NO RIFLE IN BAG
tomnln
Frazier AND, his sister Lillie Mae Randall described the bag to be 27
inches.
(as measured by the FBI)
Burroughs testified when he saw Oswald enter the TSBD, he hade NOTHING in
his hands.
"Texextra" <texe...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1176142491.7...@n76g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> On Apr 8, 8:07 pm, "David Von Pein" <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>> >>> "By whose logic? Yours? Sorry, the bag was empty. You have nothing.
>>
>> Absolutely nothing and you claim that nothing is proof. This is
>> ludicrous." <<<
>>
>> I can only shake my head back and forth numerous times as I stare at you
>> sideways. Absolutely un-be-lie-va-ble (you, that is...not the obviousness
>> of what was in that empty SN paper bag).
>>
>> This paragraph, ALONE, should be enough for any reasonable person to
>> re-think their CT posture re. the "paper bag".....
>>
>> "And it's obvious that Oswald carried that rifle into the building that
>> day in that large brown paper bag. It couldn't be more obvious. As far as
>> Mr. Frazier's testimony about Oswald carrying the bag under his armpit,
>> he
>> conceded he never paid close attention to just how Oswald was carrying
>> that bag. He didn't have any reason to." -- V. Bug.
>
> Frazier waffled on what he saw, so how obvious can it be what was in
> the bag? Or even if there was a bag.
>
>
Bud
tomnln wrote:
> In case McAdams don't post this one.
>
> Frazier AND, his sister Lillie Mae Randall described the bag to be 27
> inches.
How does one describe a bag to be 27 inches?
> (as measured by the FBI)
The FBI was staying with the Randles?
> Burroughs testified when he saw Oswald enter the TSBD, he hade NOTHING in
> his hands.
Not Burroughs, oh ancient one, Doughtery. So, the question is, what
did Oz do with the rifle between Frazier seeing him enter the TSBD
with it in the bag, and Doughtery seeing him without it?
cdddraftsman
If there spoon feeding the members of the WC lies about
LHO , why would they report a bag , allegedly used by
him , to bring his rifle to work , to assassinate the
presidfent , as being 10" shorter than need be
to con-tain the rifle , coot con-farts ? That makes
no-sense ......not even for drifty brainless
Rossley con-spiracy con-artist such
as yourself ?
Btw , where the hell where you at Rossley , at the time
of the assassination ? Nobody trusts big mouthed asshole
conspiracy lunitics . You where more then likely one of
the trigger men if something fishy was going on ! All
thisranting and raving is just a put-on to hide your
roll in the crime ..........................tl
On Apr 9, 4:26 pm, "tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote:
> In case McAdams don't post this one.
>
> Frazier AND, his sister Lillie Mae Randall described the bag to be 27
> inches.
> (as measured by the FBI)
>
> Burroughs testified when he saw Oswald enter the TSBD, he hade NOTHING in
> his hands.
>
> "Texextra" <texex...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1176142491.7...@n76g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > On Apr 8, 8:07 pm, "David Von Pein" <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> >> >>> "By whose logic? Yours? Sorry, the bag was empty. You have nothing.
>
> >> Absolutely nothing and you claim that nothing is proof. This is
> >> ludicrous." <<<
>
> >> I can only shake my head back and forth numerous times as I stare at you
> >> sideways. Absolutely un-be-lie-va-ble (you, that is...not the obviousness
> >> of what was in that empty SN paper bag).
>
> >> This paragraph, ALONE, should be enough for any reasonable person to
> >> re-think their CT posture re. the "paper bag".....
>
> >> "And it's obvious that Oswald carried that rifle into the building that
> >> day in that large brown paper bag. It couldn't be more obvious. As far as
> >> Mr. Frazier's testimony about Oswald carrying the bag under his armpit,
> >> he
> >> conceded he never paid close attention to just how Oswald was carrying
> >> that bag. He didn't have any reason to." -- V. Bug.
>
> > Frazier waffled on what he saw, so how obvious can it be what was in
> > the bag? Or even if there was a bag.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
tomnln
You gotta Prove he had a 42 inch rifle in a 27 inch bag.
"Bud" <sirs...@fast.net> wrote in message
news:1176163138....@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
tomnln
It wouldn't surprise me if yoy were an Accessory Before the Fact.
WHO is lousy?>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/tom_lowery.htm
ALL in his own words.
"cdddraftsman" <cdddra...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1176163569.6...@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
David Von Pein
===============================================
"At about 7:10 AM in the morning, I was preparing lunches, when I saw
a man, whom I later learned was Mr. Oswald, approaching my house with
a package approximately 2-and-a-half feet long." -- LINNIE MAE RANDLE;
AS SHE NARRATED HER OWN ACCOUNT OF EVENTS FOR THE 1964 FILM "FOUR DAYS
IN NOVEMBER".
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.video/msg/5093634b419405d5
"2-and-a-half feet long" = 30 inches.
The empty bag found below the SN window = 38 inches.
Linnie Mae was only off by a little more than half-a-foot. And she
certainly didn't have the slightest reason to scrutinize the
dimensions of that paper bag Oswald was carrying at the time she
noticed it (approx. 7:10 AM CST on Nov. 22, 1963).
Put yourself in Linnie's place --- i.e., you see a guy with a paper
package. You have no reason to think to yourself at 7:10 AM (5+ hours
before JFK is shot) that this guy with this package might be up to no
good and might have a weapon inside that bag.
Therefore, why would you (or anybody in this same innocuous situation)
say to yourself: Gee, I think I'd better mentally "measure" the length
of that package, just in case I'm called upon to provide its
dimensions to the authorities at a later date.
Linnie Mae Randle's "2-and-a-half feet long" estimate is fairly close
to the length of the empty 38-inch-long bag (with Lee Harvey Oswald's
prints on it) that was found abandoned in the Depository's Sniper's
Nest on the afternoon of Nov. 22nd.
Also --- I'm not entirely sure of the exact date that Randle made
those verbal comments for David Wolper's "Four Days In November" movie
(which is a film, btw, that was made just months after the
assassination, and which had its New York City premiere on October 7,
1964, a mere 13 days after the completed Warren Report was handed over
to LBJ). .....
http://imdb.com/title/tt0059197/releaseinfo
So, it's possible that those filmed comments by Randle could have
preceded her 1964 WC testimony, which is official testimony that
includes these remarks:
Mrs. RANDLE -- "What I remember seeing is about this long, sir, as I
told you it was folded down so it could have been this long."
Mr. BALL -- "I see. You figure about 2 feet long, is that right?"
Mrs. RANDLE -- "A little bit more."
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/randlelm.htm
(And note how Joe Ball actually mentions a SHORTER length to Randle --
"about 2 feet long" -- just before she corrects him slightly with, "a
little bit more".)
tomnln
The rifle was 42 inches long.
The bag supposedly found was 38 inches.
Randle said 30 inches.
FBI measured Frazier/Randle descriptions at 27 inches.
Is 27 inches closer to 30,38,42?????
http://whokilledjfk.net/Rifle.htm
"David Von Pein" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1176166252.1...@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
David Von Pein
34.8 inches when broken down (and you know that very well).
Bag/Rifle length comparisons:
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh22/html/WH_Vol22_0255b.htm
tomnln
Show us how a 34.8 rifle fits into a 27 inch bag?
Show us how a "well oiled rifle" broken down leaves NO oil in the 27 inch
bag?
"David Von Pein" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1176178574....@b75g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
David Von Pein
And then show us you have at least an ounce of common sense in your
near-fossilized body and read this in-a-nutshell evaluation of the
evidence (via Bud):
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/4fdf597aa7ad278b
And here's some more CS&L re. the bag:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/15ed9183f024cdd8
tomnln
WCR 132
The Long and Bulky Package
On the morning of November 22, 1963, Lee Harvey Oswald left the Paine house
in Irving at approximately 7:15 a.m., while Marina Oswald was still in
bed.145 Neither she nor Mrs. Paine saw him leave the house.146 About half-a-
block away from the Paine house was the residence of Mrs. Linnie Mac Randle,
the sister of the man with whom Oswald drove to work--Buell Wesley Frazier.
Mrs. Randle stated that on the morning of November 22, while her brother was
eating breakfast, she looked out the breakfast-room window and saw Oswald
cross the street and walk toward the driveway where her brother parked his
car near the carport. He carried a "heavy brown bag." 147 Oswald
Page 132
COMMISSION EXHIBIT No. 1304
C2766 Mannlicher-Carcano rifle and paper bag found on the sixth floor of the
Texas
School Book Depository.
Page 133
gripped the bag in his right hand near the top. "It tapered like this as he
hugged it. in his hand. It was * * * more bulky toward the bottom" than
toward the top.148 She then opened the kitchen door and saw Oswald open the
right rear door of her brother's car and place the package in the back of
the car.149 Mrs. Randle estimated that the package was approximately 28
inches long and about 8 inches wide.150 She thought. that its color was
similar to that of the bag found on the sixth floor of the School Book
Depository after the assassination.151
Frazier met Oswald at. the kitchen door and together they walked to the
car.152 After entering the car, Frazier glanced over his shoulder and
noticed a brown paper package on the back seat. He asked, "What's the
package, Lee?" Oswald replied, "curtain rods."153 Frazier told the
Commission "* * * 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."154 Frazier estimated that the bag was 2
feet long "give and take a few inches," and about 5 or 6 inches wide.155 As
they sat in the car, Frazier asked Oswald where his lunch was, and Oswald
replied that he was going to buy his lunch that day.156 Frazier testified
that Oswald carried no lunch bag that day. "When he rode with me, I say he
always brought lunch except that one day on November 22 he didn't bring his
lunch that day." 157
Frazier parked the car in the company parking lot about 2 blocks north of
the Depository Building. Oswald left the car first, picked up the brown
paper bag, and proceeded toward the building ahead of Frazier. Frazier
walked behind and as they crossed the railroad tracks he watched the
switching of the cars. Frazier recalled that one end of the package was
under Oswald's armpit and the lower part was held with his right hand so
that it was carried straight and parallel to his body. When Oswald entered
the rear door of the Depository Building, he was about 50 feet ahead of
Frazier. It was the first time that Oswald had not walked with Frazier from
the parking lot to the building entrance.158 When Frazier entered the
building, he did not see Oswald.159 One employee, Jack Dougherty, believed
that he saw Oswald coming to work, but he does not remember that Oswald had
anything in his hands as he entered the door.160 No other employee has been
found who saw Oswald enter that morning.161
In deciding whether Oswald carried the assassination weapon in the bag which
Frazier and Mrs. Randle saw, the Commission has carefully considered the
testimony of these two witnesses with regard to the length of the bag.
Frazier and Mrs. Randle testified that the bag which Oswald was carrying was
approximately 27 or 28 inches long,162 whereas the wooden stock of the
rifle, which is its largest component, measured 34.8 inches.163 The bag
found on the sixth floor was 88 inches long.164 (See Commission Exhibit No.
1304, p. 132.) When Frazier appeared before the Commission and was asked to
demonstrate how Oswald carried the package, he said, "Like I said, I
remember that I didn't look at the package very much ***
Page 134
but when I did look at it he did have his hands on the package like that,"
165 and at this point Frazier placed the upper part of the package under his
armpit and attempted to cup his right hand beneath the bottom of the bag.
The disassembled rifle was too long to be carried in this manner. Similarly,
when the butt of the rifle was placed in Frazier's hand, it extended above
his shoulder to ear level. 1 Moreover, in an interview on December 1, 1963,
with agents of the FBI, Frazier had marked the point on the back seat of his
car which he believed was where the bag reached when it was laid on the seat
with one edge against the door. The distance between the point on the seat
and the door was 27 inches.167
Mrs. Randle said, when shown the paper bag, that the bag she saw Oswald
carrying "wasn't that long, I mean it was folded down at the top as I told
you. It definitely wasn't that long." 168 And she folded the bag to length
of about 28½ inches. Frazier doubted whether the bag that Oswald carried was
as wide as the bag found on the sixth floor,169 although Mrs. Randle
testified that the width was approximately the same.170
The Commission has weighed the visual recollection of Frazier and Mrs.
Randle against the evidence here presented that the bag Oswald carried
contained the assassination weapon and has concluded that Frazier and Randle
are mistaken as to the length of the bag. Mrs. Randle saw the bag fleetingly
and her first remembrance is that it was held in Oswald's right hand "and it
almost touched the ground as he carried it." 171 Frazier's view of the bag
was from the rear. He continually advised that he was not paying close
attention.172 For example, he said,
* * * 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.173
Frazier could easily have been mistaken when he slated that Oswald held the
bottom of the bag cupped in his hand with the upper end tucked into his
armpit.
"David Von Pein" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1176180871.8...@n76g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
David Von Pein
And?
RICLAND
Mind you, crazy people do ridiculous things, but we see no evidence of
this in Oswald's life.
Of course Bugliosi equates Marxism with crazy, but that's because
Bugliosi has built his career convincing Joe Sixpack and Wanda Waitress
he's right.
ricland
--
"Prof Rahn's site is brilliant.
It only took me 10 visits before I was
able to navigate it just fine."
--cddraftsman
"We probably will never learn the truth about this case."
--Earl Warren, 1964
Who Shot JFK?
http://tinyurl.com/247ybb
tomnln
Snip what you're replying to so nobody sees how assinine your reply Really
IS.
"David Von Pein" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1176183436....@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
> Yeah?
>
> And?
>
tomnln
"David Von Pein" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1176180871.8...@n76g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
Thanks for Asking; HERE it is, From YOUR WCR.
Todd W. Vaughan
> You're Assuming it was disassembled rifle there.
>
> Show us how a 34.8 rifle fits into a 27 inch bag?
>
> Show us how a "well oiled rifle" broken down leaves NO oil in the 27 inch
> bag?
You're such an amature, Tomnln.
What was reported as being "well oiled" was the firing pin and spring.
Both are housed inside of the bolt of the rifle. In an assembled or
dissassembled state, the bolt is not exposed and would not have
transfered any oil to the bag.
>
> "David Von Pein" <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote in messagenews:1176178574....@b75g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> >>>> "The rifle was 42 inches long." <<<
>
> > 34.8 inches when broken down (and you know that very well).
>
> > Bag/Rifle length comparisons:
>
> >http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh22/html/WH_Vol22_0...- Hide quoted text -
tomnln
WHO IS TOAD VAUGHAN?>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/frick.htm
3rd feature deown
from the top.
"Todd W. Vaughan" <twvaug...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1176225378.2...@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
Walt
> On Apr 10, 12:42 am, "tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> > You're Assuming it was disassembled rifle there.
>
> > Show us how a 34.8 rifle fits into a 27 inch bag?
>
> > Show us how a "well oiled rifle" broken down leaves NO oil in the 27 inch
> > bag?
>
> You're such an amature, Tomnln.
What was reported as being "well oiled" was the firing pin and
spring.
Both are housed inside of the bolt of the rifle. In an assembled or
dissassembled state, the bolt is not exposed and would not have
transfered any oil to the bag.
Here's what Stombaugh said concerning the oily conditon of the
rifle........From the W.R.
In fact, most of the fibers Stombaugh found were either adhering to
greasy, oily deposits or were jammed down into crevices, and were so
dirty, old, and fragmented that he could not even determine what type
of fibers they were
Looks like ya got caught in another lie Todd....
Walt
>
>
>
>
> > "David Von Pein" <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote in messagenews:1176178574....@b75g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>
> > >>>> "The rifle was 42 inches long." <<<
>
> > > 34.8 inches when broken down (and you know that very well).
>
> > > Bag/Rifle length comparisons:
>
> > >http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh22/html/WH_Vol22_0...Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Walt
> On 10 Apr, 12:16, "Todd W. Vaughan" <twvaughan2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Apr 10, 12:42 am, "tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> > > You're Assuming it was disassembled rifle there.
>
> > > Show us how a 34.8 rifle fits into a 27 inch bag?
>
> > > Show us how a "well oiled rifle" broken down leaves NO oil in the 27 inch
> > > bag?
>
> > You're such an amature, Tomnln.
>
> What was reported as being "well oiled" was the firing pin and
> spring.
> Both are housed inside of the bolt of the rifle. In an assembled or
> dissassembled state, the bolt is not exposed and would not have
> transfered any oil to the bag.
>
> Here's what Stombaugh said concerning the oily conditon of the
> rifle........From the W.R.
>
> In fact, most of the fibers Stombaugh found were either adhering to
> greasy, oily deposits or were jammed down into crevices, and were so
> dirty, old, and fragmented that he could not even determine what type
> of fibers they were
>
> Looks like ya got caught in another lie Todd....
>
> Walt
Ok, so now we know, from the man who found the fibers on the rifle
that it was "greasy" and "oily". Since that is established by
Stombaugh's statement, then the question of why was there not even an
iota of grease or oil found in that bag if it was used to carry that
rifle?? The obvious answer is...... that rifle was never ever in
that bag.
Walt
>
>
>
>
> > > "David Von Pein" <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote in messagenews:1176178574....@b75g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>
> > > >>>> "The rifle was 42 inches long." <<<
>
> > > > 34.8 inches when broken down (and you know that very well).
>
> > > > Bag/Rifle length comparisons:
>
> > > >http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh22/html/WH_Vol22_0...quoted text -
Todd W. Vaughan
> On 10 Apr, 12:16, "Todd W. Vaughan" <twvaughan2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Apr 10, 12:42 am, "tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> > > You're Assuming it was disassembled rifle there.
>
> > > Show us how a 34.8 rifle fits into a 27 inch bag?
>
> > > Show us how a "well oiled rifle" broken down leaves NO oil in the 27 inch
> > > bag?
>
> > You're such an amature, Tomnln.
>
> What was reported as being "well oiled" was the firing pin and
> spring.
> Both are housed inside of the bolt of the rifle. In an assembled or
> dissassembled state, the bolt is not exposed and would not have
> transfered any oil to the bag.
>
> Here's what Stombaugh said concerning the oily conditon of the
> rifle........From the W.R.
>
> In fact, most of the fibers Stombaugh found were either adhering to
> greasy, oily deposits or were jammed down into crevices, and were so
> dirty, old, and fragmented that he could not even determine what type
> of fibers they were
>
> Looks like ya got caught in another lie Todd....
>
> Walt
Nope, I've not been caught in any lie, Walt, because I didn't lie.
What I said was that what was reported as being "well oiled" was the
firing pin and
spring.
I also said that both are housed inside of the bolt of the rifle. In
an assembled or
dissassembled state, the bolt is not exposed and would not have
transfered any oil to the bag.
Commission Exhibit 2974 reads as follows:
QUOTE ON
"In this connection it should be noted that the firing pin of this
rifle has been used extensively as shown by wear on the nose or
striking portion of the firing pin and, further, the presence of rust
on the firing pin and its spring may be an indication that the firing
pin had not been recently changed prior to November 22, 1963. This
rust would have been disturbed had the firing pin been changed
subsequent to the formation of the rust. In this regard, the firing
pin and spring of this weapon are well oiled and the rust present
necessarily must have been formed prior to the oiling of these parts.
[Emphasis added]
No oil has been applied to the weapon by the FBI; however, it is not
known whether it was oiled by any other person having this rifle in
his possession. It was noted during the examination of the firing pin
that numerous shots have been fired with the weapon in its present
well-oiled condition as shown by the presence of residues on the
interior surfaces of the bolt and on the firing pin.
QUOTE OFF
As for any greasy deposits, there may be greasy deposits on many
things, but that's not the same as saying those things are "well
oiled", is it?
>
>
>
>
>
> > > "David Von Pein" <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote in messagenews:1176178574....@b75g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>
> > > >>>> "The rifle was 42 inches long." <<<
>
> > > > 34.8 inches when broken down (and you know that very well).
>
> > > > Bag/Rifle length comparisons:
>
> > > >http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh22/html/WH_Vol22_0...quoted text -
tomnln
"Todd W. Vaughan" <twvaug...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1176242446.6...@w1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...