Introduction - New Guy

[Ron Ecker]

You're right about one thing. There's not a scintilla of evidence. Of anything. Evidence is put through the screen of the Rules of evidence and in the case of witness testimony is tested by cross-examination. All that exists in the JFK assassination realm are facts, allegations of fact, lies, misrepresentations, and opinions.

There is plenty of circumstantial evidence of a conspiracy. Enough for any "reasonable" person to conclude there was more than one shooter. To deny this IMO has nothing to do with evidence or reason. It's almost like denying the theory of evolution for religious reasons or because one doesn't like it.

As an alcoholic in recovery for the past 30+ years, this is a form of denial very similar to what I've experienced in the realm of addiction. It's like seeing someone suffer needlessly, knowing that they won't stop suffering until they're ready, thinking "you poor soul"...

In the words of SCOTUS' Scalia, "Let me get this straight..."

You claim that I, as an "LN", am best likened to a denier of evolutionary theory, and that such must also be due to having been previously addicted to drugs / alcohol?

Do I understand you correctly?

Here we go. Anything to distract from the circumstantial evidence in the JFK case.

[Curtis Berkley]

You're right about one thing. There's not a scintilla of evidence. Of anything. Evidence is put through the screen of the Rules of evidence and in the case of witness testimony is tested by cross-examination. All that exists in the JFK assassination realm are facts, allegations of fact, lies, misrepresentations, and opinions.

There is plenty of circumstantial evidence of a conspiracy. Enough for any "reasonable" person to conclude there was more than one shooter. To deny this IMO has nothing to do with evidence or reason. It's almost like denying the theory of evolution for religious reasons or because one doesn't like it.

As an alcoholic in recovery for the past 30+ years, this is a form of denial very similar to what I've experienced in the realm of addiction. It's like seeing someone suffer needlessly, knowing that they won't stop suffering until they're ready, thinking "you poor soul"...

Hey, brother, I also am a friend of Bill W. Thirty-five years at the end of this month.

Glenn & Robert -

Before we delve into more contentious things of comparitively lesser importance, I'd like to congratulate each of you on your decades-long path to sobriety. My father was an alcoholic, and died as a result, and I know both how debilitating and inescapable addiction often proves to be.

I didn't want to miss the opportunity to congratulate and encourage each of you, before we resumed denouncing one another.

[Curtis Berkley]

You're right about one thing. There's not a scintilla of evidence. Of anything. Evidence is put through the screen of the Rules of evidence and in the case of witness testimony is tested by cross-examination. All that exists in the JFK assassination realm are facts, allegations of fact, lies, misrepresentations, and opinions.

There is plenty of circumstantial evidence of a conspiracy. Enough for any "reasonable" person to conclude there was more than one shooter. To deny this IMO has nothing to do with evidence or reason. It's almost like denying the theory of evolution for religious reasons or because one doesn't like it.

As an alcoholic in recovery for the past 30+ years, this is a form of denial very similar to what I've experienced in the realm of addiction. It's like seeing someone suffer needlessly, knowing that they won't stop suffering until they're ready, thinking "you poor soul"...

In the words of SCOTUS' Scalia, "Let me get this straight..."

You claim that I, as an "LN", am best likened to a denier of evolutionary theory, and that such must also be due to having been previously addicted to drugs / alcohol?

Do I understand you correctly?

Here we go. Anything to distract from the circumstantial evidence in the JFK case.

Ron - could you please point out the specific error in my post?

Did I somehow encourage these gentlemen to say these things, so as to allow me the necessary smokescreen of distraction?

Or, did I simply comment on the statements that each independently made?

[Ron Ecker]

We can start wherever any of you would most prefer, but "let us begin".

I'll play this game once, as I have previously stated my own personal rule against arguing with LNers and young-Earth creationists.

To me perhaps the most important "circumstantial" evidence is the gaping wound in the back of JFK's head, seen by medical personnel at both Parkland and Bethesda as well as by Clint Hill. This wound has been covered up from start to finish, first by the Warren Commission (it wants you to ignore its own exhibits, i.e. eyewitness doctors' statements), the HSCA (by simply lying in its report about eyewitness statements), and to this very moment by the mainstream media, which simply ignores it. I know that LNers and even Pat Speer try their best to get around this. So be it.

[Brian Schmidt]

I plan to create a website with 10 to 15 of what I feel to be the strong pieces of evidence to suggest a conspiracy specifically for this reason.

I have brought this up in another thread, but here's the most recent gem: http://www.rtl.fr/actu/international/kennedy-le-reve-a-ete-assassine-avec-l-homme-dit-giscard-7767111282 - Former French president Valéry Giscard d'Estaing going public that Ford admitted to him that the Warren Commission knew there was an organized plot.

[Ron Ecker]

Ron - could you please point out the specific error in my post?

Did I somehow encourage these gentlemen to say these things, so as to allow me the necessary smokescreen of distraction?

Or, did I simply comment on the statements that each independently made?

Did anyone accuse you of being an alcoholic?

[Steven Gaal]

We can start wherever any of you would most prefer, but "let us begin".// Berkley

LHO had a Social Security Number that did not reflect correct age or location at age 15 and a half GAAL

]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]

http://educationforu...=21126&p=287834

As you can tell from my bio, I work at Southern Methodist University ("SMU"). When I moved to Dallas in 1999 I got a job at SMU's Center for Media & Instructional Technology ("CMIT"). The CMIT media librarian at the time (introduced to me as "Judy Childs") was in fact Judy Chiles, wife of Bill Chiles, part owner of Jaggars Chiles Stovall.

Well, you know, when I found that out I just went through the roof! So at one of our Chritmas parties, I approached Bill (who is a sweet guy) and I asked him point blank about Lee Harvey Oswald working for his company.

Bill stated that Oswald was generally a crappy employee, that we wore thick black military-type boots, was surly, and to the concern of Bill at least, walked around speaking in Russian.

Since they did some work for the US Government, Bill was concerned about this guy enough to call the FBI. Bill told the FBI that this guy named Oswald was clunking around in military boots, speaking in Russian and making a nuisance of himself. Bill said the FBI put him on hold, and then came back with (and I am paraphrasing here) "...yeah, we know about Oswald, he's okay."

For what it's worth.

Rob

------------------------------------------------

Chapter Four:
The Return of Lee Harvey Oswald (SEE LINK BELOW)

------------------------------------------------

http://www.ctka.net/LetJusticeBeDone/chapter4.htm

###################################################

from Harvey and Lee site

=======================

In New Orleans, on August 16, 1963, Lee HARVEY Oswald handed out Fair Play for Cuba pamphlets, which gave a false impression that Oswald supported Fidel Castro and Cuba. Helping Oswald distribute the pamphlets was Charles Hall Steele, an active FBI informant identified as "NO-T-14". Their leaf-letting activities were filmed by WDSU cameraman Orvie Aucoin, also an active FBI informant, in front of Clay Shaw's International Trade Mart and shown on television shortly after the assassination of JFK. WDSU also took films of Oswald's court appearance and of Oswald's interview at WDSU. Two weeks later, on Labor Day weekend, a more ominous attempt to link Oswald to Castro and Cuba occurred.

In the 1950s, prior to the Cuban revolution, Robert McKeown supplied arms to Fidel Castro and became one of Castro's best friends. After the revolution Castro flew to Houston and met personally with McKeown at the airport. Castro tried to convince McKeown to return to Cuba with him and offered McKeown business concessions or a high position in the Cuban government. McKeown politely refused and Castro returned to Cuba, but the two men remained close friends. Several months later friends of McKeown's brother were arrested by the Cuban militia when fishing within Cuban waters and thrown in jail. When McKeown was told that his brothers' friends were in jail in Cuba, he telephoned Castro and the men were released immediately. The multi-year close relationship between Fidel Castro and Robert McKeown did not go unnoticed.

After the Cuban revolution, Jack Rubenstein contacted McKeown and said he knew that McKeown had influence with Castro. He wanted McKeown's help in getting three individuals out of Cuba. Rubenstein offered McKeown $5,000 for each person who was released, but never came up with the money. Three weeks later a man approached McKeown and introduced himself as Jack Ruby. He told McKeown that he had an option to purchase a large number of jeeps and wanted to sell them to Castro. Ruby wanted a letter of introduction from McKeown, offered to pay $25,000, but never came up with the money.

On Saturday morning, between 9:00 am and 10:00 am on Labor Day weekend, a car arrived at McKeown's home in Baycliff, TX. McKeown, his wife, and friend Sam Neil were in the house when the car arrived and two men walked to the house and knocked on the door. When McKeown opened the door one of the men said, “You are McKeown, are you not? I understand that you can supply any amount of arms.” McKeown asked for the man's name and he introduced himself as "Lee Oswald." Oswald said he wanted to purchase four .300 Savage rifles with scopes and offered to pay Mckeown $10,000. McKeown was on probation for running guns to Castro, and was skeptical of these visitors. He wondered why Oswald would offer him $2500 for a rifle that he could buy at Sears and Roebuck for $75. McKeown then told Oswald that he was on probation and didn't want to get involved selling any more guns. Oswald got in his car and started to drive away, but stopped and once again walked to McKeowns house. He pleaded with McKeown to sell him rifles, but McKeown refused and went back into his house. Following the assassination Sam Neil telephoned McKeown and said, "Mac, are you watching TV? ….That's the bastard who was at your house that got killed, that Ruby killed.” McKeown was not interviewed by the WC, but was interviewed for hours by the HSCA. They asked why Oswald would offer him so much money for the rifles. McKeown replied, “That is what puzzled me, why would he come to me to buy rifles.”

McKeown may have been puzzled, but it made perfect sense to those who were setting up HARVEY Oswald as the “patsy” and attempting to blame Castro for the assassination.

If McKeown had accepted Lee Oswald's offer of $2500 per rifle, then one of those rifles would have been found on the 6th floor of the TSBD by Dallas Police. And that rifle would have been traced back to Castro's close friend, Robert McKeown. The attempt to link (HARVEY) Oswald to Castro through FPCC brochures, Mexico City, Robert McKeown, and radio interviews in New Orleans with CIA asset Edward Scannell Butler is undeniable.

####################################

####################################

Garrison, Angleton and the CIA

http://jfkfacts.org/assassination/news/garrison-angleton-and-the-cia/

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A faithful reader writes with questions about my post on the UNLV conference celebrating New Orleans DA Jim Garrison for his efforts to prosecute a JFK assassination conspiracy

The reader says he is “not aware of evidence that the [CIA’s] Counterintelligence staff was ‘secretly trying to subvert his investigation,'” as I wrote in my post.

James Angleton
James Angleton, longtime chief of the CIA’s Counterintelligence Staff.

“Subvert” was perhaps too strong a word, but not by much. The so-called “Garrison Group” within the CI Staff operated in secret in 1967-68. This group of analysts was plainly part of the larger Agency effort to thwart Garrison from investigating Oswald’s contacts with CIA-affiliated Cubans.

Reader goes on:”What is the basis for saying that Garrison was looking into that anti-FPCC operation?

A. He was asking questions of Carlos Bringuier and Carlos Quiroga about their contacts with Oswald, the FPCC man. Garrison did not know anything about CIA “black” operations in New Orleans. He knew very little about how the CIA funded and managed the Cuban Revolutionary Council and the DRE, which both Bringuier and Quiroga were associated. Nor did Garrison know how thoroughly the CIA and FBI had penetrated the FPCC at the time of Oswald’s membership in the group.

And a follow-up question: “Or are you just saying that he [Garrison] was looking into Oswald’s interaction with the DRE and that the DRE was involved in that operation?”

A. Yes, I am saying that. I am saying that the CIA’s counterintelligence staff acted to prevent Garrison from learning more about Oswald and the anti-Castro Cubans in New Orleans to protect its operational interests in disrupting the FPCC.

One more point. The intense interest of Angleton’s Counterintelligence Staff in every person touched by Garrison’s prosecution in 1967-68 was both peculiar and revealing.

The job of the Counterintelligence Staff was to prevent the penetration of CIA activities by a foreign intelligence service. Yet as the CI staff monitored Garrison’s investigation, Angleton’s people never raised the issue of whether Oswald had come under the influence of the Soviet KGB or the Cuban DGI.

Independent scholar Max Holland calls attention to KGB involvement in the publication of a “CIA did it” conspiracy theory published in an Italian newspapers in 1967. But that didn’t concern Angleton, although he surely knew about it. (Angelton had grown up in Italy.)

Nor was Angleton worried about foreign penetration of CIA operations in 1967-68. He expended no effort to investigate Oswald’s contacts with Soviet and Cuban government officials in Mexico City

What worried Angleton about Jim Garrison hit closer to home: the possibility Garrison’s scattershot prosecution might expose Angleton’s pre-assassination interest in Oswald, which was far greater than the Warren Commission ever knew, and far great than many people inside the CIA knew.

The exposure of the CIA’s secret operation against the FPCC in the fall of 1963 was of special concern for obvious reasons. It might lead people to ask questions like: if the CIA was running a covert operation against the FPCC in late 1963, how did they manage to overlook the most dangerous FPCC supporter of them all, Lee Harvey Oswald?

Jim Angleton and his colleagues at the CIA did not want to face that question, which is why he worried about Jim Garrison.

Edited June 5, 2015 by Steven Gaal

[David Von Pein]

There is plenty of circumstantial evidence of a conspiracy. Enough for any "reasonable" person to conclude there was more than one shooter.

The LNers apparently do not consider "circumstantial evidence" of any degree, in any amount, no matter how mathematically improbable, to be evidence - EVEN THOUGH there are thousands of guilty people in prison strictly because of this same type of evidence - purely circumstantial, though convincing to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt, evidence.

I would maintain that conspiracy theorists do more denying of "circumstantial evidence" of Oswald's lone guilt than the LNers do of ignoring any circumstantial evidence of conspiracy.

A good example, I think, of how conspiracists disregard circumstantial evidence that does not favor their beliefs in a conspiracy is when discussing Lee Harvey Oswald's actions and movements on both November 21 and 22, 1963. The provable things that Oswald did on each of those days have created a whole lot of "circumstantial evidence" of his LONE guilt in the assassination of JFK and the murder of Officer Tippit.

Such as:

LHO's unusual Thursday trip to Irving to supposedly pick up "curtain rods" (yeah, right). The "curtain rod" excuse has been proven to be nothing but a complete lie on Oswald's behalf. And everyone needs to ask themselves: WHY would he lie about something like that if it wasn't to hide some kind of criminal activity that other evidence proves he WAS involved in the following day?

Plus: Oswald's movements right after the assassination, which show "flight" from the scene of the crime. And those movements are SOLO movements. Not a co-conspirator in sight. Oswald was hoofin' it ON HIS OWN after the assassination.

Plus there's the murder of J.D. Tippit -- committed by ONE LONE GUNMAN on Tenth Street (unless we want to believe Acquilla Clemmons' account of the shooting instead of accepting the observations of the multiple other witnesses who all said that there was only ONE gunman involved).

And then there's Oswald's incredibly "guilty-like" actions inside the movie theater, and the things he said to the police both inside the theater and in the police car on the way to City Hall, which are all things that reek of Oswald's guilty state of mind.

jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/07/they-say-it-just-takes-second-to-die.html

But when I argue with conspiracy believers on the Internet about any of the above items of "circumstantial evidence", I get the sense that those CTers look upon those items as being things that somehow (and incredibly) lead more toward Oswald's complete innocence than they do in leading toward his guilt in the murders of either John Kennedy or J.D. Tippit.

Sure, there are some pieces of circumstantial evidence that, when isolated and never researched and examined any further, would make someone cry "Conspiracy!". But, as I say, when those things are removed from their "isolated" condition and placed back into the "sum total" of evidence in this case, then all thoughts of "conspiracy" vanish into a puff of S.M. Holland's smoke (even Holland's and other witnesses' "smoke" doesn't hold up under additional scrutiny, given the weight of all the other evidence that indicates there was no gunman firing from the Grassy Knoll).

jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/07/isolating-evidence.html

Another example of CT "isolation" --- the several Dealey Plaza witnesses who said they heard shots coming from the Grassy Knoll area....

When ISOLATED, those witnesses seem to be providing pretty powerful evidence in favor of a conspiracy. But when putting their "Grassy Knoll" testimony up against all the other witness testimony (and when factoring in the very important and often overlooked "Multiple Directions" factor that I discuss in my article linked below), those "Grassy Knoll" witnesses don't seem nearly as solid or convincing....

jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/09/dealey-plaza-earwitnesses.html

I think it's also kind of interesting that both Ron Ecker and Glenn Nall in this thread have emphasized only the words "circumstantial evidence" to promote their claims of conspiracy in the JFK case. No "physical evidence" at all. And that's because, of course, there is no PHYSICAL evidence that supports conspiracy in this case. None. Not a piece. Therefore, the only thing CTers can turn to is "circumstantial evidence".

Now, I'm not saying all circumstantial evidence that tends to lead toward conspiracy should just be summarily dismissed and tossed in the trash. And as for me personally, I don't think I have dismissed such evidence in such a manner. I think I have debunked much of the "circumstantial evidence" of conspiracy by using sound methods of logic and common sense--plus by UN-isolating (if I may coin a phrase) that circumstantial evidence and placing it back into a framework of the TOTALITY of all evidence (like in the "Earwitnesses" example cited earlier).

But I do also think it's rather remarkable that the ENTIRE alleged "case for conspiracy" does, indeed, boil down to ONLY circumstantial evidence. No physical evidence at all. And in a case of this size and magnitude (and multiplied by THREE murders, including the murders of Tippit and Oswald himself), to have not a speck of physical evidence to support a contention of conspiracy is, IMO, rather telling.

Edited June 5, 2015 by David Von Pein

[Robert Prudhomme]

Tell me something, Dave. Wesley Frazier testified that the package LHO was carrying was a mere 2 feet long, far too short to conceal a disassembled M91/38 short rifle, and at least a foot shorter than the paper bag in evidence.

Do you think Frazier was lying when he testified about the length of the bag and, if you believe he was lying, why would he lie about the length of the bag?

[David Von Pein]

Tell me something, Dave. Wesley Frazier testified that the package LHO was carrying was a mere 2 feet long, far too short to conceal a disassembled M91/38 short rifle, and at least a foot shorter than the paper bag in evidence.

Do you think Frazier was lying when he testified about the length of the bag and, if you believe he was lying, why would he lie about the length of the bag?

No, of course Frazier wasn't lying. He truly thinks that the 38-inch bag he saw Oswald carrying was only about 24 to 27 inches in length. He was simply wrong about his estimate. He wasn't lying. He was just---wrong.

Here's what I said about it six years ago, in October of 2009.....

-----------------

Wesley Frazier and Linnie Mae Randle were obviously "mistaken" as to the precise length of Oswald's paper bag.

To believe otherwise is to believe that the brown paper bag Frazier and Randle saw Oswald carrying on 11/22/63 was a different brown paper bag from the EMPTY brown paper bag that was found in the TSBD which had OSWALD'S PRINTS ON IT.

Is a reasonable and sensible person supposed to actually believe that Oswald took a large-ish bag with him into work on November 22 that was 27 inches long, with that bag then disappearing without a trace between 8:00 AM and early- to mid-afternoon on the same day (November 22)?

And then are we supposed to believe that a similar-looking BROWN PAPER BAG (EMPTY!) turned up in the exact place from which a gunman fired shots at JFK, with this coincidence occurring (incredibly) on the very same day that Oswald carried a 27-inch BROWN PAPER BAG into the very same building where a 38-inch BROWN PAPER BAG was discovered WITH OSWALD'S PALMPRINT AND FINGERPRINT on it?

A reasonable person can arrive at only one reasonable conclusion here:

The bag that Buell Wesley Frazier and Linnie Mae Randle saw Lee Harvey Oswald carrying on the morning of the assassination was the very same paper bag that was seen lying (empty!) in the Sniper's Nest by Lt. Carl Day and Robert Studebaker of the DPD on November 22, 1963.

Accepting any other scenario other than the scenario I just mentioned in the above paragraph is to accept a scenario that lacks all fundamental logic and common sense.

Plus, any alternate "two bags" scenario raises more questions than it answers, e.g.:

1.) Where did this so-called 27-inch brown paper bag disappear to? Where is it? If Oswald really took some innocuous, innocent object(s) into the Book Depository that Friday, then why wasn't this innocuous item (curtain rods?) ever discovered by anybody after the assassination? (And if some conspiracists want to speculate that the DPD or the FBI deep-sixed the curtain rods, it would be nice to see some proof to back up such a vile allegation. To date, no such evidence has emerged from the speculation-ridden CT brigade.)

2.) How did Lee Harvey Oswald's palmprint and fingerprint manage to get on the 38-inch paper bag that is now in evidence in the National Archives (CE142)? Are we really to believe that the DPD "planted" two of Oswald's prints on that paper bag sometime after the assassination? (That's an extraordinary accusation that requires an equally extraordinary amount of proof to substantiate it, don't you agree?)

3.) If the bag that Oswald carried into the building had really merely contained curtain rods (or some other item that wasn't a gun), then why did Oswald deny ever taking such an innocent item into work on November 22nd? Did Oswald think that CURTAIN RODS could be considered a suspicious or dangerous item? Maybe he thought that the cops would accuse him of plotting to kill the President by the odd method of stabbing him to death with his curtain rods, eh?

Of course, conspiracy theorist James DiEugenio has decided to create a different scenario altogether (although this silly theory has probably been postulated by other CTers in the past as well, but I personally don't know of anyone else besides Jim D. who has gone on record as being this idiotic and paranoid):

DiEugenio has decided that Lee Oswald carried NO LARGE-ISH BAG INTO THE DEPOSITORY AT ALL on November 22nd. No bag at all!*

* DiEugenio might have suggested in the past that Oswald had a small lunch sack with him that Friday, but Jim is now pretty sure that Wesley Frazier AND Linnie Randle were part of Jim's almost-endless list of scheming liars and cover-up operatives who were attempting to frame and railroad poor schnook Oswald in November of '63, because DiEugenio thinks that Oswald carried NO BIG BAG into work at all on the morning of the President's murder.

So, Jim D. thinks that these two ordinary Irving, Texas, citizens (housewife Linnie Mae Randle and 19-year-old stock boy Buell Wesley Frazier) were lying when they each repeatedly claimed that Lee Oswald was carrying a large-ish brown bag with him on November 22.

Mr. DiEugenio evidently has never asked himself the following logical question regarding these two supposed liars:

If Frazier and Randle were really telling lies about Oswald having a large bag, then why on Earth did those two liars contend that the bag that each of them just MADE UP FROM WHOLE CLOTH was too short to hold Oswald's Mannlicher-Carcano rifle?!

If Frazier and Randle were liars (as Jim DiEugenio now claims), they were pretty crappy liars, weren't they? Because if they were really telling falsehoods about LHO carrying a large bag, then those two liars would certainly have wanted to continue the deception by saying to the authorities that the bag they created out of thin air was big enough to hold the weapon that was obviously supposed to be inside that make-believe paper bag.

So many (stupid) conspiracy theories.

So little (common) sense do any of them make.

David Von Pein

October 16, 2009

-----------------

More....

jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/07/frazier-randle-and-paper-bag.html

Edited June 5, 2015 by David Von Pein

[David Josephs]

I do not now believe that there has been one scintilla of any credible or empirical evidence of a conspiracy of any kind, in any direction, or which in any way sheds even a faint or whispered doubt on the singular and ultimate truth - that Lee Harvey Oswald acted entirely alone in the planning, execution, and assassination of JFK.

Welcome Mr. Berkley... I appreciate your candor in being able to declare with such certainty that there is no "credible or empirical evidence of conspiracy of any kind"

With regards to Oswald acting alone - I did an article assuming he did do it alone and what that plan of action might look like...

------------------------------

One of the few things I can say is an original argument of mine is the questioning and examination of the timing of events and the PLAN OIF ACTION that needed to occur for Oswald to have even been considered as involved in the assassination at all.

Let's assume for the sake of this discussion that Oswald was indeed at the SE 6th floor window at 12:30, and shots from there are fired by him, AND that he planned to kill JFK with the Mannlicher Carcano rifle. He surely could not have killed JFK with a rifle that was not there in the first place. Oswald has a few items of information he MUST have in order to pull this off, the most important being the knowledge that the motorcade and JFK's limo would pass within shooting distance of the building. Where would he get such information, and what would that info say specifically?

Commission Exhibit 1362 is the Nov 19th Dallas Times Herald article revealing the route the motorcade would take... "The motorcade will pass thru downtown on Harwood and then west on Main, turning back to Elm at Houston and then out Stemmons Freeway to the Trade Mart" AHA! Oswald, if he read or was aware of this article would now know that the motorcade would pass directly beneath the TSBD... in essence the motorcade was bringing JFK to his doorstep... Good thing he decided to take the lower paying TSBD job in October, right?

This is TUESDAY Nov 19th. The article prefaces with the fact that the formal announcement of the trip was made in Washington DC at 4pm... Could Oswald the Lone Nut have known that JFK would pass by the TSBD before that? I don't see how. Security according to Chief Curry was not even planned until Tuesday the 19th. This must have been the evening edition of the paper.

Is there any evidence from anyone in the building or anyone close to Oswald that he knew about the motorcade route that day?

According to Marina, on the night before the assassination, she asked him about Kennedy's upcoming visit the next day. Oswald seemed totally in the dark about when or where the motorcade would pass. (WC Vol. 18, p. 638)

Junior Jarman told the Commission that he did not learn about the motorcade passing in front of the Depository until that morning at about 9 AM. About an hour later, Oswald was standing near a window looking out at the gathering crowd. He asked Jarman what the people were there for. After Jarman told him, he asked which way the motorcade was coming. Which reveals, unlike the Commission assumption, that Oswald did not read the November 19th Times Herald (WC Vol. 3, p. 201).

Between the evening of Nov 19th and Thursday Nov 21 Oswald decides to get to the home of Ruth and Michael Paine to get his rifle out of the garage and bring it to work on Friday so he can do the deed. Does he make sure to ask Texas School Book Depository colleague Wesley Frazier for a ride home that day? For if he doesn't get home by Thursday night how can he get the rifle to work Friday?

Mr. FRAZIER - Well, I say, we were standing like I said at the four-headed table about half as large as this, not, quite half as large, but anyway I was standing there getting the orders in and he said, "Could I ride home with you this afternoon?"

And I said, "Sure. You know, like I told you, you can go home with me any time you want to, like I say anytime you want to go see your wife that is all right with me."

Good thing Wesley was so accommodating... Asking Thursday for a ride home, a ride that would make or break his plan to kill JFK Friday seems cutting it a bit close... And he'd have to bring that paper bag he made to hold/hide the rifle with him... yet the man who sits by the paper dispenser never leaves his desk, eats his lunch at his desk and testifies to not being away from that area... yet somehow Oswald accomplishes this construction project with no one seeing him do it... and gets it home that Thursday in the car with Wesley... maybe hidden in his pants, or shirt, or jacket, or sweater, maybe???

Marina and Ruth are very surprised to see Oswald on that Thursday as he usually gives them fair warning...

Mr. JENNER - Let's proceed with the 21st. Did anything occur on the 21st with respect to Lee Harvey Oswald, that is a Thursday?

Mrs. PAINE - I arrived home from grocery shopping around 5:30, and he was on the front lawn. I was surprised to see him.

Mr. JENNER - You had no advance notice?

Mrs. PAINE - I had no advance notice and he had never before come without asking whether he could.

Mr. JENNER - Never before had he come to your home in that form without asking your permission to come?

Mrs. PAINE - Without asking permission; that is right.

It is here we are treated to Ruth Paine's story about the garage door and light being left on... she never sees Oswald in the garage, never hears him... and even goes on to tell reporters:

Mrs. PAINE - I said I did not see how he could have taken the gun from the garage without my knowing it.

As noted researcher Carol Hewett pointed out, evidently Ruth did not know that Marina said Lee was with her that night in her room and fell asleep. Yet somehow, he got into the garage, into the blanket, disassembled the rifle, placed it in the paper bag and made it ready for his leaving the following morning... if the OSWALD PLAN to kill JFK can even occur... maybe all this happened in the morning?

Mr. JENNER - You heard no moving about on his part prior to your awakening?

Mrs. PAINE - No moving about on his part at all when I looked when I awoke.

Mrs. OSWALD. Yes. He then stopped talking and sat down and watched television and then went to bed. I went to bed later. It was about 9 o'clock when he went to sleep. I went to sleep about 11:30. But it seemed to me that he was not really asleep. But I didn't talk to him.

In the morning he got up, said goodbye, and left, and that I shouldn't get up--as always, I did not get up to prepare breakfast. This was quite usual.

So the entire household was awake at 9pm when Oswald goes to sleep... and there is no mention of the time or sounds involved in what Oswald needed to do to get his 40" rifle into that bag...

But he must have at some point as he walks to the Frazier's with this large bag in his possession... which we come to learn must be at least 34" long to hold the largest piece of the broken down rifle. Also in this bag are the clip, the ammo, the scope and the barrel with firing mechanism... Metal and wood adding up to 7.5 lbs, with nothing to keep it from banging into itself, tearing this bag, or anything else.

Surely the people at the Frazier household see this bag? And they do and testify to it...

Mrs. RANDLE. No, sir; the top with just a little bit sticking up. You know just like you grab something like that.

Mr. BALL. And he was grabbing it with his right hand at the top of the package and the package almost touched the ground?

Mrs. RANDLE. Yes, sir.

(this 5'9" man holding his arm at his side carrying the bag, and this 34" piece did not touch the ground...ok)

...

Mr. BALL. Now, was the length of it any similar, anywhere near similar?

Mrs. RANDLE. Well, it wasn't that long, I mean it was folded down at the top as I told you. It definitely wasn't that long.

...

Mrs. RANDLE. I measured 27" last time.

Mr. BALL. You measured 27" once before?

Mrs. RANDLE. Yes, sir.

Hmmm... maybe she didn't get a good look... what does Wesley say about this bag?

Mr. FRAZIER - Well, I will be frank with you, I would just, it is right as you get out of the grocery store, just more or less out of a package, you have seen some of these brown paper sacks you can obtain from any, most of the stores, some varieties, but it was a package just roughly about two feet long.

So it appears that Oswald is able to carry a 34"-40" rifle in a bag quite a bit smaller... yet measurements can be deceiving... maybe they underestimated; they MUST HAVE since the Lone Nut Oswald did get the rifle from the garage; where it had never been seen by anyone in the house; to the TSBD on the morning of the 22nd in the back seat of Wesley's car. And was able to tuck this rifle under his arm and carry it into the TSBD... Did anyone see Oswald when he arrived that morning?

One man, Edward Shields, claims he is told by his "friends" that they see Wesley drop Oswald off at the back door... yet this is 2nd hand hearsay and virtually impossible to prove... Luckily Mr. Dougherty was not only at the back entrance when Oswald arrives, but see whether or not anything is in his hands at the time...

After the same question about Oswald is asked and answered a number of times we finally have as evidence:

Mr. BALL - In other words, you would say positively he had nothing in his hands?

Mr. DOUGHERTY - I would say that---yes, sir.

Is there anyone other than Wesley and his sister that claims they see Oswald with a package, bag, rifle or anything in his hands that morning? Nope. Yet he MUST HAVE since his plan was to kill JFK as he passed by later that day... and we get back now to the timing from that day.

After slipping by everyone with the package he stows it... where? Where does Oswald place this 27 to 40 inch bag with rifle parts in it so that it is undisturbed and available when he is ready to execute his plan. Maybe behind some boxes on the 6th floor? Since he knows there is work being done up there and the place is in disarray, no one would notice it... Maybe the 1st floor domino room? A hall closet? Well, no matter, it had to have been somewhere since this same rifle (supposedly) is found on the 6th floor, fully assembled at 1:22pm.

Back now to his knowledge of the motorcade route and the timing. What information is available to this Lone Nut master planner of JFK's death as to WHEN the motorcade would pass by the TSBD? He'd have to know this to at least be looking out a window at the time so as to take a shot... right?

We come to find that Secret Service agent Winston Lawson tells Chief Curry that the luncheon was to begin at 12:15... that the plane was to land at 11:30 and after a 45 min motorcade thru Dallas, arrive at the Trade Mart. VIP invitations had been sent and received which stated the Luncheon was to start at 12 NOON.

So basically even if he was able to know about what Lawson said to Curry, or had seen an invitation to the event, to this LONE NUT KILLER the motorcade would have to pass by the TSBD between 11:55 and 12:10... well before 12:30 in any case. At the same time he knew he had to retrieve the bag with the rifle in it, reassemble the rifle and be at some window facing Elm when he drove by or miss out on his chance for immortality. We make the assumption that Oswald MUST determine a time for the limo and JFK to pass by his place of work; otherwise how can he carry out his plan?

So, is there any corroborated sightings of Oswald during this time? It seems that Eddie Piper, who was with Junior Jarman and Harold Norman, sees Oswald on the 1st floor around noon... no bag, no rifle. Oswald even mentions seeing these 2 men in statements attributed to him. Carolyn Arnold claims to have seen him around 12:15 also on a lower floor... all the while Arnold Rowland eventually testifies that a man with a rifle is in the SW 6th floor window around 12:15... SOMEONE knew when to expect the motorcade... Concurrently Bonnie Ray Williams is eating his lunch 10 feet from the SE corner of the 6th floor sometime between 12 and 12:15.

Mr. WILLIAMS. It was after I had left the sixth floor, after I had eaten the chicken sandwich. I finished the chicken sandwich maybe 10 or 15 minutes after 12. I could say approximately what time it was.

Mr. BALL. Approximately what time was it?

Mr. WILLIAMS. Approximately 12:20, maybe.

Mr. BALL. Well, now, when you talked to the FBI on the 23d day of November, you said that you went up to the sixth floor about 12 noon with your lunch, and you stayed only about 3 minutes, and seeing no one you came down to the fifth floor, using the stairs at the west end of the building. Now, do you think you stayed longer than 3 minutes up there?

Mr. WILLIAMS. I am sure I stayed longer than 3 minutes.

Mr. BALL. Do you remember telling the FBI you only stayed 3 minutes up there?

Mr. WILLIAMS. I do not remember telling them I only stayed 3 minutes.

Why would the FBI lie about that? According to them, no one sees Oswald between 11:50 and 12:30. If Williams is on the 6th floor only a few yards from the sniper's window, surely he would hear the assembling of a rifle or the moving of boxes to encircle the "nest." With Williams leaving at 12:15 or just after, and leaving via the elevators next to the stairs, Oswald, whose only knowledge of the motorcade timing can come from those he is in contact with between 11:30 (when the plane was supposed to land) and 11:55 (when the plane actually lands), MUST have passed him either on the stairs, on the 6th floor, or was already on the 6th floor at 12:00 with the bag and rifle. Yet we've already proven that he was on the first floor around 12:00... Maybe he arrives at the 6th floor just as Williams arrives at the windows of the 5th floor?

Williams finally meets up with pals Harold Norman and Junior Jarman on the 5th floor since, as he put it:

Mr. DULLES. You were all alone as far as you knew at that time on the sixth floor?

Mr. WILLIAMS. Yes, sir.

Mr. DULLES. During that period of from 12 o'clock about to--10 or 15 minutes after?

Mr. WILLIAMS. Yes, sir. I felt like I was all alone. That is one of the reasons I left--because it was so quiet.

The man who finds out about JFK passing by his window just 3 days before and goes through a variety of activities to insure he is at ANY window facing Elm when he KNOWS JFK is passing by... appears completely unconcerned about the motorcade and timing as late as 12:15... and most definitely not involved in preparing for this event PRIOR to 12:00. He has gone home, out of the ordinary; walked to Frazier's rather than get picked up, out of the ordinary; is carrying a bag which has to contain a 34" piece of rifle with other rifle parts/ammo, out of the ordinary; find a place to stow this weapon for later retrieval, out of the ordinary; and has an idea as to when the limo carrying JFK will be within range so he can be ready.

Between 11:50 and 12:20 there are people on the back elevators and stairs either coming down for lunch, retrieving cigarettes, going up for lunch, going up to view the parade, coming down to join friends. While the plan may be sound, the opportunity simply never presents itself. From all the available evidence, Oswald is either in the 1st or 2nd floor lunchrooms at around 12:00 and must be concerned that his plan to kill JFK requires him to vanish unnoticed only to appear ready to fire at the correct time. The correct time... one of the largest holes in Oswald's plan for immortality. From the time, 3 days prior, that Oswald learns that JFK is passing by his workplace, until he places the bagged rifle in a safe hiding place for retrieval at the appointed time, there remains little if any evidence to support any of the actions necessary were ever carried out. And now, at 12:00 on the fateful day, this small, never-amount-to-anything man with the US intelligence community swirling around him for the past 2-4 years, is just sitting calmly eating his lunch.

When WAS the limo going to pass by, for real?

We come to find that Mrs. Reid talks to her husband who is listening to the radio which states that the plane arrived late and the limo did not leave Love field until 11:55... how fortuitous for the assassin who is obviously pressed for time to get to a window when he BELIEVES, when any information available to this loner tells him the limo should pass by.

Mrs. REID. Well, I left, I ate my lunch hurriedly, I wasn't watching the time but I wanted to be sure of getting out on the streets in time for the parade before he got there, and I called my husband, who works at the records building, and they had a radio in their office and they were listening as the parade progressed and he told me they were running about 10 minutes late.

Yet how would Oswald know this? There is not a single bit of evidence that is shared by anyone who claims to have told Oswald anything about a radio broadcast and the delay in the motorcade... it is also not until 12:20 at the very least that Mrs. Reid finally decides to leave the lunchroom and attend the parade.

Mr. BELIN. All right. Do you know about what time it was that you left the lunchroom, was it 12, 12:15?

Mrs. REID. I think around 12:30 somewhere along in there

Is it possible that Oswald was still in the same lunchroom as Mrs. Reid? Did she see any men in the lunchroom when she finally decides to leave, KNOWING that the parade is running a bit late...?

Mr. BELIN. Were you the last person in the lunchroom?

Mrs. REID. No; I could not say that because I don't remember that part of it because I was going out of the building by myself, I wasn't even, you know, connected with anyone at all.

Mr. BELIN. Were there any men in the lunchroom when you left there?

Mrs. REID. I can't, I don't, remember that.

Up to this point in the questioning, and for the rest of the questioning, Mrs. Reid has remained calm and answered directly and easily... and then she is asked if she is the last person in the room... "No," she claims and rather than finally answering the question about any MEN in the room when she left... she states:

Mrs. REID. I can't, I don't, remember that.

Mr. BELIN. All right.

Mrs. REID. I can't remember the time they left.

If indeed Oswald was in that lunchroom; and there is evidence he was for his lunch around 12:00; then he was there when Mrs. Reid leaves the room... If this is NOT Oswald... where is he given his plan to have the rifle ready to fire from a South facing window between 12:00 and 12:30.

Let's give him the benefit of the doubt... at a little after noon on the 22nd Oswald has to accomplish the following: Retrieve the rifle, assemble the rifle, assemble the sniper's nest in the SE 6th floor corner without leaving a prints on any of these 20+ 40 lb boxes, hope that no one is on the 6th floor at the time, and do so without being seen or heard by anyone... for as we have the testimony... no one hears any of this happen or sees any of this occurring...

What is seen are men on the 6th floor at 12:15, one on the SW with a rifle and one on the SE looking out a window... neither of these men are Oswald... and both of these men are seen by a number of witnesses.

But no matter... since he MUST HAVE been able to accomplish all this within 15 to 20 minutes without actually knowing any of the timing details... we have to give him kudos for a good plan, even though there is virtually nothing to prove that any of these necessary steps were taken by Oswald.

Within 2 minutes of the shots being fired he is supposedly stopped in the lunchroom on the 2nd floor... yet that's not what Officer Marrion Baker writes on 11/22 and signs on 11/22 in his AFFIDAVIT IN ANY FACT.

"As we reached the third or fourth floor I saw a man walking away from the stairway. I called to the man and he turned around and came back toward me. The manager said, "I know that man, he works here." I then turned the man loose and went up to the top floor. The man I saw was a white man approximately 30 years old, 5'9," 165 pounds, dark hair and wearing a light brown jacket."

No 2nd floor, no door to the lunchroom, no window in the door, no pulling of his pistol, none of this story to be is recorded on the afternoon of the killing by the Officer who stopped someone coming down the stairs 1-2 flights higher up and from where the shots were supposedly fired... the lunchroom scene does not materialize until the testimony of Roy Truly and Officer Baker, and in fact takes what would have been a much shorter time period for Baker's affidavit; "we reached the third or fourth floor I saw a man walking away from the stairway." The content of this first hand first day recollection is ignored by the WC, which creates a scenario to avoid identifying whoever it was that Baker and Truly intercept coming down the stairs.

Despite all this we still have Oswald firing 3 times from this window with "that" rifle. For Oswald to have accomplished this amazing feat of shooting and to corroborate with witnesses, the barrel of the rifle was protruding from the window...

Mr. EUINS. The man in the window. I could see his hand, and I could see his other hand on the trigger, and one hand was on the barrel thing.

Mr. SPECTER. All right. Now, at the time the second shot was fired, where were you looking then?

Mr. EUINS. I was still looking at the building, you know, behind this--I was looking at the building.

Mr. SPECTER. Looking at anything special in the building?

Mr. EUINS. Yes, sir. I was looking where the barrel was sticking out.

Mr. SPECTER. And how long was the piece of pipe that you saw?

Mr. EUINS. It was sticking out about that much.

Mr. SPECTER. About 14 or 15 inches?

Mr. EUINS. Yes, sir.

...

Mr. BELIN. Could you tell whether or not it had any kind of a scope on it?

Mr. BRENNAN. I did not observe a scope.

Mr. BELIN. How much of the gun do you believe that you saw?

Mr. BRENNAN. I calculate 70 to 85 percent of the gun.

Three men, Norman, Williams and Jarman where positioned on the 5th floor directly beneath the SE corner not 15 feet from the muzzle of the rifle. These three men just feet below the SE window are subject to a rifle blast that produces over 150dB of sound/shockwave. Studies show that this level of sound, even down to 120dB, will render a person temporarily deaf, cause ringing in the ears and be quite painful for some time afterward... and not only does it happen once but 2 more times... yet one of these men claims to be able to hear the working of the bolt and clinking of the shells on the floor above... A sound this loud, repeated twice more from the same location and these men can only "think" or "believe" someone is shooting at the president... It stretches the bounds of credibility... but it MUST have happened that way...

Mr. NORMAN. I believe it was his right arm, and I can't remember what the exact time was but I know I heard a shot, and then after I heard the shot, well, it seems as though the President, you know, slumped or something, and then another shot and I believe Jarman or someone told me, he said, "I believe someone is shooting at the President," and I think I made a statement "It is someone shooting at the President, and I believe it came from up above us."

Well, I couldn't see at all during the time but I know I heard a third shot fired, and I could also hear something sounded like the shell hulls hitting the floor and the ejecting of the rifle, it sounded as though it was to me.

Given what we now know about what Oswald could have known, and that we agree that he must have had a plan, even if only created three days before on Tuesday once he learns JFK is coming to Dallas and passing under his place of employment... It stretches the bounds of credibility to accept that this plan includes not knowing when the limo is to pass by and in turn having to be in a position to use the rifle he took such pains to bring to as well as hide in the TSBD. None of Oswald's necessary activities are offered by the WCR to support such a plan. It's all tautological: He must have been there because he had to be in order to fire the shots.

The Evidence is the Conspiracy...

when I originally offered the concept in August of 2010 on this forum it was well received and completely blows the WCR scenario out of the water... it remains impossible for the events to have happened the way they were described and not even possible to be considered by any thinking person.

As Vince Bugliosi says, although he wishes you conclude the opposite, this is indeed the most complicated murder of all time, and the WCR proves it to be so. Talking about the "evidence" as if it indicates anything related to the assassination is a hoax and a cruel joke on anyone who continues to play the game... The magician's trick of getting you to look here while the deception is happening over there...

-----------------------------------

Curtis - as for visual evidence of a conspiracy to implicate Oswald as the Lone assassin Gerald Ford had the rear bullet hole moved up above the collar bone when Burkely confirms a T3 entry.

The SBT - if debunked - makes it impossible for and single shooter from the rear to accomplish the shooting feat attributed. There was a reason these men did not see the clothing or the xrays or the photos and relied on verbal desrciptions to create illustrated representations of what occurred rather than show what really happened.

This is empirical evidence that the WC changed the evidence in order to remove speculation of a potential conspiracy to kill JFK. Senator Schwieker tells us that the CIA withholding information about their Castro assassination attempts remains on the most egregious examples of the conspiracy to implicate Oswald as an unconnected Lone Nut...

This is the Ryberg illustration with Ford's replacement of the hole - along with the actual shirt and an actual skeleton. Why did the WCR lie about the location of the entry wound that suppoedly exits the throat, when the real wound is well below the supposed "exit" ?

Edited June 5, 2015 by David Josephs

[Greg Burnham]

I plan to create a website with 10 to 15 of what I feel to be the strong pieces of evidence to suggest a conspiracy specifically for this reason.

I have brought this up in another thread, but here's the most recent gem: http://www.rtl.fr/actu/international/kennedy-le-reve-a-ete-assassine-avec-l-homme-dit-giscard-7767111282 - Former French president Valéry Giscard d'Estaing going public that Ford admitted to him that the Warren Commission knew there was an organized plot.

Try this for starters:

[Cliff Varnell]

As I've said - I am perfectly willing to admit my error, and would sincerely welcome it - but only at the presentment of empirically credible and independently verifiable proof and evidences. One of the best things about being on this side, is that it is the CT's who are making the claim, and are burdened with producing it's support and defense.

The bullet holes in JFK's clothes are too low to have been associated with the throat wound.

The physical evidence in the JFK assassination has been systematically suppressed, first by the US government, then by the mainstream media, then by the army of Pet Theorists who comprise the JFK Assassination Critical Research Community.

I highly recommend studying the following:

"The Warren Commission, The Truth, and Arlen Specter"

by Gaeton Fonzi

http://www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/WCTandAS.html

"The Waters of Knowledge versus the Waters of Uncertainty -- Mass Denial in the Assassination of President Kennedy"

by E. Martin Schotz

http://www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/COPA1998EMS.html#s1

"Notes on Lunch With Arlen Specter"

by Vincent Salandria

http://archive.politicalassassinations.net/2012/11/1560/

Edited June 5, 2015 by Cliff Varnell

[Cliff Varnell]

I plan to create a website with 10 to 15 of what I feel to be the strong pieces of evidence to suggest a conspiracy specifically for this reason.

I have brought this up in another thread, but here's the most recent gem: http://www.rtl.fr/actu/international/kennedy-le-reve-a-ete-assassine-avec-l-homme-dit-giscard-7767111282 - Former French president Valéry Giscard d'Estaing going public that Ford admitted to him that the Warren Commission knew there was an organized plot.

Try this for starters:

Sure.

Listen to Pat Speer talk about the fictional T1 back wound?

You're right, Greg, the JFK cover-up is live and well: Pogo-time.

"We have met the enemy and he is us."

[Robert Prudhomme]

Tell me something, Dave. Wesley Frazier testified that the package LHO was carrying was a mere 2 feet long, far too short to conceal a disassembled M91/38 short rifle, and at least a foot shorter than the paper bag in evidence.

Do you think Frazier was lying when he testified about the length of the bag and, if you believe he was lying, why would he lie about the length of the bag?

No, of course Frazier wasn't lying. He truly thinks that the 38-inch bag he saw Oswald carrying was only about 24 to 27 inches in length. He was simply wrong about his estimate. He wasn't lying. He was just---wrong.

Here's what I said about it six years ago, in October of 2009.....

-----------------

Wesley Frazier and Linnie Mae Randle were obviously "mistaken" as to the precise length of Oswald's paper bag.

To believe otherwise is to believe that the brown paper bag Frazier and Randle saw Oswald carrying on 11/22/63 was a different brown paper bag from the EMPTY brown paper bag that was found in the TSBD which had OSWALD'S PRINTS ON IT.

Is a reasonable and sensible person supposed to actually believe that Oswald took a large-ish bag with him into work on November 22 that was 27 inches long, with that bag then disappearing without a trace between 8:00 AM and early- to mid-afternoon on the same day (November 22)?

And then are we supposed to believe that a similar-looking BROWN PAPER BAG (EMPTY!) turned up in the exact place from which a gunman fired shots at JFK, with this coincidence occurring (incredibly) on the very same day that Oswald carried a 27-inch BROWN PAPER BAG into the very same building where a 38-inch BROWN PAPER BAG was discovered WITH OSWALD'S PALMPRINT AND FINGERPRINT on it?

A reasonable person can arrive at only one reasonable conclusion here:

The bag that Buell Wesley Frazier and Linnie Mae Randle saw Lee Harvey Oswald carrying on the morning of the assassination was the very same paper bag that was seen lying (empty!) in the Sniper's Nest by Lt. Carl Day and Robert Studebaker of the DPD on November 22, 1963.

Accepting any other scenario other than the scenario I just mentioned in the above paragraph is to accept a scenario that lacks all fundamental logic and common sense.

Plus, any alternate "two bags" scenario raises more questions than it answers, e.g.:

1.) Where did this so-called 27-inch brown paper bag disappear to? Where is it? If Oswald really took some innocuous, innocent object(s) into the Book Depository that Friday, then why wasn't this innocuous item (curtain rods?) ever discovered by anybody after the assassination? (And if some conspiracists want to speculate that the DPD or the FBI deep-sixed the curtain rods, it would be nice to see some proof to back up such a vile allegation. To date, no such evidence has emerged from the speculation-ridden CT brigade.)

2.) How did Lee Harvey Oswald's palmprint and fingerprint manage to get on the 38-inch paper bag that is now in evidence in the National Archives (CE142)? Are we really to believe that the DPD "planted" two of Oswald's prints on that paper bag sometime after the assassination? (That's an extraordinary accusation that requires an equally extraordinary amount of proof to substantiate it, don't you agree?)

3.) If the bag that Oswald carried into the building had really merely contained curtain rods (or some other item that wasn't a gun), then why did Oswald deny ever taking such an innocent item into work on November 22nd? Did Oswald think that CURTAIN RODS could be considered a suspicious or dangerous item? Maybe he thought that the cops would accuse him of plotting to kill the President by the odd method of stabbing him to death with his curtain rods, eh?

Of course, conspiracy theorist James DiEugenio has decided to create a different scenario altogether (although this silly theory has probably been postulated by other CTers in the past as well, but I personally don't know of anyone else besides Jim D. who has gone on record as being this idiotic and paranoid):

DiEugenio has decided that Lee Oswald carried NO LARGE-ISH BAG INTO THE DEPOSITORY AT ALL on November 22nd. No bag at all!*

* DiEugenio might have suggested in the past that Oswald had a small lunch sack with him that Friday, but Jim is now pretty sure that Wesley Frazier AND Linnie Randle were part of Jim's almost-endless list of scheming liars and cover-up operatives who were attempting to frame and railroad poor schnook Oswald in November of '63, because DiEugenio thinks that Oswald carried NO BIG BAG into work at all on the morning of the President's murder.

So, Jim D. thinks that these two ordinary Irving, Texas, citizens (housewife Linnie Mae Randle and 19-year-old stock boy Buell Wesley Frazier) were lying when they each repeatedly claimed that Lee Oswald was carrying a large-ish brown bag with him on November 22.

Mr. DiEugenio evidently has never asked himself the following logical question regarding these two supposed liars:

If Frazier and Randle were really telling lies about Oswald having a large bag, then why on Earth did those two liars contend that the bag that each of them just MADE UP FROM WHOLE CLOTH was too short to hold Oswald's Mannlicher-Carcano rifle?!

If Frazier and Randle were liars (as Jim DiEugenio now claims), they were pretty crappy liars, weren't they? Because if they were really telling falsehoods about LHO carrying a large bag, then those two liars would certainly have wanted to continue the deception by saying to the authorities that the bag they created out of thin air was big enough to hold the weapon that was obviously supposed to be inside that make-believe paper bag.

So many (stupid) conspiracy theories.

So little (common) sense do any of them make.

David Von Pein

October 16, 2009

-----------------

More....

jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/07/frazier-randle-and-paper-bag.html

Seriously, Dave, both brother and sister make separate and independent estimations of the length of the bag, both are mistaken and, incredibly, both estimate the length to be 24-27" inches? Not sure I'd be calling anyone else's theories stupid, little man.