and
stained from the latent fingerprint treatment and they thought...it
wouldn't be fair to the witness to ask, "Did you see a bag like that?", so
they went to the Texas School Book Depository and constructed from paper
and tape a similar bag."
I've gone a few rounds with Pat Speer on a similar (but not identical)
JFK-assassination sub-topic concerning the "paper bag". Here are two
examples:
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/d226a67106841c38
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/61bd2fadc9a53517
MORE "DEBATE" NOTES:
Jim DiEugenio really looked silly when he claimed to the Black Op Radio
audience (during his 9/24/09 debate with John McAdams) that there were
"three autopsies" (or was it four? I can't recall the exact number that
Jim decided upon, but anything more than ONE is just plain stupid).
DiEugenio apparently thinks that when the Clark Panel was assembled to
study the autopsy photos and X-rays in 1968, this qualified as an extra
"autopsy" being done on JFK's body. Of course, as usual, Jim D. is off the
rails of reality when he implied such a nonsensical thing.
The Clark Panel was created so that four pathologists could examine JFK's
autopsy photos and X-rays, with the Panel then writing a report as to what
information was revealed in those pictures and X-rays. And the Clark Panel
did just that, reaching the only conclusion they could possibly reach, and
that is: JFK was shot only TWO times, with both bullets entering Kennedy's
body from BEHIND.
The Clark Panel also clarified the location of the entry wound in JFK's
head, with the Panel (again) coming to the only possible rational
conclusion in that regard too -- i.e., the entry wound was located high on
Kennedy's head, near the cowlick area. And this declaration, per
DiEugenio's way of thinking, means that the Clark boys performed another
"autopsy" on the President. LOL.
More Laughs:
DiEugenio slipped ever deeper into "kook" territory when he declared that
it was his belief that Lee Harvey Oswald was not the gunman who murdered
Dallas Police Officer J.D. Tippit. I was smiling ear to ear when I heard
Mr. DiEugenio say that on 9/24/09.
Prior to that specific date of 9/24/09, I hadn't actually heard Jim D.
come right out and say that he thought Oswald was innocent of Tippit's
murder too (in addition to LHO being innocent of JFK's killing, which,
incredibly, DiEugenio also believes; Jim evidently doesn't think Oswald
shot anybody on 11/22/63).
So it was nice to be able to hear DiEugenio himself say that he believes
Oswald didn't shoot Tippit (although Jim almost certainly HAS said it
before September 2009, either on radio or TV or in his written articles
and books, but I had not been aware of it prior to 9/24/09), because such
a belief will forever ensure his enrollment in the "Anybody But Oswald"
kook club. And that particular type of horribly- misguided "ABO"
conspiracy theorist is always super-easy to combat and
dismantle....because his "ABO" beliefs are so totally silly (and provably
wrong) right from the get-go.
More "debate talk" here:
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/11dad392a41571cb
Greg Jaynes
Exactly.
Respectfully,
Greg Jaynes
WhiskyJoe
It should be noted that once again, John
McAdams has shown himself very knowledgeable
about the myriad number of Pro CT arguments
brought up. This knowledge is probably no more
useful than a deep knowledge about all the
known mythological creatures of the world
that have ever been thought of. But still,
he once again demonstrate a deep knowledge
about all the Pro CT arguments.
Of course, I think I recall that the Black Op
radio did have a requirement that both would
let the other know in advance the arguments
that would be used. This is only fair.
So I imagine that would have helped a lot.
About the only thing John did not know able
was a paper bag that was allegedly made and
mailed to Oswald. Of all the crazy and
meaningless arguments. Of course, evidence
against people in criminal cases isn't usually
found at the scene of a crime or planted there
but instead typically shows up in the mail.
Not even mailing it to themselves so they
could plant it but mailing to Oswald, whose
in jail and can't receive his mail. And what
sort of sense does it make if he can receive
his mail. And they sent it to the wrong address
to boot. But the only reason John did not know
about this particular argument is that there
have been multiple alleged paper bags made of
the size to hold a rifle and mailed to
different addresses to implicate Oswald.
Jim was just bringing up a different case
than the one that John was familiar with.
Question:
In the DiEugenio debate and ever more in the
Rossley debate, where I don't think McAdams
got to hear in advance the arguments Rossley
would use, is there anyone here who thinks
they would have done as well as McAdams in
regards to being able to instantly know the
relevant facts in a Pro CT argument that is
suddenly sprung on them?
binslick
Jim Dieugenio Clearly won The Debate.But I Must Admit Prof.Mcadams has a
solid understanding of the case and made some Relevant Points!!am a
''Conspiracy Kook'' a slander Phrase Mr.Von Pein likes to use
liberally.overall The Debate was fair, impartial and no name calling was
involved!!
soilysound
allowed each person to speak, then respond and there was no squabbling
or insults. But I don't think each side was given long enough to
properly expand on their points. Some of you complain about
'factoids' (something which John is equally prone to as Jim), but in 3
minutes then 2 minutes there simply isnt enough time to properly tie
all the individual points together and get the bigger picture. Despite
that it was a lot better than the Rossley debate, and both sides did
well. I thought Jim won because he kept his points to specifics rather
than resorting time and time again to the hoary old chestnut about "a
grand conspiracy involving virtually everyone in the world". That
tired old argument has knobs on. McAdams can do a lot better.
binslick
I Agree there wasn't enough time (2 to 3 min) to tie everything,Though Jim
did win The Debate.
pjspeare
sense when people are comparing items seen at different angles, not when
comparing objects seen at similar angles in photo recreations. The FBI
itself tests the accuracy of photos by...re- creating them. Or are you now
saying that the FBI and DPD photos of someone holding the rifle, in order
to test whether the backyard photos were legit, were all frauds?
I attempted to recreate the photo of Montgomery with the bag. This re-
creation proved the bag taken from the building was approximately 12
inches wide, far wider than the bag entered into evidence. Feel free to
re-create the photo and show how the bag in the photo could be 8 inches
wide. The wrapping paper in the building was 24 inches wide, so why was
the bag entered into evidence only 8 inches wide, 16 when split in the
middle? And why wasn't this bag ever shown to Montgomery, Johnson, and
Studebaker, the men present when it was discovered, so they could identify
their initials?
The answer seems obvious. It was a different bag. DPD Chief Jesse Curry
apparently had his suspicions. In his book, he captions a photo of the bag
entered into evidence as "probably" the bag found in the building.
On Sep 27, 11:09 am, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,1185.msg16089.html#msg1...
John McAdams
>David your "2d vs, 3d argument" is nonsensical. This argument only makes
>sense when people are comparing items seen at different angles, not when
>comparing objects seen at similar angles in photo recreations. The FBI
>itself tests the accuracy of photos by...re- creating them. Or are you now
>saying that the FBI and DPD photos of someone holding the rifle, in order
>to test whether the backyard photos were legit, were all frauds?
>
Did you analyze the photos photogrammetrically?
>I attempted to recreate the photo of Montgomery with the bag. This re-
>creation proved the bag taken from the building was approximately 12
>inches wide, far wider than the bag entered into evidence. Feel free to
>re-create the photo and show how the bag in the photo could be 8 inches
>wide. The wrapping paper in the building was 24 inches wide, so why was
>the bag entered into evidence only 8 inches wide, 16 when split in the
>middle? And why wasn't this bag ever shown to Montgomery, Johnson, and
>Studebaker, the men present when it was discovered, so they could identify
>their initials?
>
The bag had Oswald's palm print, and an Oswald fingerprint.
>The answer seems obvious. It was a different bag. DPD Chief Jesse Curry
>apparently had his suspicions. In his book, he captions a photo of the bag
>entered into evidence as "probably" the bag found in the building.
>
>
So what?
The bag had Oswald's palm print, and an Oswald fingerprint.
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
John McAdams
wrote:
We lone assassination people won't drop that argument, because you
guys don't know how to deal with it.
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
David Von Pein
>>> "David your "2d vs. 3d argument" is nonsensical. This argument only
when comparing objects seen at similar angles in photo recreations." <<<
LOL. Nice try at damage control there, Pat. But you are still dead wrong.
You don't know the exact distance from the camera in either one of the two
"bag" photos that you're using for comparison purposes (including a
picture of CE142), so how can you possibly think you can PROVE that the
two bags are totally different bags via measurements obtained in such a
willy-nilly photo comparison?
soilysound
> On 28 Sep 2009 10:16:11 -0400, soilysound <soilyso...@googlemail.com>
It's really easy to deal with. There wasn't and could not be a grand
conspiracy with thousands of people in on it. Just people doing what
they're told, people covering stuff up to save their own ass, people
covering stuff up for relatively benign motives (ie we didn't want to
start WW3 with the Russians or whatever) and people covering stuff up
because it's just far easier for virtually everyone to believe it was just
some freak act of a lone nut than something more unpalatable going on that
might undermine their faith in their country. Your argument is like saying
blacks historically get a raw deal from the criminal justice system
because there's some grand conspiracy involving millions of people all
working together against black people. Well of course their isn't. It's
actually a shared mind set, determinism at work. The 'grand conspiracy'
argument just doesn't wash and you can do better.
soilysound
Did the bag have anyone else's prints on, since we know it was handled by
at least 2 other people at the TSBD when it was found? And if Oswald made
this bag himself, then put a rifle in it and carried it to work, how come
there's only 1 partial palm print and one fingerprint on it? And worse of
all, how come the crime scene photographs show no bag? The bag is never
photographed in situ and the officers explanation of how the bag is found
never really make any sense.
And in the debate with DiEugnio, you gave the explanation that the bag
later mailed to Oswald was the work of some joker or crank. I've heard of
a crank call, but whoever heard of a 'crank bag'? That's really pushing
credibility to its limits I think. Although in fairness to you the
opposite explanation, that the bag was mailed to Oswald so he'd open it
and get his fingerprints on it to later incriminate him sounds a bit
far-fetched aswell. I guess we'll just have to chalk that one down to yet
another unsolvable mystery in this case.
John McAdams
wrote:
Sorry, but you are positing a very large conspiracy. True, you are
positing different motives, but you are positing a lot of people doing
things they knew involved lying, tampering with evidence, and so on.
It's really hard to believe that all those conspirators would play
their roles property, and hard to believe that nobody would talk or
let something slip.
To really have a small conspiracy, you've got to drop the claim that
all the evidence against Oswald was faked or forged.
You've got to drop the claim that all the witnesses who incriminated
Oswald (Ruth Paine, Marina Oswald, Wes Frazier, etc.) where lying.
Otherwise you have a huge conspiracy.
So, do you really want a small conspiracy, or are you too attached to
all the crazy claims about bogus or faked evidence, lying witnesses,
Dallas cops, the FBI, the CIA, the Warren Commission, the HSCA, the
Ramsey Clark Panel and so on?
>Your argument is like saying
>blacks historically get a raw deal from the criminal justice system
>because there's some grand conspiracy involving millions of people all
>working together against black people. Well of course their isn't. It's
>actually a shared mind set, determinism at work. The 'grand conspiracy'
>argument just doesn't wash and you can do better.
>
That isn't a good analogy. It's one thing to be prejudiced against a
certain class of people, it's entirely different to *know* that you
are lying, faking evidence, forging documents, and so on.
.John
P.S. At least for the last several decades, the criminal justice
system has *not* been tough on black offenders.
--
The Kennedy Assassination Home Page
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
John McAdams
wrote:
>On Sep 29, 3:24=A0am, John McAdams <john.mcad...@marquette.edu> wrote:
>> On 28 Sep 2009 22:18:58 -0400, pjspeare <pjspe...@AOL.COM> wrote:
>>
>> The bag had Oswald's palm print, and an Oswald fingerprint.
>>
>> >The answer seems obvious. It was a different bag. DPD Chief Jesse Curry
>> >apparently had his suspicions. In his book, he captions a photo of the bag
>> >entered into evidence as "probably" the bag found in the building.
>>
>> So what?
>>
>> The bag had Oswald's palm print, and an Oswald fingerprint.
>>
>> .John
>> --------------http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
>
>Did the bag have anyone else's prints on, since we know it was handled by
>at least 2 other people at the TSBD when it was found?
I don't know, although Montgomery clearly seems to have it stuck on
something to avoid touching it.
>And if Oswald made
>this bag himself, then put a rifle in it and carried it to work, how come
>there's only 1 partial palm print and one fingerprint on it?
Good heavens! Why do you think there would be more?
Do you actually believe that every time somebody touches something,
they leave good fingerprints?
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/factoid4.htm
>And worse of
>all, how come the crime scene photographs show no bag? The bag is never
>photographed in situ and the officers explanation of how the bag is found
>never really make any sense.
>
Remember the O.J. trial? He was guilty as sin, but his defense
lawyers exploited every irregularity in police procedures (as well as
the racial bias of the jury) to get him off.
If it wasn't found in the Depository, did the cops manufacture it?
If so, how did they get Oswald's prints on it?
And how did they know that Frazier and Randle would, very
conveniently, say that Oswald had a bag?
>And in the debate with DiEugnio, you gave the explanation that the bag
>later mailed to Oswald was the work of some joker or crank. I've heard of
>a crank call, but whoever heard of a 'crank bag'?
You have now.
>That's really pushing
>credibility to its limits I think.
Then what explanation do you have?
>Although in fairness to you the
>opposite explanation, that the bag was mailed to Oswald so he'd open it
>and get his fingerprints on it to later incriminate him sounds a bit
>far-fetched aswell. I guess we'll just have to chalk that one down to yet
>another unsolvable mystery in this case.
>
I'm afraid you can collect "mysteries" until the cows come home, and
they won't add up to conspiracy evidence.
It's absurd that anybody would fabricate a bag for Oswald, and then
mail it to him using an absurdly bad address, or fail to put the right
postage on the package.
Indeed, given the way the Post Office operates, it's absurd that they
would mail it to him at all.
.John
Anthony Marsh
The same type of thing might have happened if Oswald had gone to trial
or he would have become a cause celebre like Dreyfus.
Anthony Marsh
Typical for a WC defender you fail to separate the conspiracy to murder
from the cover-up. The cover-up was official, government wide and ordered
to prevent WWIII because everyone in Washington thought it was a Communist
conspiracy. Everyone who participated believed they were just doing their
patriotic duty, not helping the conspirators. Who in American government
is going to participate to HELP the Communists?
> It's really hard to believe that all those conspirators would play
> their roles property, and hard to believe that nobody would talk or
> let something slip.
>
Hard to believe that you are unaware of the fact that one of them did
talk, E. Howard Hunt.
> To really have a small conspiracy, you've got to drop the claim that
> all the evidence against Oswald was faked or forged.
>
Well, technically that is irrelevant to the size of the conspiracy. Same
could apply whether it is 10 or 1,000.
> You've got to drop the claim that all the witnesses who incriminated
> Oswald (Ruth Paine, Marina Oswald, Wes Frazier, etc.) where lying.
>
Why? Many witnesses WERE lying and many were simply wrong.
> Otherwise you have a huge conspiracy.
>
No. A witness lying is not directly connected to the conspiracy to murder.
> So, do you really want a small conspiracy, or are you too attached to
> all the crazy claims about bogus or faked evidence, lying witnesses,
> Dallas cops, the FBI, the CIA, the Warren Commission, the HSCA, the
> Ramsey Clark Panel and so on?
>
The Castro plots were a small conspiracy, about a baker's dozen, but
everyone in the government covered it up.
>
>> Your argument is like saying
>> blacks historically get a raw deal from the criminal justice system
>> because there's some grand conspiracy involving millions of people all
>> working together against black people. Well of course their isn't. It's
>> actually a shared mind set, determinism at work. The 'grand conspiracy'
>> argument just doesn't wash and you can do better.
>>
>
> That isn't a good analogy. It's one thing to be prejudiced against a
> certain class of people, it's entirely different to *know* that you
> are lying, faking evidence, forging documents, and so on.
>
Governments do it all the time, con artists do it all the time, kooks do
it all the time. To some of them like the Birthers it is like a contest.
soilysound
> On 29 Sep 2009 12:56:21 -0400, soilysound <soilyso...@googlemail.com>
I'm not positing any conspiracy, I'm just pointing out the flaws in some
of the LN arguments. I genuinely don't know what happened, which as far as
I'm concerned is the most intellectually honest position.
I reject the argument you have to fake all the evidence and have lots of
witnesses lying. You have to lose some evidence, and fabricate some yes,
and misrepresent some, but the idea that that doesn't happen considering
what we know about the endless miscarriages of justice in our recent
history is absurd. I'm from England in in recent memory we've had massive
evidence tampering and fabrication in the cases of the Birmingham 6, the
Guildford 4 and the Maguire 7. No coincidence that politically explosive
cases attract plenty of those involved to turn a blind eye, go along with
the corruption or rationalise it in their mind because of their own
prejudices. Where the lawyers and all the policeman and witnesses and
government officials all in on some grand conspiracy with the Birmingham
6? No of course not. Did they all participate in the coverup in some
conscious or sub-concious way - yes. There was intense paranoia in the UK
in the 70's and 80s about the Irish as the 'enemy within', that why there
were so many miscarriages of judgment, not because of grand conspiracies.
Oswald a commie scumbag at the height of the cold war? There'd be people
queuing up to help nail him. Again, not as part of some conscious and
grand conspiracy, but because of prejudice, paranoia and fear.
As for witnesses, well in a case where there are literally hundreds of
contradictory witness statements, its the easiest thing in the world for
you, me, the WC, the FBI and whoever else to select witnesses that best
fit our case, to arbitrarily discredit witnesses that don't fit our case,
and make others fit our case whether they do or not. Be honest, we all do
it, CT and LN. Every witness you have to back up what you say, someone
else could find another one that contradicts it. It's just too easy to
make witnesses tell whatever story you need them to tell.
soilysound
> On 29 Sep 2009 12:57:05 -0400, soilysound <soilyso...@googlemail.com>
Ohhh I understand that you don't leave complete fingerprints on everything
you touch. But Oswald made this bag himself out of paper and tape didn't
he? (nobody knows when, where or how of course) He put a dismantled rifle
into it, carried it to work, removed the rifle from it, yet only left 1,
singular, legible fingerprint? Mmm. Where anyone else's fingerprints found
on the bag or just Oswalds? I ask because it's not hard to see why a piece
of packing paper from the TSBD would have a fingerprint of Oswald on since
he actually worked there, for instance.
And I find it hard to accept that the Dallas police could be so
incompetent to remove the bag, and just the bag, from the crime scene
before photographing it, and never photograph the bag at all in situ at
the crime scene. What possible rationale would they have for doing that?
Why does their account of the discovery of the bag make so little sense?
And we're asked to believe that Oswald managed to carry a big long bag
into the TSBD without any of the dozens of people working there seeing him
with it. Could you take a bag half your own height into your work without
anyone noticing it? I couldn't and it stretches credibility that Oswald
could too. Isn't it possible that all these people didn't notice it
because Oswald had no such bag and Frazier is in fact an unreliable
witness?
RE the bag posted to Oswald. Isn't there some evidence that the bag was
posted to him, at Ruth Paines address before the assassination? Somebody
did try to post a package to Oswald at the Paines on the 20th or 21st, but
there was postage due on it. Exactly the same postage due on the package
with the bag addressed to Oswald found after the assassination. That
package appeared to have a gummed label stuck over the original address.
Again, even if the above is just another 'factoid', you're still left with
the totally absurd premise of a 'crank bag'.
David Von Pein
>>> "Typical for a WC defender you fail to separate the conspiracy to
murder from the cover-up." <<<
Another absurd statement from the e-lips of Anthony Marsh (despite the
silly words about "World War 3" that Tony wrote just after I cut him off
above).
So, now we can add this incredible coincidence to Marsh's list of things
that he apparently thinks actually happened:
There was a PRE-assassination "conspiracy" to frame Lee Harvey
Oswald.....and then immediately after JFK's murder, all of the authorities
(from the DPD on up to the Chief Justice and the entire WC) decided they
ALSO wanted to frame the VERY SAME PATSY that the pre-11/22 plotters were
attempting to frame.
That's not just a coincidence among TWO totally-separate groups of
plotters/cover-uppers --- that's a miracle!
David Von Pein
>>> "Isn't it possible that all these people didn't notice it because
Oswald had no such bag and Frazier is in fact an unreliable witness?" <<<
It's not just Frazier. You've got to call Linnie Mae Randle an outright
liar too. She saw Oswald with the bag too.
soilysound
Or just mistaken because she couldn't really see the bag properly from
where she was. And they both estimated the bag to be much smaller than
the TSBD bag. Look how big the bag was! - http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/images/bag1.jpg
It's also just beyond belief that Oswald could carry a paper bag half
his own height into the TSBD without anyone there seeing him with it.
It's not something you could forget if you saw it. And lets not forget
Frazier said he saw Oswald carry his bag between his cupped hand and
his armpit. Was he an orangutan?
John McAdams
wrote:
Well, I know nothing about those cases, but let's assume you are
right.
That all got uncovered, didn't it?
Why don't you make a list of all the faked or tampered-with evidence
that conspiracists claim in this case.
For example, if the Backyard Photos are fake, how many Dallas cops,
HSCA experts, witnesses at THE MILITANT, and even Marina and
Marguerite have to be lying?
So do you accept the authenticity of the Backyard Photos or not?
Then apply that sort of analysis to the bag that Oswald used to bring
the rifle into work.
Then apply that analysis to the evidence that Oswald shot Tippit.
Then apply that analysis to Oswald's trip to Mexico City (which I'm
sure you know conspiracists deny).
Then apply that analysis to the fact that Oswald owned C2766, the
rifle that shot Kennedy?
Just how far are you willing to go with this?
>No coincidence that politically explosive
>cases attract plenty of those involved to turn a blind eye, go along with
>the corruption or rationalise it in their mind because of their own
>prejudices. Where the lawyers and all the policeman and witnesses and
>government officials all in on some grand conspiracy with the Birmingham
>6? No of course not. Did they all participate in the coverup in some
>conscious or sub-concious way - yes.
Doesn't hack it. In the JFK case, they would ahve had to *know* what
they were doing.
Do you think, for example, that the paper bag in evidence was
Oswald's?
If not, how could it have been faked in a "sub-conscious" way?
Were the experts who authenticated the Backyard Photos lying? How
could they do that in a "sub-conscious" way?
>There was intense paranoia in the UK
>in the 70's and 80s about the Irish as the 'enemy within', that why there
>were so many miscarriages of judgment, not because of grand conspiracies.
>Oswald a commie scumbag at the height of the cold war? There'd be people
>queuing up to help nail him. Again, not as part of some conscious and
>grand conspiracy, but because of prejudice, paranoia and fear.
>
No, that would not explain the magnitude of misconduct that
conspiracists claim.
>As for witnesses, well in a case where there are literally hundreds of
>contradictory witness statements, its the easiest thing in the world for
>you, me, the WC, the FBI and whoever else to select witnesses that best
>fit our case, to arbitrarily discredit witnesses that don't fit our case,
Well a lot of witnesses can be discredited in a non-arbitrary way.
Do you believe Jean Hill, for example?
>and make others fit our case whether they do or not. Be honest, we all do
>it, CT and LN. Every witness you have to back up what you say, someone
>else could find another one that contradicts it. It's just too easy to
>make witnesses tell whatever story you need them to tell.
That's why witness testimony is the least valuable form of evidence.
There is plenty of witness testimony that Oswald shot Tippit (and
essentially no testimony that somebody else did), but the spent
cartridges found at the scene are the "killer" evidence.
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Anthony Marsh
Well, do you think Marina was lying about destroying one of the backyard
photos? Isn't that tampering with evidence? Isn't that obstruction of
justice, a felony which could result in deportation? Isn't that a
statement against interest?
> So do you accept the authenticity of the Backyard Photos or not?
>
> Then apply that sort of analysis to the bag that Oswald used to bring
> the rifle into work.
>
Again, begging the question. Just a bag, any bag. That is not proof that
there was a rifle in it.
> Then apply that analysis to the evidence that Oswald shot Tippit.
>
> Then apply that analysis to Oswald's trip to Mexico City (which I'm
> sure you know conspiracists deny).
>
> Then apply that analysis to the fact that Oswald owned C2766, the
> rifle that shot Kennedy?
>
> Just how far are you willing to go with this?
>
It's one thing to admit that a physical object exists and quite a
different thing to agree with your particular theory about it.
>
>> No coincidence that politically explosive
>> cases attract plenty of those involved to turn a blind eye, go along with
>> the corruption or rationalise it in their mind because of their own
>> prejudices. Where the lawyers and all the policeman and witnesses and
>> government officials all in on some grand conspiracy with the Birmingham
>> 6? No of course not. Did they all participate in the coverup in some
>> conscious or sub-concious way - yes.
>
>
> Doesn't hack it. In the JFK case, they would ahve had to *know* what
> they were doing.
>
Not in all cases. In some cases they just follow orders. I'm sure that
the folks at CIA right now have no clue about the JFK assassination, but
they know they were told to cover it up.
> Do you think, for example, that the paper bag in evidence was
> Oswald's?
>
> If not, how could it have been faked in a "sub-conscious" way?
>
> Were the experts who authenticated the Backyard Photos lying? How
> could they do that in a "sub-conscious" way?
>
>
>> There was intense paranoia in the UK
>> in the 70's and 80s about the Irish as the 'enemy within', that why there
>> were so many miscarriages of judgment, not because of grand conspiracies.
>> Oswald a commie scumbag at the height of the cold war? There'd be people
>> queuing up to help nail him. Again, not as part of some conscious and
>> grand conspiracy, but because of prejudice, paranoia and fear.
>>
>
> No, that would not explain the magnitude of misconduct that
> conspiracists claim.
>
Government itself explains the magnitude of misconduct. Business as usual.
>
>> As for witnesses, well in a case where there are literally hundreds of
>> contradictory witness statements, its the easiest thing in the world for
>> you, me, the WC, the FBI and whoever else to select witnesses that best
>> fit our case, to arbitrarily discredit witnesses that don't fit our case,
>
> Well a lot of witnesses can be discredited in a non-arbitrary way.
>
> Do you believe Jean Hill, for example?
>
Do you believe Brennan?
What about that WC defender who claims he was the unknown witness in
Dealey Plaza?
>
>> and make others fit our case whether they do or not. Be honest, we all do
>> it, CT and LN. Every witness you have to back up what you say, someone
>> else could find another one that contradicts it. It's just too easy to
>> make witnesses tell whatever story you need them to tell.
>
> That's why witness testimony is the least valuable form of evidence.
>
Not just that, but primarily the fallability of observation.
Anthony Marsh
And yet in the next breath the WC defenders will claim that it would be
impossible for a stranger to carry a rifle into the TSBD. But it was
take your rifle to work week, so such a thing would seem normal.
Anthony Marsh
>
>>>> "Typical for a WC defender you fail to separate the conspiracy to
> murder from the cover-up." <<<
>
> Another absurd statement from the e-lips of Anthony Marsh (despite the
> silly words about "World War 3" that Tony wrote just after I cut him off
> above).
>
> So, now we can add this incredible coincidence to Marsh's list of things
> that he apparently thinks actually happened:
>
> There was a PRE-assassination "conspiracy" to frame Lee Harvey
> Oswald.....and then immediately after JFK's murder, all of the authorities
> (from the DPD on up to the Chief Justice and the entire WC) decided they
> ALSO wanted to frame the VERY SAME PATSY that the pre-11/22 plotters were
> attempting to frame.
>
The post assassination cover-up was to squash rumors of conspiracy.
> That's not just a coincidence among TWO totally-separate groups of
> plotters/cover-uppers --- that's a miracle!
>
How do you get the FBI and other agencies to cooperate with a CIA
conspiracy which they are covering up? Call it National Security.
Remember the trick that Nixon tried to get the FBI to stop investigating
the Plumbers.
soilysound
> On 29 Sep 2009 22:09:56 -0400, soilysound <soilyso...@googlemail.com>
The crucial point about the cases I mentioned is they got uncovered
because the chief suspects were still alive, they were tried and they
talked, which Oswald never had a chance to do.
I think the backyard photos are probably genuine, although their
provenance is suspicious. They pose a question though. If Oswald was
just an attention seeking lone nut, who cockily posed with 2 murder
weapons to be, then why would he vehemently deny committing the
subsequent crimes, right until his dying breathe? What was the purpose
of the photographs? Why is he holding up the commie newspaper? He may
as well be holding up a sign saying "I'm as guilty as sin of any
future crime and I want the whole world to know about it".
That bothers me. That's not the sort of thing attention seeking
nutters do who then emphatically protest their innocence and claim the
photo was a fake even as they're dying.
So we have the two camps - The photos were faked to incriminate Oswald
or Oswald inexplicably took the incriminating photos himself, even
though he would deny committing the crime. He consciously and
methodically implicated himself in a crime he would deny committing.
Does that make any sense to you? I perswonally would always look for
an explantion that doesn;t involve fakery first. But I think unlike
you, if I'm left with no option but to conclude 'evidence tampering',
then I'm prepared to go there because I know it does happen. (CE399 is
an example of evidence tampering. There is as much evidence that
bullet ever hit Kennedy as there is of Pixies. And there's plenty of
evidence to suggest it was not the bullet found at Parkland)
Anyway, in this case I think conspiracy theorists have been going off
down a cul de sac over the 'faking' of the backyard photos. The
question they should be asking is not are they fake but why were they
taken. The self implicating Oswald theory just doesn't wash.
I think there might be a 3rd explanation for them. Oswald clearly took
the photos for a reason. Look at them, they're not snaps for the photo
album and he's not just showing off his new toys, he's holding up a
newspaper like people do with kidnap pictures. There's a very
specific purpose to these photos. Suppose Oswald was involved in some
screwy and convoluted low level spy work, and someone told him to pose
for some incriminating looking photos to be used by them to set
someone else up for something.
Or he was told to create some photos of himself looking like a badass
and to give him some credentials because he was to infiltrate some
bunch of crazies and they'd be good currency to win them over. Or some
other silly reason that appealed to Oswald's fantasies of spies and
double agents.
It all sounds a bit screwy but we have evidence Oswald has been
involved with some seriously screwy stuff before - the Mexico
shenanigans, the Odio incident, the 1 man FPCC branch, the staged
fight with Bringuier. They all have the impression of a man who either
is (or thinks he is) up to more than meets the eye. Something covert
and undercover. Maybe Oswald was just a fantasist who like to pretend
he was involved in proper spy work but was just playing games.
The posted bag poses a similar question to me. We have two polarized
and unsatisfactory explanations - 1 that it was posted by the
consoirators to help frame Oswald and 2 that it was some kind of
'crank bag'. Both lack any basic credibility or believability as
explanations. So maybe there's a 3rd explanation, perhaps the bag was
just part of a mischief making attempt to muddy the waters and create
false trails to confuse the hell out of people. If there's one sure
fire way to destroy the truth its to create a lot of noise. Create and
spread as many false trails, dead ends, paradoxical evidence, rumors,
fake theories, and wacky conjectures as possible so eventually
everyone is so confused nobody knows what the hell the truth is
anymore. We know this sort of thing is a favorite pastime of spooks,
for instance the infamous Renne Le Chateux stuff made famous by Dan
Brown, actually involved the spreading of fake documents and all sorts
of bizarre false leads by members of British and French Intelligence.
Re Jean Hill. I'd completely discount her because there is no
corroboration.
Re Tippit. It amuses me that the same people admonishing conspiracy
theorists who suggest different shooting patters than the SBT because
they can't account for the missing bullets also advocate a theory in
the Tippit killing that must also involve a vanishing bullet. The
shells only match if you hypothesize a missed bullet that vanished
into the ether, and 46 years later it still hasn't been found!
Sandy McCroskey
> soilysound wrote:
> > On Sep 30, 5:27 am, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> >>>>> "Isn't it possible that all these people didn't notice it because
> >> Oswald had no such bag and Frazier is in fact an unreliable witness?" <<<
>
> >> It's not just Frazier. You've got to call Linnie Mae Randle an outright
> >> liar too. She saw Oswald with the bag too.
>
> > Or just mistaken because she couldn't really see the bag properly from
> > where she was. And they both estimated the bag to be much smaller than
>
> > It's also just beyond belief that Oswald could carry a paper bag half
> > his own height into the TSBD without anyone there seeing him with it.
> > It's not something you could forget if you saw it. And lets not forget
> > Frazier said he saw Oswald carry his bag between his cupped hand and
> > his armpit. Was he an orangutan?
>
> And yet in the next breath the WC defenders will claim that it would be
> impossible for a stranger to carry a rifle into the TSBD. But it was
> take your rifle to work week, so such a thing would seem normal.
It wasn't "anybody in Dallas bring your rifle to our workplace week."
Sure seems to me a stranger would have been noticed.
/sm
John McAdams
wrote:
>On Sep 30, 4:05�pm, John McAdams <john.mcad...@marquette.edu> wrote:
>> On 29 Sep 2009 22:09:56 -0400, soilysound <soilyso...@googlemail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> Do you believe Jean Hill, for example?
>>
>> >and make others fit our case whether they do or not. Be honest, we all do
>> >it, CT and LN. Every witness you have to back up what you say, someone
>> >else could find another one that contradicts it. It's just too easy to
>> >make witnesses tell whatever story you need them to tell.
>>
>> That's why witness testimony is the least valuable form of evidence.
>>
>> There is plenty of witness testimony that Oswald shot Tippit (and
>> essentially no testimony that somebody else did), but the spent
>> cartridges found at the scene are the "killer" evidence.
>>
>
>The crucial point about the cases I mentioned is they got uncovered
>because the chief suspects were still alive, they were tried and they
>talked, which Oswald never had a chance to do.
>
>I think the backyard photos are probably genuine, although their
>provenance is suspicious. They pose a question though. If Oswald was
>just an attention seeking lone nut, who cockily posed with 2 murder
>weapons to be, then why would he vehemently deny committing the
>subsequent crimes, right until his dying breathe?
He liked playing the victim.
>What was the purpose
>of the photographs? Why is he holding up the commie newspaper? He may
>as well be holding up a sign saying "I'm as guilty as sin of any
>future crime and I want the whole world to know about it".
>
He could not have had the Kennedy assassination in mind, but he most
likely had the Walker shooting in mind.
He told Marina he was going to send a copy to THE MILITANT, and indeed
he did. (Gus Russo talked to a staffer there who confirmed that.)
It may be that he expected to be caught or even killed shooting
Walker, and was setting up his image as a militant "ready for
anything" (a term he used to Marina).
>That bothers me. That's not the sort of thing attention seeking
>nutters do who then emphatically protest their innocence and claim the
>photo was a fake even as they're dying.
>
It was seven months later.
>So we have the two camps - The photos were faked to incriminate Oswald
>or Oswald inexplicably took the incriminating photos himself, even
>though he would deny committing the crime. He consciously and
>methodically implicated himself in a crime he would deny committing.
>Does that make any sense to you? I perswonally would always look for
>an explantion that doesn;t involve fakery first. But I think unlike
>you, if I'm left with no option but to conclude 'evidence tampering',
>then I'm prepared to go there because I know it does happen. (CE399 is
>an example of evidence tampering. There is as much evidence that
>bullet ever hit Kennedy as there is of Pixies. And there's plenty of
>evidence to suggest it was not the bullet found at Parkland)
>
>Anyway, in this case I think conspiracy theorists have been going off
>down a cul de sac over the 'faking' of the backyard photos. The
>question they should be asking is not are they fake but why were they
>taken. The self implicating Oswald theory just doesn't wash.
>
>I think there might be a 3rd explanation for them. Oswald clearly took
>the photos for a reason. Look at them, they're not snaps for the photo
>album and he's not just showing off his new toys, he's holding up a
>newspaper like people do with kidnap pictures. There's a very
>specific purpose to these photos. Suppose Oswald was involved in some
>screwy and convoluted low level spy work, and someone told him to pose
>for some incriminating looking photos to be used by them to set
>someone else up for something.
>
I'm afraid you don't need that theory. Oswald was his own "spy
network."
You know about all his fake IDs, right?
About the word "microdots" next to Jaggers-Chiles-Stoval in his
address book?
>Or he was told to create some photos of himself looking like a badass
>and to give him some credentials because he was to infiltrate some
>bunch of crazies and they'd be good currency to win them over. Or some
>other silly reason that appealed to Oswald's fantasies of spies and
>double agents.
>
OK, glad you understand about his fantasies. You simply don't really
need any spy network to explain things. It's redundant.
>It all sounds a bit screwy but we have evidence Oswald has been
>involved with some seriously screwy stuff before - the Mexico
>shenanigans, the Odio incident, the 1 man FPCC branch, the staged
>fight with Bringuier.
You understand that it was staged *by* Oswald, and not *between*
Oswald and Bringuier, right?
>They all have the impression of a man who either
>is (or thinks he is) up to more than meets the eye. Something covert
>and undercover. Maybe Oswald was just a fantasist who like to pretend
>he was involved in proper spy work but was just playing games.
>
Bingo!
>The posted bag poses a similar question to me. We have two polarized
>and unsatisfactory explanations - 1 that it was posted by the
>consoirators to help frame Oswald and 2 that it was some kind of
>'crank bag'. Both lack any basic credibility or believability as
>explanations. So maybe there's a 3rd explanation, perhaps the bag was
>just part of a mischief making attempt to muddy the waters and create
>false trails to confuse the hell out of people. If there's one sure
>fire way to destroy the truth its to create a lot of noise. Create and
>spread as many false trails, dead ends, paradoxical evidence, rumors,
>fake theories, and wacky conjectures as possible so eventually
>everyone is so confused nobody knows what the hell the truth is
>anymore.
Uh . . . I thought you believed that some conspiracy wanted to frame
Oswald.
You frame somebody by making things clear, with all the evidence
pointing to him.
>We know this sort of thing is a favorite pastime of spooks,
>for instance the infamous Renne Le Chateux stuff made famous by Dan
>Brown, actually involved the spreading of fake documents and all sorts
>of bizarre false leads by members of British and French Intelligence.
>
But if you are the Evil Minions of The Conspiracy, you don't want
people confused. You want them blaming Oswald.
>Re Jean Hill. I'd completely discount her because there is no
>corroboration.
>
>Re Tippit. It amuses me that the same people admonishing conspiracy
>theorists who suggest different shooting patters than the SBT because
>they can't account for the missing bullets also advocate a theory in
>the Tippit killing that must also involve a vanishing bullet. The
>shells only match if you hypothesize a missed bullet that vanished
>into the ether, and 46 years later it still hasn't been found!
Ask a cop, please. A missing bullet or cartridge isn't that unusual.
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Barb Junkkarinen
wrote:
But you're okay with both Frazier and Randle, the only two people in
the world to have seen O with a bag that morning, and who both,
independently, described it as being much shorter than *the* bag,
being called mistaken, in error ... despite, in Linnie Mae Randle's
case, her having gone thru a reconstruction with the FBI and made a
bag with them that she agreed fit what she saw that morning. And that
just hapopens to coincide closely with the length of bag Frazier
recalled .... both by measure of where he saw it extend from a to b on
his back seat, as well as how he described O carrying the bag.
Frazier, imo, is remarkable for one thing he did NOT say .... when
asked what kind of paper the bag was made of, he did NOT say, "Well, I
can tell tell you exctly what paper it was, it was the paper we use at
the TSBD, I see it every day."
At one pojnt in time he said it was like "dime store" bag paper.
Barb :-)
Barb Junkkarinen
wrote:
>
>
Ridiculous as you state it. But then that was your intent, no doubt.
:-)
Many main stream CTs, and even a couple LNs I know of, believe there
was a coverup. The CTs and the LNs differ on the conspiracy part. Both
believe the coverup in the aftermath was because, CT: they realized
there had been a conspiracy, or LN: they feared/believed there had
been a conspiracy. You mock the notion of a fear of WWIII ... yet that
is exactly how LBJ cowed some into being on the WC in the first place.
Barb :-)
soilysound
> On 30 Sep 2009 19:16:46 -0400, soilysound <soilyso...@googlemail.com>
That really doesn't wash, because we know when he is caught for a
shooting, he completely denies doing it and denies the photos. You're
describing a man who is preparing to be caught and show the world what he
is, yet that doesn't gel with what he actually does when he is caught for
something at all. And the MILITANT thing you describe sounds suspiciously
like something you'd describe as a factoid to me John.
RE Fake IDs. Yeah I know about them. And there are of course 2
interpretations of why he had them, and I'm having a hard time working out
which is the most credible. Yet there is, in my opinion, plenty of genuine
fingerprints of intelligence work on Oswald, and that leads me to be
slightly more sympathetic to the idea that he really was some sort of spy,
and not a pretend one.
And I disagree that you frame someone (in this kind of instance) by making
it clear they did it. Because as you so correctly point out on numerous
occasions, it's completely ridiculous to suggest there was a grand
conspiracy involving many people faking evidence and covering things up. I
know that, you know that and so do the intelligence services. Contrary to
what some CT believe, The CIA and whoever are not omnipotent. They don't
do things like that because its beyond even their tentacles to achieve.
What they do is create and encourage as much noise, rumor, wacky theories,
false leads and dead ends as possible to confuse the hell out of the whole
issue and the chief casualty when that happens is the truth. Nobody will
ever know, for sure, what happened in this case now just because there is
such a miasma of confusing, contradictory and inexplicable evidence.
Job done.
RE missing bullet. Is that another factoid? Isn't relying on something
that doesn't exist for your theory a bit like Donald Rumsefled saying that
some enemy country must have very well hidden WMD because we can find no
evidence they have WMD?
soilysound
> On 30 Sep 2009 00:27:14 -0400, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com>
I definetly have a problem with those two witnesses. Look at the bag, its
HUGE. It's notably large. In fact, if you was to describe one feature of
the bag having seen some carry it, you'd say 'Wow, that's a big bag'. Yet
those two witnesses don't describe a massive bag at all, which would be
the one thing you'd except them to do when Oswald turned up carrying a bag
half his own height!
It's just completely unbelievable to me that Oswald walked into the TSBD
depository with such a massive bag, and NOBODY there noticed it.
John McAdams
<barbRE...@comcast.net> wrote:
>On 30 Sep 2009 00:27:14 -0400, David Von Pein <davev...@aol.com>
>wrote:
>
>>
>>>>> "Isn't it possible that all these people didn't notice it because
>>Oswald had no such bag and Frazier is in fact an unreliable witness?" <<<
>>
>>It's not just Frazier. You've got to call Linnie Mae Randle an outright
>>liar too. She saw Oswald with the bag too.
>
>But you're okay with both Frazier and Randle, the only two people in
>the world to have seen O with a bag that morning, and who both,
>independently, described it as being much shorter than *the* bag,
>being called mistaken, in error ... despite, in Linnie Mae Randle's
>case, her having gone thru a reconstruction with the FBI and made a
>bag with them that she agreed fit what she saw that morning. And that
>just hapopens to coincide closely with the length of bag Frazier
>recalled .... both by measure of where he saw it extend from a to b on
>his back seat, as well as how he described O carrying the bag.
>
I think it's reasonable to accept their testimony that Oswald *had* a
bag, and question their testimony about the length of the bag.
A bag the right size for the rifle *was* discovered in the Depository.
Want to claim it was faked?
I guess the possibilities here are (1.) long bag theorists -- that's
me, (2.) short bag theorists and (3.) no bag theorists.
It won't to to embrace (2.) and (3.) at the same time, will it?
.John
P.S. Haven't noticed you around for a while. Good to see you, and I
hope you are doing well.
Bud
Or a fried commie, like the Rosenbergs.
Bud
> soilysound wrote:
> > On Sep 30, 5:27 am, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> >>>>> "Isn't it possible that all these people didn't notice it because
> >> Oswald had no such bag and Frazier is in fact an unreliable witness?" <<<
>
> >> It's not just Frazier. You've got to call Linnie Mae Randle an outright
> >> liar too. She saw Oswald with the bag too.
>
> > Or just mistaken because she couldn't really see the bag properly from
> > where she was. And they both estimated the bag to be much smaller than
>
> > It's also just beyond belief that Oswald could carry a paper bag half
> > his own height into the TSBD without anyone there seeing him with it.
> > It's not something you could forget if you saw it. And lets not forget
> > Frazier said he saw Oswald carry his bag between his cupped hand and
> > his armpit. Was he an orangutan?
>
> And yet in the next breath the WC defenders will claim that it would be
> impossible for a stranger to carry a rifle into the TSBD. But it was
> take your rifle to work week, so such a thing would seem normal.
LNers accept the fact that other people brought rifles into the TSBD
that week, and move on. Conspiracy monger cling to these things for
decades, never moving the smallest bit in any direction from it. "I don`t
like this, this is fishy" they declare, as if it will somehow turn into
something they like better.
Bud
> On 30 Sep 2009 00:27:14 -0400, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >>>> "Isn't it possible that all these people didn't notice it because
> >Oswald had no such bag and Frazier is in fact an unreliable witness?" <<<
>
> >It's not just Frazier. You've got to call Linnie Mae Randle an outright
> >liar too. She saw Oswald with the bag too.
>
> But you're okay with both Frazier and Randle, the only two people in
> the world to have seen O with a bag that morning, and who both,
Said they saw Oswald carry a longish bag into work, and that the bag
in evidence looks like the bag they say him carry.
> independently, described it as being much shorter than *the* bag,
> being called mistaken, in error ... despite, in Linnie Mae Randle's
> case, her having gone thru a reconstruction with the FBI and made a
> bag with them that she agreed fit what she saw that morning. And that
> just hapopens to coincide closely with the length of bag Frazier
> recalled .... both by measure of where he saw it extend from a to b on
> his back seat, as well as how he described O carrying the bag.
Two people briefly saw Oswald carrying a mundane item that morning, and
much later were pressed to provide details about it.
Linnie Mae saw him out her kitchen window from a distance long enough
for him to cross her field of vision. She left that window and crossed to
her side door, probably in time to see Oswald disappear behind the carport
wall.
Frazier glanced into his backseat when he turned to back out of the
driveway. When hey both got to work, Oz exited the car. When Frazier got
out, Oswald turned and started walking ahead of him into work, with the
bag in front of him.
Under these conditions and in this context, that Oswald had a bag is the
only trustworthy information they supplied.
> Frazier, imo, is remarkable for one thing he did NOT say .... when
> asked what kind of paper the bag was made of, he did NOT say, "Well, I
> can tell tell you exctly what paper it was, it was the paper we use at
> the TSBD, I see it every day."
How many times did he say he did`t pay attention to the bag?
Bud
> On Sep 30, 5:27 am, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > >>> "Isn't it possible that all these people didn't notice it because
>
> > Oswald had no such bag and Frazier is in fact an unreliable witness?" <<<
>
> > It's not just Frazier. You've got to call Linnie Mae Randle an outright
> > liar too. She saw Oswald with the bag too.
>
> Or just mistaken because she couldn't really see the bag properly from
> where she was. And they both estimated the bag to be much smaller than
> the TSBD bag.
Linnie Mae told the cops Oswald was carrying a "large package".
> Look how big the bag was! -http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/images/bag1.jpg
It was down alongside Oswald`s leg when LMR saw it. It was in the
backseat when Frazier glanced at it. Perhaps he didn`t crane around far
enough to see both ends. People work off of assumptions as much as actual
observations in cases like this, they aren`t out to collect information,
they are just going about their business.
> It's also just beyond belief that Oswald could carry a paper bag half
> his own height into the TSBD without anyone there seeing him with it.
Why? How many people saw him come in, two?
> It's not something you could forget if you saw it.
It`s an ordinary, mundane item. It`s not like he was walking a tiger
to work.
>And lets not forget
> Frazier said he saw Oswald carry his bag between his cupped hand and
> his armpit. Was he an orangutan?
Was Frazier paying him much attention?
Bud
But they will let the murderers of the President walk. Even the
President`s family and friends. The didn`t care that a popular, beloved
person was killed, they didn`t care that his murders would walk . They are
souless government people, drones who act in unison, never questioning.
This is the world that must exist for these conspiracy monger tales to
have merit. But this world only exists between the ears of conspiracy
mongers.
> > It's really hard to believe that all those conspirators would play
> > their roles property, and hard to believe that nobody would talk or
> > let something slip.
>
> Hard to believe that you are unaware of the fact that one of them did
> talk, E. Howard Hunt.
Hard to believe that you are unaware that this isn`t a fact.
> > To really have a small conspiracy, you've got to drop the claim that
> > all the evidence against Oswald was faked or forged.
>
> Well, technically that is irrelevant to the size of the conspiracy. Same
> could apply whether it is 10 or 1,000.
Yah, look at "Charlie`s Angels, they are experts in every field.
> > You've got to drop the claim that all the witnesses who incriminated
> > Oswald (Ruth Paine, Marina Oswald, Wes Frazier, etc.) where lying.
>
> Why? Many witnesses WERE lying and many were simply wrong.
>
> > Otherwise you have a huge conspiracy.
>
> No. A witness lying is not directly connected to the conspiracy to murder.
>
> > So, do you really want a small conspiracy, or are you too attached to
> > all the crazy claims about bogus or faked evidence, lying witnesses,
> > Dallas cops, the FBI, the CIA, the Warren Commission, the HSCA, the
> > Ramsey Clark Panel and so on?
>
> The Castro plots were a small conspiracy, about a baker's dozen, but
> everyone in the government covered it up.
Apples and oranges.
Barb Junkkarinen
No ... and I don't know where "no bag" people get that ... I don't
think there is any doubt he had a bag.
The problem is reconciling what Randle and Frazier independently noted
about the bag ... and that those observations are pretty corroborative
of one another vs the size of the TSBD bag.
>
>.John
>
>P.S. Haven't noticed you around for a while. Good to see you, and I
>hope you are doing well.
Thanks. I am okay, have just been busy with other things and also
suffering what I think is rather burn out from all the useless
nonsense that goes on rather than real discussion. Tiring. Will be
leaving on vacation on a week ... don't know if I'll be peeking in
much while gone or not. Maybe.
Hope you are doing well too!
Barb :-)
Barb Junkkarinen
>On Oct 1, 1:56 pm, Barb Junkkarinen <barbREMOVE...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On 30 Sep 2009 00:27:14 -0400, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> >>>> "Isn't it possible that all these people didn't notice it because
>> >Oswald had no such bag and Frazier is in fact an unreliable witness?" <<<
>>
>> >It's not just Frazier. You've got to call Linnie Mae Randle an outright
>> >liar too. She saw Oswald with the bag too.
>>
>> But you're okay with both Frazier and Randle, the only two people in
>> the world to have seen O with a bag that morning, and who both,
>
> Said they saw Oswald carry a longish bag into work, and that the bag
>in evidence looks like the bag they say him carry.
Have read a few of your responses in this thread this morning. Perhaps
you need to read their testimonies. :-)
>
>> independently, described it as being much shorter than *the* bag,
>> being called mistaken, in error ... despite, in Linnie Mae Randle's
>> case, her having gone thru a reconstruction with the FBI and made a
>> bag with them that she agreed fit what she saw that morning. And that
>> just hapopens to coincide closely with the length of bag Frazier
>> recalled .... both by measure of where he saw it extend from a to b on
>> his back seat, as well as how he described O carrying the bag.
>
> Two people briefly saw Oswald carrying a mundane item that morning, and
>much later were pressed to provide details about it.
They are the only two who saw him with a package; they independently
noted how they saw him carry it and estimate it's length based on
those observations. And their estimates are close ... and work for the
way each said they saw him carry the package.
It's a problem.
>
> Linnie Mae saw him out her kitchen window from a distance long enough
>for him to cross her field of vision. She left that window and crossed to
>her side door, probably in time to see Oswald disappear behind the carport
>wall.
>
> Frazier glanced into his backseat when he turned to back out of the
>driveway. When hey both got to work, Oz exited the car. When Frazier got
>out, Oswald turned and started walking ahead of him into work, with the
>bag in front of him.
>
> Under these conditions and in this context, that Oswald had a bag is the
>only trustworthy information they supplied.
It's the only information you want to consider them trustworthy about.
They each saw O with the package long enough to note HOW he was
carrying the package and estimate the length. Were they correct, were
they both somehow wrong? That's a question, but painting them with
such an offhand and vague brush as you are doing is just silly. What
they said and did and did or did not say is in the record. Perhaps you
should read it.
>
>> Frazier, imo, is remarkable for one thing he did NOT say .... when
>> asked what kind of paper the bag was made of, he did NOT say, "Well, I
>> can tell tell you exctly what paper it was, it was the paper we use at
>> the TSBD, I see it every day."
>
> How many times did he say he did`t pay attention to the bag?
Have you read anything on these two besides Posner? Doesn't seem like
it.
Barb :-)
Anthony Marsh
> On Sep 30, 10:47 am, soilysound <soilyso...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>> On Sep 30, 5:27 am, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>>> "Isn't it possible that all these people didn't notice it because
>>> Oswald had no such bag and Frazier is in fact an unreliable witness?" <<<
>>> It's not just Frazier. You've got to call Linnie Mae Randle an outright
>>> liar too. She saw Oswald with the bag too.
>> Or just mistaken because she couldn't really see the bag properly from
>> where she was. And they both estimated the bag to be much smaller than
>> the TSBD bag.
>
> Linnie Mae told the cops Oswald was carrying a "large package".
>
>> Look how big the bag was! -http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/images/bag1.jpg
>
> It was down alongside Oswald`s leg when LMR saw it. It was in the
> backseat when Frazier glanced at it. Perhaps he didn`t crane around far
> enough to see both ends. People work off of assumptions as much as actual
> observations in cases like this, they aren`t out to collect information,
> they are just going about their business.
>
But someone did see it tucked under his armpit and cupped in his hand,
which is hard to do with a 40 inch object. It's also hard to not see
anything sticking out of the top when you put a 40 inch object inside a 38
inch bag.
But maybe those those curtain rods were specially made by the TDS to
convert into a rifle, just like the Mossad bicycle pumps.
Anthony Marsh
> On Oct 1, 1:56 pm, Barb Junkkarinen <barbREMOVE...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On 30 Sep 2009 00:27:14 -0400, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>>>> "Isn't it possible that all these people didn't notice it because
>>> Oswald had no such bag and Frazier is in fact an unreliable witness?" <<<
>>> It's not just Frazier. You've got to call Linnie Mae Randle an outright
>>> liar too. She saw Oswald with the bag too.
>> But you're okay with both Frazier and Randle, the only two people in
>> the world to have seen O with a bag that morning, and who both,
>
> Said they saw Oswald carry a longish bag into work, and that the bag
> in evidence looks like the bag they say him carry.
>
Said they saw Oswald carrying a SHORTISH bag to the car.
Said that the bag the FBI showed them was NOT the same bag.
>> independently, described it as being much shorter than *the* bag,
>> being called mistaken, in error ... despite, in Linnie Mae Randle's
>> case, her having gone thru a reconstruction with the FBI and made a
>> bag with them that she agreed fit what she saw that morning. And that
>> just hapopens to coincide closely with the length of bag Frazier
>> recalled .... both by measure of where he saw it extend from a to b on
>> his back seat, as well as how he described O carrying the bag.
>
> Two people briefly saw Oswald carrying a mundane item that morning, and
> much later were pressed to provide details about it.
>
> Linnie Mae saw him out her kitchen window from a distance long enough
> for him to cross her field of vision. She left that window and crossed to
> her side door, probably in time to see Oswald disappear behind the carport
> wall.
>
> Frazier glanced into his backseat when he turned to back out of the
> driveway. When hey both got to work, Oz exited the car. When Frazier got
> out, Oswald turned and started walking ahead of him into work, with the
> bag in front of him.
>
Frazier knew his own car. He could tell the difference between a package
staying entirely on one side of the seat versus a package going from the
door to past the middle of the seat.
Anthony Marsh
No, LNers deny it. LNers deny every fact.
David Von Pein
BUD SAID:
>>> "How many times did he [Wesley Frazier] say he didn't pay attention to
the bag?" <<<
BARB J. SAID:
>>> "Have you [Bud] read anything on these two [Frazier & Linnie Mae
Randle] besides Posner? Doesn't seem like it." <<<
DVP NOW SAYS:
Bud doesn't need to read anything about Buell Wesley Frazier (other than
Frazier's WC testimony) in order to know with 100% certainty that that the
question Bud asked in his last post is a very good and valid inquiry:
"How many times did he [Wesley Frazier] say he didn't pay
attention to the bag?" -- Bud
The fact is, when we read Wesley Frazier's 1964 Warren Commission
testimony, Frazier tells the Commission NINE SEPARATE TIMES that he
wasn't paying very close attention to Oswald's paper bag or the way
that LHO was carrying that bag on the morning of 11/22/63.
Let's take a look (these are all quotes from the mouth of Buell Wesley
Frazier, via his Warren Commission session on March 11, 1964):
"I noticed there was a package laying on the back seat, I didn't
pay too much attention and I said, "What's the package, Lee?""
"I will be frank with you, I didn't pay much attention to the
package because like I say before and after he told me that it was
curtain rods and I didn't pay any attention to it, and he never had
lied to me before so I never did have any reason to doubt his word."
"Like I say, I didn't pay much attention to the package other
than I knew he had it under his arm and I didn't pay too much
attention the way he was walking because I was walking along there
looking at the railroad cars and watching the men on the diesel switch
them cars and I didn't pay too much attention on how he carried the
package at all."
"I will say I am not sure about that, whether it was folded over
or not, because, like I say, I didn't pay that much attention to it."
"Like I said, I remember I didn't look at the package very much,
paying much attention, but when I did look at it he did have his hands
on the package like that."
"Well, you know, like I said now, I said I didn't pay much
attention--"
"I didn't pay much attention, but when I did, I say, he had this
part down here, like the bottom would be short he had cupped in his
hand like that and, say, like walking from the back if you had a big
arm jacket there you wouldn't tell much from a package back there."
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh2/html/WC_Vol2_0109b.htm
==========================================
And then there's also Wes Frazier's testimony at the 1986 TV docu-
trial ("On Trial: Lee Harvey Oswald"), which includes this exchange
between witness Frazier and prosecutor Vince Bugliosi:
BUGLIOSI -- "Mr. Frazier, is it true that you paid hardly any
attention to this bag?"
FRAZIER -- "That is true."
BUGLIOSI -- "So the bag could have been protruding out in front of his
body, and you wouldn't have been able to see it, is that correct?"
FRAZIER -- "That is true."
==========================================
RELEVANT EXCERPT FROM "RECLAIMING HISTORY":
"[Buell Wesley] 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 ["On
Trial: Lee Harvey Oswald", 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 [in
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" (Endnotes)(c.2007)
www.ReclaimingHistory.blogspot.com
==========================================
BTW, it's good to see Bud active on the forums once again after an
absence of more than two months. I always miss his contributions when
he goes into one of his hibernation periods when he doesn't post for
months at a time. Prior to 10/1/09, Bud's last post on these aaj/acj
forums was in late July 2009. Good to see you again, my LN & CS&L-
laden friend. :)
Jean Davison
"soilysound" <soily...@googlemail.com> wrote in message
news:52dc54e1-7827-41f1...@l9g2000yqi.googlegroups.com...
>
> I definetly have a problem with those two witnesses. Look at the bag, its
> HUGE. It's notably large. In fact, if you was to describe one feature of
> the bag having seen some carry it, you'd say 'Wow, that's a big bag'. Yet
> those two witnesses don't describe a massive bag at all, which would be
> the one thing you'd except them to do when Oswald turned up carrying a bag
> half his own height!
The bag was long enough to prompt Frazier's sister to report it to
the cops who came to the Paine house on 11/22. That's how the DPD learned
that Oswald had carried a package to work. See the last 7 lines of this
police report:
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh21/html/WH_Vol21_0312b.htm
According to the FBI, Randall's first estimate of the length was
"approximately 3 feet" (third paragraph here):
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=57698&relPageId=145
>
> It's just completely unbelievable to me that Oswald walked into the TSBD
> depository with such a massive bag, and NOBODY there noticed it.
Check out the view from the back door that Oswald entered:
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?absPageId=349586
Did Oswald take the freight elevator (on the right) and head
upstairs, I wonder?
Here's the opposite view looking toward the back door:
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=10896&relPageId=13
Last, a diagram of the first floor shows that the back stairs were nearby,
too:
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0086b.htm
It would've been easy to hide a paper package on the 6th floor:
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=10896&relPageId=44
Jean
Bud
wrote:
> On 1 Oct 2009 21:33:37 -0400,Bud<sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> >On Oct 1, 1:56 pm, Barb Junkkarinen <barbREMOVE...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >> On 30 Sep 2009 00:27:14 -0400, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com>
> >> wrote:
>
> >> >>>> "Isn't it possible that all these people didn't notice it because
> >> >Oswald had no such bag and Frazier is in fact an unreliable witness?" <<<
>
> >> >It's not just Frazier. You've got to call Linnie Mae Randle an outright
> >> >liar too. She saw Oswald with the bag too.
>
> >> But you're okay with both Frazier and Randle, the only two people in
> >> the world to have seen O with a bag that morning, and who both,
>
> > Said they saw Oswald carry a longish bag into work, and that the bag
> >in evidence looks like the bag they say him carry.
>
> Have read a few of your responses in this thread this morning. Perhaps
> you need to read their testimonies. :-)
Perhaps you should read what they told the cops and the FBI. Rose`s
report has LMR telling of a "long brown package". Odum`s FBI report has
them being shown the actual bag found in the TSBD, and them saying it
could be the bag they saw Oswald carrying (if it wasn`t discolored by the
fingerprint treatment).
>
> >> independently, described it as being much shorter than *the* bag,
> >> being called mistaken, in error ... despite, in Linnie Mae Randle's
> >> case, her having gone thru a reconstruction with the FBI and made a
> >> bag with them that she agreed fit what she saw that morning. And that
> >> just hapopens to coincide closely with the length of bag Frazier
> >> recalled .... both by measure of where he saw it extend from a to b on
> >> his back seat, as well as how he described O carrying the bag.
>
> > Two people briefly saw Oswald carrying a mundane item that morning, and
> >much later were pressed to provide details about it.
>
> They are the only two who saw him with a package;
So this makes the details they provide reliable?
> they independently
> noted how they saw him carry it
LMR describes Oswald carrying it differently that her brother did. It`s
unlikely that Frazier saw much of the bag while Oswald was carrying it in
front of him, with Frazier trailing behind.
> and estimate it's length based on
> those observations.
Brief observations, some made at distances of a mundane item that they
were called upon to recall details about many hours later. Why is so much
of the actual context of their observations left out by CTers?
> And their estimates are close ...
Meaningless, since we don`t live in a world where people can often
see a mundane item briefly, and nail details about that item.
>and work for the
> way each said they saw him carry the package.
They each describe him carrying it differently.
> It's a problem.
Only if you think their recall of detail in the context of their
observations must be accurate. If you do as I do, and glean only that they
saw Oswald carrying a bag into work that day, there is no problem.
Especially since a bag was found where Oswald was seen shooting from.
> > Linnie Mae saw him out her kitchen window from a distance long enough
> >for him to cross her field of vision. She left that window and crossed to
> >her side door, probably in time to see Oswald disappear behind the carport
> >wall.
>
> > Frazier glanced into his backseat when he turned to back out of the
> >driveway. When hey both got to work, Oz exited the car. When Frazier got
> >out, Oswald turned and started walking ahead of him into work, with the
> >bag in front of him.
>
> > Under these conditions and in this context, that Oswald had a bag is the
> >only trustworthy information they supplied.
>
> It's the only information you want to consider them trustworthy about.
No, it is the only information they provided that can be
realistically seen as not prone to error.
> They each saw O with the package long enough to note HOW he was
> carrying the package and estimate the length.
They were asked to recall details, and they tried to oblige. But under
such conditions, impressions get mistaken for actual observations.
> Were they correct, were
> they both somehow wrong? That's a question, but painting them with
> such an offhand and vague brush as you are doing is just silly.
I know, CTers often find considering information realistically as being
silly. Isn`t it silly to think that two people could see an unremarkable
object and both nail the particular details about that object hours later?
We go about are lives and we observe and we get impressions about the
world around us, and often the two merge, and often on further
investigation impressions can be determined to be wrong.
> What
> they said and did and did or did not say is in the record. Perhaps you
> should read it.
Not only did I read it, I applied common sense to it. Perhaps you
should give that a try.
> >> Frazier, imo, is remarkable for one thing he did NOT say .... when
> >> asked what kind of paper the bag was made of, he did NOT say, "Well, I
> >> can tell tell you exctly what paper it was, it was the paper we use at
> >> the TSBD, I see it every day."
>
> > How many times did he say he did`t pay attention to the bag?
>
> Have you read anything on these two besides Posner? Doesn't seem like
> it.
<snicker> I think it was Jean Davison that pointed how many times
Frazier said he wasn`t paying much attention to the bag. I`m pretty sure
it was over a dozen times. Perhaps if he had said it a hundred times, that
concept might sink in to some.
Barb Junkkarinen
wrote:
>
>
>BUD SAID:
>
>
>>>> "How many times did he [Wesley Frazier] say he didn't pay attention to
>the bag?" <<<
>
>
>BARB J. SAID:
>
>
>>>> "Have you [Bud] read anything on these two [Frazier & Linnie Mae
>Randle] besides Posner? Doesn't seem like it." <<<
>
>
>DVP NOW SAYS:
>
>Bud doesn't need to read anything about Buell Wesley Frazier (other than
>Frazier's WC testimony)
I agree. :-)
>in order to know with 100% certainty that that the
>question Bud asked in his last post is a very good and valid inquiry:
>
> "How many times did he [Wesley Frazier] say he didn't pay
>attention to the bag?" -- Bud
What matters is what the context of him being asked that question was
... and what he stated, over and over on some points, that he DID
notice about the bag. This "didn't pay attention to the bag" thing,
selectively pulled out, sans context, is an old canard.
Why not pay attention to what he stated he DID notice about the bag?
:-) Not quite as opportunistic as just quoting Frazier saying he
didn't pay much attention without including the question he asked, is
it?
>
>
>The fact is, when we read Wesley Frazier's 1964 Warren Commission
>testimony, Frazier tells the Commission NINE SEPARATE TIMES that he
>wasn't paying very close attention to Oswald's paper bag or the way
>that LHO was carrying that bag on the morning of 11/22/63.
>
>Let's take a look (these are all quotes from the mouth of Buell Wesley
>Frazier, via his Warren Commission session on March 11, 1964):
>
> "I noticed there was a package laying on the back seat, I didn't
>pay too much attention and I said, "What's the package, Lee?""
>
> "I will be frank with you, I didn't pay much attention to the
>package because like I say before and after he told me that it was
>curtain rods and I didn't pay any attention to it, and he never had
>lied to me before so I never did have any reason to doubt his word."
Here's the full exchange on that:
"Mr. FRAZIER - Let's see, when I got in the car I have a kind of habit
of glancing over my shoulder and so at that time I noticed there was a
package laying on the back seat, I didn't pay too much attention and I
said, "What's the package, Lee?"
And he said, "Curtain rods," and I said, "Oh, yes, you told me you was
going to bring some today."
That is the reason, the main reason he was going over there that
Thursday afternoon when he was to bring back some curtain rods, so I
didn't think any more about it when he told me that.
Mr. BALL - What did the package look like?
Mr. FRAZIER - Well, I will be frank with you, I would just, it is
right as you get out of the grocery store, just more or less out of a
package, you have seen some of these brown paper sacks you can obtain
from any, most of the stores, some varieties, but it was a package
just roughly about two feet long.
Mr. BALL - It was, what part of the back seat was it in?
Mr. FRAZIER - It was in his side over on his side in the far back.
Mr. BALL - How much of that back seat, how much space did it take up?
Mr. FRAZIER - I would say roughly around 2 feet of the seat.
Mr. BALL - From the side of the seat over to the center, is that the
way you would measure it?
Mr. FRAZIER - If, if you were going to measure it that way from the
end of the seat over toward the center, right. But I say like I said I
just roughly estimate and that would be around two feet, give and take
a few inches."
He noticed the length, where it extended from a to b on the seat, and
had an estimate of its length. One doesn't have to be "paying much
attention" to note that ... a casual glance, like he said he made, was
sufficient for his observation about its size.
>
> "Like I say, I didn't pay much attention to the package other
>than I knew he had it under his arm and I didn't pay too much
>attention the way he was walking because I was walking along there
>looking at the railroad cars and watching the men on the diesel switch
>them cars and I didn't pay too much attention on how he carried the
>package at all."
Oh my, let's put this in context as well.
Here's the whole exchange:
Mr. BALL - You say he had the package under his arm when you saw him?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL - You mean one end of it under the armpit?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir; he had it up just like you stick it right
under your arm like that.
Mr. BALL - And he had the lower part--
Mr. FRAZIER - The other part with his right hand.
Mr. BALL - Right hand?
Mr. FRAZIER - Right.
Mr. BALL - He carried it then parallel to his body?
Mr. FRAZIER - Right, straight up and down.
Representative FORD - Under his right arm?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL - Did it look to you as if there was something heavy in the
package?
Mr. FRAZIER - Well, I will be frank with you, I didn't pay much
attention to the package because like I say before and after he told
me that it was curtain rods and I didn't pay any attention to it, and
he never had lied to me before so I never did have any reason to doubt
his word.
Mr. BALL - Did it appear to you there was some, more than just paper
he was carrying, some kind of a weight he was carrying?
Mr. FRAZIER - Well, yes, sir; I say, because one reason I know that
because I worked in a department store before and I had uncrated
curtain rods when they come in, and I know if you have seen when they
come straight from the factory you know how they can bundle them up
and put them in there pretty compact, so he told me it was curtain
rods so I didn't think any more about the package whatsoever.
Mr. BALL - Well, from the way he carried it, the way he walked, did it
appear he was carrying something that had more than the weight of a
paper?
Mr. FRAZIER - Well, I say, you know like I say, I didn't pay much
attention to the package other than I knew he had it under his arm and
I didn't pay too much attention the way he was walking because I was
walking along there looking at the railroad cars and watching the men
on the diesel switch them cars and I didn't pay too much attention on
how he carried the package at all.
When it came to HOW Oswald carried the package ... the position in
which Oswald held it, where it extended from where to where....in
cupped hand, under armpit, Frazier DID notice and stated that was how
Oswald carried it. Again, he wasn't examining the package nor
assessing it's weight ... that is what he wasn't paying enough
attention to note. He DID note how Oswald HELD the package.
But then you surely realized that when you selected your little
snippet. :-)
Here's another one ... why did you leave this one out?
QUOTE
Mr. BALL - Now we have over here this exhibit for identification which
is 364 which is a paper sack made out of tape, sort of a home made
affair. Will you take a look at this. Does this appear to be anything
like the color of the sack you saw on the back seat?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir; I would say it was, it was more a color like
this.
Mr. BALL - It was more like this color, correct?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes.
Mr. BALL - Did it have tape on it or did you notice it?
Mr. FRAZIER - Well, like I say, I didn't notice that much about it as
I didn't see it very much.
Mr. BALL - Will you take a look at it as to the length. Does it appear
to be about the same length?
Mr. FRAZIER - No, sir.
END QUOTE
>
> "I will say I am not sure about that, whether it was folded over
>or not, because, like I say, I didn't pay that much attention to it."
Here's another .... he didn't notice tape .... but it wasn't open.
QUOTE
Mr. BALL - We will just use this. Was one end of the sack turned over,
folded over? Do you remember that?
Mr. FRAZIER - Well, you know, like I was saying, when I glanced at it,
but I say from what I saw I didn't see very much of it, I say the bag
wasn't open or anything like it where you can see the contents. If you
was going to say putting--to more or less a person putting in
carefully he would throw it in carefully, you put it more toward the
back. If he had anything folded up in it I didn't see that.
END QUOTE
>
> "Like I said, I remember I didn't look at the package very much,
>paying much attention, but when I did look at it he did have his hands
>on the package like that."
And just how WAS that according to what Frazier DID pay enough
attention to notice?
Mr. BALL - When you saw him get out of the car, when you first saw him
when he was out of the car before he started to walk, you noticed he
had the package under the arm?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL - One end of it was under the armpit and the other he had to
hold it in his right hand. Did the package extend beyond the right
hand?
Mr. FRAZIER - No, sir. Like I say if you put it under your armpits and
put it down normal to the side.
Mr. BALL - But the right hand on, was it on the end or the side of the
package?
Mr. FRAZIER - No; he had it cupped in his hand.
Mr. BALL - Cupped in his hand?
Mr. FRAZIER - Right.
>
> "Well, you know, like I said now, I said I didn't pay much
>attention--"
And what was the question? :-))))
>
> "I didn't pay much attention, but when I did, I say, he had this
>part down here, like the bottom would be short he had cupped in his
>hand like that and, say, like walking from the back if you had a big
>arm jacket there you wouldn't tell much from a package back there."
Key words...."BUT WHEN I DID [pay attention]" ... pitiful, DVP,
pitiful. Sigh.
>
>
>http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh2/html/WC_Vol2_0109b.htm
>
>
>
>==========================================
>
>And then there's also Wes Frazier's testimony at the 1986 TV docu-
>trial ("On Trial: Lee Harvey Oswald"), which includes this exchange
>between witness Frazier and prosecutor Vince Bugliosi:
Oh my! You are really going for THIS one! The worst of the worst in
misrepresenting what Frazier was talking about. OH BOY!
>
>BUGLIOSI -- "Mr. Frazier, is it true that you paid hardly any
>attention to this bag?"
>
>FRAZIER -- "That is true."
>
>BUGLIOSI -- "So the bag could have been protruding out in front of his
>body, and you wouldn't have been able to see it, is that correct?"
>
>FRAZIER -- "That is true."
Wow. Let's definitely put this in context!!!
You DO realize that what Frazier was being asked about .... and didn't
understand at this point, but made it QUITE clear as the exchange went
on... in his WC testimony!, was whether or not the package extended
forward wider than O's hand WIDTH ... did it extend beyond his cupped
hand. Don't you?
It had NOTHING to do with how O carried the package ... or its LENGTH.
This from a post I wrote about it in Novemeber 2001:
QUOTE
Posner adds an interesting footnote on page 225, where he claims that
Frazier:
"later admitted the package could have been longer than he
thought,"
and quotes Frazier as saying:
"I only glanced at it... hardly paid any attention to it. He
had the package parallel to his body, and it's true it could have
extended beyond his body and I wouldn't have noticed it."
Hmmmm. Posner cites that from London Weekly Television, "Trial of
Lee Harvey Oswald". The problem, and error, is that unless that show
changed Frazier's *original* testimony to the WC, what Frazier was
talking about there was NOT the LENGTH of the package, but the WIDTH.
They had quite a discussion about
that during his testimony before the WC and they certainly clarified
the point.
Frazier said the package could have extended out IN FRONT of Oswald's
body... beyond the width of his hand... and Frazier would not have
been able to see that because Oswald was walking in front of him. They
got into this discussion because the bag the WC showed him was a bit
wider than Frazier remembered.
Why did Posner choose to cite a television mock trial (from many
years later) rather than Frazier's original testimony to the Warren
Commission? It seems he broke his own rule here about the earliest
being the best. Not only that, but someone posted the
exchange Frazier had at the "trial" on the news groups, and he
said nothing remotely similar to the quote Posner gives his readers.
That quote is from Frazier's WC testimony and refers to the width of
the bag, not the length.
Only a reader very familiar with the evidence would be aware of that.
Here's the exchange from Frazier's testimony, Volume II, pg 241:
[emphasis mine]
Mr. FRAZIER. Like I said, I remember I didn't look at the
package very much, paying much attention, but when I did look at it he
did have his hands on the package like that.
Mr. BALL. But you said a moment ago you weren't sure whether
the package was longer or shorter.
Mr. FRAZIER. And his hands because I couldn't see that about
the package.
Mr. BALL. By that, do you mean that you don't know whether
the package extended beyond his hands?
Mr. FRAZIER. This way?
Mr. BALL. No; lengthwise, toward his feet.
Mr. FRAZIER. NO; NOW I DON'T MEAN THAT.
Mr. BALL. What do you mean?
Mr. FRAZIER. What I was talking about, I said I didn't know
where it extended. It could have or couldn't have, out this way,
WIDTHWISE NOT LENGTHWISE.
Mr. BALL. In other words, you say it could have been wider
than your original estimate?
Mr. FRAZIER. Right.
Mr. BALL. But you don't think it was longer than his hands?
Mr. FRAZIER. Right.
END QUOTE
Disappointing DVP, very disappointing, that you would promote this
long ago noted Posner disaster. So much for reading Frazier's actual
testimony, I guess. Or at least reading and understanding all of it.
Barb :-)
Barb Junkkarinen
>On Oct 2, 11:52 am, Barb Junkkarinen <barbREMOVE...@comcast.net>
>wrote:
>> On 1 Oct 2009 21:33:37 -0400,Bud<sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> >On Oct 1, 1:56 pm, Barb Junkkarinen <barbREMOVE...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> >> On 30 Sep 2009 00:27:14 -0400, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com>
>> >> wrote:
>>
>> >> >>>> "Isn't it possible that all these people didn't notice it because
>> >> >Oswald had no such bag and Frazier is in fact an unreliable witness?" <<<
>>
>> >> >It's not just Frazier. You've got to call Linnie Mae Randle an outright
>> >> >liar too. She saw Oswald with the bag too.
>>
>> >> But you're okay with both Frazier and Randle, the only two people in
>> >> the world to have seen O with a bag that morning, and who both,
>>
>> > Said they saw Oswald carry a longish bag into work, and that the bag
>> >in evidence looks like the bag they say him carry.
>>
>> Have read a few of your responses in this thread this morning. Perhaps
>> you need to read their testimonies. :-)
>
> Perhaps you should read what they told the cops and the FBI. Rose`s
>report has LMR telling of a "long brown package". Odum`s FBI report has
>them being shown the actual bag found in the TSBD, and them saying it
>could be the bag they saw Oswald carrying (if it wasn`t discolored by the
>fingerprint treatment).
Perhaps you should provide some quotes .... ***in context***.
>
>>
>> >> independently, described it as being much shorter than *the* bag,
>> >> being called mistaken, in error ... despite, in Linnie Mae Randle's
>> >> case, her having gone thru a reconstruction with the FBI and made a
>> >> bag with them that she agreed fit what she saw that morning. And that
>> >> just hapopens to coincide closely with the length of bag Frazier
>> >> recalled .... both by measure of where he saw it extend from a to b on
>> >> his back seat, as well as how he described O carrying the bag.
>>
>> > Two people briefly saw Oswald carrying a mundane item that morning, and
>> >much later were pressed to provide details about it.
>>
>> They are the only two who saw him with a package;
>
> So this makes the details they provide reliable?
Not necessarily...but, they also independently corroborate one
another. And having actually seen the package they are describing ...
and no one else did ... sure, that helps.
>
>> they independently
>> noted how they saw him carry it
>
> LMR describes Oswald carrying it differently that her brother did. It`s
>unlikely that Frazier saw much of the bag while Oswald was carrying it in
>front of him, with Frazier trailing behind.
Of course she does! Yet trhe way she saw him carrying it works out for
the length she estimated ... and reconstructed for the FBI .... and
corroborates Frazier's estimated length taken from a different
benchmark.
>
>> and estimate it's length based on
>> those observations.
>
> Brief observations, some made at distances of a mundane item that they
>were called upon to recall details about many hours later. Why is so much
>of the actual context of their observations left out by CTers?
See my post to DVP. If you care about context .... then USE IT and
provide cites that make it clear!!!!
>
>> And their estimates are close ...
>
> Meaningless, since we don`t live in a world where people can often
>see a mundane item briefly, and nail details about that item.
>
>>and work for the
>> way each said they saw him carry the package.
>
> They each describe him carrying it differently.
Hellooooo???? That's not the point.
Geesh.
>
>> It's a problem.
>
> Only if you think their recall of detail in the context of their
>observations must be accurate. If you do as I do, and glean only that they
>saw Oswald carrying a bag into work that day, there is no problem.
Your problem is that Frazier was emphatic about what he saw and
noticed ... and what he wasn'. He doggedly maintained the length of
the package he saw and how he saw Oswald carry it.
Could be incorrect on one or both of those? Sure, he's human. But his
sister's observations, at a different place and time and with O
carrying the bag in a different manner .... corroborates Frazier's
recollection as to length.
One cannot jus vaguely brush that aside as if it is of no import ...
as you do.
'Nuf
Barb :-)
David Von Pein
>>> "Here's another one ... why did you leave this one out?" <<<
Thanks (twice).
With the two additional WC cites you provided, we're now up to ELEVEN
total times that Wes Frazier admitted he wasn't paying much attention
to Oswald's bag (or the way he carried it).
11 times in one WC session. Pretty impressive...except to CTers who
want to deny the obvious...with that obvious being: Buell Wesley
Frazier saw the bag that contained the instrument that Oswald used to
murder President Kennedy.
Why continue to deny the obvious, Barbara? Just....why?
Barb Junkkarinen
wrote:
>
LOL! Nice how you totally avoid all the cites I posted that put all
your "didn't pay attention"s in context. A total dodge, dive ... and
now a divert to me.
I'm not the one denying anything. Or claiming anything on this for
that matter.
I just prefer accurate representation of what a witness did or did not
say. :-)
John McAdams
Hi, Barb,
I take it you *do* reject the theory that Oswald had no bag at all
that morning, right?
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Bud
wrote:
> On 2 Oct 2009 18:20:18 -0400, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >BUDSAID:
>
> >>>> "How many times did he [Wesley Frazier] say he didn't pay attention to
> >the bag?" <<<
>
> >BARB J. SAID:
>
> >>>> "Have you [Bud] read anything on these two [Frazier & Linnie Mae
> >Randle] besides Posner? Doesn't seem like it." <<<
>
> >DVP NOW SAYS:
>
> >Frazier's WC testimony)
>
> I agree. :-)
>
> >in order to know with 100% certainty that that the
>
> > "How many times did he [Wesley Frazier] say he didn't pay
> >attention to the bag?" --Bud
>
> What matters is what the context of him being asked that question was
> ... and what he stated, over and over on some points, that he DID
> notice about the bag. This "didn't pay attention to the bag" thing,
> selectively pulled out, sans context, is an old canard.
Overall, he was generally inattentive to Oswald and his bag. That is
the context.
> Why not pay attention to what he stated he DID notice about the bag?
> :-) Not quite as opportunistic as just quoting Frazier saying he
> didn't pay much attention without including the question he asked, is
> it?
It really doesn`t make those observations reliable. Oswald and his
bag mostly didn`t enter his consciousness. At some points it did, and
snippits of information did reach his conciousness. These are
generally called impressions, and aren`t particularly trustworthy.
Did he really. or did he glance in the backseat and get a vague
impression about the object in relation to the seat. You claim a fine
point where none is evident. He guessing where it came to, unless you
think people look at things and note distances from other things when
they observe them briefly.
Also, how likely is it he could see the whole backseat by glancing
over his shoulder? Is it likely he could see all the way to the door
directly behind him looking over his shoulder/
> One doesn't have to be "paying much
> attention" to note that ... a casual glance, like he said he made, was
> sufficient for his observation about its size.
Yah, seeing something is enough to provide information. It doesn`t
speak to the reliability of the information provided.
Accurately? Or is Oswald and his bag at the fringes of his
consciousness, and these just related impressions turned into
observations? His mind is neither curious or attentive, his mind could
just be satisfied with the information that his co-worker is walking
ahead of him carrying a bag, and he might only have a vague impression
about how he is carrying it. Much later, when pressed to supply
details, he offered the impressions, which at that point cannot be
separated from actual observations.
You`d have a better chance questioning him about the trains he was
interested in, and even then, had you a photo of that area taken at
the time, and compared it to his observations, would likely find many
points he was pretty sure about to be wrong (how many trains coupled
together, where people were standing, ect).
> But then you surely realized that when you selected your little
> snippet. :-)
What you are supplying doesn`t change the context. Frazier is trying
to express the idea that he was generally innattentive to that
package. That doesn`t make the times it did eneter his consciousness
actual scrutiny.
How much attention did he give it at that point? More than his usual
inattentiveness, but how much is that really? It could be he went
from giving it no attention to very little. It could be that his mind
got an impression it was satisfied with and moved on. The mind does
this constantly, every second of every day our mind gathers snippits
of information, some of it accurate, some of it not. Sometimes a
second look will change out initial impressions, usually without us
really taking note. If we don`t take the second look, the initial
impression is left to stand, correct or incorrect. You can find the
science behind this on the internet, I browsed Loftus, and found other
researchers doing work on how impressions become accepted as actual
observation. It`s how a woman watching a motorcade came to believe
there was a dog in a limo when none was present. If an person who made
a trip to see an event and was fully attentive to that object can be
totally wrong, why do you have such faith in a generally inattentive
person?
And that isn`t to say that people are totally unreliable. They are
good at certain kinds of observation. They would rarely mistake
someone as carrying a bag who wasn`t. They are fairly good at
recognizing people. Not all observing is equal.
>
> >http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh2/html/WC_Vol2_010...
> >www.RapidShare.com/files/235905752/TESTIMONY_OF_BUELL_WESLEY_FRAZIER_...
> >BTW, it's good to seeBudactive on the forums once again after an
> >absence of more than two months. I always miss his contributions when
> >he goes into one of his hibernation periods when he doesn't post for
> >months at a time. Prior to 10/1/09,Bud'slast post on these aaj/acj
David Von Pein
Maybe you, Barb, should ask yourself this:
Is it truly reasonable to accept the estimates of the length of a
paper bag that a young man named Frazier REPEATEDLY told us he was not
paying much attention to at all?
And: Is it reasonable to accept Frazier's "under the armpit"
observation when we also have the following two back-to-back comments
from Frazier in the record (not to mention also having in the record
CE142, which is the actual paper bag that Frazier almost certainly
saw, a 38-inch-long paper bag with LHO's prints on it)?:
"I didn't pay much attention to the package other than I knew he
had it under his arm."
"I didn't pay too much attention on how he carried the package
at all."
The above two sentences are totally contradictory. Wouldn't you agree,
Barbara?
soilysound
wrote:
> "soilysound" <soilyso...@googlemail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:52dc54e1-7827-41f1...@l9g2000yqi.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > I definetly have a problem with those two witnesses. Look at the bag, its
> > HUGE. It's notably large. In fact, if you was to describe one feature of
> > the bag having seen some carry it, you'd say 'Wow, that's a big bag'. Yet
> > those two witnesses don't describe a massive bag at all, which would be
> > the one thing you'd except them to do when Oswald turned up carrying a bag
> > half his own height!
>
> The bag was long enough to prompt Frazier's sister to report it to
> the cops who came to the Paine house on 11/22. That's how the DPD learned
> that Oswald had carried a package to work. See the last 7 lines of this
> police report:
>
>
> According to the FBI, Randall's first estimate of the length was
> "approximately 3 feet" (third paragraph here):
>
>
>
>
> > It's just completely unbelievable to me that Oswald walked into the TSBD
> > depository with such a massive bag, and NOBODY there noticed it.
>
> Check out the view from the back door that Oswald entered:
>
>
> Did Oswald take the freight elevator (on the right) and head
> upstairs, I wonder?
>
> Here's the opposite view looking toward the back door:
>
>
> Last, a diagram of the first floor shows that the back stairs were nearby,
> too:
>
> http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0086b.htm
>
> It would've been easy to hide a paper package on the 6th floor:
>
>
> Jean
Thanks, that's food for thought.
But what about Jack Dougherty? He saw Oswald enter the TSBD that
morning and didn't recall him carrying any bag. How is that possible
for someone to carry such a huge bag and not be noticed? Furthermore,
nobody ever saw Oswald with the bag before the 22nd. And the guy in
charge of the paper and tape dispenser at the TSBD said Oswald never
got any paper or tape off him to make the bag. So the question is, how
did Oswald get the material to make the bag, and when and where did he
make it?
Bud
> Budwrote:
> > On Oct 1, 1:56 pm, Barb Junkkarinen <barbREMOVE...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >> On 30 Sep 2009 00:27:14 -0400, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com>
> >> wrote:
>
> >>>>>> "Isn't it possible that all these people didn't notice it because
> >>> Oswald had no such bag and Frazier is in fact an unreliable witness?" <<<
> >>> It's not just Frazier. You've got to call Linnie Mae Randle an outright
> >>> liar too. She saw Oswald with the bag too.
> >> But you're okay with both Frazier and Randle, the only two people in
> >> the world to have seen O with a bag that morning, and who both,
>
> > Said they saw Oswald carry a longish bag into work, and that the bag
> > in evidence looks like the bag they say him carry.
>
> Said they saw Oswald carrying a SHORTISH bag to the car.
By using the word "long", Tony?
> Said that the bag the FBI showed them was NOT the same bag.
By telling the FBI it could be the bag they saw Oswald carrying,
Tony?
> >> independently, described it as being much shorter than *the* bag,
> >> being called mistaken, in error ... despite, in Linnie Mae Randle's
> >> case, her having gone thru a reconstruction with the FBI and made a
> >> bag with them that she agreed fit what she saw that morning. And that
> >> just hapopens to coincide closely with the length of bag Frazier
> >> recalled .... both by measure of where he saw it extend from a to b on
> >> his back seat, as well as how he described O carrying the bag.
>
> > Two people briefly saw Oswald carrying a mundane item that morning, and
> > much later were pressed to provide details about it.
>
> > Linnie Mae saw him out her kitchen window from a distance long enough
> > for him to cross her field of vision. She left that window and crossed to
> > her side door, probably in time to see Oswald disappear behind the carport
> > wall.
>
> > Frazier glanced into his backseat when he turned to back out of the
> > driveway. When hey both got to work, Oz exited the car. When Frazier got
> > out, Oswald turned and started walking ahead of him into work, with the
> > bag in front of him.
>
> Frazier knew his own car.
That might be significant, if he was being questioned about details
of his car.
Read what he said about the rifle he carried in the Army. Despite
carrying, cleaning, assembling and disassembling that rifle, he was
still significantly wrong when he guessed it`s length.
> He could tell the difference between a package
> staying entirely on one side of the seat versus a package going from the
> door to past the middle of the seat.
Amazing. You weren`t there and you don`t know Frazier, yet you still
make this meaningless claim about what could or could not happen.
Bud
wrote:
> On 2 Oct 2009 18:40:57 -0400,Bud<sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> >On Oct 2, 11:52 am, Barb Junkkarinen <barbREMOVE...@comcast.net>
> >wrote:
> >> On 1 Oct 2009 21:33:37 -0400,Bud<sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>
> >> >On Oct 1, 1:56 pm, Barb Junkkarinen <barbREMOVE...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >> >> On 30 Sep 2009 00:27:14 -0400, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com>
> >> >> wrote:
>
> >> >> >>>> "Isn't it possible that all these people didn't notice it because
> >> >> >Oswald had no such bag and Frazier is in fact an unreliable witness?" <<<
>
> >> >> >It's not just Frazier. You've got to call Linnie Mae Randle an outright
> >> >> >liar too. She saw Oswald with the bag too.
>
> >> >> But you're okay with both Frazier and Randle, the only two people in
> >> >> the world to have seen O with a bag that morning, and who both,
>
> >> > Said they saw Oswald carry a longish bag into work, and that the bag
> >> >in evidence looks like the bag they say him carry.
>
> >> Have read a few of your responses in this thread this morning. Perhaps
> >> you need to read their testimonies. :-)
>
> > Perhaps you should read what they told the cops and the FBI. Rose`s
> >report has LMR telling of a "long brown package". Odum`s FBI report has
> >them being shown the actual bag found in the TSBD, and them saying it
> >could be the bag they saw Oswald carrying (if it wasn`t discolored by the
> >fingerprint treatment).
>
> Perhaps you should provide some quotes .... ***in context***.
Two problems with that. I can`t cut and paste, and writing down and
typing in information is tedious. And secondly, the information is rarely
the problem.
> >> >> independently, described it as being much shorter than *the* bag,
> >> >> being called mistaken, in error ... despite, in Linnie Mae Randle's
> >> >> case, her having gone thru a reconstruction with the FBI and made a
> >> >> bag with them that she agreed fit what she saw that morning. And that
> >> >> just hapopens to coincide closely with the length of bag Frazier
> >> >> recalled .... both by measure of where he saw it extend from a to b on
> >> >> his back seat, as well as how he described O carrying the bag.
>
> >> > Two people briefly saw Oswald carrying a mundane item that morning, and
> >> >much later were pressed to provide details about it.
>
> >> They are the only two who saw him with a package;
>
> > So this makes the details they provide reliable?
>
> Not necessarily...
Good. Thats what I believe also. And when other information is
considered (the BY photo, the rifle and bag found where the shots were
fired, the rifle with Oswald`s prints, a witness saying he saw Oswald
firing a rifle, ect), these things tend to draw into question the accuracy
of their observations. CTers would have it the other way around, with this
information that is not necessarily correct trumping what is known and
established.
>but, they also independently corroborate one
> another.
Yah, the authorities were very interested in this bag, they lived
together, but never talked about it (thus tainting and influencing one
another) about it before the FBI questioned them weeks later? That would
be amazing, don`t you think?
>And having actually seen the package they are describing ...
> and no one else did ... sure, that helps.
So, if Jean Hill was the only person who turned out in Dealy, we would
be forced to accept that there was a dog in the limo on the strength of it
being the only information available?
WBF Frazier is the only person who describes Oswald as carrying the bag
with his hand cupped at the bottom. Nobody is available to corroborate him
on this point.
> >> they independently
> >> noted how they saw him carry it
>
> > LMR describes Oswald carrying it differently that her brother did. It`s
> >unlikely that Frazier saw much of the bag while Oswald was carrying it in
> >front of him, with Frazier trailing behind.
>
> Of course she does! Yet trhe way she saw him carrying it works out for
> the length she estimated ...
How so? She gave an estimate of how far the bag was from the ground.
This tells you very little, Oswald would have to have his elbow bent to
keep even a 27 inch package off the ground, so it`s merely a question of
how much his hand, bent at the elbow, was off the ground.
>and reconstructed for the FBI ....
Yah, but the reconstruction was done after she was shown the bag. So,
where did her impressions originate from, when she looked out her window,
and saw it briefly from a distance with no real reason to scrutize it, or
when it was placed in her hands, and was an object of interest?
WBF`s impression was that the bag he saw was shiny, crinkly brown paper,
like that from a five and dime. That was his original impression, but that
changed when he saw the bag the FBI showed him. His mind was satisfied
with the original impression it had, and that that impression was mistaken
speaks to a few things. His overall attentiveness must have been very low
for him not to recognize the paper that he saw everyday around him at
work. Perhaps the light hit it so it appeared shiny, his mind took that
information without much thought, compared it to other shiny papers it was
familiar with, and concluded it was a certain particular type of paper.
That he was willing to reject his initial impression when further
information was presented speaks to how confident he was about his
impressions about the bag.
>and
> corroborates Frazier's estimated length taken from a different
> benchmark.
It`s an overstatement to call it a benchmark. It not like he was
moving a refrigerator into a doorway, with the doorway confirming the
refrigerator`s size.
> >> and estimate it's length based on
> >> those observations.
>
> > Brief observations, some made at distances of a mundane item that they
> >were called upon to recall details about many hours later. Why is so much
> >of the actual context of their observations left out by CTers?
>
> See my post to DVP. If you care about context .... then USE IT and
> provide cites that make it clear!!!!
I commented on some of it. But even the testimony doesn`t contain much
of the context I was referring to. Distances between the object and the
observer at the time of the observation. How long a period of time the
object was seen. You`s need to look at the CEs to get that context, the
map of the Randle home showing distances, the photos of Randle`s house and
vantage. These things speak to the reliability of the information.
> >> And their estimates are close ...
>
> > Meaningless, since we don`t live in a world where people can often
> >see a mundane item briefly, and nail details about that item.
>
> >>and work for the
> >> way each said they saw him carry the package.
>
> > They each describe him carrying it differently.
>
> Hellooooo???? That's not the point.
<snicker> Well, not your point, obviously.
> Geesh.
>
>
>
> >> It's a problem.
>
> > Only if you think their recall of detail in the context of their
> >observations must be accurate. If you do as I do, and glean only that they
> >saw Oswald carrying a bag into work that day, there is no problem.
>
> Your problem is that Frazier was emphatic about what he saw and
> noticed ...
No, not a problem. The more people think about an impression, the more
solid it becomes, even if it is erroneous. He was called upon to glean
what it is essentially background noise from his consciousness. Again, you
should check what the experts say about the reliability of this kind of
information retrieval.
>and what he wasn'. He doggedly maintained the length of
> the package he saw and how he saw Oswald carry it.
>
> Could be incorrect on one or both of those? Sure, he's human. But his
> sister's observations, at a different place and time and with O
> carrying the bag in a different manner .... corroborates Frazier's
> recollection as to length.
No, they can`t corroborate each other for the very reason you mention.
Different times, different places. LMR cannot corroborate how much space
the rifle took in WBF`s backseat, or how he carried it. WBR cannot
corroborate how far off the ground the bag was when LMR observed it.
And the fact that their estimates are close is not so meaningful, since
we don`t live in a world where we would expect people to observe things
under these conditions, and nail the details. What would be rare and
amazing would be if they were both right.
> One cannot jus vaguely brush that aside as if it is of no import ...
> as you do.
I`m not vaguely brushing it away, I am very specifically pointing out
reasons the information they supplied should be given a lot of weight. I
am also supporting my position that the only information they supplied
that should be given weight is that oswald carried a long paper object
into work that day.
> 'Nuf
I`m not picking on you, I`m presenting my side in my usual nasty manner.
Sensitive people have learned not to engage me in discussions. As have
people with sense, manners, class or intelligence. You are probably more
comfortable with that crowd.
Bud
> BUDSAID:
>
> ==========================================
>
> And then there's also Wes Frazier's testimony at the 1986 TV docu-
> trial ("On Trial: Lee Harvey Oswald"), which includes this exchange
> between witness Frazier and prosecutor Vince Bugliosi:
>
> BUGLIOSI -- "Mr. Frazier, is it true that you paid hardly any
> attention to this bag?"
>
> FRAZIER -- "That is true."
>
> BUGLIOSI -- "So the bag could have been protruding out in front of his
> body, and you wouldn't have been able to see it, is that correct?"
>
> FRAZIER -- "That is true."
>
> www.On-Trial-LHO.blogspot.com
>
Yah, prison overcrowding and good behavior.
> I always miss his contributions when
> he goes into one of his hibernation periods when he doesn't post for
> months at a time. Prior to 10/1/09,Bud'slast post on these aaj/acj
> forums was in late July 2009. Good to see you again, my LN & CS&L-
> laden friend. :)
Good to be back, David. I see you are still fighting the good fight.
Bud
> >> On Sep 30, 5:27 am, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >>>>>> "Isn't it possible that all these people didn't notice it because
> >>> Oswald had no such bag and Frazier is in fact an unreliable witness?" <<<
> >>> It's not just Frazier. You've got to call Linnie Mae Randle an outright
> >>> liar too. She saw Oswald with the bag too.
> >> Or just mistaken because she couldn't really see the bag properly from
> >> where she was. And they both estimated the bag to be much smaller than
> >> the TSBD bag.
>
> > Linnie Mae told the cops Oswald was carrying a "large package".
>
> >> Look how big the bag was! -http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/images/bag1.jpg
>
> > It was down alongside Oswald`s leg when LMR saw it. It was in the
> > backseat when Frazier glanced at it. Perhaps he didn`t crane around far
> > enough to see both ends. People work off of assumptions as much as actual
> > observations in cases like this, they aren`t out to collect information,
> > they are just going about their business.
>
> But someone did see it tucked under his armpit and cupped in his hand,
<snicker> You think this is a fact? That explains a lot.
> which is hard to do with a 40 inch object. It's also hard to not see
> anything sticking out of the top when you put a 40 inch object inside a 38
> inch bag.
Hell, Tony, I can put a hundred feet of rope in a 38 inch bag. Any
idea how such a feat could be performed?
> But maybe those those curtain rods were specially made by the TDS to
> convert into a rifle, just like the Mossad bicycle pumps.
Perhaps Oswald used his rifle to hang curtains. When he wasn`t
killing people with it, that is.
Bud
You must be famished.
> But what about Jack Dougherty? He saw Oswald enter the TSBD that
> morning and didn't recall him carrying any bag. How is that possible
> for someone to carry such a huge bag and not be noticed?
Any idea where Dougherty was when Oswald entered?
> Furthermore,
> nobody ever saw Oswald with the bag before the 22nd.
Have you asked everyone?
> And the guy in
> charge of the paper and tape dispenser at the TSBD said Oswald never
> got any paper or tape off him to make the bag.
Getting paper and tape requires some kind of expertise?
But I think I see where you are going, since only the person who worked
the wrapping table had access to the paper, only he could make the bag,
and he must be the one who killed JFK.
> So the question is, how
> did Oswald get the material to make the bag, and when and where did he
> make it?
Lets see, the paper is in the building Oswald worked. Oswald is in
the building he worked. I got nothing.
John McAdams
<barbRE...@comcast.net> wrote:
I think the "killer" piece of evidence here is the fact that Oswald's
palm print and fingerprint were both found on the bag recovered in the
Depository.
It's been suggested by another poster that Randle and Frazier might
have talked to each other and "coordinated" their stories.
This would have have had to be any sort of conspiracy between the two,
but just conversation along the lines of "I thought it was this long"
and "I thought it was that long" and before long they are saying
something consistent.
Randle's first estimate of the size was "approximately 3 feet by 6
inches."
>>
>>.John
>>
>>P.S. Haven't noticed you around for a while. Good to see you, and I
>>hope you are doing well.
>
>Thanks. I am okay, have just been busy with other things and also
>suffering what I think is rather burn out from all the useless
>nonsense that goes on rather than real discussion.
No doubt. We moderators could run the newsgroup like a referred
scholarly journal, and only allow posts that introduce new
information. But (1.) people like to have their say, even if they
really have nothing to way, and (2.) that would require a lot of extra
work from us moderators.
So we are somewhere between The Nuthouse and a scholarly journal,
although doubtless closer to The Nuthouse -- fairly lightly censored.
We filter for insults, but not for noise.
>Tiring. Will be
>leaving on vacation on a week ... don't know if I'll be peeking in
>much while gone or not. Maybe.
>
Either way, enjoy your vacation.
.John
Barb Junkkarinen
Hi John,
I'm not even sure I've ever even heard that theory.<g> Yes, as I have
already answered elsewhere, I believe he had a bag with him that
morning.
Bests,
Barb :-)
>
>.John
>--------------
>http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Bud
TOP POST: I`m going to expand on some things and correct some errors
in this relpy I made to Barb.
This is mainly the part iI wanted to elaborate on. Barb has here and in
the past made this "benchmark" claim, as if a witness guessing distances
somehow establishes a "benchmark". No matter how you slice it, LMR, having
not made a measurement establishing the distance from the bottom of the
bag to the ground, could only guess at that distance. Likewise, WBF had to
guess how much distance there was from the bag to the doors in his
backseat. He pointed to were he felt the bag came to based solely on the
amount of space he felt was present between the door and the bag, so
whether he is guessing at the length of the bag, or guessing at the space
between the bag and the door, he is still guessing. This can`t establish
"benchmarks', there is no reason to believe a person under these
conditions could point to a spot in the backseat the bag came to, and nail
that spot.
This, of course, should have been "should not".
> be given a lot of weight. I
> am also supporting my position that the only information they supplied
> that should be given weight is that Oswald carried a long paper object
Anthony Marsh
We are talking about a straight object. If it were a rifle the tip would
be seen sticking out of the top.
Anthony Marsh
> On Oct 2, 6:12 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> Budwrote:
>>> On Oct 1, 1:56 pm, Barb Junkkarinen <barbREMOVE...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>> On 30 Sep 2009 00:27:14 -0400, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>> "Isn't it possible that all these people didn't notice it because
>>>>> Oswald had no such bag and Frazier is in fact an unreliable witness?" <<<
>>>>> It's not just Frazier. You've got to call Linnie Mae Randle an outright
>>>>> liar too. She saw Oswald with the bag too.
>>>> But you're okay with both Frazier and Randle, the only two people in
>>>> the world to have seen O with a bag that morning, and who both,
>>> Said they saw Oswald carry a longish bag into work, and that the bag
>>> in evidence looks like the bag they say him carry.
>> Said they saw Oswald carrying a SHORTISH bag to the car.
>
> By using the word "long", Tony?
>
By saying it was about two feet long.
>> Said that the bag the FBI showed them was NOT the same bag.
>
> By telling the FBI it could be the bag they saw Oswald carrying,
> Tony?
>
By telling the FBI that it wasn't the same bag.
>>>> independently, described it as being much shorter than *the* bag,
>>>> being called mistaken, in error ... despite, in Linnie Mae Randle's
>>>> case, her having gone thru a reconstruction with the FBI and made a
>>>> bag with them that she agreed fit what she saw that morning. And that
>>>> just hapopens to coincide closely with the length of bag Frazier
>>>> recalled .... both by measure of where he saw it extend from a to b on
>>>> his back seat, as well as how he described O carrying the bag.
>>> Two people briefly saw Oswald carrying a mundane item that morning, and
>>> much later were pressed to provide details about it.
>>> Linnie Mae saw him out her kitchen window from a distance long enough
>>> for him to cross her field of vision. She left that window and crossed to
>>> her side door, probably in time to see Oswald disappear behind the carport
>>> wall.
>>> Frazier glanced into his backseat when he turned to back out of the
>>> driveway. When hey both got to work, Oz exited the car. When Frazier got
>>> out, Oswald turned and started walking ahead of him into work, with the
>>> bag in front of him.
>> Frazier knew his own car.
>
> That might be significant, if he was being questioned about details
> of his car.
>
He was. And measured.
> Read what he said about the rifle he carried in the Army. Despite
> carrying, cleaning, assembling and disassembling that rifle, he was
> still significantly wrong when he guessed it`s length.
>
So what. This is about how Oswald carried the package and how it sat on
the back seat.
>> He could tell the difference between a package
>> staying entirely on one side of the seat versus a package going from the
>> door to past the middle of the seat.
>
> Amazing. You weren`t there and you don`t know Frazier, yet you still
> make this meaningless claim about what could or could not happen.
>
Frazier could. He knew is own car.
tomnln
"Bud" <sirs...@fast.net> wrote in message
news:70edbd67-6879-45c6...@o36g2000vbl.googlegroups.com...
soilysound
> On Fri, 02 Oct 2009 08:45:51 -0700, Barb Junkkarinen
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Thu, 01 Oct 2009 23:02:05 GMT, john.mcad...@marquette.edu (John
> >McAdams) wrote:
>
> >>On Thu, 01 Oct 2009 10:56:38 -0700, Barb Junkkarinen
>
> >>>On 30 Sep 2009 00:27:14 -0400, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com>
From what I've seen, you're doing a good job John. I'm not going to name
names, but I find some posters unnecessarily rude and abusive. I
understand the subject raises passions and I'm all for robust debate, but
I feel there is no need for some of the personal stuff that occurs here.
David Von Pein
>>> "But what about Jack Dougherty? He saw Oswald enter the TSBD that
morning and didn't recall him carrying any bag. How is that possible for
someone to carry such a huge bag and not be noticed?" <<<
Quite easy. Especially due to the fact that these words came out of Jack
Dougherty's mouth when he gave his Warren Commission testimony:
"I was sitting on the wrapping table and when he [Lee Oswald]
came in the door, I just caught him out of the corner of my eye."
Plus, Dougherty's testimony regarding the specific question of -- DID
OSWALD TAKE A LARGE-ISH BAG INTO THE BACK DOOR OF THE DEPOSITORY ON THE
MORNING OF NOVEMBER 22? -- is actually completely unneeded and immaterial.
Why?
Because we can be absolutely positive that Oswald definitely DID carry
a large-ish bag into the TSBD that day, based on the ironclad
observations of the person who saw Oswald carrying such a bag -- Buell
Wesley Frazier:
"I saw him go in the back door at the Loading Dock of the
building that we work in, and he still had the package under his arm."
-- Buell Frazier; Via 11/22/63 Affidavit [24 H 209; CE2003]
Or do more conspiracy theorists want to jump on James DiEugenio's
bandwagon of silly accusations (with DiEugenio calling Wesley Frazier
"suspicious" and, in effect, calling Frazier a bald-faced liar
concerning the paper bag issue)?
It appears that DiEugenio (and his ilk) are perfectly content and happy to
hang a "suspicious" label around the neck of an innocent 19- year-old kid
named Wes Frazier, instead of merely accepting what is quite obvious --
i.e., Frazier saw Oswald take a bag in the back door of the Book
Depository and Jack Dougherty simply wasn't paying enough attention to
Oswald as he entered the building to notice whether LHO had anything in
his hands or not (mainly due to the fact that, as Dougherty said in his
very own words, Mr. Dougherty only saw Oswald "OUT OF THE CORNER OF MY
EYE").
>>> "Furthermore, nobody ever saw Oswald with the bag before the 22nd. And
the guy in charge of the paper and tape dispenser at the TSBD said Oswald
never got any paper or tape off him to make the bag. So the question is,
how did Oswald get the material to make the bag, and when and where did he
make it?" <<<
Do you think the person in charge of the paper and tape (Troy West)
never left his station near the workbench during the course of a
normal working day at the Book Depository?
Don't you think it's quite possible that Oswald waited until Mr. West
left his work area, and then LHO took that opportunity to grab some
paper and tape during West's absence (during a lunch break, for
example, which is probably when such a thing did occur)?
Troy West wasn't chained to his work station--was he? I doubt it.
www.Oswald-Is-Guilty.blogspot.com
tomnln
"David Von Pein" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:4064afa0-52c5-438d...@l34g2000vba.googlegroups.com...
Jean Davison
Thanks!
>
> But what about Jack Dougherty? He saw Oswald enter the TSBD that
> morning and didn't recall him carrying any bag. How is that possible
> for someone to carry such a huge bag and not be noticed?
When Doughtery testified he was asked about a statement he made to
the FBI.
QUOTE:
>>
Mr. BALL - The statement says, "I recall vaguely having seen Lee Oswald,
when he came to work at about 8 a.m. today."
Mr. DOUGHERTY - That's right.
Mr. BALL - Now, is that a very definite impression that you saw him that
morning when he came to work?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - Well, oh--it's like this--I'll try to explain it to you this
way--- you see, I was sitting on the wrapping table and when he came in the
door, I just caught him out of the corner of my eye---that's the reason why
I said it that way.
<<
UNQUOTE
The wrapping table can barely be seen in the background of this
photo, beyond a break in the boxes:
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=10896&relPageId=11
Dougherty also made this interesting claim:
>>
Mr. BALL - Did you ever see Lee Oswald carry any sort of large package?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - Well, I didn't, but some of the fellows said they did.
Mr. BALL - Who said that?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - Well, Bill Shelley, he told me that he thought he saw him
carrying a fairly good-sized package.
Mr. BALL - When did Shelley tell you that?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - Well, it was--the day after it happened.
>>
Dougherty contradicted himself many times. Here's his entire
testimony:
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/doughert.htm
I don't think Dougherty's testimony deserves the attention
it's been given. Frazier saw Oswald go through that door with a package.
Dougherty didn't notice it. Big deal.
> Furthermore,
> nobody ever saw Oswald with the bag before the 22nd. And the guy in
> charge of the paper and tape dispenser at the TSBD said Oswald never
> got any paper or tape off him to make the bag. So the question is, how
> did Oswald get the material to make the bag, and when and where did he
> make it?
Troy West, the guy in question, was asked:
QUOTE:
>>
Mr. BELIN - Do you know whether or not he [Oswald] 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.
>>
UNQUOTE
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/m_j_russ/west.htm
The bag made of TSBD paper has Oswald's prints on it. Somehow or
other, he got the paper. Folded and rolled up, it would've fit in a jacket
pocket.
Jean
Bud
Unless the bag was longer or the rifle shorter. All these years
studying this case, you do know the M-C was designed to be easily
disassembled, right?
Bud
> Bud wrote:
> > On Oct 2, 6:12 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >> Budwrote:
> >>> On Oct 1, 1:56 pm, Barb Junkkarinen <barbREMOVE...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >>>> On 30 Sep 2009 00:27:14 -0400, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com>
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>> "Isn't it possible that all these people didn't notice it because
> >>>>> Oswald had no such bag and Frazier is in fact an unreliable witness?" <<<
> >>>>> It's not just Frazier. You've got to call Linnie Mae Randle an outright
> >>>>> liar too. She saw Oswald with the bag too.
> >>>> But you're okay with both Frazier and Randle, the only two people in
> >>>> the world to have seen O with a bag that morning, and who both,
> >>> Said they saw Oswald carry a longish bag into work, and that the bag
> >>> in evidence looks like the bag they say him carry.
> >> Said they saw Oswald carrying a SHORTISH bag to the car.
>
> > By using the word "long", Tony?
>
> By saying it was about two feet long.
I can produce where a witness who saw the bag referred to it as "long".
Can you produce where a witness to the bag referred to it as "shortish"?
> >> Said that the bag the FBI showed them was NOT the same bag.
>
> > By telling the FBI it could be the bag they saw Oswald carrying,
> > Tony?
>
> By telling the FBI that it wasn't the same bag.
By telling the FBI it could be. from the December 2nd FBI report...
"She was shown the original paper sack which had been found by the sixth
floor window of the TSBD Building.... She stated that if the original sack
was previously the same color as the replica sack, that the original sack
could have been the one she saw OSWALD carrying on the morning of November
22nd, 1963."
You read the above as her saying it couldn`t be the same bag? That
explains a lot.
> >>>> independently, described it as being much shorter than *the* bag,
> >>>> being called mistaken, in error ... despite, in Linnie Mae Randle's
> >>>> case, her having gone thru a reconstruction with the FBI and made a
> >>>> bag with them that she agreed fit what she saw that morning. And that
> >>>> just hapopens to coincide closely with the length of bag Frazier
> >>>> recalled .... both by measure of where he saw it extend from a to b on
> >>>> his back seat, as well as how he described O carrying the bag.
> >>> Two people briefly saw Oswald carrying a mundane item that morning, and
> >>> much later were pressed to provide details about it.
> >>> Linnie Mae saw him out her kitchen window from a distance long enough
> >>> for him to cross her field of vision. She left that window and crossed to
> >>> her side door, probably in time to see Oswald disappear behind the carport
> >>> wall.
> >>> Frazier glanced into his backseat when he turned to back out of the
> >>> driveway. When hey both got to work, Oz exited the car. When Frazier got
> >>> out, Oswald turned and started walking ahead of him into work, with the
> >>> bag in front of him.
> >> Frazier knew his own car.
>
> > That might be significant, if he was being questioned about details
> > of his car.
>
> He was.
Really? What did they ask his gas mileage?
>And measured.
And you think that Frazier, knowing there were doors at either end of
the backseat, somehow gives validity or credence to his estimates?
Heres a bonus question, where was Frazier when he saw the package in his
backseat?
> > Read what he said about the rifle he carried in the Army. Despite
> > carrying, cleaning, assembling and disassembling that rifle, he was
> > still significantly wrong when he guessed it`s length.
>
> So what. This is about how Oswald carried the package and how it sat on
> the back seat.
The information came from who, Tony? The person who can be shown
couldn`t estimate the length of the rifle he carried for over a year in
the Army?
> >> He could tell the difference between a package
> >> staying entirely on one side of the seat versus a package going from the
> >> door to past the middle of the seat.
>
> > Amazing. You weren`t there and you don`t know Frazier, yet you still
> > make this meaningless claim about what could or could not happen.
>
> Frazier could. He knew is own car.
Repeating the same meaningless claim doesn`t make the claim any more
valid. Frazier`s ownership of the car does not convey to him any magical
ability to estimate the lengths of objects placed into it. Since Frazier
made no effort to discern distances, make measurements or collect data
about the object during his brief observance of the object in his backseat
we are left with his impressions and best guesses regardless of where the
object was.
Anthony Marsh
Even then it is too tight a fit.
Anthony Marsh
Sure, but show what a folded up paper of that size would look like given
the known folds see in photos of the bag taken out of the TSBD. It appears
that it would be too big to fit into a jacket pocket.
Bud
Is it your contention that it is impossible for the rifle in
evidence, even if disassembled, to fit in the bag in evidence? What do
you base such a claim on?
Bud
I think I remember it said that the folds could render the paper down to
an eight inch by eight inch square. Such a square could be rolled and put
into a jacket pocket.
Anthony Marsh
Something like that. I see no evidence of rolling and would like to see
this demonstrated with Oswald's jacket.
Anthony Marsh
No, not impossible to fit into the bag. Just sticking out of the top
awkwardly.
Bud
So, it`s your contention that the disassembled rifle parts can`t be
put inside the bag in evidence without the rifle parts sticking out
the top. What do you base this claim on?
Bud
No, you likly wouldn`t, rolling has a subtle effect on paper that would
likely be obliterated when the bag was created.
>and would like to see
> this demonstrated with Oswald's jacket.
Eight inches is the length of a pencil. Not many jacket pockets can`t
hold a pencil. Even if it stuck out of the top a little, must Frazier
notice this, with Oswald arms at his sides, and the oversized, puffy
sleeves on his jacket that some have remarked on?
Bud
> Bud wrote:
> > On Sep 30, 4:10 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >> soilysound wrote:
> >>> On Sep 30, 5:27 am, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>> "Isn't it possible that all these people didn't notice it because
> >>>> Oswald had no such bag and Frazier is in fact an unreliable witness?" <<<
> >>>> It's not just Frazier. You've got to call Linnie Mae Randle an outright
> >>>> liar too. She saw Oswald with the bag too.
> >>> Or just mistaken because she couldn't really see the bag properly from
> >>> where she was. And they both estimated the bag to be much smaller than
> >>> It's also just beyond belief that Oswald could carry a paper bag half
> >>> his own height into the TSBD without anyone there seeing him with it.
> >>> Frazier said he saw Oswald carry his bag between his cupped hand and
> >>> his armpit. Was he an orangutan?
> >> impossible for a stranger to carry a rifle into the TSBD. But it was
> >> take your rifle to work week, so such a thing would seem normal.
>
> > LNers accept the fact that other people brought rifles into the TSBD
> > that week, and move on. Conspiracy monger cling to these things for
> > decades, never moving the smallest bit in any direction from it. "I don`t
> > like this, this is fishy" they declare, as if it will somehow turn into
> > something they like better.
>
> No, LNers deny it.
What LNer denies there were rifles in the TSBD prior to the
assassination?
> LNers deny every fact.
LNers can tell a real fact from a CTer claim.
Anthony Marsh
You are SUPPOSED to deny everything or else they'll take away your
decoder ring.
>> LNers deny every fact.
>
> LNers can tell a real fact from a CTer claim.
>
Not bloody likely.
Anthony Marsh
Which jacket did he wear out to Irving? You mean the one he left behind in
the TSBD which the cops didn't find for weeks? Show me those pockets.
Measure them. It's fun to guess, but you have never proven anything and
you never will.
David Von Pein
One can only wonder where Tony Marsh gets his silly ideas--like the
idea that LHO's rifle would have to stick out the top of this bag:
Footnote --- There's an interesting error in the caption for the above
picture--it says that the blanket was found in "Oswald's garage". Of
course, that should say Ruth Paine's garage.
Bud
Your claim was that LNers deny that rifles were brought into the
TSBD prior to the assassination. Support it or add it to the large and
ever growing pile of meaningless claims you make.
> >> LNers deny every fact.
>
> > LNers can tell a real fact from a CTer claim.
>
> Not bloody likely.
Sure we can. Like your claim here that LNers deny that rifles were
brought into the TSBD prior to the election. Other things you`ve recently
claimed to be fact are that Frazier carried the paper package up under his
armpit, and that Hunt made a deathbed tape where he admitted misdeeds.
Just because you have yourself convinced these things are fact doesn`t
make them such. LNers can tell the difference even if you can`t.
Bud
<snicker> You CTers with your "You need to prove this to me". A
possibility has been offered to explain something that is unknown.
Until you can rule out that possibility, it remains a possibility. The
only possible way to prove it would be with film of the actual
transport. If we had this, we might be able to determine exactly how
Oswald transported it, and how Frazier missed it. Perhaps if people
stopped demanding answers for things that there just isn`t information
available to positively answer, LN would stop offering plausible
explanations.
David Von Pein
>>> "Like your claim here that LNers deny that rifles were brought into the TSBD prior to the election." <<<
"Election", Bud? LOL.
Let's just hope Tony Marsh doesn't interpret your typo as a sinister
plot to change the subject.
:)
Anthony Marsh
Election? I thought he said "erection." ;]>
Anthony Marsh
No, someone was offering a physical possibility. Therefore the person
needs to produce the physical facts which make is a possibility.
Anthony Marsh
If you can stop frothing at the mouth, calm down and try to compose a
reasonable sentence. I never said that Frazier carried the back. Others
said that Oswald tucked the bag under his armpit and cupped it with his
hand.
Bud
> >>> "Like your claim here that LNers deny that rifles were brought into the TSBD prior to the election." <<<
>
> "Election", Bud? LOL.
Yah, I saw that after the reply was sent. I guess I nodded off, and
confused ballots with bullets. It, of course, should have been
"assassination" (I was only repeating basically the same question I
had asked previously).
> Let's just hope Tony Marsh doesn't interpret your typo as a sinister
> plot to change the subject.
Lets hope he doesn`t use it as an excuse to dodge the question once
more.
> :)