Jump to content
The Education Forum
James DiEugenio

Does everyone know what these pics are about?

Recommended Posts

16 minutes ago, Thomas Graves said:

Frazier also stated that Oswald was nestling the package between his cupped hand and his armpit, iirc, suggesting that the package was somewhat longer than 24 inches.

Longer? You mean SHORTER. Because there's no way that Oswald could have wedged even a two-foot object under his armpit while at the same time cupping it in his right hand. Try it yourself and measure the distance between your armpit and your cupped hand. That distance on me is about 23 inches. (I talked about that fact in my 2007 Frazier/Randle article, below.)

IN OCTOBER 2007, DVP SAID....

BTW, a man who is 5'9" tall can't fit a 27-inch object (or a 24-inch object) under his armpit while also cupping it in his hand (unless he's got monkeys for close relatives). So, the Randle/Frazier estimates as to the length of the package they saw are almost certainly wrong--even from a "conspiracy" POV.

In other words, Frazier can't possibly be exactly correct about BOTH things -- i.e., "under the armpit and cupped in his right hand" AND "roughly about two feet long" (via his WC testimony).

Both of those things cannot be 100% true. But CTers like to think that Frazier's and Randle's bag-length estimates ARE, indeed, spot-on accurate.

And isn't it funny that the empty 6th-Floor bag just happened to have the RIGHT PALMPRINT of Lee Oswald on it....perfectly matching the way Wes Frazier said Oz carried the bag "cupped in his right hand".

The "under the armpit" observation of Frazier's was obviously a mistake....and he said so, under oath:

VINCENT BUGLIOSI (during the 1986 Docu-Trial in London) -- "Did you recall how he [LHO] was carrying the bag?"

BUELL WESLEY FRAZIER -- "Yes sir. He was carrying it parallel to his body."

BUGLIOSI -- "Okay, so he carried the bag right next to his body....on the right side?"

FRAZIER -- "Yes sir. On the right side."

BUGLIOSI -- "Was it cupped in his hand and under his armpit? I think you've said that in the past."

FRAZIER -- "Yes sir."

BUGLIOSI -- "Mr. Frazier, is it true that you paid hardly any attention to this bag?"

FRAZIER -- "That is true."

BUGLIOSI -- "So the bag could have been protruding out in front of his body, and you wouldn't have been able to see it, is that correct?"

FRAZIER -- "That is true."

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

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am the same height as Oswald 5'9", and I have just held a tape measure cupped between my armpit and  my hand, and the measurement was 24"

(As I have pointed out before I'm not a knuckle dragger.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cupping a rifle, in a bag, in your hand and protruding in front of your shoulder, would cause it to fall forward. Unless you did a balancing act all the way into the TSBD.

Edited by Ray Mitcham

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, David Von Pein said:

Longer? You mean SHORTER than 2 feet. Because there's no way that Oswald could have wedged even a two-foot object under his armpit while at the same time cupping it in his right hand. (I talked about that fact in my 2007 Frazier/Randle article, below.)

  .....

David,

You're right.

My bad.

I'm 6' 3" (used to be 6' 5" but I've shrunk 2 inches at my 68.5 years of age), so that must have been what I was thinking about.

The one-and-only Oswald was 5' 9.5" tall, so you're absolutely correct.

--  TG  :sun

Edited by Thomas Graves

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Ray Mitcham said:

Cupping a rifle, in a bag, in your hand and protruding in front of your shoulder, would cause it to fall forward. Unless you did a balancing act all the way into the TSBD.

Not if the cupped hand was held out away from the body a little bit, forcing the weighty object in the bag to lean against Oswald's shoulder for the walk into the building. (An arm and a cupped hand CAN be moved and maneuvered, you know.)

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, David Von Pein said:

Not if the cupped hand was held out away from the body a little bit, resulting in the weighty object in the bag to lean against Oswald's shoulder for the walk into the building. (An arm and "cupped hand" CAN be moved and maneuvered, you know.)

It would be very difficult to hold a rifle in a bag held front of your shoulder for any distance. You've obviously never carried a rifle in that way. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've just cut a piece of 2x1 to the length of 24" and it fits perfectly cupped between  my hand and my armpit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"For the record".....

Allow me to correct what I said earlier about a 5-foot-9 man not being able to wedge a 2-foot object under his armpit while cupping it in his hand at the same time. I'm just under 5-9, and I can ALMOST do it. It comes out to 23 inches on me. Ray Mitcham above said he's 5-9 and it came out to 24 inches on him (which I can, indeed, accept). 

But a 27-inch object? No way.

So even staunch CTers should admit that BOTH the famous "27-inch" measurement given by Linnie Randle AND the famous "armpit & cupped in the hand" scenario painted by Buell Frazier cannot BOTH be exactly accurate.

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Ray Mitcham said:

It would be very difficult to hold a rifle in a bag held front of your shoulder for any distance. You've obviously never carried a rifle in that way. 

Seems to me the object (whether it be a rifle or whatever) would just naturally be resting on your shoulder via such a posture. I don't see what's so difficult about it. ~shrug~

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, David Von Pein said:

Seems to me the object (whether it be a rifle or whatever) would just naturally be resting on your shoulder via such a posture. I don't see what's so difficult about it. ~shrug~

As I said you've obviously never carried a rifle in that way.

And you certainly would never carry a paper bag containing a broken down rifle in that way.

Edited by Ray Mitcham

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Ray Mitcham said:

As I said, you've obviously never carried a rifle in that way.

And you certainly would never carry a paper bag containing a broken down rifle in that way.

Dan Rather was able to do it, here (at 12:35)....

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B2oJmFGgfM3zZ3pLeHJNc243TFE/view

Plus, what was keeping Oswald from using his LEFT hand to steady the package as he walked along? (He did have another hand, you know.)

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quote By DVP. "But a 27" object No way."

 

Quotes on the length by Frazier.

 

Frazier First day affidavit.

 

 It must have been about 2' long,”

 

Frazier to the Shaw trial

Q: How much of the back seat did the package occupy? 
A: I would say roughly
around two feet, give or take a few inches. “

 

 

Frazier to the Warren Con.

 

Mr. BALL - What did the package look like? 
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. “

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ray Mitcham said:

Frazier first-day affidavit --- “It must have been about 2' long”

Yes, Ray, I know what Frazier said about the length of the bag. He usually said it was "two feet, give or take".

But my "27 inch" comment was referring to LINNIE RANDLE'S estimate. It wasn't referring to anything Buell Frazier said.

And I'm fully willing to eat some crow and say "I was wrong" when it comes to my earlier remark (from 2007), when I said a 24-inch object could not be wedged in the armpit by a 5-foot-9 man. That was, indeed, an incorrect statement (based on Ray Mitcham's test that he performed today).

However, on a "27 inch" object, I stand firm. That couldn't have been done by the 5-foot-9 Oswald.

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Ray Mitcham said:

Was Dan Rather holding a paper bag full of rifle bits?

He was holding a dismantled Carcano rifle wrapped in brown paper (just like Oswald did on 11/22/63). And Dan Rather was able to walk away from the CBS camera without having the bag fall out of his hand.

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...