info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Vincent Bugliosi's 53 "Reasons", #36 - Refuted.
36 views
Skip to first unread message
Ben Holmes
Feb 25, 2017, 10:21:47 AM2/25/17
to
(36) A handmade paper bag large enough to carry Oswald's rifle was found in the sniper's nest.
No photograph exists of the paper bag in situ. Ironically, if you *look* at the paper bag, it's quite clear that it was originally simply folded around a book... this was, after all the Texas School BOOK Depository...
http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/images/bag.jpg
http://cospiracyjfkforum.com/images/bag2.jpg
And, as has been pointed out, when a Mannlicher Carcano has been broken down (AS WOULD HAVE BEEN NECESSARY), and placed in a bag - "the first seven or eight inches of the [wooden] stock show obvious signs of severe scoring and scratching. This is caused by the protruding parts of the barrel assembly - principally the trigger - rubbing against it as the bag is moved or carried."
As Ian Griggs continues to point out, "So what is the significance of these facts? Quite simply, no such scratches have ever been reported on the CE 139 rifle. Furthermore, they are not evident in any photographs taken of that rifle. To me, this provides irrefutable physical proof that the rifle was never transported in a disassembled state in a long paper bag as has been claimed by the investigative agencies and the Warren Commission." - No Case to Answer, Ian Griggs - page 200.
And, even if we accept, for the purpose of argument, that a paper bag was found – it fails to support any guilt on Oswald's part – the paper bag he was carrying was too short to carry the rifle. Observations that were corroborated by the nature of the observation – that the bag was carried in the palm of the hand, and tucked under Oswald's armpit. Simply impossible were it a rifle in the bag.
Indeed, the fact that a paper bag was found in the mail, addressed to Oswald at a non-existent Dallas address, with metered postage (not stamps), yet short by 12 cents. Then, on Nov 23, a postage due card for 12 cents arrives at Ruth Paine's house – despite this not being the non-existent address found on the package to Oswald. This just absolutely SCREAMS frame-up... and Warren Commission believers have to just scratch their head... no explanation in sight.
Lurkers: Watch as the Internet's premier defender of Vincent Bugliosi simply refuses to answer, and this forum's leading troll, "Bud," who admits to not knowing the evidence in this case - does his best to mislead while evading the points raised in this post.
No photograph exists of the paper bag in situ. Ironically, if you *look* at the paper bag, it's quite clear that it was originally simply folded around a book... this was, after all the Texas School BOOK Depository...
http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/images/bag.jpg
http://cospiracyjfkforum.com/images/bag2.jpg
And, as has been pointed out, when a Mannlicher Carcano has been broken down (AS WOULD HAVE BEEN NECESSARY), and placed in a bag - "the first seven or eight inches of the [wooden] stock show obvious signs of severe scoring and scratching. This is caused by the protruding parts of the barrel assembly - principally the trigger - rubbing against it as the bag is moved or carried."
As Ian Griggs continues to point out, "So what is the significance of these facts? Quite simply, no such scratches have ever been reported on the CE 139 rifle. Furthermore, they are not evident in any photographs taken of that rifle. To me, this provides irrefutable physical proof that the rifle was never transported in a disassembled state in a long paper bag as has been claimed by the investigative agencies and the Warren Commission." - No Case to Answer, Ian Griggs - page 200.
And, even if we accept, for the purpose of argument, that a paper bag was found – it fails to support any guilt on Oswald's part – the paper bag he was carrying was too short to carry the rifle. Observations that were corroborated by the nature of the observation – that the bag was carried in the palm of the hand, and tucked under Oswald's armpit. Simply impossible were it a rifle in the bag.
Indeed, the fact that a paper bag was found in the mail, addressed to Oswald at a non-existent Dallas address, with metered postage (not stamps), yet short by 12 cents. Then, on Nov 23, a postage due card for 12 cents arrives at Ruth Paine's house – despite this not being the non-existent address found on the package to Oswald. This just absolutely SCREAMS frame-up... and Warren Commission believers have to just scratch their head... no explanation in sight.
Lurkers: Watch as the Internet's premier defender of Vincent Bugliosi simply refuses to answer, and this forum's leading troll, "Bud," who admits to not knowing the evidence in this case - does his best to mislead while evading the points raised in this post.
Bud
Feb 25, 2017, 11:28:02 AM2/25/17
to
On Saturday, February 25, 2017 at 10:21:47 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> (36) A handmade paper bag large enough to carry Oswald's rifle was found in the sniper's nest.
First, Bugliosi`s full argument, that Ben is deceitfully withholding from the reader.
> (36) A handmade paper bag large enough to carry Oswald's rifle was found in the sniper's nest.
36. A large brown handmade bag of wrapping paper and tape of the appropriate size to contain Oswald’s disassembled Carcano rifle, undoubtedly the bag Wesley Frazier saw Oswald carry into the Book Depository Building on the morning of the assassination, was found inside the sniper’s nest on the sixth floor close to the three cartridge cases ejected from Oswald’s rifle. Oswald’s left index fingerprint and right palm print were found on the bag.
> No photograph exists of the paper bag in situ. Ironically, if you *look* at the paper bag, it's quite clear that it was originally simply folded around a book... this was, after all the Texas School BOOK Depository...
> http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/images/bag.jpg
> http://cospiracyjfkforum.com/images/bag2.jpg
If you look at the peaks and valleys of the folds you can see that it was just folded in half, and then folded in half again.
> And, as has been pointed out, when a Mannlicher Carcano has been broken down (AS WOULD HAVE BEEN NECESSARY), and placed in a bag - "the first seven or eight inches of the [wooden] stock show obvious signs of severe scoring and scratching. This is caused by the protruding parts of the barrel assembly - principally the trigger - rubbing against it as the bag is moved or carried."
http://www.geocities.ws/jfkresearch/39.jpg
Also it is unknown whether Oswald employed one of several easy remedies, like wrapping in cloth, that would have prevented the wood/metal contact.
> As Ian Griggs continues to point out, "So what is the significance of these facts? Quite simply, no such scratches have ever been reported on the CE 139 rifle. Furthermore, they are not evident in any photographs taken of that rifle. To me, this provides irrefutable physical proof that the rifle was never transported in a disassembled state in a long paper bag as has been claimed by the investigative agencies and the Warren Commission." - No Case to Answer, Ian Griggs - page 200.
> And, even if we accept, for the purpose of argument, that a paper bag was found –
> it fails to support any guilt on Oswald's part –
Other than that...
>the paper bag he was carrying was too short to carry the rifle.
>Observations that were corroborated by the nature of the observation –
> that the bag was carried in the palm of the hand, and tucked under Oswald's armpit. Simply impossible were it a rifle in the bag.
> Indeed, the fact that a paper bag was found in the mail, addressed to Oswald at a non-existent Dallas address, with metered postage (not stamps), yet short by 12 cents. Then, on Nov 23, a postage due card for 12 cents arrives at Ruth Paine's house – despite this not being the non-existent address found on the package to Oswald. This just absolutely SCREAMS frame-up...
> and Warren Commission believers have to just scratch their head... no explanation in sight.
> Lurkers: Watch as the Internet's premier defender of Vincent Bugliosi simply refuses to answer, and this forum's leading troll, "Bud," who admits to not knowing the evidence in this case
> - does his best to mislead while evading the points raised in this post.
David Von Pein
Feb 25, 2017, 11:37:39 AM2/25/17
to
1.) LEE HARVEY OSWALD'S RIFLE was found on the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository Building on 11/22/63.
2.) An EMPTY 38-INCH-LONG PAPER BAG with two of Oswald's prints on it was found under the same window from where OSWALD'S RIFLE positively fired three bullets at President Kennedy.
3.) The lengthiest part of OSWALD'S RIFLE, when broken down, was 34.8 inches. So it could definitely fit inside the 38-inch PAPER BAG found near the sniper's window.
4.) Oswald carried a long and bulky PAPER BAG into the TSBD on 11/22/63.
5.) Oswald lied about the contents of that PAPER BAG to fellow worker Buell Wesley Frazier.
6.) Oswald also lied when he told the police he did not carry any kind of a large PAPER BAG into the Depository Building on November 22nd.
7.) Oswald also lied when he told the police that he had not recently said anything at all to fellow worker Buell Wesley Frazier about "curtain rods".
8.) Following the President's assassination, no curtain rods were discovered in the Book Depository [see Commission Exhibit 2640].
9.) OSWALD'S RIFLE was not found in its known storage location (Ruth Paine's garage in Irving, Texas) on the afternoon of November 22nd. Lee Oswald, of course, spent the previous night (Nov. 21) at the Paine house, and had easy access to the garage where he knew his rifle was being stored.
10.) Ruth Paine discovered that someone had left the light on in the garage at some point prior to approximately 9:00 PM CST on Thursday, November 21st. Ruth was certain that she, herself, had not left the light on, and Ruth was also fairly certain that Marina Oswald had not left the light on either. It was Ruth's belief that the person who had been in her garage prior to 9:00 PM on Nov. 21 and had not turned out the light upon exiting the garage was Lee Harvey Oswald.
When a reasonable and sensible person adds up #1 through #10 above, the answer becomes quite obvious. In fact, the answer couldn't be more obvious -- Lee Oswald wrapped his own rifle in a handmade 38-inch brown paper bag and carried that paper package containing his rifle out of the Paine residence on the morning of November 22, 1963.
Lee H. Oswald then took that rifle package into his workplace at the TSBD, unwrapped the rifle in private at some point prior to 12:30 PM, assembled his rifle (which is reasonable to assume he knew how to do without much difficulty or painstaking effort), secreted himself as best he could in the southeast corner of the sixth floor (aided by the shield of book cartons that Oswald himself had fashioned that same morning), and shot and killed JFK when he drove down Elm Street at 12:30 PM.
For goodness sake, this is second-grade math we're dealing with here concerning the rifle and the bag. ANY other explanation regarding those two objects is laughable when compared to the scenario I just laid out above.
Any alternate scenario must explain away many different things -- things that all FIT TOGETHER like a well-fitting glove via the 10-point scenario I talked about above -- such as:
1.) The need to explain away the FACT that Oswald's rifle was missing from its known storage location on the same day the President was killed via rifle fire that came from the same building where Lee Oswald worked and from where three bullets from OSWALD'S RIFLE were fired (via the three spent shells from OSWALD'S RIFLE found under the sniper's window [CE510]).
2.) If Lee Harvey Oswald didn't take his rifle to work in that large-ish paper bag on 11/22/63, then when did he (or somebody else) take Mannlicher-Carcano rifle #C2766 into the Book Depository?
Prior to November 21, the last time Oswald was at Ruth Paine's house was the weekend of November 8-11, 1963, which was more than one full week before the President's motorcade route through Dallas was even finalized or announced in the Dallas papers.
The earliest that Oswald could have known for sure that his workplace would be a good and viable location for attempting to assassinate President Kennedy was Tuesday morning, November 19th, when the details of the motorcade route (including the Houston-to-Elm turn that would take JFK's limousine directly in front of the TSBD) were printed in the Dallas Morning News [see CE1363].
It stands to reason, therefore, that Oswald probably did not remove his rifle from Ruth Paine's garage prior to 11/19/63. And the only possible dates after November 19th that he could have conceivably retrieved his rifle from that location in Irving, Texas, were November 21 and 22.
3.) Conspiracy theorists also need to somehow explain away the devastatingly incriminating evidence against Lee Oswald known as CE142 (the EMPTY paper bag that was found in the Sniper's Nest with two of Oswald's prints on it).
Most conspiracists like to cry foul when discussing that brown paper sack, claiming that the police were up to no good and created a fake bag in order to frame Oswald with it. But such arguments fall short in the "proof it happened" department. Way short.
But it's obvious why CTers feel the need to distance themselves from the reality of that paper bag. Because if those conspiracy believers were to actually face the stubborn reality concerning the bag (with that reality being: It was Oswald's homemade bag and Oswald took his rifle to work in that bag), then those CTers would be forced to admit that their precious "patsy" had probably taken that gun to work in order to shoot somebody with it on the day when JFK came to town.
What other reasonable and logical conclusion could anyone (CTer or otherwise) come to after they've admitted to themselves the obvious truth: That Lee Oswald did, in fact, walk into the Book Depository on November 22, 1963, with a rifle wrapped in brown paper?
4.) Another pesky item that conspiracists need to "explain away" is the "curtain rod" lie that was told by Lee Harvey Oswald. And it couldn't be more obvious (to a reasonable and rational person, that is) that Oswald DID, indeed, lie to Wesley Frazier (and later to the police after he was arrested) concerning the curtain rods. Oswald never had any curtain rods, of course.
And why on Earth would Oswald want to lie about the contents of that brown paper package? Again, the answer couldn't be more obvious: He wanted to DISTANCE HIMSELF FROM THE MURDER WEAPON.
5.) And two other pieces of evidence that conspiracy advocates must avoid or twist or mangle are the fingerprint and the palmprint of Oswald's that were found on the paper bag.
How did Oswald's prints get on that paper bag IF OSWALD HIMSELF WAS NEVER IN POSSESSION OF THAT BAG ON THE DAY OF THE ASSASSINATION?
That's a question that no conspiracy theorist has ever been able to reconcile with anything close to a believable or satisfactory answer since 1963. And yet we've got certain conspiracists like James DiEugenio who now want to say that Oswald didn't carry ANY large bag into the TSBD on November 22. None at all!
Well, Jim, I've got a really good one-word response to such lunacy -- Hogwash!!
In Summary ---
All conspiracy theorists who love to argue about whether Lee Harvey Oswald took his rifle into the TSBD on the morning of the assassination certainly have to realize (deep down) that the above 10-item scenario is 100% accurate and based on the actual evidence in the JFK case (not to mention being based on a whole lot of ordinary common sense as well).
But it seems that conspiracy promoters just love to argue....even when they must certainly know in their own guts that their arguments are filled with mush when compared with the actual truth.
Vincent Bugliosi said it quite well (as usual) when he said this to the jury in London, England, in 1986 during the televised docu-trial, "ON TRIAL: LEE HARVEY OSWALD":
"We...know from the firearms people that the three expended cartridge casings found on the floor, right beneath that sixth-floor window--undoubtedly the same casings that Mr. [Harold] Norman heard fall from above--were fired in, and ejected from, Oswald's rifle to the exclusion of all other weapons.
"So we KNOW, not just beyond a reasonable doubt, we know beyond ALL doubt that OSWALD'S RIFLE WAS THE MURDER WEAPON....that caused that terrible, terrible spray of brain matter to the front! The worst sight that I have ever seen in my entire life!
"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. [Wesley] 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.
"At this point if we had nothing else....nothing else!....how much do you need?!....if we had NOTHING else!....this would be enough to prove Oswald's guilt beyond all REASONABLE doubt. But there's so much more." -- Vincent Bugliosi; July 1986
David Von Pein
December 10, 2009
=============================
ADDENDUM:
There are many reasons to conclude that the bag held by L.D. Montgomery in these pictures is NOT a "fake" or "DPD manufactured" bag:
1.) Multiple officers (Studebaker, Day, Montgomery, and Johnson) said they saw a long bag in the Sniper's Nest prior to it being picked up off of the floor.
2.) DPD Lieutenant J.C. Day wrote his name and the date on the bag shortly after it was found.
3.) Two of Lee Harvey Oswald's prints are on the paper bag in evidence today at the National Archives (Commission Exhibit No. 142). How and when did the cops manage to "plant" those prints of LHO's on the bag? The conspiracy theorists never tell us this, of course. They merely ASSUME the evil cops planted the fingerprint and palmprint on the bag.
4.) At the time when Montgomery was photographed carrying the bag out of the Book Depository (below), which was sometime during the afternoon of 11/22/63, the Dallas Police Department very likely didn't even have a clue that a long brown paper bag could be associated in any way with the evidence surrounding President Kennedy's assassination. Buell Wesley Frazier and Linnie Mae Randle were the only two people on the planet who could have supplied the information to the DPD about Oswald carrying a long brown bag that morning.
Now that's some really fast work being done by the DPD with that bag (if we're to believe what Pat Speer and others seem to believe). The cops would have had to create that bag very quickly on the afternoon of the assassination. And they probably would have needed to do that PRIOR to ever confirming from Frazier or Randle that Oswald had a bag with him that day.
There are conspiracy clowns (such as Jim DiEugenio) who conveniently maneuver around that last sticky little timeline problem by making the preposterous claim that both Wes Frazier and Linnie Randle just MADE UP the paper bag story from whole cloth (after being forced to do so by the evil DPD). Of course, such nutty allegations belong in a fantasy book, not in a reasonable discussion about the evidence in this case.
Photographic Anomalies? .....
Pat Speer and other conspiracists think the bag seen in Detective Montgomery's hands in the pictures above does not match the dimensions and other characteristics (such as the "wrinkling" and "crinkling") of CE142, which is the bag that is in evidence today that is said to have been the exact same paper bag being held by L.D. Montgomery above.
But many times when examining photographs and films, lots of things don't "look quite right". This same argument has been made by conspiracy theorists about the backyard photos of Oswald. And JFK's autopsy pictures. And the Zapruder Film. And Mary Moorman's photo. And on and on.
But, as Dale Myers has said many times in the past (such as in this article), attempting to extract precise (and three-dimensional) information by looking at two-dimensional photographs is a fool's errand. It simply cannot be done with 100% accuracy and precision.
Given the built-in obstacles and limitations when it comes to the task of attempting to "match up" 2D pictures with one another, plus the list of items I mentioned above, to say that the Dallas police created a fake paper bag in order to try and frame Lee Harvey Oswald for President John F. Kennedy's murder is, in my opinion, not a reasonable (or logical) conclusion to reach.
David Von Pein
January 11, 2015
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/07/oswald-his-rifle-and-his-paper-bag.html
2.) An EMPTY 38-INCH-LONG PAPER BAG with two of Oswald's prints on it was found under the same window from where OSWALD'S RIFLE positively fired three bullets at President Kennedy.
3.) The lengthiest part of OSWALD'S RIFLE, when broken down, was 34.8 inches. So it could definitely fit inside the 38-inch PAPER BAG found near the sniper's window.
4.) Oswald carried a long and bulky PAPER BAG into the TSBD on 11/22/63.
5.) Oswald lied about the contents of that PAPER BAG to fellow worker Buell Wesley Frazier.
6.) Oswald also lied when he told the police he did not carry any kind of a large PAPER BAG into the Depository Building on November 22nd.
7.) Oswald also lied when he told the police that he had not recently said anything at all to fellow worker Buell Wesley Frazier about "curtain rods".
8.) Following the President's assassination, no curtain rods were discovered in the Book Depository [see Commission Exhibit 2640].
9.) OSWALD'S RIFLE was not found in its known storage location (Ruth Paine's garage in Irving, Texas) on the afternoon of November 22nd. Lee Oswald, of course, spent the previous night (Nov. 21) at the Paine house, and had easy access to the garage where he knew his rifle was being stored.
10.) Ruth Paine discovered that someone had left the light on in the garage at some point prior to approximately 9:00 PM CST on Thursday, November 21st. Ruth was certain that she, herself, had not left the light on, and Ruth was also fairly certain that Marina Oswald had not left the light on either. It was Ruth's belief that the person who had been in her garage prior to 9:00 PM on Nov. 21 and had not turned out the light upon exiting the garage was Lee Harvey Oswald.
When a reasonable and sensible person adds up #1 through #10 above, the answer becomes quite obvious. In fact, the answer couldn't be more obvious -- Lee Oswald wrapped his own rifle in a handmade 38-inch brown paper bag and carried that paper package containing his rifle out of the Paine residence on the morning of November 22, 1963.
Lee H. Oswald then took that rifle package into his workplace at the TSBD, unwrapped the rifle in private at some point prior to 12:30 PM, assembled his rifle (which is reasonable to assume he knew how to do without much difficulty or painstaking effort), secreted himself as best he could in the southeast corner of the sixth floor (aided by the shield of book cartons that Oswald himself had fashioned that same morning), and shot and killed JFK when he drove down Elm Street at 12:30 PM.
For goodness sake, this is second-grade math we're dealing with here concerning the rifle and the bag. ANY other explanation regarding those two objects is laughable when compared to the scenario I just laid out above.
Any alternate scenario must explain away many different things -- things that all FIT TOGETHER like a well-fitting glove via the 10-point scenario I talked about above -- such as:
1.) The need to explain away the FACT that Oswald's rifle was missing from its known storage location on the same day the President was killed via rifle fire that came from the same building where Lee Oswald worked and from where three bullets from OSWALD'S RIFLE were fired (via the three spent shells from OSWALD'S RIFLE found under the sniper's window [CE510]).
2.) If Lee Harvey Oswald didn't take his rifle to work in that large-ish paper bag on 11/22/63, then when did he (or somebody else) take Mannlicher-Carcano rifle #C2766 into the Book Depository?
Prior to November 21, the last time Oswald was at Ruth Paine's house was the weekend of November 8-11, 1963, which was more than one full week before the President's motorcade route through Dallas was even finalized or announced in the Dallas papers.
The earliest that Oswald could have known for sure that his workplace would be a good and viable location for attempting to assassinate President Kennedy was Tuesday morning, November 19th, when the details of the motorcade route (including the Houston-to-Elm turn that would take JFK's limousine directly in front of the TSBD) were printed in the Dallas Morning News [see CE1363].
It stands to reason, therefore, that Oswald probably did not remove his rifle from Ruth Paine's garage prior to 11/19/63. And the only possible dates after November 19th that he could have conceivably retrieved his rifle from that location in Irving, Texas, were November 21 and 22.
3.) Conspiracy theorists also need to somehow explain away the devastatingly incriminating evidence against Lee Oswald known as CE142 (the EMPTY paper bag that was found in the Sniper's Nest with two of Oswald's prints on it).
Most conspiracists like to cry foul when discussing that brown paper sack, claiming that the police were up to no good and created a fake bag in order to frame Oswald with it. But such arguments fall short in the "proof it happened" department. Way short.
But it's obvious why CTers feel the need to distance themselves from the reality of that paper bag. Because if those conspiracy believers were to actually face the stubborn reality concerning the bag (with that reality being: It was Oswald's homemade bag and Oswald took his rifle to work in that bag), then those CTers would be forced to admit that their precious "patsy" had probably taken that gun to work in order to shoot somebody with it on the day when JFK came to town.
What other reasonable and logical conclusion could anyone (CTer or otherwise) come to after they've admitted to themselves the obvious truth: That Lee Oswald did, in fact, walk into the Book Depository on November 22, 1963, with a rifle wrapped in brown paper?
4.) Another pesky item that conspiracists need to "explain away" is the "curtain rod" lie that was told by Lee Harvey Oswald. And it couldn't be more obvious (to a reasonable and rational person, that is) that Oswald DID, indeed, lie to Wesley Frazier (and later to the police after he was arrested) concerning the curtain rods. Oswald never had any curtain rods, of course.
And why on Earth would Oswald want to lie about the contents of that brown paper package? Again, the answer couldn't be more obvious: He wanted to DISTANCE HIMSELF FROM THE MURDER WEAPON.
5.) And two other pieces of evidence that conspiracy advocates must avoid or twist or mangle are the fingerprint and the palmprint of Oswald's that were found on the paper bag.
How did Oswald's prints get on that paper bag IF OSWALD HIMSELF WAS NEVER IN POSSESSION OF THAT BAG ON THE DAY OF THE ASSASSINATION?
That's a question that no conspiracy theorist has ever been able to reconcile with anything close to a believable or satisfactory answer since 1963. And yet we've got certain conspiracists like James DiEugenio who now want to say that Oswald didn't carry ANY large bag into the TSBD on November 22. None at all!
Well, Jim, I've got a really good one-word response to such lunacy -- Hogwash!!
In Summary ---
All conspiracy theorists who love to argue about whether Lee Harvey Oswald took his rifle into the TSBD on the morning of the assassination certainly have to realize (deep down) that the above 10-item scenario is 100% accurate and based on the actual evidence in the JFK case (not to mention being based on a whole lot of ordinary common sense as well).
But it seems that conspiracy promoters just love to argue....even when they must certainly know in their own guts that their arguments are filled with mush when compared with the actual truth.
Vincent Bugliosi said it quite well (as usual) when he said this to the jury in London, England, in 1986 during the televised docu-trial, "ON TRIAL: LEE HARVEY OSWALD":
"We...know from the firearms people that the three expended cartridge casings found on the floor, right beneath that sixth-floor window--undoubtedly the same casings that Mr. [Harold] Norman heard fall from above--were fired in, and ejected from, Oswald's rifle to the exclusion of all other weapons.
"So we KNOW, not just beyond a reasonable doubt, we know beyond ALL doubt that OSWALD'S RIFLE WAS THE MURDER WEAPON....that caused that terrible, terrible spray of brain matter to the front! The worst sight that I have ever seen in my entire life!
"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. [Wesley] 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.
"At this point if we had nothing else....nothing else!....how much do you need?!....if we had NOTHING else!....this would be enough to prove Oswald's guilt beyond all REASONABLE doubt. But there's so much more." -- Vincent Bugliosi; July 1986
David Von Pein
December 10, 2009
=============================
ADDENDUM:
There are many reasons to conclude that the bag held by L.D. Montgomery in these pictures is NOT a "fake" or "DPD manufactured" bag:
1.) Multiple officers (Studebaker, Day, Montgomery, and Johnson) said they saw a long bag in the Sniper's Nest prior to it being picked up off of the floor.
2.) DPD Lieutenant J.C. Day wrote his name and the date on the bag shortly after it was found.
3.) Two of Lee Harvey Oswald's prints are on the paper bag in evidence today at the National Archives (Commission Exhibit No. 142). How and when did the cops manage to "plant" those prints of LHO's on the bag? The conspiracy theorists never tell us this, of course. They merely ASSUME the evil cops planted the fingerprint and palmprint on the bag.
4.) At the time when Montgomery was photographed carrying the bag out of the Book Depository (below), which was sometime during the afternoon of 11/22/63, the Dallas Police Department very likely didn't even have a clue that a long brown paper bag could be associated in any way with the evidence surrounding President Kennedy's assassination. Buell Wesley Frazier and Linnie Mae Randle were the only two people on the planet who could have supplied the information to the DPD about Oswald carrying a long brown bag that morning.
Now that's some really fast work being done by the DPD with that bag (if we're to believe what Pat Speer and others seem to believe). The cops would have had to create that bag very quickly on the afternoon of the assassination. And they probably would have needed to do that PRIOR to ever confirming from Frazier or Randle that Oswald had a bag with him that day.
There are conspiracy clowns (such as Jim DiEugenio) who conveniently maneuver around that last sticky little timeline problem by making the preposterous claim that both Wes Frazier and Linnie Randle just MADE UP the paper bag story from whole cloth (after being forced to do so by the evil DPD). Of course, such nutty allegations belong in a fantasy book, not in a reasonable discussion about the evidence in this case.
Photographic Anomalies? .....
Pat Speer and other conspiracists think the bag seen in Detective Montgomery's hands in the pictures above does not match the dimensions and other characteristics (such as the "wrinkling" and "crinkling") of CE142, which is the bag that is in evidence today that is said to have been the exact same paper bag being held by L.D. Montgomery above.
But many times when examining photographs and films, lots of things don't "look quite right". This same argument has been made by conspiracy theorists about the backyard photos of Oswald. And JFK's autopsy pictures. And the Zapruder Film. And Mary Moorman's photo. And on and on.
But, as Dale Myers has said many times in the past (such as in this article), attempting to extract precise (and three-dimensional) information by looking at two-dimensional photographs is a fool's errand. It simply cannot be done with 100% accuracy and precision.
Given the built-in obstacles and limitations when it comes to the task of attempting to "match up" 2D pictures with one another, plus the list of items I mentioned above, to say that the Dallas police created a fake paper bag in order to try and frame Lee Harvey Oswald for President John F. Kennedy's murder is, in my opinion, not a reasonable (or logical) conclusion to reach.
David Von Pein
January 11, 2015
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/07/oswald-his-rifle-and-his-paper-bag.html
David Von Pein
Feb 25, 2017, 11:39:17 AM2/25/17
to
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
BOTH [Buell Wesley Frazier and Linnie Mae Randle] confirmed that the bag found on the sixth floor after the assassination generally looked like the bag they saw Lee Harvey Oswald carrying on 11/22/63.
RICHARD VAN NOORD SAID:
A patent lie, David. So now we're resorting to a complete lie to make the case? Typical. They said the package was no more than two feet in length and carried with a cupped hand under the armpit.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
In the 1964 motion picture "Four Days In November", Linnie Mae Randle said the package was "approximately two-and-a-half feet long" [audio file embedded below]. That's 30 inches, just a mere 8 inches shorter than the actual length of the package.
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2014/11/four-days-in-november-re-created-scenes.html
Plus -- There's the fact that both the top and the bottom ends of the bag were quite possibly "folded" in some manner as Oswald carried the bag. At least the top of the bag was "folded", per Frazier. (See later discussion in this post regarding Wesley Frazier's November 22nd affidavit, which involves information concerning the bag's "folds".)
Also -- Randle, in her Warren Commission testimony, said that the bag she saw Oswald carrying was about "27 inches" long. And 27 inches is, of course (just like her "2-and-a-half feet" estimate from the movie "Four Days"), more than two feet, which makes your above statement of "no more than two feet in length" incorrect (with respect to the estimates of the bag's length made by Linnie Randle).
Also from Randle's Warren Commission session:
JOE BALL -- "You figure about 2 feet long, is that right?"
LINNIE MAE RANDLE -- "A little bit more."
------------------
You might also be interested in the FBI Report filed by James Bookhout on 11/23/63, which states that Linnie Mae saw Oswald put "a long brown package, approximately 3 feet by 6 inches, in the back seat area" of her brother's Chevrolet sedan.
"3 feet" = 36 inches. The sixth-floor bag was 38 inches long. (And the lengthiest section of Lee Oswald's Italian-made Mannlicher-Carcano rifle was 34.8 inches long when it was broken down.)
So, who's telling lies now, Richard Van Noord? Or don't you even know what these witnesses said?
Wesley Frazier told the Warren Commission:
"I just roughly estimate and that would be around two feet, give and take [sic] a few inches."
Via Frazier's 11/22/63 affidavit, we find something interesting regarding the bag's length too:
"Before I got in the car, I glanced in the back seat, and saw a big sack. It must have been about 2 feet long, and the top of the sack was sort of folded up, and the rest of the sack had been kind of folded under. I asked Lee what was in the sack, and he said "curtain rods", and I remembered that he had told me the day before that he was going to bring some curtain rods."
The intriguing part of the above affidavit, IMO, is:
"The top of the sack was sort of folded up, and the rest of the sack had been kind of folded under."
Therefore, Frazier is saying via his affidavit comments made on the very same day he saw Oswald with the paper bag that the "2-foot"-long bag had at least one of its ends "folded" in some fashion, which would certainly make the overall length of the bag longer when the bag is completely unfolded.
Frazier's other "folded" remark in his affidavit is a bit more ambiguous and hard to figure out.....
"And the rest of the sack had been kind of folded under."
The "folded under" comment could indicate the bottom being "folded under", I suppose. But it would seem he's referring to the bulk of the LENGTH of the bag in that "folded under" comment. I'm not quite sure.
But that could also explain why Frazier said that the full width of the bag looked too wide when he was shown the unfolded bag by the Warren Commission. If the WHOLE bag, for the most part, had been "folded under" itself in some fashion, then when Frazier saw Oswald with the bag on November 22, the bag would obviously have looked NOT AS WIDE in Frazier's eyes.
The above "folded" comments in Wes Frazier's November 22nd affidavit seem to have been overlooked by many conspiracy theorists who are bent on clearing dear, sweet Lee Harvey of the Presidential murder he so obviously committed with the object that was stuffed inside that paper bag (with multiple "folds") that he put in Frazier's car on the morning of November 22, 1963.
BTW, a man who is 5'9" tall can't fit a 27-inch object (or a 24-inch object) under his armpit while also cupping it in his hand (unless he's got monkeys for close relatives). So, the Randle/Frazier estimates as to the length of the package they saw are almost certainly wrong--even from a "conspiracy" POV.
In other words, Frazier can't possibly be exactly correct about BOTH things -- i.e., "under the armpit and cupped in his right hand" AND "roughly about two feet long" (via his WC testimony).
Both of those things cannot be 100% true. But CTers like to think that Frazier's and Randle's bag-length estimates ARE, indeed, spot-on accurate.
And isn't it funny that the empty 6th-Floor bag just happened to have the RIGHT PALMPRINT of Lee Oswald on it....perfectly matching the way Wes Frazier said Oz carried the bag "cupped in his right hand".
The "under the armpit" observation of Frazier's was obviously a mistake....and he said so, under oath:
VINCENT BUGLIOSI (during the 1986 Docu-Trial in London) -- "Did you recall how he [LHO] was carrying the bag?"
BUELL WESLEY FRAZIER -- "Yes sir. He was carrying it parallel to his body."
BUGLIOSI -- "Okay, so he carried the bag right next to his body....on the right side?"
FRAZIER -- "Yes sir. On the right side."
BUGLIOSI -- "Was it cupped in his hand and under his armpit? I think you've said that in the past."
FRAZIER -- "Yes sir."
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."
------------------
And now a passage from Vince Bugliosi's "Reclaiming History":
"Frazier's statements that the rifle was tucked under Oswald's armpit is hardly as definitive as the critics claim. While Frazier's description of how Oswald carried the rifle was consistent in all of his statements to investigators, it was clearly inferable from his Warren Commission testimony that this was only an assumption on his part based on his limited view.
"Frazier told the Commission that "the only time" he saw the way Oswald was carrying the package was from the back, and that all that was visible was "just a little strip [of the package] running down" along the inside of Oswald's arm. ....
"Since he could only see this small portion of the package under Oswald's right arm, and because he didn't notice any part of the package sticking above his right shoulder...Frazier assumed that it must have been tucked under his armpit, telling the Commission, "I don't see how you could have it anywhere other than under your armpit."
"Although the critics have been quick to embrace Frazier's conclusion, it should be repeated that he told the Commission over and over (no less than five separate times) that he didn't pay much attention to the package or to the way Oswald carried it. ....
"In other words, and understandably, Frazier was confused. So we don't even know, for sure, how Oswald was carrying the rifle in front of his body, which Frazier could not see. At the London trial [in 1986] I asked Frazier, "So the bag could have been protruding out in front of his body and you wouldn't have been able to see it?" and he responded, "That's true."
"The most likely scenario was postulated well by Dan Rather [of CBS News in 1967], who rhetorically told his audience, "You can decide whether Frazier, walking some fifty feet behind and, in his own words, not paying much attention, might have missed the few inches of the narrow end of such a package sticking up past Oswald's shoulder"." -- Vincent Bugliosi; Pages 409-410 of "Reclaiming History" (Via the Endnotes on CD-ROM)(c.2007)
------------------
Anyway, my earlier comment, which was.....
"And BOTH [Randle/Frazier] confirmed that the bag found on the 6th Floor after the assassination generally looked like the bag they saw Oz carrying on 11/22."
.....wasn't referring to the exact LENGTH of the sixth-floor bag (quite obviously). I was referring to the TYPE and GENERAL LOOK of the brown paper bag (CE142) that was shown to Frazier and Randle by the Warren Commission.
Frazier, in his usual confused, odd, and hard-to-understand way of expressing himself, told the WC that the color of the bag Oswald carried closely matched the color of the replica bag made by the FBI for general identification purposes (CE364).
And Frazier said that the untreated and lighter portion of CE142 (the actual Sniper's-Nest bag) "could have been, and it couldn't have been" similar to the color of the bag he saw in the back seat of his car on the morning of November 22nd.
So, once again, we're forced to try and figure out some of Wesley Frazier's rather odd phraseology. But the words "could have been" are certainly in there. So use your proverbial grain of salt here, as we should do with all of Frazier's testimony to a certain extent, especially when he starts to talk in strange ways, which he often did in front of the Warren Commission.
------------------
Now, with respect to Linnie Mae Randle's testimony regarding the general look and color of the paper bag [at 2 H 249]:
JOE BALL -- "Looking at this part of the bag which has not been discolored, does that appear similar to the color of the bag you saw Lee carrying that morning?"
LINNIE MAE RANDLE -- "Yes; it is a heavy type of wrapping paper."
------------------
I'll offer up this common-sense question once again, because it's worth repeating numerous times:
I wonder what the odds are of Lee Oswald having carried a DIFFERENT brown bag into work from the one WITH HIS TWO IDENTIFIABLE PRINTS ON IT that was found by the cops in the Sniper's Nest on the 6th Floor?
Care to guess at what those odds might be? They must be close to "O.J. DNA" type numbers (in favor of the empty brown bag that was found by the police on the 6th Floor of the Book Depository being the very same bag that Buell Wesley Frazier and Linnie Mae Randle saw in Lee Harvey Oswald's hands on the morning of November 22, 1963).
I'm eagerly awaiting the logical and believable conspiracy-slanted explanation that will answer the question of why a 38-inch empty paper bag (which could house Oswald's 34.8-inch disassembled rifle [see the comparison photo below]), which was an empty bag with Oswald's fingerprints on it, was in the place where it was found after the assassination (the sixth-floor Sniper's Nest) and yet still NOT have Lee Oswald present at that sniper's window on 11/22/63.
I, for one, cannot think of a single "Oswald Is Innocent" explanation for that empty paper sack being where it was found after the assassination of John Kennedy....AND with Oswald's fingerprints on it.
David Von Pein
October 2007
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/07/frazier-randle-and-paper-bag.html
BOTH [Buell Wesley Frazier and Linnie Mae Randle] confirmed that the bag found on the sixth floor after the assassination generally looked like the bag they saw Lee Harvey Oswald carrying on 11/22/63.
RICHARD VAN NOORD SAID:
A patent lie, David. So now we're resorting to a complete lie to make the case? Typical. They said the package was no more than two feet in length and carried with a cupped hand under the armpit.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
In the 1964 motion picture "Four Days In November", Linnie Mae Randle said the package was "approximately two-and-a-half feet long" [audio file embedded below]. That's 30 inches, just a mere 8 inches shorter than the actual length of the package.
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2014/11/four-days-in-november-re-created-scenes.html
Plus -- There's the fact that both the top and the bottom ends of the bag were quite possibly "folded" in some manner as Oswald carried the bag. At least the top of the bag was "folded", per Frazier. (See later discussion in this post regarding Wesley Frazier's November 22nd affidavit, which involves information concerning the bag's "folds".)
Also -- Randle, in her Warren Commission testimony, said that the bag she saw Oswald carrying was about "27 inches" long. And 27 inches is, of course (just like her "2-and-a-half feet" estimate from the movie "Four Days"), more than two feet, which makes your above statement of "no more than two feet in length" incorrect (with respect to the estimates of the bag's length made by Linnie Randle).
Also from Randle's Warren Commission session:
JOE BALL -- "You figure about 2 feet long, is that right?"
LINNIE MAE RANDLE -- "A little bit more."
------------------
You might also be interested in the FBI Report filed by James Bookhout on 11/23/63, which states that Linnie Mae saw Oswald put "a long brown package, approximately 3 feet by 6 inches, in the back seat area" of her brother's Chevrolet sedan.
"3 feet" = 36 inches. The sixth-floor bag was 38 inches long. (And the lengthiest section of Lee Oswald's Italian-made Mannlicher-Carcano rifle was 34.8 inches long when it was broken down.)
So, who's telling lies now, Richard Van Noord? Or don't you even know what these witnesses said?
Wesley Frazier told the Warren Commission:
"I just roughly estimate and that would be around two feet, give and take [sic] a few inches."
Via Frazier's 11/22/63 affidavit, we find something interesting regarding the bag's length too:
"Before I got in the car, I glanced in the back seat, and saw a big sack. It must have been about 2 feet long, and the top of the sack was sort of folded up, and the rest of the sack had been kind of folded under. I asked Lee what was in the sack, and he said "curtain rods", and I remembered that he had told me the day before that he was going to bring some curtain rods."
The intriguing part of the above affidavit, IMO, is:
"The top of the sack was sort of folded up, and the rest of the sack had been kind of folded under."
Therefore, Frazier is saying via his affidavit comments made on the very same day he saw Oswald with the paper bag that the "2-foot"-long bag had at least one of its ends "folded" in some fashion, which would certainly make the overall length of the bag longer when the bag is completely unfolded.
Frazier's other "folded" remark in his affidavit is a bit more ambiguous and hard to figure out.....
"And the rest of the sack had been kind of folded under."
The "folded under" comment could indicate the bottom being "folded under", I suppose. But it would seem he's referring to the bulk of the LENGTH of the bag in that "folded under" comment. I'm not quite sure.
But that could also explain why Frazier said that the full width of the bag looked too wide when he was shown the unfolded bag by the Warren Commission. If the WHOLE bag, for the most part, had been "folded under" itself in some fashion, then when Frazier saw Oswald with the bag on November 22, the bag would obviously have looked NOT AS WIDE in Frazier's eyes.
The above "folded" comments in Wes Frazier's November 22nd affidavit seem to have been overlooked by many conspiracy theorists who are bent on clearing dear, sweet Lee Harvey of the Presidential murder he so obviously committed with the object that was stuffed inside that paper bag (with multiple "folds") that he put in Frazier's car on the morning of November 22, 1963.
BTW, a man who is 5'9" tall can't fit a 27-inch object (or a 24-inch object) under his armpit while also cupping it in his hand (unless he's got monkeys for close relatives). So, the Randle/Frazier estimates as to the length of the package they saw are almost certainly wrong--even from a "conspiracy" POV.
In other words, Frazier can't possibly be exactly correct about BOTH things -- i.e., "under the armpit and cupped in his right hand" AND "roughly about two feet long" (via his WC testimony).
Both of those things cannot be 100% true. But CTers like to think that Frazier's and Randle's bag-length estimates ARE, indeed, spot-on accurate.
And isn't it funny that the empty 6th-Floor bag just happened to have the RIGHT PALMPRINT of Lee Oswald on it....perfectly matching the way Wes Frazier said Oz carried the bag "cupped in his right hand".
The "under the armpit" observation of Frazier's was obviously a mistake....and he said so, under oath:
VINCENT BUGLIOSI (during the 1986 Docu-Trial in London) -- "Did you recall how he [LHO] was carrying the bag?"
BUELL WESLEY FRAZIER -- "Yes sir. He was carrying it parallel to his body."
BUGLIOSI -- "Okay, so he carried the bag right next to his body....on the right side?"
FRAZIER -- "Yes sir. On the right side."
BUGLIOSI -- "Was it cupped in his hand and under his armpit? I think you've said that in the past."
FRAZIER -- "Yes sir."
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."
------------------
And now a passage from Vince Bugliosi's "Reclaiming History":
"Frazier's statements that the rifle was tucked under Oswald's armpit is hardly as definitive as the critics claim. While Frazier's description of how Oswald carried the rifle was consistent in all of his statements to investigators, it was clearly inferable from his Warren Commission testimony that this was only an assumption on his part based on his limited view.
"Frazier told the Commission that "the only time" he saw the way Oswald was carrying the package was from the back, and that all that was visible was "just a little strip [of the package] running down" along the inside of Oswald's arm. ....
"Since he could only see this small portion of the package under Oswald's right arm, and because he didn't notice any part of the package sticking above his right shoulder...Frazier assumed that it must have been tucked under his armpit, telling the Commission, "I don't see how you could have it anywhere other than under your armpit."
"Although the critics have been quick to embrace Frazier's conclusion, it should be repeated that he told the Commission over and over (no less than five separate times) that he didn't pay much attention to the package or to the way Oswald carried it. ....
"In other words, and understandably, Frazier was confused. So we don't even know, for sure, how Oswald was carrying the rifle in front of his body, which Frazier could not see. At the London trial [in 1986] I asked Frazier, "So the bag could have been protruding out in front of his body and you wouldn't have been able to see it?" and he responded, "That's true."
"The most likely scenario was postulated well by Dan Rather [of CBS News in 1967], who rhetorically told his audience, "You can decide whether Frazier, walking some fifty feet behind and, in his own words, not paying much attention, might have missed the few inches of the narrow end of such a package sticking up past Oswald's shoulder"." -- Vincent Bugliosi; Pages 409-410 of "Reclaiming History" (Via the Endnotes on CD-ROM)(c.2007)
------------------
Anyway, my earlier comment, which was.....
"And BOTH [Randle/Frazier] confirmed that the bag found on the 6th Floor after the assassination generally looked like the bag they saw Oz carrying on 11/22."
.....wasn't referring to the exact LENGTH of the sixth-floor bag (quite obviously). I was referring to the TYPE and GENERAL LOOK of the brown paper bag (CE142) that was shown to Frazier and Randle by the Warren Commission.
Frazier, in his usual confused, odd, and hard-to-understand way of expressing himself, told the WC that the color of the bag Oswald carried closely matched the color of the replica bag made by the FBI for general identification purposes (CE364).
And Frazier said that the untreated and lighter portion of CE142 (the actual Sniper's-Nest bag) "could have been, and it couldn't have been" similar to the color of the bag he saw in the back seat of his car on the morning of November 22nd.
So, once again, we're forced to try and figure out some of Wesley Frazier's rather odd phraseology. But the words "could have been" are certainly in there. So use your proverbial grain of salt here, as we should do with all of Frazier's testimony to a certain extent, especially when he starts to talk in strange ways, which he often did in front of the Warren Commission.
------------------
Now, with respect to Linnie Mae Randle's testimony regarding the general look and color of the paper bag [at 2 H 249]:
JOE BALL -- "Looking at this part of the bag which has not been discolored, does that appear similar to the color of the bag you saw Lee carrying that morning?"
LINNIE MAE RANDLE -- "Yes; it is a heavy type of wrapping paper."
------------------
I'll offer up this common-sense question once again, because it's worth repeating numerous times:
I wonder what the odds are of Lee Oswald having carried a DIFFERENT brown bag into work from the one WITH HIS TWO IDENTIFIABLE PRINTS ON IT that was found by the cops in the Sniper's Nest on the 6th Floor?
Care to guess at what those odds might be? They must be close to "O.J. DNA" type numbers (in favor of the empty brown bag that was found by the police on the 6th Floor of the Book Depository being the very same bag that Buell Wesley Frazier and Linnie Mae Randle saw in Lee Harvey Oswald's hands on the morning of November 22, 1963).
I'm eagerly awaiting the logical and believable conspiracy-slanted explanation that will answer the question of why a 38-inch empty paper bag (which could house Oswald's 34.8-inch disassembled rifle [see the comparison photo below]), which was an empty bag with Oswald's fingerprints on it, was in the place where it was found after the assassination (the sixth-floor Sniper's Nest) and yet still NOT have Lee Oswald present at that sniper's window on 11/22/63.
I, for one, cannot think of a single "Oswald Is Innocent" explanation for that empty paper sack being where it was found after the assassination of John Kennedy....AND with Oswald's fingerprints on it.
David Von Pein
October 2007
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/07/frazier-randle-and-paper-bag.html
David Von Pein
Feb 25, 2017, 11:40:07 AM2/25/17
to
MORE PAPER BAG DISCUSSION:
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/03/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-914.html
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/03/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-914.html
Ben Holmes
Feb 25, 2017, 11:55:02 AM2/25/17
to
On Saturday, February 25, 2017 at 8:28:02 AM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
> On Saturday, February 25, 2017 at 10:21:47 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > (36) A handmade paper bag large enough to carry Oswald's rifle was found in the sniper's nest.
>
> First, Bugliosi`s full argument, that BT George is deceitfully withholding from the reader.
> On Saturday, February 25, 2017 at 10:21:47 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > (36) A handmade paper bag large enough to carry Oswald's rifle was found in the sniper's nest.
>
Rather dishonest of you to post such a statement where BT George can't see it and respond to it...
> 36. A large brown handmade bag of wrapping paper and tape of the appropriate size to contain Oswald’s disassembled Carcano rifle, undoubtedly the bag Wesley Frazier saw Oswald carry into the Book Depository Building on the morning of the assassination, was found inside the sniper’s nest on the sixth floor close to the three cartridge cases ejected from Oswald’s rifle. Oswald’s left index fingerprint and right palm print were found on the bag.
>
> > No photograph exists of the paper bag in situ. Ironically, if you *look* at the paper bag, it's quite clear that it was originally simply folded around a book... this was, after all the Texas School BOOK Depository...
>
> If you *look* at the bag you see why this is a ridiculous idea. Who builds a deep bag, then winds the book end over end inside the bag to wrap a book? And of course the absence of depth folds shows this to be absurd.
Which is why I was happy to post the photos, so everyone can see for themselves.
You see, critics aren't afraid of the evidence.
> > http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/images/bag.jpg
> > http://cospiracyjfkforum.com/images/bag2.jpg
>
> If you look at the peaks and valleys of the folds you can see that it was just folded in half, and then folded in half again.
> > And, as has been pointed out, when a Mannlicher Carcano has been broken down (AS WOULD HAVE BEEN NECESSARY), and placed in a bag - "the first seven or eight inches of the [wooden] stock show obvious signs of severe scoring and scratching. This is caused by the protruding parts of the barrel assembly - principally the trigger - rubbing against it as the bag is moved or carried."
>
> On the face of it, this seems absurd.
Ian Griggs actually *DID* the experiment... he knows... you're expressing an opinion that you have ZERO evidence for.
> You would have to press hard to score a hardwood stock.
Do you have ANY IDEA AT ALL (based on facts) for the ease or difficulty of marring a Mannlicher Carcano stock?
You're placing your OPINIONS against someone who actually did the experiment.
You lose!
> Also, looking at the photo of the broken down rifle, it seems a simple thing to position the parts so the trigger (if that is the cause of the scratching) to point away from the stock...
Not possible.
> http://www.geocities.ws/jfkresearch/39.jpg
>
> Also it is unknown whether Oswald employed one of several easy remedies, like wrapping in cloth, that would have prevented the wood/metal contact.
Most people learned as kids not to do this.
> > As Ian Griggs continues to point out, "So what is the significance of these facts? Quite simply, no such scratches have ever been reported on the CE 139 rifle. Furthermore, they are not evident in any photographs taken of that rifle. To me, this provides irrefutable physical proof that the rifle was never transported in a disassembled state in a long paper bag as has been claimed by the investigative agencies and the Warren Commission." - No Case to Answer, Ian Griggs - page 200.
>
> Retard figuring.
You lose!
> > And, even if we accept, for the purpose of argument, that a paper bag was found –
>
> Has Ben given any real reason to doubt that it was?
> > it fails to support any guilt on Oswald's part –
>
> His print was on it and it was found near where he was seen firing shots.
> Other than that...
>
> >the paper bag he was carrying was too short to carry the rifle.
>
> The bag found is big enough to hold the disassembled rifle.
> >Observations that were corroborated by the nature of the observation –
>
> The nature of the observations were glances of an object observed from a distance by an inattentive witness.
> > that the bag was carried in the palm of the hand, and tucked under Oswald's armpit. Simply impossible were it a rifle in the bag.
>
> Not impossible if Frazier was seeing the end of the bag being carried horizontally. Recreations done by the FBI show he could only see 1 inch by 9 inches of the bag from behind, very close to the end of the bag measurements.
> > Indeed, the fact that a paper bag was found in the mail, addressed to Oswald at a non-existent Dallas address, with metered postage (not stamps), yet short by 12 cents. Then, on Nov 23, a postage due card for 12 cents arrives at Ruth Paine's house – despite this not being the non-existent address found on the package to Oswald. This just absolutely SCREAMS frame-up...
>
> How so?
> > and Warren Commission believers have to just scratch their head... no explanation in sight.
>
> Shifting the burden.
And that fact tells the tale.
> > Lurkers: Watch as the Internet's premier defender of Vincent Bugliosi simply refuses to answer, and this forum's leading troll, "Bud," who admits to not knowing the evidence in this case
>
> Not what I said, of course, but I doubt anyone following these discussions expect honesty from you by this point.
You simply don't know the evidence.
David does - so he runs.
> > - does his best to mislead while evading the points raised in this post.
>
> Watch as Ben runs, as he always does, from the counter-points I made in this post.
Bud
Feb 25, 2017, 12:13:33 PM2/25/17
to
On Saturday, February 25, 2017 at 11:39:17 AM UTC-5, David Von Pein wrote:
> DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
>
> BOTH [Buell Wesley Frazier and Linnie Mae Randle] confirmed that the bag found on the sixth floor after the assassination generally looked like the bag they saw Lee Harvey Oswald carrying on 11/22/63.
Hey David! I was looking at BWF and LMR`s testimony and found an anomaly maybe you cab shed some light on (as we know, any anomaly is seen by the conspiracy hobbyists as malevolent). First, what I was looking for was the probable route Oswald took from the Paine`s to the Randle residence, to see what opportunity Oswald would have had to ditch any incriminating material he might have had, mainly the box the bullets came from. He might have had them stored in the clip, or he might have had the box with the 4 bullets in the bag, which would lead me to think it ended up in the TSBD somewhere. It doesn`t seem like they really checked trash cans and things they way they might today, especially a case like this. In any case I was looking at the area using google Earth and it seems there was a drainage ditch running down the side of the Paine`s place. It was a short walk to the corner (one house) and then catty corner over to the Randle carport where LMR saw Oswald cross with the bag. Seems all these areas, including around the carport would be scoured today, but I don`t see evidence that any of this was done at the time. In any case, this is the anomaly I found, when asked where he lived, BWF said...
> DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
>
> BOTH [Buell Wesley Frazier and Linnie Mae Randle] confirmed that the bag found on the sixth floor after the assassination generally looked like the bag they saw Lee Harvey Oswald carrying on 11/22/63.
"2439 West Fifth Street."
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/frazierb1.htm
Which is the correct address. When LMR was asked where she lived, she said...
"2438 Westfield, Irving, Tex."
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/randlelm.htm
Any thoughts?
David Von Pein
Feb 25, 2017, 12:45:30 PM2/25/17
to
On Saturday, February 25, 2017 at 12:13:33 PM UTC-5, Bud wrote:
> On Saturday, February 25, 2017 at 11:39:17 AM UTC-5, David Von Pein wrote:
> > DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
> >
> > BOTH [Buell Wesley Frazier and Linnie Mae Randle] confirmed that the bag found on the sixth floor after the assassination generally looked like the bag they saw Lee Harvey Oswald carrying on 11/22/63.
>
> Hey David! I was looking at BWF and LMR`s testimony and found an anomaly maybe you cab shed some light on (as we know, any anomaly is seen by the conspiracy hobbyists as malevolent). First, what I was looking for was the probable route Oswald took from the Paine`s to the Randle residence, to see what opportunity Oswald would have had to ditch any incriminating material he might have had, mainly the box the bullets came from. He might have had them stored in the clip, or he might have had the box with the 4 bullets in the bag, which would lead me to think it ended up in the TSBD somewhere. It doesn`t seem like they really checked trash cans and things they way they might today, especially a case like this. In any case I was looking at the area using google Earth and it seems there was a drainage ditch running down the side of the Paine`s place. It was a short walk to the corner (one house) and then catty corner over to the Randle carport where LMR saw Oswald cross with the bag. Seems all these areas, including around the carport would be scoured today, but I don`t see evidence that any of this was done at the time.
You can find pictures of 5th Street and the Paine and Randle homes in CD497, here:
> On Saturday, February 25, 2017 at 11:39:17 AM UTC-5, David Von Pein wrote:
> > DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
> >
> > BOTH [Buell Wesley Frazier and Linnie Mae Randle] confirmed that the bag found on the sixth floor after the assassination generally looked like the bag they saw Lee Harvey Oswald carrying on 11/22/63.
>
> Hey David! I was looking at BWF and LMR`s testimony and found an anomaly maybe you cab shed some light on (as we know, any anomaly is seen by the conspiracy hobbyists as malevolent). First, what I was looking for was the probable route Oswald took from the Paine`s to the Randle residence, to see what opportunity Oswald would have had to ditch any incriminating material he might have had, mainly the box the bullets came from. He might have had them stored in the clip, or he might have had the box with the 4 bullets in the bag, which would lead me to think it ended up in the TSBD somewhere. It doesn`t seem like they really checked trash cans and things they way they might today, especially a case like this. In any case I was looking at the area using google Earth and it seems there was a drainage ditch running down the side of the Paine`s place. It was a short walk to the corner (one house) and then catty corner over to the Randle carport where LMR saw Oswald cross with the bag. Seems all these areas, including around the carport would be scoured today, but I don`t see evidence that any of this was done at the time.
http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=10897#relPageId=19
Interestingly, in that picture I linked to above, several trash cans can be seen out near the curb on 5th Street. (The photos must have been taken on trash day.)
I wonder if Friday was "Trash Day" on Fifth Street in Irving? ~shrug~
Anyway, when the topic has been brought up in the past as to what Lee Oswald did with the leftover paper that he swiped from Troy West's mail-wrapping station at the TSBD, I have speculated that he likely just tossed the unused paper (assuming there was anything leftover after he constructed his homemade bag) in one of Ruth Paine's trash cans in her house or in the garage.
I don't recall reading any testimony by anyone saying that Ruth Paine's trash cans were thoroughly searched for bits of leftover brown paper (or for empty bullet boxes). So it's quite possible (even likely, IMO) that Oswald merely threw away any such trash into a trash can right there in Ruth's house or garage.
> In any case, this is the anomaly I found, when asked where he lived, BWF said...
>
> "2439 West Fifth Street."
>
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/frazierb1.htm
>
> Which is the correct address. When LMR was asked where she lived, she said...
>
> "2438 Westfield, Irving, Tex."
>
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/randlelm.htm
>
> Any thoughts?
>
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-QycgbKtnAFQ/TvsEN4vNazI/AAAAAAAABrM/Ff28c8o8xfU/s1500-h/Linnie-Mae-Randle-Affidavit-11-22-63.gif
As well as Buell Frazier's affidavit....
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-fnUXqaMoRpw/TvxpsigRUwI/AAAAAAAABzY/mDQwRYPV0lE/s2500-h/Buell-Wesley-Frazier-Affidavit.png
Bud
Feb 25, 2017, 1:12:04 PM2/25/17
to
On Saturday, February 25, 2017 at 11:55:02 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Saturday, February 25, 2017 at 8:28:02 AM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
> > On Saturday, February 25, 2017 at 10:21:47 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > (36) A handmade paper bag large enough to carry Oswald's rifle was found in the sniper's nest.
> >
> > First, Bugliosi`s full argument, that BT George is deceitfully withholding from the reader.
>
>
> Rather dishonest of you to post such a statement where BT George can't see it and respond to it...
Scumbag.
> On Saturday, February 25, 2017 at 8:28:02 AM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
> > On Saturday, February 25, 2017 at 10:21:47 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > (36) A handmade paper bag large enough to carry Oswald's rifle was found in the sniper's nest.
> >
> > First, Bugliosi`s full argument, that BT George is deceitfully withholding from the reader.
>
>
> Rather dishonest of you to post such a statement where BT George can't see it and respond to it...
And note that although Ben claimed to have checked Bugliosi`s actual arguments against the list he is using, he didn`t note the absence of the print evidence that Bugliosi mentions in his full argument.
> > 36. A large brown handmade bag of wrapping paper and tape of the appropriate size to contain Oswald’s disassembled Carcano rifle, undoubtedly the bag Wesley Frazier saw Oswald carry into the Book Depository Building on the morning of the assassination, was found inside the sniper’s nest on the sixth floor close to the three cartridge cases ejected from Oswald’s rifle. Oswald’s left index fingerprint and right palm print were found on the bag.
> >
> > > No photograph exists of the paper bag in situ. Ironically, if you *look* at the paper bag, it's quite clear that it was originally simply folded around a book... this was, after all the Texas School BOOK Depository...
> >
> > If you *look* at the bag you see why this is a ridiculous idea. Who builds a deep bag, then winds the book end over end inside the bag to wrap a book? And of course the absence of depth folds shows this to be absurd.
>
> Indeed, all you need to do is *look* at the bag.
> Which is why I was happy to post the photos, so everyone can see for themselves.
> You see, critics aren't afraid of the evidence.
> > > http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/images/bag.jpg
> > > http://cospiracyjfkforum.com/images/bag2.jpg
> >
> > If you look at the peaks and valleys of the folds you can see that it was just folded in half, and then folded in half again.
>
>
> Nope.
> > > And, as has been pointed out, when a Mannlicher Carcano has been broken down (AS WOULD HAVE BEEN NECESSARY), and placed in a bag - "the first seven or eight inches of the [wooden] stock show obvious signs of severe scoring and scratching. This is caused by the protruding parts of the barrel assembly - principally the trigger - rubbing against it as the bag is moved or carried."
> >
> > On the face of it, this seems absurd.
>
>
> Says a moron who never tried it.
> Ian Griggs actually *DID* the experiment... he knows... you're expressing an opinion that you have ZERO evidence for.
>
> > You would have to press hard to score a hardwood stock.
>
> And you know this *how* exactly? Do you even know what sort of wood is used in the Mannlicher Carcano?
http://www.surplusrifleforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=83&t=89405
http://parallaxscurioandrelicfirearmsforums.yuku.com/topic/5753/Just-got-my-M41-Carcanostock-finish#.WLHDUlXyuUk
> Do you have ANY IDEA AT ALL (based on facts) for the ease or difficulty of marring a Mannlicher Carcano stock?
> You're placing your OPINIONS against someone who actually did the experiment.
> You lose!
>
> > Also, looking at the photo of the broken down rifle, it seems a simple thing to position the parts so the trigger (if that is the cause of the scratching) to point away from the stock...
>
>
> Nope.
>
> Not possible.
http://www.geocities.ws/jfkresearch/39.jpg
>
> > http://www.geocities.ws/jfkresearch/39.jpg
> >
> > Also it is unknown whether Oswald employed one of several easy remedies, like wrapping in cloth, that would have prevented the wood/metal contact.
>
>
> It's amusing how one lie gets piled on with many other lies to desperately defend the original lie.
> Most people learned as kids not to do this.
>
>
> > > As Ian Griggs continues to point out, "So what is the significance of these facts? Quite simply, no such scratches have ever been reported on the CE 139 rifle. Furthermore, they are not evident in any photographs taken of that rifle. To me, this provides irrefutable physical proof that the rifle was never transported in a disassembled state in a long paper bag as has been claimed by the investigative agencies and the Warren Commission." - No Case to Answer, Ian Griggs - page 200.
> >
> > Retard figuring.
>
>
> Ad hominem is simply an admission that you know you lost the debate.
> You lose!
>
>
> > > And, even if we accept, for the purpose of argument, that a paper bag was found –
> >
> > Has Ben given any real reason to doubt that it was?
>
>
> Yes moron... the complete lack of any photography showing it in situ.
>
> > > it fails to support any guilt on Oswald's part –
> >
> > His print was on it and it was found near where he was seen firing shots.
>
>
> You cannot cite for such speculation...
>
> > Other than that...
> >
> > >the paper bag he was carrying was too short to carry the rifle.
> >
> > The bag found is big enough to hold the disassembled rifle.
>
>
> Which, as Ian Griggs DEMONSTRATED, could not have been done without marking the stock.
> > >Observations that were corroborated by the nature of the observation –
> >
> > The nature of the observations were glances of an object observed from a distance by an inattentive witness.
>
>
> You're lying again, "Bud."
>
> > > that the bag was carried in the palm of the hand, and tucked under Oswald's armpit. Simply impossible were it a rifle in the bag.
> >
> > Not impossible if Frazier was seeing the end of the bag being carried horizontally. Recreations done by the FBI show he could only see 1 inch by 9 inches of the bag from behind, very close to the end of the bag measurements.
>
>
> Observations that were corroborated by the nature of the observation – that the bag was carried in the palm of the hand, and tucked under Oswald's armpit. Simply impossible were it a rifle in the bag.
> > > Indeed, the fact that a paper bag was found in the mail, addressed to Oswald at a non-existent Dallas address, with metered postage (not stamps), yet short by 12 cents. Then, on Nov 23, a postage due card for 12 cents arrives at Ruth Paine's house – despite this not being the non-existent address found on the package to Oswald. This just absolutely SCREAMS frame-up...
> >
> > How so?
>
>
> ROTFLMAO!!! WHAT A MORON!!!
> > > and Warren Commission believers have to just scratch their head... no explanation in sight.
> >
> > Shifting the burden.
>
> It's *ALWAYS* been the burden of believers to defend the Warren Commission ... but you can't do it, and you *KNOW* you can't do it.
If you want to use this evidence in support of a premise it is up to you to make the argument.
> And that fact tells the tale.
>
> > > Lurkers: Watch as the Internet's premier defender of Vincent Bugliosi simply refuses to answer, and this forum's leading troll, "Bud," who admits to not knowing the evidence in this case
> >
> > Not what I said, of course, but I doubt anyone following these discussions expect honesty from you by this point.
>
> Yes "Bud," you have admitted to not knowing the evidence.
> Of course, it's only corroboration of what you SHOW day in and day out.
>
> You simply don't know the evidence.
> David does - so he runs.
>
> > > - does his best to mislead while evading the points raised in this post.
> >
> > Watch as Ben runs, as he always does, from the counter-points I made in this post.
>
> How silly! Looks like "Bud's" crystal ball is broken, while mine still continues to work perfectly.
David Von Pein
Feb 25, 2017, 1:12:50 PM2/25/17
to
"Westfield" Addendum.....
Bud,
I just had this thought about Linnie Mae's Randle's "Westfield" error that appears in her Warren Commission testimony....
I'm wondering if the stenographer wrote it down wrong? Maybe Linnie Mae really said the street name correctly -- WEST FIFTH -- but the stenographer (for some reason) thought she said WESTFIELD. ~shrug~
As for why she would have gotten her house number wrong (2438 instead of the correct number, 2439), I haven't the foggiest idea. It's kind of strange, isn't it? Everybody knows their own street address by heart. And to have TWO address errors made by the person who actually lives at that residence is odd indeed.
Also, my above "stenographer's error" explanation doesn't explain a further anomaly in Mrs. Randle's Warren Commission session (at 2 H 245), when the WC's Joe Ball *repeated* the "Westfield" error when he asked:
"That was before you moved down the street to the corner of Westfield and Fifth Street?"
In answering Ball's question, Randle made no attempt to correct Ball's reference to "Westfield" at all. So she either thought the error wasn't important enough to correct or she was mighty confused about the names of the streets that she lived on.
For the record --- The correct name of the cross street where Randle lived was "Westbrook", not "Westfield". And Mrs. Randle even mentions "Westbrook" one time in her WC testimony, when she said (speaking of seeing Lee Oswald on the morning of 11/22/63) -- "He crossed Westbrook." [2 H 248]
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh2/html/WC_Vol2_0127a.htm
Bud,
I just had this thought about Linnie Mae's Randle's "Westfield" error that appears in her Warren Commission testimony....
I'm wondering if the stenographer wrote it down wrong? Maybe Linnie Mae really said the street name correctly -- WEST FIFTH -- but the stenographer (for some reason) thought she said WESTFIELD. ~shrug~
As for why she would have gotten her house number wrong (2438 instead of the correct number, 2439), I haven't the foggiest idea. It's kind of strange, isn't it? Everybody knows their own street address by heart. And to have TWO address errors made by the person who actually lives at that residence is odd indeed.
Also, my above "stenographer's error" explanation doesn't explain a further anomaly in Mrs. Randle's Warren Commission session (at 2 H 245), when the WC's Joe Ball *repeated* the "Westfield" error when he asked:
"That was before you moved down the street to the corner of Westfield and Fifth Street?"
In answering Ball's question, Randle made no attempt to correct Ball's reference to "Westfield" at all. So she either thought the error wasn't important enough to correct or she was mighty confused about the names of the streets that she lived on.
For the record --- The correct name of the cross street where Randle lived was "Westbrook", not "Westfield". And Mrs. Randle even mentions "Westbrook" one time in her WC testimony, when she said (speaking of seeing Lee Oswald on the morning of 11/22/63) -- "He crossed Westbrook." [2 H 248]
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh2/html/WC_Vol2_0127a.htm
Bud
Feb 25, 2017, 1:29:54 PM2/25/17
to
On Saturday, February 25, 2017 at 12:45:30 PM UTC-5, David Von Pein wrote:
> On Saturday, February 25, 2017 at 12:13:33 PM UTC-5, Bud wrote:
> > On Saturday, February 25, 2017 at 11:39:17 AM UTC-5, David Von Pein wrote:
> > > DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
> > >
> > > BOTH [Buell Wesley Frazier and Linnie Mae Randle] confirmed that the bag found on the sixth floor after the assassination generally looked like the bag they saw Lee Harvey Oswald carrying on 11/22/63.
> >
> > Hey David! I was looking at BWF and LMR`s testimony and found an anomaly maybe you cab shed some light on (as we know, any anomaly is seen by the conspiracy hobbyists as malevolent). First, what I was looking for was the probable route Oswald took from the Paine`s to the Randle residence, to see what opportunity Oswald would have had to ditch any incriminating material he might have had, mainly the box the bullets came from. He might have had them stored in the clip, or he might have had the box with the 4 bullets in the bag, which would lead me to think it ended up in the TSBD somewhere. It doesn`t seem like they really checked trash cans and things they way they might today, especially a case like this. In any case I was looking at the area using google Earth and it seems there was a drainage ditch running down the side of the Paine`s place. It was a short walk to the corner (one house) and then catty corner over to the Randle carport where LMR saw Oswald cross with the bag. Seems all these areas, including around the carport would be scoured today, but I don`t see evidence that any of this was done at the time.
>
> You can find pictures of 5th Street and the Paine and Randle homes in CD497, here:
>
> http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=10897#relPageId=19
Yes, I was looking at that and then I went to google earth and looked around. That photo shows the rain runoff to the left of the driveway I was talking about, in recent times it has a cover across the pavement.
> On Saturday, February 25, 2017 at 12:13:33 PM UTC-5, Bud wrote:
> > On Saturday, February 25, 2017 at 11:39:17 AM UTC-5, David Von Pein wrote:
> > > DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
> > >
> > > BOTH [Buell Wesley Frazier and Linnie Mae Randle] confirmed that the bag found on the sixth floor after the assassination generally looked like the bag they saw Lee Harvey Oswald carrying on 11/22/63.
> >
> > Hey David! I was looking at BWF and LMR`s testimony and found an anomaly maybe you cab shed some light on (as we know, any anomaly is seen by the conspiracy hobbyists as malevolent). First, what I was looking for was the probable route Oswald took from the Paine`s to the Randle residence, to see what opportunity Oswald would have had to ditch any incriminating material he might have had, mainly the box the bullets came from. He might have had them stored in the clip, or he might have had the box with the 4 bullets in the bag, which would lead me to think it ended up in the TSBD somewhere. It doesn`t seem like they really checked trash cans and things they way they might today, especially a case like this. In any case I was looking at the area using google Earth and it seems there was a drainage ditch running down the side of the Paine`s place. It was a short walk to the corner (one house) and then catty corner over to the Randle carport where LMR saw Oswald cross with the bag. Seems all these areas, including around the carport would be scoured today, but I don`t see evidence that any of this was done at the time.
>
> You can find pictures of 5th Street and the Paine and Randle homes in CD497, here:
>
> http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=10897#relPageId=19
> Interestingly, in that picture I linked to above, several trash cans can be seen out near the curb on 5th Street. (The photos must have been taken on trash day.)
>
> I wonder if Friday was "Trash Day" on Fifth Street in Irving? ~shrug~
>
> Anyway, when the topic has been brought up in the past as to what Lee Oswald did with the leftover paper that he swiped from Troy West's mail-wrapping station at the TSBD, I have speculated that he likely just tossed the unused paper (assuming there was anything leftover after he constructed his homemade bag) in one of Ruth Paine's trash cans in her house or in the garage.
>
> I don't recall reading any testimony by anyone saying that Ruth Paine's trash cans were thoroughly searched for bits of leftover brown paper (or for empty bullet boxes). So it's quite possible (even likely, IMO) that Oswald merely threw away any such trash into a trash can right there in Ruth's house or garage.
>
>
> > In any case, this is the anomaly I found, when asked where he lived, BWF said...
> >
> > "2439 West Fifth Street."
> >
> > http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/frazierb1.htm
> >
> > Which is the correct address. When LMR was asked where she lived, she said...
> >
> > "2438 Westfield, Irving, Tex."
> >
> > http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/randlelm.htm
> >
> > Any thoughts?
> >
>
> The correct address is 2439 West Fifth Street. And the correct address appears on Linnie Mae Randle's 11/22/63 affidavit....
>
> http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-QycgbKtnAFQ/TvsEN4vNazI/AAAAAAAABrM/Ff28c8o8xfU/s1500-h/Linnie-Mae-Randle-Affidavit-11-22-63.gif
>
> As well as Buell Frazier's affidavit....
>
> http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-fnUXqaMoRpw/TvxpsigRUwI/AAAAAAAABzY/mDQwRYPV0lE/s2500-h/Buell-Wesley-Frazier-Affidavit.png
>
Ben Holmes
Feb 25, 2017, 5:11:16 PM2/25/17
to
On Saturday, February 25, 2017 at 8:37:39 AM UTC-8, David Von Pein wrote:
> 1.) LEE HARVEY OSWALD'S RIFLE was found on the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository Building on 11/22/63.
Completely untrue, as I've previously posted, and David has been unable to refute.
> 1.) LEE HARVEY OSWALD'S RIFLE was found on the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository Building on 11/22/63.
> 2.) An EMPTY 38-INCH-LONG PAPER BAG with two of Oswald's prints on it was found under the same window from where OSWALD'S RIFLE positively fired three bullets at President Kennedy.
> 3.) The lengthiest part of OSWALD'S RIFLE, when broken down, was 34.8 inches. So it could definitely fit inside the 38-inch PAPER BAG found near the sniper's window.
> 4.) Oswald carried a long and bulky PAPER BAG into the TSBD on 11/22/63.
> 5.) Oswald lied about the contents of that PAPER BAG to fellow worker Buell Wesley Frazier.
> 6.) Oswald also lied when he told the police he did not carry any kind of a large PAPER BAG into the Depository Building on November 22nd.
> 7.) Oswald also lied when he told the police that he had not recently said anything at all to fellow worker Buell Wesley Frazier about "curtain rods".
> 8.) Following the President's assassination, no curtain rods were discovered in the Book Depository [see Commission Exhibit 2640].
You're omitting the PROVEN fact that curtains rods *WERE* found in this case, and were found in an area that occasioned the DPD to fingerprint them.
> 9.) OSWALD'S RIFLE was not found in its known storage location (Ruth Paine's garage in Irving, Texas) on the afternoon of November 22nd. Lee Oswald, of course, spent the previous night (Nov. 21) at the Paine house, and had easy access to the garage where he knew his rifle was being stored.
> 10.) Ruth Paine discovered that someone had left the light on in the garage at some point prior to approximately 9:00 PM CST on Thursday, November 21st. Ruth was certain that she, herself, had not left the light on, and Ruth was also fairly certain that Marina Oswald had not left the light on either. It was Ruth's belief that the person who had been in her garage prior to 9:00 PM on Nov. 21 and had not turned out the light upon exiting the garage was Lee Harvey Oswald.
> When a reasonable and sensible person adds up #1 through #10 above,
[Rest of the nonsense snipped...]
It's truly amusing that you couldn't quote my post, THEN RESPOND TO IT.
Ben Holmes
Feb 25, 2017, 5:13:15 PM2/25/17
to
On Saturday, February 25, 2017 at 8:39:17 AM UTC-8, David Von Pein wrote:
> DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
>
> BOTH [Buell Wesley Frazier and Linnie Mae Randle] confirmed that the bag found on the sixth floor after the assassination generally looked like the bag they saw Lee Harvey Oswald carrying on 11/22/63.
>
>
> RICHARD VAN NOORD SAID:
>
> A patent lie, David. So now we're resorting to a complete lie to make the case? Typical. They said the package was no more than two feet in length and carried with a cupped hand under the armpit.
>
>
> DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
>
> In the 1964 motion picture "Four Days In November"...
> DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
>
> BOTH [Buell Wesley Frazier and Linnie Mae Randle] confirmed that the bag found on the sixth floor after the assassination generally looked like the bag they saw Lee Harvey Oswald carrying on 11/22/63.
>
>
> RICHARD VAN NOORD SAID:
>
> A patent lie, David. So now we're resorting to a complete lie to make the case? Typical. They said the package was no more than two feet in length and carried with a cupped hand under the armpit.
>
>
> DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
>
Once again, David shows his cowardice by refusing to address the refutation of Vincent Bugliosi.
I suspect that he quite knows that I know the evidence better than he does, and he's simply afraid of what I'm holding back - ready to school him some more.
Ben Holmes
Feb 25, 2017, 5:14:07 PM2/25/17
to
On Saturday, February 25, 2017 at 8:40:07 AM UTC-8, David Von Pein wrote:
> MORE PAPER BAG DISCUSSION:
Just none right here, on the topic raised...
Afraid of getting schooled again, aren't you David?
> MORE PAPER BAG DISCUSSION:
Just none right here, on the topic raised...
Afraid of getting schooled again, aren't you David?
Ben Holmes
Feb 25, 2017, 5:16:19 PM2/25/17
to
On Saturday, February 25, 2017 at 9:45:30 AM UTC-8, David Von Pein wrote:
>
> I don't recall reading any testimony by anyone saying that Ruth Paine's trash cans were thoroughly searched for bits of leftover brown paper (or for empty bullet boxes). So it's quite possible (even likely, IMO) that Oswald merely threw away any such trash into a trash can right there in Ruth's house or garage.
In other words, you've seen NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER, so it's "quite possible, even likely".
>
> I don't recall reading any testimony by anyone saying that Ruth Paine's trash cans were thoroughly searched for bits of leftover brown paper (or for empty bullet boxes). So it's quite possible (even likely, IMO) that Oswald merely threw away any such trash into a trash can right there in Ruth's house or garage.
Nonsense like this would get laughed out of any court in the land.
Ben Holmes
Feb 25, 2017, 5:17:07 PM2/25/17
to
On Saturday, February 25, 2017 at 10:12:04 AM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
> On Saturday, February 25, 2017 at 11:55:02 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > On Saturday, February 25, 2017 at 8:28:02 AM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
> > > On Saturday, February 25, 2017 at 10:21:47 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > > (36) A handmade paper bag large enough to carry Oswald's rifle was found in the sniper's nest.
> > >
> > > First, Bugliosi`s full argument, that BT George is deceitfully withholding from the reader.
> >
> >
> > Rather dishonest of you to post such a statement where BT George can't see it and respond to it...
>
> Scumbag.
Nah, I just merely claimed you were dishonest. But if you prefer "scumbag," I'll be happy to oblige.
> On Saturday, February 25, 2017 at 11:55:02 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > On Saturday, February 25, 2017 at 8:28:02 AM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
> > > On Saturday, February 25, 2017 at 10:21:47 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > > (36) A handmade paper bag large enough to carry Oswald's rifle was found in the sniper's nest.
> > >
> > > First, Bugliosi`s full argument, that BT George is deceitfully withholding from the reader.
> >
> >
> > Rather dishonest of you to post such a statement where BT George can't see it and respond to it...
>
> Scumbag.
Ben Holmes
Feb 25, 2017, 5:18:03 PM2/25/17
to
On Saturday, February 25, 2017 at 10:12:50 AM UTC-8, David Von Pein wrote:
> "Westfield" Addendum.....
>
> Bud,
>
> I just had this thought about Linnie Mae's Randle's "Westfield" error that appears in her Warren Commission testimony....
But not a single thought at all to defend Vincent Bugliosi against the damaging refutations I've been providing.
> "Westfield" Addendum.....
>
> Bud,
>
> I just had this thought about Linnie Mae's Randle's "Westfield" error that appears in her Warren Commission testimony....
Quite the coward, aren't you David?
David Von Pein
Feb 25, 2017, 5:34:31 PM2/25/17
to
Ben Holmes
Feb 25, 2017, 6:00:52 PM2/25/17
to
And *YOU* know they don't as well, since you've repeatedly refused to address them.
*NO* amount of presumption, speculation, and absolute sillyness will combine to make a strong case.
It's a well-known legal truism that **a case is only as strong as it's evidence**... yet you want people to believe that someone should be convicted of murder because he wasn't seen by ONE SINGLE WITNESS not reading a newspaper that day.
(And that's merely one of many examples that could be stated...)
If Bugliosi actually HAD a defendable case, you'd be DEFENDING IT... yet you can't.
Not that you won't...
YOU CANNOT!!!
So I repeat, Quite the coward, aren't you David?
David Von Pein
Feb 25, 2017, 6:06:10 PM2/25/17
to
On Saturday, February 25, 2017 at 6:00:52 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Saturday, February 25, 2017 at 2:34:31 PM UTC-8, David Von Pein wrote:
> > On Saturday, February 25, 2017 at 5:18:03 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > On Saturday, February 25, 2017 at 10:12:50 AM UTC-8, David Von Pein wrote:
> > > > "Westfield" Addendum.....
> > > >
> > > > Bud,
> > > >
> > > > I just had this thought about Linnie Mae's Randle's "Westfield" error that appears in her Warren Commission testimony....
> > >
> > > But not a single thought at all to defend Vincent Bugliosi against the damaging refutations I've been providing.
> > >
> > > Quite the coward, aren't you David?
> >
> > Virtually all of Bugliosi's arguments (when evaluated and weighed AS A UNIT, and not merely isolated individually) make perfect sense to any reasonable person who knows the basic facts of the JFK murder case.
>
> No, they don't.
>
Yes, they do.
> On Saturday, February 25, 2017 at 2:34:31 PM UTC-8, David Von Pein wrote:
> > On Saturday, February 25, 2017 at 5:18:03 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > On Saturday, February 25, 2017 at 10:12:50 AM UTC-8, David Von Pein wrote:
> > > > "Westfield" Addendum.....
> > > >
> > > > Bud,
> > > >
> > > > I just had this thought about Linnie Mae's Randle's "Westfield" error that appears in her Warren Commission testimony....
> > >
> > > But not a single thought at all to defend Vincent Bugliosi against the damaging refutations I've been providing.
> > >
> > > Quite the coward, aren't you David?
> >
> > Virtually all of Bugliosi's arguments (when evaluated and weighed AS A UNIT, and not merely isolated individually) make perfect sense to any reasonable person who knows the basic facts of the JFK murder case.
>
> No, they don't.
>
Ben Holmes
Feb 25, 2017, 6:20:54 PM2/25/17
to
On Saturday, February 25, 2017 at 3:06:10 PM UTC-8, David Von Pein wrote:
> On Saturday, February 25, 2017 at 6:00:52 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > On Saturday, February 25, 2017 at 2:34:31 PM UTC-8, David Von Pein wrote:
> > > On Saturday, February 25, 2017 at 5:18:03 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > > On Saturday, February 25, 2017 at 10:12:50 AM UTC-8, David Von Pein wrote:
> > > > > "Westfield" Addendum.....
> > > > >
> > > > > Bud,
> > > > >
> > > > > I just had this thought about Linnie Mae's Randle's "Westfield" error that appears in her Warren Commission testimony....
> > > >
> > > > But not a single thought at all to defend Vincent Bugliosi against the damaging refutations I've been providing.
> > > >
> > > > Quite the coward, aren't you David?
> > >
> > > Virtually all of Bugliosi's arguments (when evaluated and weighed AS A UNIT, and not merely isolated individually) make perfect sense to any reasonable person who knows the basic facts of the JFK murder case.
> >
> > No, they don't.
> >
>
> Yes, they do.
Then simply cite any case where the suspect was not seen reading a newspaper BY A SINGLE WITNESS was used to convict him.
> On Saturday, February 25, 2017 at 6:00:52 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > On Saturday, February 25, 2017 at 2:34:31 PM UTC-8, David Von Pein wrote:
> > > On Saturday, February 25, 2017 at 5:18:03 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > > On Saturday, February 25, 2017 at 10:12:50 AM UTC-8, David Von Pein wrote:
> > > > > "Westfield" Addendum.....
> > > > >
> > > > > Bud,
> > > > >
> > > > > I just had this thought about Linnie Mae's Randle's "Westfield" error that appears in her Warren Commission testimony....
> > > >
> > > > But not a single thought at all to defend Vincent Bugliosi against the damaging refutations I've been providing.
> > > >
> > > > Quite the coward, aren't you David?
> > >
> > > Virtually all of Bugliosi's arguments (when evaluated and weighed AS A UNIT, and not merely isolated individually) make perfect sense to any reasonable person who knows the basic facts of the JFK murder case.
> >
> > No, they don't.
> >
>
> Yes, they do.
You won't, of course... it's just too silly!!!
Your dishonesty is perfectly illustrated by the fact that you ABSOLUTELY REFUSE to denigrate Bugliosi for such a silly assertion.
> > And *YOU* know they don't as well, since you've repeatedly refused to address them.
> >
> > *NO* amount of presumption, speculation, and absolute sillyness will combine to make a strong case.
> > It's a well-known legal truism that **a case is only as strong as it's evidence**... yet you want people to believe that someone should be convicted of murder because he wasn't seen by ONE SINGLE WITNESS not reading a newspaper that day.
> >
> > (And that's merely one of many examples that could be stated...)
> >
> > If Bugliosi actually HAD a defendable case, you'd be DEFENDING IT... yet you can't.
> > Not that you won't...
> >
> > YOU CANNOT!!!
> >
> > So I repeat, Quite the coward, aren't you David?
Bud
Feb 25, 2017, 6:28:58 PM2/25/17
to
On Saturday, February 25, 2017 at 6:20:54 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Saturday, February 25, 2017 at 3:06:10 PM UTC-8, David Von Pein wrote:
> > On Saturday, February 25, 2017 at 6:00:52 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > On Saturday, February 25, 2017 at 2:34:31 PM UTC-8, David Von Pein wrote:
> > > > On Saturday, February 25, 2017 at 5:18:03 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > > > On Saturday, February 25, 2017 at 10:12:50 AM UTC-8, David Von Pein wrote:
> > > > > > "Westfield" Addendum.....
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Bud,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I just had this thought about Linnie Mae's Randle's "Westfield" error that appears in her Warren Commission testimony....
> > > > >
> > > > > But not a single thought at all to defend Vincent Bugliosi against the damaging refutations I've been providing.
> > > > >
> > > > > Quite the coward, aren't you David?
> > > >
> > > > Virtually all of Bugliosi's arguments (when evaluated and weighed AS A UNIT, and not merely isolated individually) make perfect sense to any reasonable person who knows the basic facts of the JFK murder case.
> > >
> > > No, they don't.
> > >
> >
> > Yes, they do.
>
>
> Then simply cite any case where the suspect was not seen reading a newspaper BY A SINGLE WITNESS was used to convict him.
Gregory (Scotland Yard detective): “Is there any other point to which you would wish to draw my attention?”
> On Saturday, February 25, 2017 at 3:06:10 PM UTC-8, David Von Pein wrote:
> > On Saturday, February 25, 2017 at 6:00:52 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > On Saturday, February 25, 2017 at 2:34:31 PM UTC-8, David Von Pein wrote:
> > > > On Saturday, February 25, 2017 at 5:18:03 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > > > On Saturday, February 25, 2017 at 10:12:50 AM UTC-8, David Von Pein wrote:
> > > > > > "Westfield" Addendum.....
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Bud,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I just had this thought about Linnie Mae's Randle's "Westfield" error that appears in her Warren Commission testimony....
> > > > >
> > > > > But not a single thought at all to defend Vincent Bugliosi against the damaging refutations I've been providing.
> > > > >
> > > > > Quite the coward, aren't you David?
> > > >
> > > > Virtually all of Bugliosi's arguments (when evaluated and weighed AS A UNIT, and not merely isolated individually) make perfect sense to any reasonable person who knows the basic facts of the JFK murder case.
> > >
> > > No, they don't.
> > >
> >
> > Yes, they do.
>
>
> Then simply cite any case where the suspect was not seen reading a newspaper BY A SINGLE WITNESS was used to convict him.
Holmes: “To the curious incident of the dog in the night-time.”
Gregory: “The dog did nothing in the night-time.”
Holmes: “That was the curious incident.”
Bud
Feb 25, 2017, 6:33:00 PM2/25/17
to
On Saturday, February 25, 2017 at 6:00:52 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Saturday, February 25, 2017 at 2:34:31 PM UTC-8, David Von Pein wrote:
> > On Saturday, February 25, 2017 at 5:18:03 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > On Saturday, February 25, 2017 at 10:12:50 AM UTC-8, David Von Pein wrote:
> > > > "Westfield" Addendum.....
> > > >
> > > > Bud,
> > > >
> > > > I just had this thought about Linnie Mae's Randle's "Westfield" error that appears in her Warren Commission testimony....
> > >
> > > But not a single thought at all to defend Vincent Bugliosi against the damaging refutations I've been providing.
> > >
> > > Quite the coward, aren't you David?
> >
> > Virtually all of Bugliosi's arguments (when evaluated and weighed AS A UNIT, and not merely isolated individually) make perfect sense to any reasonable person who knows the basic facts of the JFK murder case.
>
> No, they don't.
>
> And *YOU* know they don't as well, since you've repeatedly refused to address them.
>
> *NO* amount of presumption, speculation, and absolute sillyness will combine to make a strong case.
No amount of foot stomping, bluff and bluster is going to knock the WC`s findings out of contention. Real investigators have spoken. Nobody cares about the half-baked opinions of conspiracy retards.
> On Saturday, February 25, 2017 at 2:34:31 PM UTC-8, David Von Pein wrote:
> > On Saturday, February 25, 2017 at 5:18:03 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > On Saturday, February 25, 2017 at 10:12:50 AM UTC-8, David Von Pein wrote:
> > > > "Westfield" Addendum.....
> > > >
> > > > Bud,
> > > >
> > > > I just had this thought about Linnie Mae's Randle's "Westfield" error that appears in her Warren Commission testimony....
> > >
> > > But not a single thought at all to defend Vincent Bugliosi against the damaging refutations I've been providing.
> > >
> > > Quite the coward, aren't you David?
> >
> > Virtually all of Bugliosi's arguments (when evaluated and weighed AS A UNIT, and not merely isolated individually) make perfect sense to any reasonable person who knows the basic facts of the JFK murder case.
>
> No, they don't.
>
> And *YOU* know they don't as well, since you've repeatedly refused to address them.
>
> *NO* amount of presumption, speculation, and absolute sillyness will combine to make a strong case.
> It's a well-known legal truism that **a case is only as strong as it's evidence**... yet you want people to believe that someone should be convicted of murder because he wasn't seen by ONE SINGLE WITNESS not reading a newspaper that day.
Ben Holmes
Feb 25, 2017, 7:36:37 PM2/25/17
to
On Saturday, February 25, 2017 at 3:33:00 PM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
> On Saturday, February 25, 2017 at 6:00:52 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > On Saturday, February 25, 2017 at 2:34:31 PM UTC-8, David Von Pein wrote:
> > > On Saturday, February 25, 2017 at 5:18:03 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > > On Saturday, February 25, 2017 at 10:12:50 AM UTC-8, David Von Pein wrote:
> > > > > "Westfield" Addendum.....
> > > > >
> > > > > Bud,
> > > > >
> > > > > I just had this thought about Linnie Mae's Randle's "Westfield" error that appears in her Warren Commission testimony....
> > > >
> > > > But not a single thought at all to defend Vincent Bugliosi against the damaging refutations I've been providing.
> > > >
> > > > Quite the coward, aren't you David?
> > >
> > > Virtually all of Bugliosi's arguments (when evaluated and weighed AS A UNIT, and not merely isolated individually) make perfect sense to any reasonable person who knows the basic facts of the JFK murder case.
> >
> > No, they don't.
> >
> > And *YOU* know they don't as well, since you've repeatedly refused to address them.
> >
> > *NO* amount of presumption, speculation, and absolute sillyness will combine to make a strong case.
>
> No amount of foot stomping, bluff and bluster is going to knock the WC`s findings out of contention. Real investigators have spoken.
You're lying again, "Bud"
> On Saturday, February 25, 2017 at 6:00:52 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > On Saturday, February 25, 2017 at 2:34:31 PM UTC-8, David Von Pein wrote:
> > > On Saturday, February 25, 2017 at 5:18:03 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > > On Saturday, February 25, 2017 at 10:12:50 AM UTC-8, David Von Pein wrote:
> > > > > "Westfield" Addendum.....
> > > > >
> > > > > Bud,
> > > > >
> > > > > I just had this thought about Linnie Mae's Randle's "Westfield" error that appears in her Warren Commission testimony....
> > > >
> > > > But not a single thought at all to defend Vincent Bugliosi against the damaging refutations I've been providing.
> > > >
> > > > Quite the coward, aren't you David?
> > >
> > > Virtually all of Bugliosi's arguments (when evaluated and weighed AS A UNIT, and not merely isolated individually) make perfect sense to any reasonable person who knows the basic facts of the JFK murder case.
> >
> > No, they don't.
> >
> > And *YOU* know they don't as well, since you've repeatedly refused to address them.
> >
> > *NO* amount of presumption, speculation, and absolute sillyness will combine to make a strong case.
>
> No amount of foot stomping, bluff and bluster is going to knock the WC`s findings out of contention. Real investigators have spoken.
There were *NO* investigators on the Warren Commission... they were *ALL* lawyers... even some who'd not passed the bar yet!
0 new messages