Who supports/promotes the shills?

[David Von Pein]

How would he [bW Frazier] know what size bag the rifle would fit into?

Beats me. It's your fantasy theory. You figure it out.

But, then too, if the whole idea of a fake bag was to frame Oswald with it and to put Oswald's rifle inside that fake bag (and what possible other reason could there have been for anybody to want to fake such a piece of evidence like the paper bag?), then wouldn't it have been useful for Frazier to at least have a good idea of how long to make his pretend bag so the frame-up of Mr. Oswald could have a chance of succeeding?

He made the bag theory up.

Why would he do that? What the hell for? To frame the man he said he liked?

And if you think as Jim DiEugenio does that it was the Dallas Police Department who really put the "Fake Bag" idea into the head of Wes Frazier, then how come the DPD didn't feed Frazier the proper dimensions for the invented bag (so the fake bag could hold the patsy's rifle)? More boobs at the DPD, I guess.

Once he and his sister had decided on the size[,] they couldn't retract.

Why not? People change their minds all the time.

Edited June 23, 2015 by David Von Pein

[Pat Speer]

If you believe Frazier was right about the bag then you have to believe he was right about the size.

Are you serious, Ray? (Or did you type before you were fully awake this morning?)

I most certainly do not "have to believe" that Buell Frazier perfectly nailed the size of Oswald's paper bag. In fact, that's crazy.

Frazier saw a bag, yes. He was simply wrong when he was later asked to try and nail down the precise length of that bag.

Now, why can't those two things go together, Ray? Of course they can go together. You just don't WANT them to co-exist, so you just made up a brand-new rule that is quite laughable indeed:

"If you believe Frazier was right about the bag then you have to believe he was right about the size."

Hilarious.

While you are correct, David, in saying that one need not accept all of someone's testimony to accept part of his testimony, you are greatly simplifying the situation re Frazier and the bag by saying it was the "precise" length that was the problem.

1) Frazier saw the bag two times--in the back of the car--and in Oswald's arms. At neither time did this bag, to Frazier's recollection both on the day of the assassination, and afterward, even remotely resemble the bag eventually placed into evidence. He said it was the wrong kind of paper, and he described it as both shorter and thinner than the bag in the archives, to such an extent even that the bag he recalled was barely HALF as large as the bag in the archives. (Archives bag is 38 by 8 1/2 = 323 sq inches, while Frazier's recollection was of a bag 27 x 6 = 162 sq inches.) Frazier confirmed this approximation, moreover, after close examination of a mock-up of the bag in the back seat of his car. The archives bag took up almost the whole back seat while it was his strong recollection the bag took up nowhere near that much space.

2) I had the pleasure of meeting Frazier last year and explaining the whole situation to him. Apparently, it had never been explained to him that the paper bag in the archives matched the paper in the school book depository, and that this led the WC and subsequent researchers to conclude Oswald brought the bag to Irving the day before the shooting. When I told Frazier this, and asked if he was familiar with the properties of the paper used in the depository, and whether it was possible for Oswald to have smuggled a large paper bag in his clothing on the way home from Irving on the day before the shooting without his realizing it, his eyes got sad, and then angry. And he blurted "That didn't happen!" So, there you go. Frazier is not merely a "that doesn't match my precise recollection" witness, he is a "that did not happen, no how, no way" witness. To make an analogy, he is not merely someone who says "The bank robber looked about 5 feet tall to me" when the suspect is 5 feet six inches, he is someone who says the bank robber was about 5 feet tall, and white, when the suspect was 7 feet tall and black.

3) When you add Frazier's recollections of the bag's physical appearance, including its size, and his recollection of Oswald's behavior on the trip home from Irving--all of which indicate the bag in the archives is not the bag he saw in Oswald's possession--to the mysterious chain of evidence regarding the bag--e.g. none of those "discovering" the sniper's nest recalled seeing the bag in the sniper's nest, and Lt. Day's lying about signing the bag when discovered in the building--it becomes clear that the bag is extremely problematic for the Oswald did-it conclusion.

4) The problems with the bag are only amplified, moreover, when one studies the reports of the Dallas Police. Montgomery and Johnson claimed they took the bag from the building around 2:30 when the photos of them leaving the building prove it was 3:00. Similarly, Rose, Stovall, and Adamcik claimed they only found out about the bag after going to the Paine's door around 3:30, when the reports of their fellow detectives and deputies, not to mention the statements of Marina and Ruth Paine, prove this was a lie, and that they actually went to the door around 2:30.

Pretty darned convenient, IMO. We have two separate statements from Dallas detectives, which, when combined, suggest they'd found the bag in the building before they'd been told (by Frazier's sister, Linnie Mae Randle) that Oswald had been carrying a bag. When the reverse was true. They were told Oswald had been carrying a bag, and then PRESTO! CHANGE-O! They found a bag in the building! Flat on the floor by the sniper's nest! In a location examined by numerous detectives and deputies before them. None of whom recalled seeing the bag. Amazing. Truly amazing.

Edited June 23, 2015 by Pat Speer

[Kenneth Drew]

So. is it your contention that Frazier was telling the truth about the bag but he was lying about the size?

I guess you have a problem reading, eh Ray?

Replay.....

"I, on the other hand, don't have to call Frazier a "xxxx" even once. I don't think he LIED when he said the paper bag was only around 24 to 27 inches long. I merely think he was WRONG. He miscalculated the length of the bag. Nothing more than that. (And, yes, so did Linnie Mae Randle in some of her bag estimates.) But I don't think either of them were liars." -- DVP

Let's say Frazier is not a xxxx, the bag was really 24" long and LHO carried no lunch bag. All these are 'facts', not 'myths', so that means there was no rifle in the 24" bag and the lunch bag found in the sniper's nest with chicken bones did not belong to LHO. We all accept these as 'truths' since we all know that everyone only tells the truth.

You can't 'assume' anyone was 'mistaken' if you're going to make that claim, you have to have proof, not imagination.

[Kenneth Drew]

Unfortunately for you, the chaff is this case is the wheat and the wheat the chaff.

Yeah, sure Ray.

All of Oswald's known LIES are really TRUTHS, right?

And all of Buell Frazier's TRUTHS are really big fat LIES (and the same with his sister, Linnie Mae).

As usual, a CTer has everything backward and has no idea how to properly assess the JFK evidence.

Just another day at the office for CTers. All speculation, but not a single non-LHO bullet or non-LHO gunman.

As usual, a CTer has everything backward and has no idea how to properly assess the JFK evidence. We just don't all understand how lucky we are to have a Nutter here with the ability to discern 'truth'. Well, except for the little technicality that he can't put a rifle in LHO's hands, he can't put LHO in the sniper's nest, he can't put LHO at the JDT scene. Other than that, he's started trying to drive tacks around the edge, that's his weak attempt to get it nailed down.

[Kenneth Drew]

Keep spouting your rubbish, David. We all enjoy knocking it down.

When can I expect the "knocking down" to start, Ray? It certainly hasn't happened as yet.

And if you think you've advanced the super silly "Frazier Lied; There Was No Paper Bag At All" theory, you're dreaming.

And please explain why Frazier made it impossible for Oswald's rifle to fit inside a bag he (or the police) merely "invented" from whole cloth? You never did tell us why Mr. Frazier would have done something so incredibly stupid and contradictory.

The "No Bag At All" theory goes sliding down the toilet (where it belongs) based on that contradiction alone.

When can I expect the "knocking down" to start, Ray? It certainly hasn't happened as yet. There's nothing to knock down yet, David. You still haven't shown any link between LHO and the assassination other than the role of a patsy. Once you put up something to knock down, the sledge hammers will get started.

[Kenneth Drew]

How would he [bW Frazier] know what size bag the rifle would fit into?

Beats me. It's your fantasy theory. You figure it out.

But, then too, if the whole idea of a fake bag was to frame Oswald with it and to put Oswald's rifle inside that fake bag (and what possible other reason could there have been for anybody to want to fake such a piece of evidence like the paper bag?), then wouldn't it have been useful for Frazier to at least have a good idea of how long to make his pretend bag so the frame-up of Mr. Oswald could have a chance of succeeding?

He made the bag theory up.

Why would he do that? What the hell for? To frame the man he said he liked?

And if you think as Jim DiEugenio does that it was the Dallas Police Department who really put the "Fake Bag" idea into the head of Wes Frazier, then how come the DPD didn't feed Frazier the proper dimensions for the invented bag (so the fake bag could hold the patsy's rifle)? More boobs at the DPD, I guess.

Once he and his sister had decided on the size[,] they couldn't retract.

Why not? People change their minds all the time.

Why not? People change their minds all the time. See DVP's statements as evidence of that.

[Thomas Graves]

We can argue all day about bag length and lunch or no lunch, and never get anywhere.

Or, we can just admit there is no way a shooter in the SE corner of the 6th floor of the TSBD can put a bullet through JFK's neck and the right side of JFK's trachea without that bullet going through a vertebra.

Am I right or am I right?

Or am I right?

Robert,

You mean Oswald didn't shoot him from that window?

Just kidding, folks.

--Tommy

Edited June 23, 2015 by Thomas Graves

[Kenneth Drew]

We can argue all day about bag length and lunch or no lunch, and never get anywhere.

Or, we can just admit there is no way a shooter in the SE corner of the 6th floor of the TSBD can put a bullet through JFK's neck and the right side of JFK's trachea without that bullet going through a vertebra.

Am I right or am I right?

Or am I right?

Robert,

You mean Oswald didn't shoot him from that window?

Just kidding, folks.

--Tommy

--Tommy

OMG, what a revelation. Yep, you got that right.

[Thomas Graves]

We can argue all day about bag length and lunch or no lunch, and never get anywhere.

Or, we can just admit there is no way a shooter in the SE corner of the 6th floor of the TSBD can put a bullet through JFK's neck and the right side of JFK's trachea without that bullet going through a vertebra.

Am I right or am I right?

Or am I right?

Robert,

You mean Oswald didn't shoot him from that window?

Just kidding, folks.

--Tommy

OMG, what a revelation. Yep, you got that right.

Drew,

Apparently my attempt at humor went over your head, kinda like the bullet that injured James Tague down by the Triple Underpass..

Which, come to think of it, Oswald, just might have fired from that window, intentionally missing JFK and everyone else.

--Tommy

[Kenneth Drew]

We can argue all day about bag length and lunch or no lunch, and never get anywhere.

Or, we can just admit there is no way a shooter in the SE corner of the 6th floor of the TSBD can put a bullet through JFK's neck and the right side of JFK's trachea without that bullet going through a vertebra.

Am I right or am I right?

Or am I right?

Robert,

You mean Oswald didn't shoot him from that window?

Just kidding, folks.

--Tommy

OMG, what a revelation. Yep, you got that right.

Drew,

Apparently my attempt at humor went over your head, kinda like the bullet that injured James Tague down by the Triple Underpass..

Which, come to think of it, Oswald, just might have fired from that window, intentionally missing JFK and everyone else.

--Tommy

Apparently my attempt at humor went over your head, kinda like the bullet that injured James Tague down by the Triple Underpass.. Don't quit your day job.

[Thomas Graves]

We can argue all day about bag length and lunch or no lunch, and never get anywhere.

Or, we can just admit there is no way a shooter in the SE corner of the 6th floor of the TSBD can put a bullet through JFK's neck and the right side of JFK's trachea without that bullet going through a vertebra.

Am I right or am I right?

Or am I right?

Robert,

You mean Oswald didn't shoot him from that window?

Just kidding, folks.

--Tommy

OMG, what a revelation. Yep, you got that right.

Drew,

Apparently my attempt at humor went over your head, kinda like the bullet that injured James Tague down by the Triple Underpass..

Which, come to think of it, Oswald, just might have fired from that window, intentionally missing JFK and everyone else.

--Tommy

Apparently my attempt at humor went over your head, kinda like the bullet that injured James Tague down by the Triple Underpass.. Don't quit your day job.

Of course I won't, Drew. After all, I'm a very highly-paid CIA disinformation specialist.

LOL

--Tommy

PS I don't know how long you've been "into" the JFK assassination, but I must say that to me you come across like an over-jealous "newbie".

Me? I've been into it for a while and I'm starting to come over to Jon G. Tidd's point of view. That Oswald was just a perfect self-made patsy, that he was "spotted" by the bad guys (not the CIA as an organization) a few months or a few minutes before the assassination, and that he just happened to be one of two boys whose identities were manipulated and merged by some U.S. intelligence agency for several years, making him "bullet proof" cover-up wise.

In other words, the planets were in perfect alignment!

Edited June 23, 2015 by Thomas Graves

[Kenneth Drew]

Of course I won't, Drew. After all, I'm a very highly-paid CIA disinformation specialist. I didn't see your name on the list last time I checked. Are you a 'secret' agent?

PS I don't know how long you've been "into" the JFK assassination, but I must say that to me you come across like an over-jealous "newbie". I'm not sure what classifies as a 'newbie', but I've been following it since about 1 PM on 11/22/63. Read many many books on it. I know there was a conspiracy, I know there were many involved, I don't know who's plan it was, I know LHO has never been proven to have ever seen the rifle he is accused of having. I'm absolutely positive that no shots were fired from the sniper's nest. I know all the wounds of the two individuals were not caused by one bullet. I know they were not caused by any bullets from the rifle that is claimed to belong to Oswald. I don't see how any human with a functioning brain can believe in the lone nut theory (note, that is a 'theory') Other than that..........

[David Von Pein]

Pat,

Tell me again (in case you never have)....

Do you believe Buell Frazier saw ANY large-ish bag in Oswald's hands on 11/22/63?

And if you answer "Yes", please explain where I went haywire when I wrote this six years ago....

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

"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

[Thomas Graves]

Of course I won't, Drew. After all, I'm a very highly-paid CIA disinformation specialist. I didn't see your name on the list last time I checked. Are you a 'secret' agent?

PS I don't know how long you've been "into" the JFK assassination, but I must say that to me you come across like an over-jealous "newbie". I'm not sure what classifies as a 'newbie', but I've been following it since about 1 PM on 11/22/63. Read many many books on it. I know there was a conspiracy, I know there were many involved, I don't know who's plan it was, I know LHO has never been proven to have ever seen the rifle he is accused of having. I'm absolutely positive that no shots were fired from the sniper's nest. I know all the wounds of the two individuals were not caused by one bullet. I know they were not caused by any bullets from the rifle that is claimed to belong to Oswald. I don't see how any human with a functioning brain can believe in the lone nut theory (note, that is a 'theory') Other than that..........

Yes, I'm a secret agent. Please don't tell anyone.

How do you know that no shots were fired from the sniper's nest, either by Oswald (intentionally missing) or by somebody else (either hitting JFK or JC, or unintentionally missing and injuring Tague, instead)?

--Tommy

PS I'm a CTer, too, and I've been studying it for a long time, too, and I. too, don't know who did it. But I suspect that David Sanchez Morales was caught on film (the Jim Doyle film) while monitoring Oswald the day Oswald got arrested in New Orleans, and that Morales was also caught on film while standing in the crowd in Dealey Plaza a few minutes after the assassination. I tried to point him out in the respective film and photograph to Larry Hancock and Bill Simpich, but since I am unable to draw a red arrow or a red circle, I was unsuccessful.

Edited June 23, 2015 by Thomas Graves

[Kenneth Drew]

Of course I won't, Drew. After all, I'm a very highly-paid CIA disinformation specialist. I didn't see your name on the list last time I checked. Are you a 'secret' agent?

PS I don't know how long you've been "into" the JFK assassination, but I must say that to me you come across like an over-jealous "newbie". I'm not sure what classifies as a 'newbie', but I've been following it since about 1 PM on 11/22/63. Read many many books on it. I know there was a conspiracy, I know there were many involved, I don't know who's plan it was, I know LHO has never been proven to have ever seen the rifle he is accused of having. I'm absolutely positive that no shots were fired from the sniper's nest. I know all the wounds of the two individuals were not caused by one bullet. I know they were not caused by any bullets from the rifle that is claimed to belong to Oswald. I don't see how any human with a functioning brain can believe in the lone nut theory (note, that is a 'theory') Other than that..........

Yes, I'm a secret agent. Please don't tell anyone.

How do you know that no shots were fired from the sniper's nest, either by Oswald (intentionally missing) or by somebody else (either hitting JFK or JC, or unintentionally missing and injuring Tague, instead)?

--Tommy

How do you know that no shots were fired from the sniper's nest, either by Oswald (intentionally missing) or by somebody else (either hitting JFK or JC, or unintentionally missing and injuring Tague, instead)? Elementary, if any shots were fired from the snipers nest, they would have found some evidence by now. The only evidence available, so far, is manufactured evidence, not 'discovered' evidence. The angle required from the 'sniper's nest' is impossible. No human could have been in a position at that window, with the window at the height it is in photos, and aimed a rifle at the angle required to hit a person at the location where the limo was when JFK was shot. Other than that............