27" BAG, NO RIFLE
tomnln
The FBI measured what Frazier/Randle described to 27 inches.
Dougherty saw Oswald enter with EMPTY Hands.
"John McAdams" <john.m...@marquette.edu> wrote in message
news:461aec0a...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
> On 9 Apr 2007 21:43:25 -0400, "tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>>Frazier AND, his sister Lillie Mae Randall described the bag to be 27
>>inches. (as measured by the FBI)
>>
>>Burroughs testified when he saw Oswald enter the TSBD, he hade NOTHING in
>>his hands.
>>
>
> You mean Dougherty.
>
> So let me see if I have your position straight:
>
> You think Oswald's bag was 27 inches long, which makes him innocent.
>
> And besides, he had no bag.
>
>
>
>>
>>
>>
>>"Texextra" <texe...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>news:1176142491.7...@n76g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>>> On Apr 8, 8:07 pm, "David Von Pein" <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>> >>> "By whose logic? Yours? Sorry, the bag was empty. You have nothing.
>>>>
>>>> Absolutely nothing and you claim that nothing is proof. This is
>>>> ludicrous." <<<
>>>>
>>>> I can only shake my head back and forth numerous times as I stare at
>>>> you
>>>> sideways. Absolutely un-be-lie-va-ble (you, that is...not the
>>>> obviousness
>>>> of what was in that empty SN paper bag).
>>>>
>>>> This paragraph, ALONE, should be enough for any reasonable person to
>>>> re-think their CT posture re. the "paper bag".....
>>>>
>>>> "And it's obvious that Oswald carried that rifle into the building that
>>>> day in that large brown paper bag. It couldn't be more obvious. As far
>>>> as
>>>> Mr. Frazier's testimony about Oswald carrying the bag under his armpit,
>>>> he
>>>> conceded he never paid close attention to just how Oswald was carrying
>>>> that bag. He didn't have any reason to." -- V. Bug.
>>>
>>> Frazier waffled on what he saw, so how obvious can it be what was in
>>> the bag? Or even if there was a bag.
>>>
>>>
>>
>
> .John
>
> The Kennedy Assassination Home Page
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Walt
> Don't put words in my mouth Virus sender;
>
> The FBI measured what Frazier/Randle described to 27 inches.
>
> Dougherty saw Oswald enter with EMPTY Hands.
>
>
> news:461aec0a...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
>
>
>
> > On 9 Apr 2007 21:43:25 -0400, "tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> >>Frazier AND, his sister Lillie Mae Randall described the bag to be 27
> >>inches. (as measured by the FBI)
>
> >>Burroughs testified when he saw Oswald enter the TSBD, he hade NOTHING in
> >>his hands.
>
> > You mean Dougherty.
>
> > So let me see if I have your position straight:
>
> > You think Oswald's bag was 27 inches long, which makes him innocent.
>
> > And besides, he had no bag.
>
> >>news:1176142491.7...@n76g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> >>> On Apr 8, 8:07 pm, "David Von Pein" <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> >>>> >>> "By whose logic? Yours? Sorry, the bag was empty. You have nothing.
>
> >>>> Absolutely nothing and you claim that nothing is proof. This is
> >>>> ludicrous." <<<
>
> >>>> I can only shake my head back and forth numerous times as I stare at
> >>>> you
> >>>> sideways. Absolutely un-be-lie-va-ble (you, that is...not the
> >>>> obviousness
> >>>> of what was in that empty SN paper bag).
>
> >>>> This paragraph, ALONE, should be enough for any reasonable person to
> >>>> re-think their CT posture re. the "paper bag".....
>
"And it's obvious that Oswald carried that rifle into the building
that
day in that large brown paper bag. It couldn't be more obvious. As
far
as Mr. Frazier's testimony about Oswald carrying the bag under his
armpit,
he conceded he never paid close attention to just how Oswald was
carrying
that bag. He didn't have any reason to." -- V. Bug.
Hey Pea Brain..... Tell yer hero Da Bug, that it's not at all obvious
that Lee carried that rifle into the TSBD that day in a paper bag.
In fact the weight of the evidence indicates that Lee could NOT have
had that rifle in the "approximately two foot long" ( Frazier and
Randle) that he carried. Frazier was emphatic that the "exact
replica" bag that the FBI had fabricated was much bigger than the bag
he saw Lee cup in his hand and tuck into his armpit...... and he was
right, because the bag they had created was 38 inches long. As hard
as they tried the W.C. could not get Frazier to accept that 38 inch
bag as an "exact replica" of the bag that Lee carried. Frazier was
adamant that the bag Lee carried was no longer than 28 inches. And
even though he conceded that the bag could have been as long as 28
inches, he told them that Lee cupped it in his hand and tucked it into
his armpit, which means that whatever was in the bag was not rigid,
because though the bag may have been 28 inches long.....It could still
have the top folded down to a distance that allowed Lee to cup it in
his hand and tuck it into his atmpit. ( a length of about 22
inches)
If yer gonna continue to believe that Oswald was guilty of murdering
JFK ......yer gonna hafta find a different solution to the problem
of...How did that rifle get into the TSBD?
Psssst.... Was their an employee that arrived at the TSBD earlier
than anybody else, who had a key for entry, and knew his way around
the building where he could hide the rifle until it was time to plant
it??
Walt
>
> >>> Frazier waffled on what he saw, so how obvious can it be what was in
> >>> the bag? Or even if there was a bag.
>
> > .John
>
> > The Kennedy Assassination Home Page
> >http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
David Von Pein
Yes, it is obvious. To all reasonable people who aren't in NEED of a
"conspiracy", that is.
You, of course, don't qualify under such a "reasonable" heading. You'd
rather believe, instead, in a string of "Incredible Coincidences"
regarding the paper bag (similar in nature to the "Incredible
Coincidences" that you're forced to accept via any type of anti-SBT
scenario as well). .....
E.G.:
COINCIDENTALLY, Lee Harvey Oswald carried a bulky brown paper bag into
the TSBD on the very same day that a similarly-styled, homemade-
looking, taped-up EMPTY bag was found underneath the very same window
where a man who was IDed by a witness as Lee Harvey Oswald was seen
firing "some kind of high-powered rifle" at President Kennedy.
And, COINCIDENTALLY, that empty brown paper bag just happens to have
two of Lee Harvey Oswald's prints on it (one being a RIGHT PALMPRINT,
which perfectly aligns with the testimony of witness B.W. Frazier as
to how LHO carried a bag into the building that same morning, i.e., in
Oswald's CUPPED RIGHT HAND).
And, COINCIDENTALLY, Mr. Oswald feels compelled to lie to the police
about this paper bag, as he denies its existence altogether (a lie
which REEKS of a guilty state of mind)!
And, COINCIDENTALLY, Oswald's rifle turns up missing from the Paine
garage on Nov. 22nd. And (voila!) it just happens to turn up on Nov.
22nd on the very same floor where that empty brown bag is located.
And, COINCIDENTALLY, no NON-RIFLE paper-bag contents (curtain rods or
otherwise) turn up anyplace after the assassination.*
* = Unless you'd like to believe that Oswald had curtain rods or some
other innocent/innocuous item in that bag, and then decided he didn't
want that item anymore, and decided to toss it in the trash someplace
before noontime on Nov. 22nd...and then, on top of that, he STILL
decided he'd lie about the whole "paper bag" incident to the police by
denying ever taking a large (non-lunch) bag into the Book Depository,
even though (per this scenario) it's NOT A RIFLE, but some other
"innocent" object of some ilk.
Anybody willing to buy this kind of shit (or any subtle variation
thereof)? I'm not.
Oswald's LYING about carrying ANY large (non-lunch) paper package into
work on 11/22 is devastating circumstantial evidence of Oswald having
carried his Carcano rifle into the Depository Building and using it to
shoot a man named Kennedy from the sixth floor.
So, what was in the bag that Oz DID carry into work, if not Rifle
C2766? Was it a 17-course heavy-duty "lunch" perhaps? (He was really
hungry that day, huh?)
I think we can all agree that Lee Oswald DID, indeed, carry some type
of bulky/larger-than-a-sandwich bag into the TSBD on 11/22/63.
So...what was in it? And why was Oswald compelled to lie about this
bag and its contents after his arrest if he was innocent of shooting
JFK and had nothing to hide re. the bag and its contents?
So, as I said, it's obvious to a reasonable person (who has examined
these points of evidence and testimony with a dose of COMMON-SENSE
INFERENCES) that Lee Harvey Oswald carried his own rifle into the TSBD
on Nov. 22nd with the obvious intention of using it as a tool by which
to end the life of the nation's 35th Chief Executive.
Any other explanation re. the sum total of paper-bag evidence lacks
all semblance of reasoned, logical thinking.
So, we're now back to this quote (again) from my main LN man, V. Bug,
which is as true today as the day Vince uttered it in 1986.....
"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."
-- V. Bugliosi
Walt
> >>> "Tell yer hero Da Bug that it's not at all obvious that Lee carried that rifle into the TSBD that day in a paper bag." <<<
>
> Yes, it is obvious. To all reasonable people who aren't in NEED of a
> "conspiracy", that is.
>
> You, of course, don't qualify under such a "reasonable" heading. You'd
> rather believe, instead, in a string of "Incredible Coincidences"
> regarding the paper bag (similar in nature to the "Incredible
> Coincidences" that you're forced to accept via any type of anti-SBT
> scenario as well). .....
>
> E.G.:
>
> COINCIDENTALLY, Lee Harvey Oswald carried a bulky brown paper bag into
> the TSBD on the very same day that a similarly-styled, homemade-
> looking, taped-up EMPTY bag was found underneath the very same window
> where a man who was IDed by a witness as Lee Harvey Oswald was seen
> firing "some kind of high-powered rifle" at President Kennedy.
Homemade looking?? That's NOT what Frazier said.... He said the bag
he saw Lee carrying was just a regular old brown paper bag like you
get outta grocery stores.
So sorry for you.... there never was any witness who IDed Oswald as
the white clothing clad gunman who Howard brennan saw firing some kind
of high powered rifle from the west end window. Why do you persist in
saying there was a witness who saw Lee firing a rifle??..... Even the
DPD Chief of Police said they never had solid evidence that proved
that Oswald was there at the time of the shooting. It may come as a
surprise to you ...But spent shells and prints do nothing to establish
that Oswald was there AT THE TIME of the shooting.
> And, COINCIDENTALLY, that empty brown paper bag just happens to have
> two of Lee Harvey Oswald's prints on it (one being a RIGHT PALMPRINT,
> which perfectly aligns with the testimony of witness B.W. Frazier as
> to how LHO carried a bag into the building that same morning, i.e., in
> Oswald's CUPPED RIGHT HAND).
Utter nonsense.....the morning was damp and rainy. They bag that
Oswald carried would not have accepted idenyifiable prints. If there
was prints on the brown paper book wrapper they got there when Oswald
unpacked some books.
And Frazier said the first time he saw the "paper bag", at the police
station, on the evening following the shooting, it looked like a piece
of brown paper. He never recognized it as being a "paper bag".
>
> And, COINCIDENTALLY, Mr. Oswald feels compelled to lie to the police
> about this paper bag, as he denies its existence altogether (a lie
> which REEKS of a guilty state of mind)!
Lee never lied about the bag he carried....He said he carried his
lunch in some kind of paper bag.
>
> And, COINCIDENTALLY, Oswald's rifle turns up missing from the Paine
> garage on Nov. 22nd. And (voila!) it just happens to turn up on Nov.
> 22nd on the very same floor where that empty brown bag is located.
It has never been established that the TSBD rifle was in fact OWNED by
Oswald. There is little doubt that he did in fact have a Mannlicher
Carcano IN HIS POSSESSION in April of 63, but the Back-yard photo ( CE
133A) that Marina took of Lee shows the rifle in his hands is NOT the
TSBD rifle.
>
> And, COINCIDENTALLY, no NON-RIFLE paper-bag contents (curtain rods or
> otherwise) turn up anyplace after the assassination.*
What an utterly stupid remark......
>
> * = Unless you'd like to believe that Oswald had curtain rods or some
> other innocent/innocuous item in that bag, and then decided he didn't
> want that item anymore, and decided to toss it in the trash someplace
> before noontime on Nov. 22nd...and then, on top of that, he STILL
> decided he'd lie about the whole "paper bag" incident to the police by
> denying ever taking a large (non-lunch) bag into the Book Depository,
> even though (per this scenario) it's NOT A RIFLE, but some other
> "innocent" object of some ilk.
Does a paper bag have to be of a specific size to be used as a lunch
sack??
>
> Anybody willing to buy this kind of shit (or any subtle variation
> thereof)? I'm not.
>
> Oswald's LYING about carrying ANY large (non-lunch) paper package into
> work on 11/22 is devastating circumstantial evidence of Oswald having
> carried his Carcano rifle into the Depository Building and using it to
> shoot a man named Kennedy from the sixth floor.
>
> So, what was in the bag that Oz DID carry into work, if not Rifle
> C2766? Was it a 17-course heavy-duty "lunch" perhaps? (He was really
> hungry that day, huh?)
Who said the two foot bag that Lee carried had to be FULL....
>
> I think we can all agree that Lee Oswald DID, indeed, carry some type
> of bulky/larger-than-a-sandwich bag into the TSBD on 11/22/63.
The testimony of the ONLY people who saw Lee carry a paper bag that
morning seems to indicate that Lee did in fact carry a large paper
grocery sack.
>
> So...what was in it? And why was Oswald compelled to lie about this
> bag and its contents after his arrest if he was innocent of shooting
> JFK and had nothing to hide re. the bag and its contents?
Lee said the bag contained his lunch......
>
> So, as I said, it's obvious to a reasonable person (who has examined
> these points of evidence and testimony with a dose of COMMON-SENSE
> INFERENCES) that Lee Harvey Oswald carried his own rifle into the TSBD
> on Nov. 22nd with the obvious intention of using it as a tool by which
> to end the life of the nation's 35th Chief Executive.
>
> Any other explanation re. the sum total of paper-bag evidence lacks
> all semblance of reasoned, logical thinking.
>
> So, we're now back to this quote (again) from my main LN man, V. Bug,
> which is as true today as the day Vince uttered it in 1986.....
>
> "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."
> -- V. Bugliosi
As I said.....Tell yer bedmate, da Bug, that it's most certainly NOT
obvious that Lee carried a bag big enough to conceal a rifle.
Walt
David Von Pein
seek a refund or a replacement asap.
lazu...@webtv.net
Sorry, LHO did not have 3 foot arms( he could not have cupped the
package under his shoulder)-are lone nutters A. dense,B. stupid,
C.obstinate or D. just lying pieces of crap? The answer is all of the
above...
Bud
I suppose he could point out that in the world we live in,
everything an innattentive witness relates is guaranteed to be
accurate. I don`t expect any such insight to have much effect on
kooks.
> Sorry, LHO did not have 3 foot arms( he could not have cupped the
> package under his shoulder)
Which Frazier confirmed to be merely an impression, when he said
"because I don`t see how you could have it any other way".
>-are lone nutters A. dense,B. stupid,
> C.obstinate or D. just lying pieces of crap? The answer is all of the
> above...
You must believe there was a dog in the limo. A witness said so...
Walt
> lazuli...@webtv.net wrote:
> > Bugliosi is gonna look foolish when he tries to finesse this issue.
>
> I suppose he could point out that in the world we live in,
> everything an innattentive witness relates is guaranteed to be
> accurate. I don`t expect any such insight to have much effect on
> kooks.
>
Sorry, LHO did not have 3 foot arms( he could not have cupped the
package under his shoulder)
Which Frazier confirmed to be merely an impression, when he said
"because I don`t see how you could have it any other way".
You're a liar Dud, Frazier didn't say it was... "merely an
impression"..., Frazier did say..... I didn't pay much attention, but
when I did,.....
Translation --- I didn't STUDY, or actually MEASURE the bag that Lee
was carrying, but I did notice the unusual size and I remember that he
carried it cupped in his hand and tucked into his arm pit.
Here's exactly what Frazier said,Dud....Notice How Earl Warren and Joe
Ball badger Frazier in an attempt to get him to say that the bag he
saw Oswald carry was as long the 38 inch bag they were showing him?
Mr. Frazier.
I didn't pay much attention, but when I did, I say, he had this part
down here, like the bottom would be short he had cupped in his hand
like that and, say, like walking from the back if you had a big arm
jacket there you wouldn't tell much from a package back there, the
physical features. If you could see it from the front like when you
walk and meet somebody you could tell about the package, but walking
from behind you couldn't tell much about the package whatsoever about
the width.
But he didn't carry it from the back. If this package were shorter he
would have it cupped in his hands.
The Chairman.
Could he have had the top of it behind his shoulder, or are you sure
it was cupped under his shoulder there?
Mr. Frazier.
Yes; because the way it looked, you know, like I say, he had it cupped
in his hand.
The Chairman.
I beg your pardon?
Mr. Frazier.
I said from where I noticed he had it cupped in his hands. And I don't
see how you could have it anywhere other than under your armpit
because if you had it cupped in your hand it would stick over it.
Frazier told Earl Warren that Lee had the bag CUPPED IN HIS
HAND....And therefore the 38 inch bag they were shoving at him would
have extended above Lee's shoulder.
Mr. Ball.
Could he have carried it this way?
Mr. Frazier.
No, sir. Never in front here. Like that. Now, that is what I was
talking to you about. No, I say he couldn't because if he had you
would have seen the package sticking up like that.From what I seen
walking behind he had it under his arm and you couldn't tell that he
had a package from the back.
Mr. Ball.
When you cupped the bottom of your package in the hands, will you
stand up, again, please, and the upper part of the package is not
under the armpit, the top of the package extends almost up to the
level of your ear.
Mr. Frazier.
Right.
Frazier was about 3 inches taller than Oswald, and yet the 38 inch bag
extended to almost the level of his ear. If the bag Oswald carried
had been 38 inches long, and he had it cupped in his hand as Frazier
observed, the bag would have extended above his ear.
Can you compehend this, Dud??
Walt
Walt
Dud.... You've tried pullin this cheap trick many times. Simply
because Jean Hill was mistaken about a flash of an impression of a dog
in the limo, at a moment when she'd just seen the most horrifing thing
she'd ever seen in her life, you drag out her mistake and use it in a
dishonest attempt to discredit all witnesses. You only show that you
have no rebuttal argument and are a drowning man grasping at straws.
Walt
Bud
Walt wrote:
> On 11 Apr, 04:49, "Bud" <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
> > lazuli...@webtv.net wrote:
> > > Bugliosi is gonna look foolish when he tries to finesse this issue.
> >
> > I suppose he could point out that in the world we live in,
> > everything an innattentive witness relates is guaranteed to be
> > accurate. I don`t expect any such insight to have much effect on
> > kooks.
> >
> Sorry, LHO did not have 3 foot arms( he could not have cupped the
> package under his shoulder)
I told you that I expected that insight to be lost on kooks.
> Which Frazier confirmed to be merely an impression, when he said
> "because I don`t see how you could have it any other way".
>
> You're a liar Dud, Frazier didn't say it was... "merely an
> impression"..., Frazier did say..... I didn't pay much attention, but
> when I did,.....
Frazier said "..And I don`t see how you could have it anywhere else
but under your armpit, because if you had it cupped in your hand, it
would stick over." This is a person relating impressions, not stating
observations. He came to the conclusion that the bag ended under Oz`s
armpit, because that is how people piece together impressions, an
impression about how it was held, and an impression of not seeing it
above Oz`s shoulder led him to believe it ended under Oz`s armpit. But
there are other possibilities, most of Fraziers observations were from
behind, with Oz`s body blocking most of the bag from Frazier`s sight.
> Translation ---
Don`t bother, Walt, you can only mangle what he said.
> I didn't STUDY, or actually MEASURE the bag that Lee
> was carrying, but I did notice the unusual size and I remember that he
> carried it cupped in his hand and tucked into his arm pit.
And it what meaningful way have you ruled out the possibility of
Frazier being mistaken about that detail?
Yah, that is where Frazier got his impression from, when he was
walking behind Oz, and didn`t see what he would expect to see of a
longer bag, it sticking up over his shoulder. Other possibilities
exist to explain Frazier not noticing the package sticking over Oz`s
shoulder while he walked ahead of him (change of grip on the bag, Oz`s
head blocking the part sticking over from Frazier view, or Frazier
just not taking note of it).
> Frazier told Earl Warren that Lee had the bag CUPPED IN HIS
> HAND....
He may have, at one point. And Frazier may have missed Oz shifting
the package to a diferent position. Many possibilities, your only
witness was unattentive.
>And therefore the 38 inch bag they were shoving at him would
> have extended above Lee's shoulder.
It may have. Or Frazier might have missed Oz shift his grip on the
package. Frazier isn`t watching Oz closely or constantly.
> Mr. Ball.
> Could he have carried it this way?
>
> Mr. Frazier.
> No, sir. Never in front here. Like that. Now, that is what I was
> talking to you about. No, I say he couldn't because if he had you
> would have seen the package sticking up like that.From what I seen
> walking behind he had it under his arm and you couldn't tell that he
> had a package from the back.
>
> Mr. Ball.
> When you cupped the bottom of your package in the hands, will you
> stand up, again, please, and the upper part of the package is not
> under the armpit, the top of the package extends almost up to the
> level of your ear.
>
> Mr. Frazier.
> Right.
>
> Frazier was about 3 inches taller than Oswald, and yet the 38 inch bag
> extended to almost the level of his ear. If the bag Oswald carried
> had been 38 inches long, and he had it cupped in his hand as Frazier
> observed, the bag would have extended above his ear.
And Oz`s ears were attached to what? His head? Doesn`t Oz`s head
have the potential to block Frazier`s sight to the part of the package
sticking above his shoulders from Frazier vantage point behind Oz?
> Can you compehend this, Dud??
Do you have the slightest idea of the context of Frazier`s
observations? How long he had to actually get a look at how Oz had the
package? Frazier said Oz was waiting by the fence while he let his
engine run, and as soon as he exitted the vehicle, Oz turned and
started walking towards work, at which time he could see much of the
package at all. So, he caught glimpses of a mundane item his co-worker
was carrying, he garnered some impressions, and his mind put these
impressions together in a way that seemed likely to itself. How much
of the trivial things that go on around you do you think you mind
accurately processes and retains?
Walt
Dud, after reading Frazier's testimony do you believe the W.C. was
being honest in ttheir evaluation of his testimony?
Here's what they concluded.....
In deciding whether Oswald carried the assassination weapon in the bag
which Frazier and Mrs. Randle saw, the Commission has carefully
considered the testimony of these two witnesses with regard to the
length of the bag. Frazier and Mrs. Randle testified that the bag
which Oswald was carrying was approximately 27 or 28 inches long,
whereas the wooden stock of the rifle, which is its largest component,
measured 34.8 inches. The bag found on the sixth floor was 38 inches
long. When Frazier appeared before the Commission and was asked to
demonstrate how Oswald carried the package, he said, "Like I said, I
remember that I didn't look at the package very much, I didn't pay too
much attention the way he was walking because I was walking along
there looking at the railroad cars and watching the men on the diesel
switch them cars and I didn't pay too much attention on how he carried
the package at all.
Frazier could easily have been mistaken when he slated that Oswald
held the bottom of the bag cupped in his hand with the upper end
tucked into his armpit.
Did you notice that they swerved away from what Frazier said about the
length of the bag he saw Oswald carry....and instead quoted Frazier as
saying... "I didn't pay too much attention the way he was walking"..
Of course there was no question about ...." the way he was walking"...
then in the last sentence they quote Frazier as saying... "I didn't
pay too much attention on how he carried the package at all." We can
read his testimony and know that eventhough Frazier was not FOCUSED
and STUDYING the bag in Lee's hand he DID notice how Lee carried the
27 inch bag, and would not be swayed by the badgering of Earl warren
and Joe Ball. And even after Frazier INSISTED that Lee carried the 27
inch bag CUPPED IN HIS HAND they concluded:.......Frazier could
easily have been mistaken when he slated that Oswald held the bottom
of the bag cupped in his hand with the upper end tucked into his
armpit..... Anybody who can't see through their thin smoke screen,
simply don't want too.
> Walt
>
>
>
> > >-are lone nutters A. dense,B. stupid,
> > > C.obstinate or D. just lying pieces of crap? The answer is all of the
> > > above...
>
> > You must believe there was a dog in the limo. A witness said so...- Hide quoted text -
Walt
> Walt wrote:
> > On 11 Apr, 04:49, "Bud" <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
> > > lazuli...@webtv.net wrote:
> > > > Bugliosi is gonna look foolish when he tries to finesse this issue.
>
> > > I suppose he could point out that in the world we live in,
> > > everything an innattentive witness relates is guaranteed to be
> > > accurate. I don`t expect any such insight to have much effect on
> > > kooks.
>
> > Sorry, LHO did not have 3 foot arms( he could not have cupped the
> > package under his shoulder)
>
> I told you that I expected that insight to be lost on kooks.
>
> > Which Frazier confirmed to be merely an impression, when he said
> > "because I don`t see how you could have it any other way".
>
> > You're a liar Dud, Frazier didn't say it was... "merely an
> > impression"..., Frazier did say..... I didn't pay much attention, but
> > when I did,.....
>
> Frazier said "..And I don`t see how you could have it anywhere else
> but under your armpit, because if you had it cupped in your hand, it
> would stick over."
Frazier's statement is a rebuttal to an argument that Earl Warren was
making. Warren and Ball were trying to force Frazier to accept their
version of how Lee could have carried a bag that was a foot ( 33%)
longer than the 27 inch bag that Frazier had seen Oswald carry, and he
refused to buy their lie.
Walt
> > > You must believe there was a dog in the limo. A witness said so...- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Bud
Walt wrote:
> On 11 Apr, 04:49, "Bud" <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
> > lazuli...@webtv.net wrote:
> > > Bugliosi is gonna look foolish when he tries to finesse this issue.
> >
> > I suppose he could point out that in the world we live in,
> > everything an innattentive witness relates is guaranteed to be
> > accurate. I don`t expect any such insight to have much effect on
> > kooks.
> >
> > > Sorry, LHO did not have 3 foot arms( he could not have cupped the
> > > package under his shoulder)
> >
> > Which Frazier confirmed to be merely an impression, when he said
> > "because I don`t see how you could have it any other way".
> >
> > >-are lone nutters A. dense,B. stupid,
> > > C.obstinate or D. just lying pieces of crap? The answer is all of the
> > > above...
> >
> You must believe there was a dog in the limo. A witness said
> so...
>
> Dud.... You've tried pullin this cheap trick many times.
<snicker> "cheap trick"? How could making points using FACTS of the
case be a cheap trick?
> Simply
> because Jean Hill was mistaken about a flash of an impression of a dog
> in the limo,
You`re a liar Walt. She didn`t say it was an impression in her
affidavit.
> at a moment when she'd just seen the most horrifing thing
> she'd ever seen in her life,
Interesting how you are willing to look at this information in
context, but not what Frazier related.
> you drag out her mistake and use it in a
> dishonest attempt to discredit all witnesses.
What is dishonest about pointing out the FACT that what witnesses
relate is not always accurate? Hill is just an indisputable example of
this. There are plenty other examples, the direction people reported
the shots coming from is another easy example. Regardless of where you
think the shots came from, a large number of people reported erroneous
information.
> You only show that you
> have no rebuttal argument and are a drowning man grasping at straws.
I thought I was establishing a fact that should be obvious to you,
but isn`t. That a witnesses saying something does not in itself
establish the information related as fact. Look at the differing
descriptions of the man on the 6th floor given by Edwards, Fischer,
Brennan, Rowland. You seem to agree that they were all describing the
same person, right? Now, if you believe that witnesses always relate
accurate information, then all of their descriptions should match,
right? Do they? Obviously, some of the information related by these
men is wrong. If we only had one, would it be wise to treat what that
single witness said as gospel?
> Walt
Bud
You concluded Frazier *must* be accurate on the details he related,
based on what is anyone`s guess (my guess is a great desire to
exhonerate your beloved patsy). The WC viewed this information as
questionable, in light of other information, like the bag being found
in the vicinity shells fired from Oz`s rifle were found (and capable
of holding Oz`s rifle), and Randle and Frazier saying the bag found in
the TSBD could be the bag they say Oz carry that morning, and Oz`s
rilfe missing from the Paine`s garage where it was kept, and appearing
in the TSBD, along with other information as well. Being a sensible
body of men, they decided to give less weight to the related
impressions of inattentive witnesses, and more weight to other, more
compelling information.
Bud
Walt wrote:
> On 11 Apr, 14:46, "Bud" <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
> > Walt wrote:
> > > On 11 Apr, 04:49, "Bud" <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
> > > > lazuli...@webtv.net wrote:
> > > > > Bugliosi is gonna look foolish when he tries to finesse this issue.
> >
> > > > I suppose he could point out that in the world we live in,
> > > > everything an innattentive witness relates is guaranteed to be
> > > > accurate. I don`t expect any such insight to have much effect on
> > > > kooks.
> >
> > > Sorry, LHO did not have 3 foot arms( he could not have cupped the
> > > package under his shoulder)
> >
> > I told you that I expected that insight to be lost on kooks.
> >
> > > Which Frazier confirmed to be merely an impression, when he said
> > > "because I don`t see how you could have it any other way".
> >
> > > You're a liar Dud, Frazier didn't say it was... "merely an
> > > impression"..., Frazier did say..... I didn't pay much attention, but
> > > when I did,.....
> >
> > Frazier said "..And I don`t see how you could have it anywhere else
> > but under your armpit, because if you had it cupped in your hand, it
> > would stick over."
>
> Frazier's statement is a rebuttal to an argument that Earl Warren was
> making.
They presented no arguments. they were asking questions. Note the
question marks.
> Warren and Ball were trying to force Frazier to accept their
> version of how Lee could have carried a bag that was a foot ( 33%)
The bag only needed to be eight inches more than the witnesses
indicated to hold the disassembled rifle. The length of a standard
pencil.
> longer than the 27 inch bag that Frazier had seen Oswald carry, and he
> refused to buy their lie.
No doubt he seems to have strong impressions about some of this
information. The question is whether his impressions are correct on
all counts. I would be skeptical about declaring anything as fact
above that he saw Oz carry a long package into work that day. Anything
more than that is suspect due to the nature and context of his
observations.
Walt
There is a difference in the situations and conditions of the witness
observations.
A person under duress and at a MOMENT of confusion, like Jean Hill
saying she thought she saw a little dog in the car. is in no way
comparable to a person Like Buell Frazier who saw Oswald carry that 27
inch bag. Frazier was not at all confused or excited as he had
MINUTES to observe Lee with the bag. Why do you persist in your
assinine comparisons??
Look at the differing descriptions of the man on the 6th floor given
by Edwards, Fischer, Brennan, Rowland. You seem to agree that they
were all describing the same person, right?
That's right ...they all saw the same man attired in light colored
clothing.
Now, if you believe that witnesses always relate accurate information,
then all of their descriptions should match, right?
Don't make a fool of yourself.... We all have different ways of
relating something we've seen. It always irritates me when the police
are given an accurate discription of a person or thing and they screw
it up. Case in point.... When the teenage boy was kidnapped near St
Louis last fall. The older boy who had observed the suspictious pick
up truck in the area actually read the name "NISSAN" on the tail gate
of the truck and he told the cops that the suspected kidnapper was
driving a NISSAN pick up. But they never gave that specific detail in
asking for the public's help. It happens all the time... A witness
will tell investigators that theysaw a..." Late model Maroon Toyota
with a damaged right front fender" leaving the scene of the hit and
run accident. When the police ask for the public's help they say.
The vehicle involved might be a small compact oriegn sedan, red in
color.
The point being..... Just because Rowland, Brennan, Fischer, and
Edwards didn't use exactly the same words to describe the approx 33
year old, 170 pound gunman who was dressed in light colored clothes,
doesn't mean that they all weren't describing the same man. In fact
we can be certain they were all describing the same man because they
all said he was behind the windows of the sixth floor at about 12:20 /
12:30 that day. There are a few discrepancies between the
descriptions but generally they all describe the same man. One
discrepancy is concerning the mans hair characteristics. There was no
agreement on the excat color of the mans hair , In reading their
description one could only conclude that it was daek brown. Only one
witness was observant enough to notice that the man did NOT have
thinning hair or a receding hair line.
Do they? Obviously, some of the information related by these men is
wrong.
I agree.... For example One of them said the light colored shirt
"could have been a light colored sport shirt or a T shirt"
Obviously we have to evaluate this statement in light of the other
witnesses who all described a sportshirt with a collar
Since the witness allowed that the shirt could have been either a
sport shirt or a T shirt we can use the other witnesses description to
know the man was wearing a light colored sport shirt.
If we only had one, would it be wise to treat what that single witness
said as gospel?
But we have FOUR.... and they ALL are in general agreement.
Walt
>
>
>
> > Walt- Hide quoted text -
Walt
Dud, Not only did the Warren Commission lawyers have Frazier's
testimony that Oswald never carried a bag as big as the 38 inch bag
they were showing him..... They also had the testimony of the FBI lab
( Stombaugh ?) that he had found NO evidence that a rifle had been in
that bag. The inside the bag was not scuffed or in anyway marked by
any of the sharp points on the disassembled rifle. There was not even
one iota of oil or grease inside that bag. The Warren Commision had
more reason to doubt that the 38 inch bag had been carried by oswald
than they had to believe he had, and yet they concluded that Oswald
had carried the rifle in that bag.
The preponderence of the evidence indicated that Oswald had NOT
carried that rifle in that bag, and yet the W,C. liars disregarded
that evidence.
Walt
Walt
> Walt wrote:
> > On 11 Apr, 09:12, "Walt" <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote:
> > > On 11 Apr, 04:49, "Bud" <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:> lazuli...@webtv.net wrote:
> > > > > Bugliosi is gonna look foolish when he tries to finesse this issue.
>
> > > > I suppose he could point out that in the world we live in,
> > > > everything an innattentive witness relates is guaranteed to be
> > > > accurate. I don`t expect any such insight to have much effect on
> > > > kooks.
>
> > > Sorry, LHO did not have 3 foot arms( he could not have cupped the
> > > package under his shoulder)
>
> > > Which Frazier confirmed to be merely an impression, when he said
> > > "because I don`t see how you could have it any other way".
>
> > > You're a liar Dud, Frazier didn't say it was... "merely an
> > > impression"..., Frazier did say..... I didn't pay much attention, but
> > > when I did,.....
>
> > > Translation --- I didn't STUDY, or actually MEASURE the bag that Lee
> > > was carrying, but I did notice the unusual size and I remember that he
> > > carried it cupped in his hand and tucked into his arm pit.
>
> > > Here's exactly what Frazier said,Dud....Notice How Earl Warren and Joe
> > > Ball badger Frazier in an attempt to get him to say that the bag he
>
> > > Mr. Frazier.
> > > I didn't pay much attention, but when I did, I say, he had this part
> > > down here, like the bottom would be short he had cupped in his hand
> > > like that and, say, like walking from the back if you had a big arm
> > > jacket there you wouldn't tell much from a package back there, the
> > > physical features. If you could see it from the front like when you
> > > walk and meet somebody you could tell about the package, but walking
> > > from behind you couldn't tell much about the package whatsoever about
> > > the width.
> > > But he didn't carry it from the back. If this package were shorter he
> > > would have it cupped in his hands.
>
> > > The Chairman.
> > > Could he have had the top of it behind his shoulder, or are you sure
> > > it was cupped under his shoulder there?
>
> > > Mr. Frazier.
> > > Yes; because the way it looked, you know, like I say, he had it cupped
> > > in his hand.
>
> > > The Chairman.
> > > I beg your pardon?
>
> > > Mr. Frazier.
> > > I said from where I noticed he had it cupped in his hands. And I don't
> > > see how you could have it anywhere other than under your armpit
> > > because if you had it cupped in your hand it would stick over it.
>
> > > Frazier told Earl Warren that Lee had the bag CUPPED IN HIS
> > and Joe Ball. And even after Frazier INSISTED that Lee carried the 27
> > easily have been mistaken when he slated that Oswald held the bottom
> > of the bag cupped in his hand with the upper end tucked into his
> > armpit..... Anybody who can't see through their thin smoke screen,
> > simply don't want too.
>
You concluded Frazier *must* be accurate on the details he
related,
based on what is anyone`s guess (my guess is a great desire to
exhonerate your beloved patsy).
Anyone's guess ? Based on Linnie Mae Randle's testimony who also
said the bag Oswald carried was only about 27 inches long. Frazier
and Randle were the only two that actually saw Oswald carry the 27
inch bag.
The WC viewed this information as questionable, in light of other
information, like the bag being found in the vicinity shells fired
from Oz`s rifle were found (and capable of holding Oz`s rifle),
The bag that was found is NOT the 38 inch bag that the Warren
Commission displayed to Frazier and Randle. DPD Detective Lt Day said
he picked up a long TAPERED paper gun case on the sixth floor of the
TSBD after the shooting. He turned to RoyTruly who was with him at
the time, and asked if Truly had ever seen it before. When truly
replied that he had never seen it before, Day folded it up and put it
in his pocket and "NEVER DISPLAYED THIS SACK TO ANYBODY"
and Randle and Frazier saying the bag found in the TSBD could be the
bag they say Oz carry that morning,
A lie.... Randle and Frazier both said that the 38 inch bag that the
W.C. displayed to them was MUCH LARGER than the bag they saw Oswald
carry.
and Oz`s rilfe missing from the Paine`s garage where it was kept, and
appearing in the TSBD,
There isn't any proof that the rifle that was in the Pain garage was
in FACT Oswald's rifle. The rifle had been ordered by Hidell, ( who
knows who "Hidell" was.... Was it De Mohrenschildt? Was it It Mike
Paine? Or Was it Oswald?)
along with other information as well. Being a sensible body of men,
they decided to give less weight to the related impressions of
inattentive witnesses, and more weight to other, more compelling
information.
They had they ONLY two witnesses who actually saw Oswald carry a paper
bag that morning, telling them that the 38 inch bag was way bigger
than the bag they saw Oswald carry, and they had the testimony of the
FBI lab man telling them that there was NOT ONE IOTA of evidence that
the rifle had been in that bag.
An HONEST investigation would have concluded that the 38 inch bag was
NOT the bag that Oswald carried that morning.
Walt
>
>
>
> > > Walt
>
> > > > >-are lone nutters A. dense,B. stupid,
> > > > > C.obstinate or D. just lying pieces of crap? The answer is all of the
> > > > > above...
>
> > > > You must believe there was a dog in the limo. A witness said so...- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Walt
> Commission displayed to Frazier and Randle. DPD Detective Lt Day said
> he picked up a long TAPERED paper gun case on the sixth floor of the
> TSBD after the shooting. He turned to RoyTruly who was with him at
> the time, and asked if Truly had ever seen it before. When truly
> replied that he had never seen it before, Day folded it up and put it
> in his pocket and "NEVER DISPLAYED THIS SACK TO ANYBODY"
>
> and Randle and Frazier saying the bag found in the TSBD could be the
> bag they say Oz carry that morning,
>
> W.C. displayed to them was MUCH LARGER than the bag they saw Oswald
> carry.
>
> and Oz`s rilfe missing from the Paine`s garage where it was kept, and
> appearing in the TSBD,
>
> There isn't any proof that the rifle that was in the Pain garage was
> in FACT Oswald's rifle. The rifle had been ordered by Hidell, ( who
> knows who "Hidell" was.... Was it De Mohrenschildt? Was it It Mike
> Paine? Or Was it Oswald?)
>
> along with other information as well. Being a sensible body of men,
> they decided to give less weight to the related impressions of
> inattentive witnesses, and more weight to other, more compelling
> information.
>
> They had they ONLY two witnesses who actually saw Oswald carry a paper
> than the bag they saw Oswald carry, and they had the testimony of the
> FBI lab man telling them that there was NOT ONE IOTA of evidence that
> the rifle had been in that bag.
>
Bud
I agree. Hill had a reason to pay attention to what was going on
inside the limo. Frazier had no reason to pay attention to Oz`s bag.
> A person under duress and at a MOMENT of confusion, like Jean Hill
> saying she thought she saw a little dog in the car. is in no way
> comparable to a person Like Buell Frazier who saw Oswald carry that 27
> inch bag.
You think a person can make an uninterested observation of a
mundane item, and nail an exact detail like length?
> Frazier was not at all confused or excited as he had
> MINUTES to observe Lee with the bag.
Can you support that? He said he glanced in the backseat of his
car. What is that, a second or two? And he said as soon as he exitted
his car, Oz turned and started walking towards the TSBD, at which time
he couldn`t see much of the bag.
> Why do you persist in your
> assinine comparisons??
I wasn`t comparing the two. I was using Hill as an example to
illustrate that just because a witness says something doesn`t make it
a fact.
> Look at the differing descriptions of the man on the 6th floor given
> by Edwards, Fischer, Brennan, Rowland. You seem to agree that they
> were all describing the same person, right?
>
> That's right ...they all saw the same man attired in light colored
> clothing.
They seem to concur only on a light shirt. Oz is known to have been
wearing a light shirt the day of the assassination. Only two offer a
description of the pants, Brennan says "light", Rowland says "dark".
> Now, if you believe that witnesses always relate accurate information,
> then all of their descriptions should match, right?
>
> Don't make a fool of yourself....
Funny, you giving me that advice.
> We all have different ways of
> relating something we've seen. It always irritates me when the police
> are given an accurate discription of a person or thing and they screw
> it up. Case in point.... When the teenage boy was kidnapped near St
> Louis last fall. The older boy who had observed the suspictious pick
> up truck in the area actually read the name "NISSAN" on the tail gate
> of the truck and he told the cops that the suspected kidnapper was
> driving a NISSAN pick up. But they never gave that specific detail in
> asking for the public's help. It happens all the time... A witness
> will tell investigators that theysaw a..." Late model Maroon Toyota
> with a damaged right front fender" leaving the scene of the hit and
> run accident. When the police ask for the public's help they say.
> The vehicle involved might be a small compact oriegn sedan, red in
> color.
>
> The point being..... Just because Rowland, Brennan, Fischer, and
> Edwards didn't use exactly the same words to describe the approx 33
> year old,
Fischer said "He appeared to be 22 or 24 years old. Edwards said
"around 26".
> 170 pound gunman
Rowland said "I would say about 140 or 150 pounds". And thre out of
four of the men used the word "slender" to describe the man they saw,
an accurate word to describe Oz`s build.
>who was dressed in light colored clothes,
Shirt. Only two of the witnesses offered anything about the pants,
and they give exactly opposite descriptions.
> doesn't mean that they all weren't describing the same man.
If they were all describing the same person, then some of the
information they gave is demonstratably inaccurate (which was my
point).
> In fact
> we can be certain they were all describing the same man because they
> all said he was behind the windows of the sixth floor at about 12:20 /
> 12:30 that day.
Rowland said 12:15ish. You get nothing right.
> There are a few discrepancies between the
> descriptions but generally they all describe the same man.
And those descrepancies are proof of inaccuracies. They can all be
wrong, but they cannot all be right. And my main point is that if
there were 4 people watching Oz walk into the TSBD with that package,
would they all describe it, and the way Oz carried it, identically?
> One
> discrepancy is concerning the mans hair characteristics. There was no
> agreement on the excat color of the mans hair , In reading their
> description one could only conclude that it was daek brown.
How do you conclude that? One said "light brown". Another said
"dark, probably black". One of these two is wrong. So, lets say the
one who said "light hair" is correct, but we only had the one who said
"dark hair" to consider. We would consider innaccurate information as
fact, right? (Doubtful you will be able to follow that line of
reasoning.)
> Only one
> witness was observant enough to notice that the man did NOT have
> thinning hair or a receding hair line.
The one furthest away (by far). And what would make a person bring
up that feature? It`s like saying "the man didn`t have a bald spot".
You don`t list things you didn`t notice, you list the things you do.
The only reason I can see for him bringing up a receeding hairline is
seeing Oz`s pictures, and taking note of it from them.
> Do they? Obviously, some of the information related by these men is
> wrong.
>
> I agree.... For example One of them said the light colored shirt
> "could have been a light colored sport shirt or a T shirt"
> Obviously we have to evaluate this statement in light of the other
> witnesses who all described a sportshirt with a collar
What witness said he specifically saw a collar?
> Since the witness allowed that the shirt could have been either a
> sport shirt or a T shirt we can use the other witnesses description to
> know the man was wearing a light colored sport shirt.
No, we really can`t. One witness mentions a "collar", but in the
context of the shirt being open "at the collar". that is using
"collar" as a location on the shirt, not observing actual folded down
material.
> If we only had one, would it be wise to treat what that single witness
> said as gospel?
>
> But we have FOUR.... and they ALL are in general agreement.
Really? Then the age Brennan gave is no big deal, because two
other witnesses put the age of the man they were *all* looking at in
the mid-twenties. Either the descrepancies are significant, or they
aren`t, you can`t have it both ways.
Bud
Around 36 inches, with the flap down.
> They also had the testimony of the FBI lab
> ( Stombaugh ?) that he had found NO evidence that a rifle had been in
> that bag.
If a guy walks into a bank, and pulls out a pistol, and robs the
bank, do you think his lawyer would trumpet that fact that no evidence
of the handgun was found inside his client`s pocket?
> The inside the bag was not scuffed or in anyway marked by
> any of the sharp points on the disassembled rifle. There was not even
> one iota of oil or grease inside that bag.
Are you aware of anyone stablishing that these conditions must exist
if the rifle was in the bag?
> The Warren Commision had
> more reason to doubt that the 38 inch bag had been carried by oswald
> than they had to believe he had, and yet they concluded that Oswald
> had carried the rifle in that bag.
No, they had plenty of reasons to believe the rifle was in the bag.
What exactly are the chances of a long bag being found in the
vicintity the shots were fired from, on the same floor Oz`s rifle was
found on, and not be the one witnesses saw carried into work that day,
as he travelled from where the rfile was kept to where it was found?
> The preponderence of the evidence indicated that Oswald had NOT
> carried that rifle in that bag, and yet the W,C. liars disregarded
> that evidence.
No, they gave weight to more compelling information, information
that doesn`t appear on your radar (mostly because Oz doesn`t appear on
your radar as a suspect).
Bud
What are the chances that two people could briefly see a mundane
item, and nail it`s legth?
> The WC viewed this information as questionable, in light of other
> information, like the bag being found in the vicinity shells fired
> from Oz`s rifle were found (and capable of holding Oz`s rifle),
>
> The bag that was found is NOT the 38 inch bag that the Warren
> Commission displayed to Frazier and Randle. DPD Detective Lt Day said
> he picked up a long TAPERED paper gun case on the sixth floor of the
> TSBD after the shooting. He turned to RoyTruly who was with him at
> the time, and asked if Truly had ever seen it before. When truly
> replied that he had never seen it before, Day folded it up and put it
> in his pocket and "NEVER DISPLAYED THIS SACK TO ANYBODY"
I explained this to you once before. Montgomery walked out of the
TSBD with it.
> and Randle and Frazier saying the bag found in the TSBD could be the
> bag they say Oz carry that morning,
>
> A lie....
You are just unfamiliar with the evidence. Read the December 2nd,
1963 FBI report, where the two witnesses are interviewed (CE 2008 and
CE2009). The both say the bag found on the 6th floor o the TSBD could
be the bag they saw Oz carrying that morning. No mention of either
witness saying the bag found in the TSBD was MUCH LARGER than the bag
they saw Oz carrying 11-22-63.
> Randle and Frazier both said that the 38 inch bag that the
> W.C. displayed to them was MUCH LARGER than the bag they saw Oswald
> carry.
>
> and Oz`s rilfe missing from the Paine`s garage where it was kept, and
> appearing in the TSBD,
>
> There isn't any proof that the rifle that was in the Pain garage was
> in FACT Oswald's rifle.
Plenty of evidence, though. His wife`s testimony, the order form in
his handwriting, photos with him holding it, it being sent to his PO
box.
> The rifle had been ordered by Hidell, ( who
> knows who "Hidell" was.... Was it De Mohrenschildt? Was it It Mike
> Paine? Or Was it Oswald?)
It was sent to Oz`s PO box. That is considered legal evidence he
received it.
> along with other information as well. Being a sensible body of men,
> they decided to give less weight to the related impressions of
> inattentive witnesses, and more weight to other, more compelling
> information.
>
> They had they ONLY two witnesses who actually saw Oswald carry a paper
> bag that morning, telling them that the 38 inch bag was way bigger
> than the bag they saw Oswald carry, and they had the testimony of the
> FBI lab man telling them that there was NOT ONE IOTA of evidence that
> the rifle had been in that bag.
None of which rules out that the rifle was in the bag. You haven`t
shown how the witnesses must nail the length from their estimates, or
that if the rifle was in the bag, it must leave residue.
> An HONEST investigation would have concluded that the 38 inch bag was
> NOT the bag that Oswald carried that morning.
An honest person would admit there is no good reason to expect the
two witnesses to be positively accurate, given the context of their
observations. Look at the pictures of Randle`s vantage point, where
she saw Oz with the package, how far away, how long she likely saw
him, how long after these observations she made the demonstartion for
the FBI. Then, make the case she could not have been mistaken by the
length of an ordinary pencil in her observations. Same goes for
Frazier.