David Von Pein

But if Frazier and Randle were correct about the length of the bag they saw Oswald carrying (24 to 27 inches), there really should have been no "maybe" about it at all in the minds of either Frazier or Randle. And yet, on Dec. 1st, there was a "maybe" being uttered by BOTH of those witnesses.

Oh yes, that's very true. Frazier has always strongly suggested that the bag he saw Oswald carrying into the Book Depository on 11/22 was way too short to be the bag that was found by the police in the Sniper's Nest (CE142). But those FBI reports in CD7 have got to make you scratch your head just a little bit, though. Because if LHO's bag had really been only 24 to 27 inches in length, why would BOTH Frazier AND Randle have told the FBI that CE142 could have been the bag they saw Oswald carrying---regardless of the color?! Plus, there's another FBI report from 11/22/63, in which Linnie Randle told James Bookhout that the bag she saw Oswald carrying was "approximately 3 feet" (36 inches) in length. And that was her very first approximation of the bag's size.

Wonderful logic there.

Actually, Pat, Joe Ball didn't need to "trick" Buell Frazier into saying any such thing.....because Frazier himself had already admitted to the FBI---months earlier, on December 1, 1963---that the bag found in the Sniper's Nest (CE142) "could have been" the same bag Frazier saw Oswald carrying on the morning of the assassination. That "could have been" information was brought out in Bardwell Odum's 12/1/63 interview with Frazier, which can be found here in Commission Document No. 7.... "Frazier examined the original [brown paper sack] found by the sixth floor window of the TSBD Building on November 22, 1963, and stated that if that sack was originally the color of the replica sack, it could have been the sack or package which he saw in the possession of Oswald on the morning of November 22, 1963, but that he does not feel he is in a position to definitely state that this original is or is not the sack." BTW, Linnie Mae Randle said the same thing about the original paper bag (see this page of CD7). The "original" paper bag, with two of Lee Oswald's fingerprints on it, is 38 inches long. So much for the bag being only "27 inches" or "2 feet" long. The two 12/1/63 FBI interviews with Frazier and Randle that I just linked to are quite revealing and important, in my opinion, because when both Frazier and Randle were shown the "original" paper bag found in the Sniper's Nest (which is, indeed, a 38-inch bag), they both told Bardwell Odum and one other FBI agent that the "original" bag could have been the same one they saw Oswald carrying. Now, why would they both have said something like that to the FBI if the bag they each saw on November 22nd had really been almost a foot shorter than the 38-inch "original" bag they were shown by the FBI? ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- If the bag that Linnie Mae Randle and Buell Wesley Frazier saw Lee Oswald carrying had REALLY been quite a bit shorter than the "original" bag they were both later shown on December 1st, then there should have been no "ifs" and "coulds" about it in either Randle's mind or Frazier's mind—i.e., the "original" bag (via those conditions) could not possibly have been the bag that Frazier and Randle saw on Nov. 22, regardless of the bag's COLOR. But instead of saying to the FBI agents something like this.... Regardless of the color issue, there's no way in the world this "original" bag you are showing me now could be the same one I saw Oswald carrying on Nov. 22nd, because this "original" bag is way too long. ....both Frazier and Randle, per Commission Document No. 7, tell two FBI agents that the "original" bag they were shown is still in the mix of possible bags that Lee Oswald "could have been" carrying on November 22nd. Do conspiracy theorists think that both Buell Frazier and Linnie Randle just TOTALLY IGNORED the LENGTH of the "original" bag when they each said that the original sack was still a candidate for the one they saw Oswald toting on 11/22? Were both Frazier and Randle only concerned with the COLOR of the bags at that point in time in their FBI interviews? In other words, both Buell & Linnie Mae knew the original bag was much too long, but neither one of them was able to concentrate on two separate aspects of the bag at the same time (color and length), so they each said "could have been" with respect to the color only, all the while totally forgetting that this "original" bag in front of their eyes was entirely too big. Is that what some conspiracists want to contend? Or maybe some CTers think that FBI agents Bardwell D. Odum and Gibbon E. McNeely were merely putting words into the mouths of both Buell and Linnie Mae that neither of them actually uttered at all during their 12/1/63 interviews --- namely these words: "Could have been the sack". More: http://DVP's JFK Archives/2018/03/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-1275

Obviously not. Because if Oswald had said to Fritz (et al) that he was outside on the steps at the time of the shooting, that key information would most certainly have shown up in the official reports of multiple people who were present to hear Oswald's statements during the interrogations (e.g., the reports of Fritz, Bookhout, Hosty, Kelley, and Holmes). Instead, we have this: "I [Captain Fritz] asked him [LHO] what part of the building he was in at the time the President was shot, and he said that he was having his lunch about that time on the first floor." [Warren Report; Page 600] And this: "Oswald claimed to be on the first floor when President John F. Kennedy passed this building." [Hosty/Bookhout 11/22/63 joint report; WCR, Page 613]

I think it's pretty obvious that you're making such statements while your tongue is being firmly planted in either your left or right cheek. 😁

And that must mean you think that LBJ's people somehow got Bill Waldman of Klein's to lie his ass off regarding the microfilmed records that were discovered in the early morning hours of 11/23/63 among the Klein's records in Chicago, Illinois? Is that what you believe, Sandy?

I have to confess --- I wrote that caption myself. The managing editor of The Tampa Times telephoned me at 3:35 PM EST on 11/22/63 and asked me if I would write them an accurate caption for the Altgens photo that they said was going to adorn the front page of their 11/22 second edition. So, I agreed to help out my Tampa newspaper pals and write up the caption. (Not bad for a kid who wasn't even 2 years old yet, huh?) 😁

Read the caption, Cory....

Plus, the Altgens photograph was also appearing on the front pages of many newspapers as early as Day 1 (Nov. 22), such as these random newspaper examples (click to make huge):

............

Of course Oswald didn't eat lunch on the first floor after his encounter with Officer Baker. That was merely one of the many lies Oswald told the police after his arrest. Oswald also didn't "stand around for five or ten minutes with foreman Bill Shelley" after the encounter with Baker either, which is yet another of Lee Oswald's lies that appears in James Bookhout's 11/22/63 solo FBI report. One of the very few things that Oswald didn't lie about after he was arrested, however, was his encounter with Officer Baker in the lunchroom. And that's because he had no reason whatsoever to want to lie about that particular event. And he also knew he couldn't very well lie and say the encounter never took place at all, because there were two witnesses (Baker and Truly) who could easily prove that such an encounter did take place. In order to believe that the authorities just MADE UP the Baker/Truly/Oswald lunchroom encounter from whole cloth, you'd have to believe (as many conspiracy theorists do) that BOTH Roy Truly and Marrion Baker were big fat li@rs, which is an absurd belief (for all the reasons discussed at the link below).

The curtain rod "story" was most definitely a "story" (i.e., lie) invented by just one person---Lee Harvey Oswald. And unless conspiracy theorists think Buell Wesley Frazier was lying his ass off when he used the words "curtain rods" three separate times in his 11/22/63 affidavit (pictured below), then it's pretty obvious where the curtain rod "story" originated. http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com / Oswald's "Curtain Rods" Lie Click to enlarge....

Well, the music was very likely added by someone years later (it wasn't done by me, btw). And the version with the captions could have also been done by some JFK researcher at some point well after 1963 or '64 too, with "DCA" not being involved in those other versions at all.

FWIW --- The copy of the DCA film that I have had in my collection for several years is this shorter version below which ends right after the Mentesana Film is shown. This "NFV" [New Frontier Video; Robert Groden] version also has music added (a tune called "Aftermaths" by David Shire), which I think is a very appropriate and excellent theme considering the video's contents. Also: this version does not include any captions at all (such as the wholly inappropriate "Assassin's Rifle" caption):

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- More info: https://www.amazon.com/dp/1635768217 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- FYI.... The author of this new book, Paul Roderick Gregory, provided testimony to the Warren Commission on March 31, 1964. His testimony can be found HERE. And Gregory's father, Peter Paul Gregory, also gave testimony to the Commission (on March 13, 1964). His testimony is HERE.

..........

There are two such pocket stripes on each side of Jackie's suit jacket. (Nice try, though.)

It hasn't migrated anywhere. It's just part of the jacket.

The circled item here is part of Jackie's suit jacket.

Why not use this much clearer image I posted earlier showing the items Jackie is holding? It's clearly flowers---not a toy puppet:

You're incorrect on this, Joe. Nobody gave Jackie a "Lambchop puppet" at Love Field, and that fact is proven in the film clip linked below. In the video clip, Jackie is clearly handling a cluster of flowers and not any kind of toy or puppet just after she enters the limousine at Love Field: VIDEO --- Jackie Kennedy Is Holding Flowers, Not "Lambchop" Photographs taken at Love Field (like the one shown below) also tend to debunk the notion that there was a "Lambchop" toy. Click to enlarge: Where on Earth did the "Lambchop" myth come from anyhow? Anybody know?

It's the headrest you're seeing, Sandy. The headrest kind of wraps around the head, as is easily seen in the photo showing the left side of JFK's head below:

What you're probably seeing is the metal headrest, not a "block".