Jump to content
The Education Forum

Request for those going to Dallas this year


Pat Speer
 Share

Recommended Posts

As most here know, I have long held that the paper bag (in which Oswald was purported to have carried his rifle) is wider in the photographs taken as it was removed from the building, than in the photos of it subsequently taken by the FBI. I have cited this as evidence the bag was switched. Now, some, most prominently Craig Lamson, but also John McAdams and Gary Mack, have told me this is nonsense, and that one can't accurately judge the width of an item in a photo, etc... I have countered by arguing that this isn't rocket science, and that when a photo is taken from enough distance one can readily tell the difference between a 10 inch bag versus an 8 inch bag, just as one can tell the difference between a 5 foot tall man and a man standing 6 foot 4.

And so I'm asking those going to Dealey Plaza this year to have their photos taken on the front steps of the TSBD...while holding a piece of 8 1/2 inch wide paper 6 inches or so from their body. Just make note of the lens used and the distance of the camera from the bag. And then post the photo and details on this thread. Hopefully, with enough of these photos, it will become painfully obvious that I am correct, and that the bag in the photographs taken on 11-22 is wider than 8 1/2 inches. But I'd be glad to be proved wrong as well.

In either case, your help will be appreciated.

P.S. The photos should be a rough re-enactment of the photo I've re-enacted on the slide below. Try to capture some people in the background, etc, so we can see the effect of the lens on the background.

mosdef4.jpg

Edited by Pat Speer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

After that last farce of his, who will listen?

I think Pat has a good point. The passage of time is resulting in stranger than strange regurgatations of testimonies of "witnesses" whose testimonies are being cited

in televised documentaries that are being used to "prove Oswald" could do anything that was previously considered unproven, even by believers in his guilt.

Such as citing Helen Markham, regarding Oswald at the Tippit shooting, who was about as reputable as some the latest Tea Party candidates that "didn't get elected."

Or failing to mention a "bushy-haired man," also at the scene of the Tippit shooting.

Re-enacting timelines that "prove"....Oswald could have made it down the stairs without being "out of breath," although no-one ever saw him going "down the stairs,"

period, and should have;, or "proving via re-enactments" that Oswald could have made the walk from the Tippit murder scene to the Texas Theater without mentioning the time

differential controversy, [1:07 pm-1:15 pm] a fact that is generally cited only by persons who do not subscribe to Oswald's guilt, or the fact that the arrest reports cite "two different locations," in the Texas Theater, the balcony and the infamous "black-upholstered" Oswald seat at the lower level, as where Oswald was subdued, before

being brought out of the Theater.

The list of not mentioned facts, like the old Energizer Bunny goes on and on and.......

Using deception to "prove a truth" is one of the most nauseating displays of human behavior that falls outside the scope of genocide, crimes against nature, et cetera.

The foundation of a democratic society IS the truth, when a group of people claim to be displaying truth, and use techniques that inherently contradict the very

truth they are attesting to, human decency demands better, even if no-one is really paying that much attention......

The Bedouin Muslims are said to have been able in years past to verbally recite their genealogy to at least the 14th or 15th generation, which, in a manner

of speaking is an example that "ostensible" more advanced generations afterwards, do not have an attention span that can even compare to the former, some might

even cite morality, but that is too politically-incorrect.

In the new American view, it seems that even if "legal" immigrants, [forget, for a moment the illegal ones] didn't come to America, we would currently be experiencing

a veritable Utopia, forget about the fact the only 100% American's are known by the names of Souix, Cherokee, Apache, Commanche, Choctaw, Iroquois, oh but

that's right we civilized them, [along the Trail of Tears, no doubt.] The point being, that on that level, truth as well as "what's going on" should be conveyed as adequately, if not better, than family history.

There were countries in the 20th Century, that didn't know what was going on, and some of them lost their freedom for several decades.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The bottom line question here is not about inches but to what extent we can trust the accuracy of Frazier's recollection. This part of his testimony is critical to any other evaluation,

"Well, I say, you know like I say, I didn't pay much attention to the package other than I knew he had it under his arm and I didn't pay too much attention the way he was walking because I was walking along there looking at the railroad cars and watching the men on the diesel switch them cars and I didn't pay too much attention on how he carried the package at all. "

And why WOULD he pay attention to a supposed set of curtain rods wrapped in brown paper? If you were with a friend who was carrying something like that, would you give it more than a casual glance? Would you study it and in your mind, try to calculate how many inches long it was?

And if you genuinely believe that he was carrying curtain rods then you must be prepared to explain where he got them. Can you do that?

Much more importantly, you MUST understand Oswald in order to understand why he in all likelihood, DID bring his rifle to the depository that day. As Carlos Marcello unwittingly admitted to an FBI informant, David Ferrie introduced Oswald to him at his brother's restaurant in New Orleans for the purpose of inviting him to take part in the assassination.

And Oswald had to have been eager to do that because he was working then as an informant for the FBI. Oswald spent the last years of his life obsessed with Herbert Philbrick, who had become famous for his years working undercover for the FBI, infiltrating a communist cell in Boston, and who later testified against his former comrades, sending several of them to prison.

Within three weeks after the premier episode of "I Led Three Lives", the 13 year old Oswald went to school and refused to salute the American flag, obviously trying to appear to be communist, just like his role model did.

Among the numerous confirmations that he was working as an FBI informant in 1963, was DPD chief Currey who stated at a press conference that Oswald met with the FBI on Saturday, 11/16/63 during that weekend when he dropped off of everyone's radar. Shortly after that, during the wee morning hours of 11/17/63 FBI clerk William Walter saw a teletype going out to various FBI offices, warning that an informant had said there would be an assassination attempt on 11/22/63.

Of course we would all know that if the "research" community had paid attention to a very important book instead of trashing it as they were urged to do by a particular LN fanatic who pretended to be conspiracy buff. Oswald's status as an informant was further confirmed by the FBI's refusal to release the name of their informant in the Miller/Whitter trial and lied to the federal judge, telling him that he worked for the ATF. But as anyone who has read "Oswald Talked" knows, that informant could only have been Oswald.

The assassination was Oswald's big chance to shine. By warning the FBI and saving the President, he might have been a bigger hero than Philbrick. But as we all know, the cavalry never showed up and after more than 15 years of studying the shooting, I have become increasingly convinced that the shot at 285 was a deliberate miss by Oswald, intended to provoke the driver to get the hell out of there. It would also serve as an apparent confirmation to the bad guys that he was taking an active part in the attack.

Officer J.W. Foster was adamant that a missed shot struck the concrete surrounding the storm drain cover on the south side of Elm St. At frame 285, a shot from the alleged sniper's nest striking that drain cover would have passed squarely over the center of the limousine but about 15 feet above the pavement.

Pat, if you believe nothing else I ever tell you, believe that instead of looking for isolated bits of testimony, look at a multitude of evidence, from key witnesses who corroborate one another and can be corroborated in the films, to an accurate analysis of the angles involved with various shots to a zillion facts which can be found in the best books. When the pieces ALL fit then consider that maybe you are starting to get somewhere.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The bottom line question here is not about inches but to what extent we can trust the accuracy of Frazier's recollection. This part of his testimony is critical to any other evaluation,

"Well, I say, you know like I say, I didn't pay much attention to the package other than I knew he had it under his arm and I didn't pay too much attention the way he was walking because I was walking along there looking at the railroad cars and watching the men on the diesel switch them cars and I didn't pay too much attention on how he carried the package at all. "

And why WOULD he pay attention to a supposed set of curtain rods wrapped in brown paper? If you were with a friend who was carrying something like that, would you give it more than a casual glance? Would you study it and in your mind, try to calculate how many inches long it was?

And if you genuinely believe that he was carrying curtain rods then you must be prepared to explain where he got them. Can you do that?

Much more importantly, you MUST understand Oswald in order to understand why he in all likelihood, DID bring his rifle to the depository that day. As Carlos Marcello unwittingly admitted to an FBI informant, David Ferrie introduced Oswald to him at his brother's restaurant in New Orleans for the purpose of inviting him to take part in the assassination.

And Oswald had to have been eager to do that because he was working then as an informant for the FBI. Oswald spent the last years of his life obsessed with Herbert Philbrick, who had become famous for his years working undercover for the FBI, infiltrating a communist cell in Boston, and who later testified against his former comrades, sending several of them to prison.

Within three weeks after the premier episode of "I Led Three Lives", the 13 year old Oswald went to school and refused to salute the American flag, obviously trying to appear to be communist, just like his role model did.

Among the numerous confirmations that he was working as an FBI informant in 1963, was DPD chief Currey who stated at a press conference that Oswald met with the FBI on Saturday, 11/16/63 during that weekend when he dropped off of everyone's radar. Shortly after that, during the wee morning hours of 11/17/63 FBI clerk William Walter saw a teletype going out to various FBI offices, warning that an informant had said there would be an assassination attempt on 11/22/63.

Of course we would all know that if the "research" community had paid attention to a very important book instead of trashing it as they were urged to do by a particular LN fanatic who pretended to be conspiracy buff. Oswald's status as an informant was further confirmed by the FBI's refusal to release the name of their informant in the Miller/Whitter trial and lied to the federal judge, telling him that he worked for the ATF. But as anyone who has read "Oswald Talked" knows, that informant could only have been Oswald.

The assassination was Oswald's big chance to shine. By warning the FBI and saving the President, he might have been a bigger hero than Philbrick. But as we all know, the cavalry never showed up and after more than 15 years of studying the shooting, I have become increasingly convinced that the shot at 285 was a deliberate miss by Oswald, intended to provoke the driver to get the hell out of there. It would also serve as an apparent confirmation to the bad guys that he was taking an active part in the attack.

Officer J.W. Foster was adamant that a missed shot struck the concrete surrounding the storm drain cover on the south side of Elm St. At frame 285, a shot from the alleged sniper's nest striking that drain cover would have passed squarely over the center of the limousine but about 15 feet above the pavement.

Pat, if you believe nothing else I ever tell you, believe that instead of looking for isolated bits of testimony, look at a multitude of evidence, from key witnesses who corroborate one another and can be corroborated in the films, to an accurate analysis of the angles involved with various shots to a zillion facts which can be found in the best books. When the pieces ALL fit then consider that maybe you are starting to get somewhere.

If I read you correctly, Robert, you are suggesting that I stop studying the bag because, IF the bag brought out of the building is NOT the bag in the archives, it casts doubt on YOUR theory that Oswald brought the bag into the building...

Sorry, Robert, I'd rather try to establish what is KNOWABLE, than make everything fit into a theory.

It is possible to distinguish between a large paper bag in a photo and a large paper bag in another photo. Now the bags may appear to be identical--in such case one can only state that they APPEAR to be identical. Or they can appear NOT to be identical. Now, to me, the bag in the press photos appears NOT to be the same bag as the one in the archives. If you believe differently, please present an argument. But so far, the only counter-arguments to my position the bags are not the same have been presented by Craig Lamson, and he has only claimed that hypothetically the bags could be the same, and has refused thus far to actually claim they are the same.

It is also possible to determine if a photo of a section of skull is a photo of the back of the skull or the front of the skull. I have created many arguments for the so-called mystery photo's being a photo taken of the back of the skull. Now, even I acknowledge there's a very slight chance I might be wrong. But, if someone were to prove me wrong, this piece of evidence would be moved from the UNKNOWABLE category in which it currently resides. And I would be delighted.

In short, one can argue theory all day long. I'd rather try to establish some facts, whether they fit my theory or not.

Edited by Pat Speer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The bottom line question here is not about inches but to what extent we can trust the accuracy of Frazier's recollection. This part of his testimony is critical to any other evaluation,

"Well, I say, you know like I say, I didn't pay much attention to the package other than I knew he had it under his arm and I didn't pay too much attention the way he was walking because I was walking along there looking at the railroad cars and watching the men on the diesel switch them cars and I didn't pay too much attention on how he carried the package at all. "

And why WOULD he pay attention to a supposed set of curtain rods wrapped in brown paper? If you were with a friend who was carrying something like that, would you give it more than a casual glance? Would you study it and in your mind, try to calculate how many inches long it was?

And if you genuinely believe that he was carrying curtain rods then you must be prepared to explain where he got them. Can you do that?

Much more importantly, you MUST understand Oswald in order to understand why he in all likelihood, DID bring his rifle to the depository that day. As Carlos Marcello unwittingly admitted to an FBI informant, David Ferrie introduced Oswald to him at his brother's restaurant in New Orleans for the purpose of inviting him to take part in the assassination.

And Oswald had to have been eager to do that because he was working then as an informant for the FBI. Oswald spent the last years of his life obsessed with Herbert Philbrick, who had become famous for his years working undercover for the FBI, infiltrating a communist cell in Boston, and who later testified against his former comrades, sending several of them to prison.

Within three weeks after the premier episode of "I Led Three Lives", the 13 year old Oswald went to school and refused to salute the American flag, obviously trying to appear to be communist, just like his role model did.

Among the numerous confirmations that he was working as an FBI informant in 1963, was DPD chief Currey who stated at a press conference that Oswald met with the FBI on Saturday, 11/16/63 during that weekend when he dropped off of everyone's radar. Shortly after that, during the wee morning hours of 11/17/63 FBI clerk William Walter saw a teletype going out to various FBI offices, warning that an informant had said there would be an assassination attempt on 11/22/63.

Of course we would all know that if the "research" community had paid attention to a very important book instead of trashing it as they were urged to do by a particular LN fanatic who pretended to be conspiracy buff. Oswald's status as an informant was further confirmed by the FBI's refusal to release the name of their informant in the Miller/Whitter trial and lied to the federal judge, telling him that he worked for the ATF. But as anyone who has read "Oswald Talked" knows, that informant could only have been Oswald.

The assassination was Oswald's big chance to shine. By warning the FBI and saving the President, he might have been a bigger hero than Philbrick. But as we all know, the cavalry never showed up and after more than 15 years of studying the shooting, I have become increasingly convinced that the shot at 285 was a deliberate miss by Oswald, intended to provoke the driver to get the hell out of there. It would also serve as an apparent confirmation to the bad guys that he was taking an active part in the attack.

Officer J.W. Foster was adamant that a missed shot struck the concrete surrounding the storm drain cover on the south side of Elm St. At frame 285, a shot from the alleged sniper's nest striking that drain cover would have passed squarely over the center of the limousine but about 15 feet above the pavement.

Pat, if you believe nothing else I ever tell you, believe that instead of looking for isolated bits of testimony, look at a multitude of evidence, from key witnesses who corroborate one another and can be corroborated in the films, to an accurate analysis of the angles involved with various shots to a zillion facts which can be found in the best books. When the pieces ALL fit then consider that maybe you are starting to get somewhere.

If I read you correctly, Robert, you are suggesting that I stop studying the bag because, IF the bag brought out of the building is NOT the bag in the archives, it casts doubt on YOUR theory that Oswald brought the bag into the building...

Sorry, Robert, I'd rather try to establish what is KNOWABLE, than make everything fit into a theory.

It is possible to distinguish between a large paper bag in a photo and a large paper bag in another photo. Now the bags may appear to be identical--in such case one can only state that they APPEAR to be identical. Or they can appear NOT to be identical. Now, to me, the bag in the press photos appears NOT to be the same bag as the one in the archives. If you believe differently, please present an argument. But so far, the only counter-arguments to my position the bags are not the same have been presented by Craig Lamson, and he has only claimed that hypothetically the bags could be the same, and has refused thus far to actually claim they are the same.

It is also possible to determine if a photo of a section of skull is a photo of the back of the skull or the front of the skull. I have created many arguments for the so-called mystery photo's being a photo taken of the back of the skull. Now, even I acknowledge there's a very slight I might be wrong. But, if someone were to prove me wrong, this piece of evidence would be moved from the UNKNOWABLE category in which it currently resides. And I would be delighted.

In short, one can argue theory all day long. I'd rather try to establish some facts, whether they fit my theory or not.

"If I read you correctly, Robert, you are suggesting that I stop studying the bag because, IF the bag brought out of the building is NOT the bag in the archives, it casts doubt on YOUR theory that Oswald brought the bag into the building..."

No, you read me incorrectly Pat - particularly the part where you alleged that I would misrepresent the facts in order to protect my own "theory". You can study that bag from now until doomsday for all I care. Maybe you can someday even find another witness who said he wasn't paying attention to it.

Rather than misrepresent me and display all this attitude, why not just tell us where Oswald got those curtain rods? If you can't do that then the rest is irrelevant anyway.

As for comparing paper bags in photos, the very concept is silly. They are paper after all and are malleable. In the photos you posted, the DP photo shows that the top part of the bag is rolled up. Since we don't know how much of it was rolled, it is not possible to determine the ratio of the length to the width so there is no way to confirm that the bottom bag was narrower than the one in the top photo.

BTW Pat, would you like to do a little comparison? Let's weigh the evidence I have for Oswald being an FBI informant against your evidence that he was carrying curtain rods.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Robert,

You wrote:

Quote On

Among the numerous confirmations that he was working as an FBI informant in 1963, was DPD chief Currey who stated at a press conference that Oswald met with the FBI on Saturday, 11/16/63 during that weekend when he dropped off of everyone's radar.

Quote Off

What is the source/citation for the Curry claim?

Thanks.

Todd

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Robert,

You wrote:

Quote On

Among the numerous confirmations that he was working as an FBI informant in 1963, was DPD chief Currey who stated at a press conference that Oswald met with the FBI on Saturday, 11/16/63 during that weekend when he dropped off of everyone's radar.

Quote Off

What is the source/citation for the Curry claim?

Thanks.

Todd

My recollection is that Curry made that statement during his press conference on 11/23/63. But I do not have at my fingertips a verbatim statement (I'm looking). I do know that Russell Burr posted a message in alt.assassination.jfk, trying lamely to refute my argument in which he cited Curry stating later that he did not have "first hand knowledge" of the 11/16/63 meeting.

However, in an article written by Tom Ewell of the Dallas Morning News on 11/24/1963 it was stated,

"Lee Harvey Oswald, charged with murdering President Kennedy, was interviewed by the FBI here six days before the Friday assassination. But word of the interview with the former defector to Russia was not conveyed to the U.S.Secret Service and Dallas police, reliable sources told The Dallas News Saturday."

An FBI agent referred all inquiries to Agent-in-Charge Gordon Shanklin, who could not be immediately reached for comment."

Mary La Fontaine phoned Ewell about his story, and reported:

"The 'reliable sources' of the story, Ewell explains today, were DPD chief Jesse E. Curry and his police intelligence unit. Publicly for attribution in the article Curry refused to blame the Bureau for failing to cooperate, telling the reporter: 'I do not want to accuse the FBI of withholding information. They have no obligation to help us'. As the anonymous 'sources,' however, the chief and his intelligence personnel (Ewell wrote) 'maintained the Nov.16 interview did take place with no mention of it to the Secret Service and police'".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have a feeling Craig Lamson will figure out a way to make this whole experiment irrelevant.

It is ALREADY irrelevant. Pat made it so by stating that the recreation "bag" shuold be held "6 inches or so from their body". Since the distance from the camera to the bag, and the camera to the body-head are the factors that determine the "bag"/ head-body size ratios, missing either of these by even a few inches destroys this exercise.

Pat has ZERO clue what either of these distances are, because he has not measured them, just like he has not measured anything correctly in any of his silly studies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As most here know, I have long held that the paper bag (in which Oswald was purported to have carried his rifle) is wider in the photographs taken as it was removed from the building, than in the photos of it subsequently taken by the FBI. I have cited this as evidence the bag was switched. Now, some, most prominently Craig Lamson, but also John McAdams and Gary Mack, have told me this is nonsense, and that one can't accurately judge the width of an item in a photo, etc... I have countered by arguing that this isn't rocket science, and that when a photo is taken from enough distance one can readily tell the difference between a 10 inch bag versus an 8 inch bag, just as one can tell the difference between a 5 foot tall man and a man standing 6 foot 4.

At least you have company Pat, Jack White failed this simple test too....

unifiedpat.jpg

Clearly Pat has no idea what he is talking about.

And so I'm asking those going to Dealey Plaza this year to have their photos taken on the front steps of the TSBD...while holding a piece of 8 1/2 inch wide paper 6 inches or so from their body.

Beep Beep Beep...back up your bus Pat. How do you know they should hold the bag "6 inches or so from their body."? Clearly you have not measured it in any way, shape or form, just like you have not properly measured anything in any of your "studies" Its a simple and well proven fact that you can't resize phots taken from different camera to subject distances and then claim to measure element within the photos. And gee, that exactly what you have done, and its why you have failed.

Now since camera to bag distance and camera to head-body distance is the ONLY factor that can change object size ratios between photos, even just a few inches missed inthe placement of these distances DESTROYS the results of any test photo recreations. In other worlds, the specs you have ascribed will doom the work you beg for before it even starts.

How do we know this is true is true? Why don't we ask wall Pat and stick Pat to show us....

unifiedpat.jpg

Just make note of the lens used and the distance of the camera from the bag. And then post the photo and details on this thread. Hopefully, with enough of these photos, it will become painfully obvious that I am correct, and that the bag in the photographs taken on 11-22 is wider than 8 1/2 inches. But I'd be glad to be proved wrong as well.

You have been PROVEN WRONG,and you have yet to show...PROPERLY...why my proofs of your incompetence are incorrect. And yes it is painfully obvious you are wrong...

In either case, your help will be appreciated.

P.S. The photos should be a rough re-enactment of the photo I've re-enacted on the slide below. Try to capture some people in the background, etc, so we can see the effect of the lens on the background.

And this is why your works will ALWAYS fail. INCHES matter. If you don't have it perfectly correct it will be USELESS. Which is WHY recreations or re-enactments are a fools errand...UNLESS you have exact details. You don't have exact details. BTW, your "re-enactment is nothing like the photo you are comparing it too. Why do you want to keep doing the wrong thing over and over again?

Edited by Craig Lamson
Link to comment
Share on other sites

After that last farce of his, who will listen?

Farce? What farce? All I did was prove, in an unimpeachable, manner that Pat Speer was wrong. My work still stands unimpeached.

If you think you can prove my work wrong, please do so, and be reminded that your normal handwaving and bluster will not count.

I look forward to your detailed proofs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But so far, the only counter-arguments to my position the bags are not the same have been presented by Craig Lamson, and he has only claimed that hypothetically the bags could be the same, and has refused thus far to actually claim they are the same.

No Pat, I've SHOWN that the methods you have used in your analysis of the paper bag sizes are faulty. THAT'S my claim. I don't give a a dang if its the same bag or not. I'm simply holding YOUR feet to the fire when it comes to truthfulness.

AS it stands your comparisons that claim a size difference are based on a proven faulty method. You simply can't glean meaningful information using the methods you employed.

THATS my clain, and its unimpeachable, as you well know.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But so far, the only counter-arguments to my position the bags are not the same have been presented by Craig Lamson, and he has only claimed that hypothetically the bags could be the same, and has refused thus far to actually claim they are the same.

No Pat, I've SHOWN that the methods you have used in your analysis of the paper bag sizes are faulty. THAT'S my claim. I don't give a a dang if its the same bag or not. I'm simply holding YOUR feet to the fire when it comes to truthfulness.

AS it stands your comparisons that claim a size difference are based on a proven faulty method. You simply can't glean meaningful information using the methods you employed.

THATS my clain, and its unimpeachable, as you well know.

C'mon, Craig, I never claimed to have proven anything. I DEMONSTRATED why I believe the bags are not the same. Now you have countered this by saying that since we don't know EXACTLY how far the bag was from Montgomery and how far the cameras were from the bag we can never know for sure....

This is malarkey. We know that, in order for a bag to appear 25% wider than its normal appearance against Montgomery, it would have to be significantly closer to the camera in comparison to Montgomery. You, as a photographer, are in a position to actually test this.

Let's start by agreeing on an outside parameter. Let's say, for example, that the bag was at most one foot from Montgomery. You can then set up something one foot in front of the other.

We can then agree that the camera used by the press photographers had a 50mm lens. You can then take pictures of these two objects--perhaps your rulers--starting at two feet from the closest object, and then working your way back, one foot at a time. Well, at what point will 4 inches on the closest ruler match 5 inches on the furthest ruler? I'm guessing it will be about 4 feet, far closer than at least two of the photos taken of Montgomery, in which the bag appears to be far wider than the bag in the archives.

You, however, have been pretending that we just can't tell these things, and that 4 inches on the front ruler can appear to match 5 inches on the rear ruler, even from ten feet away or further. I've asked you to prove this. In your attempt to prove that an object can appear 25% wider than itself in two photos from ten feet or so, however, you turned the round light you were using to simulate the bag from the camera, to make it appear more narrow. You CHEATED. You knew that the bag in my re-enactment, which appeared to be much narrower than the bag in the press photos, was NOT turned away from the camera, and yet you did it anyhow.

I take this as an acknowledgment that you are completely stumped as to how the bag could appear so wide in the press photos, and that you thereby concur with my analysis that the bags are not the same.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The bottom line question here is not about inches but to what extent we can trust the accuracy of Frazier's recollection. This part of his testimony is critical to any other evaluation,

"Well, I say, you know like I say, I didn't pay much attention to the package other than I knew he had it under his arm and I didn't pay too much attention the way he was walking because I was walking along there looking at the railroad cars and watching the men on the diesel switch them cars and I didn't pay too much attention on how he carried the package at all. "

And why WOULD he pay attention to a supposed set of curtain rods wrapped in brown paper? If you were with a friend who was carrying something like that, would you give it more than a casual glance? Would you study it and in your mind, try to calculate how many inches long it was?

And if you genuinely believe that he was carrying curtain rods then you must be prepared to explain where he got them. Can you do that?

Much more importantly, you MUST understand Oswald in order to understand why he in all likelihood, DID bring his rifle to the depository that day. As Carlos Marcello unwittingly admitted to an FBI informant, David Ferrie introduced Oswald to him at his brother's restaurant in New Orleans for the purpose of inviting him to take part in the assassination.

And Oswald had to have been eager to do that because he was working then as an informant for the FBI. Oswald spent the last years of his life obsessed with Herbert Philbrick, who had become famous for his years working undercover for the FBI, infiltrating a communist cell in Boston, and who later testified against his former comrades, sending several of them to prison.

Within three weeks after the premier episode of "I Led Three Lives", the 13 year old Oswald went to school and refused to salute the American flag, obviously trying to appear to be communist, just like his role model did.

Among the numerous confirmations that he was working as an FBI informant in 1963, was DPD chief Currey who stated at a press conference that Oswald met with the FBI on Saturday, 11/16/63 during that weekend when he dropped off of everyone's radar. Shortly after that, during the wee morning hours of 11/17/63 FBI clerk William Walter saw a teletype going out to various FBI offices, warning that an informant had said there would be an assassination attempt on 11/22/63.

Of course we would all know that if the "research" community had paid attention to a very important book instead of trashing it as they were urged to do by a particular LN fanatic who pretended to be conspiracy buff. Oswald's status as an informant was further confirmed by the FBI's refusal to release the name of their informant in the Miller/Whitter trial and lied to the federal judge, telling him that he worked for the ATF. But as anyone who has read "Oswald Talked" knows, that informant could only have been Oswald.

The assassination was Oswald's big chance to shine. By warning the FBI and saving the President, he might have been a bigger hero than Philbrick. But as we all know, the cavalry never showed up and after more than 15 years of studying the shooting, I have become increasingly convinced that the shot at 285 was a deliberate miss by Oswald, intended to provoke the driver to get the hell out of there. It would also serve as an apparent confirmation to the bad guys that he was taking an active part in the attack.

Officer J.W. Foster was adamant that a missed shot struck the concrete surrounding the storm drain cover on the south side of Elm St. At frame 285, a shot from the alleged sniper's nest striking that drain cover would have passed squarely over the center of the limousine but about 15 feet above the pavement.

Pat, if you believe nothing else I ever tell you, believe that instead of looking for isolated bits of testimony, look at a multitude of evidence, from key witnesses who corroborate one another and can be corroborated in the films, to an accurate analysis of the angles involved with various shots to a zillion facts which can be found in the best books. When the pieces ALL fit then consider that maybe you are starting to get somewhere.

If I read you correctly, Robert, you are suggesting that I stop studying the bag because, IF the bag brought out of the building is NOT the bag in the archives, it casts doubt on YOUR theory that Oswald brought the bag into the building...

Sorry, Robert, I'd rather try to establish what is KNOWABLE, than make everything fit into a theory.

It is possible to distinguish between a large paper bag in a photo and a large paper bag in another photo. Now the bags may appear to be identical--in such case one can only state that they APPEAR to be identical. Or they can appear NOT to be identical. Now, to me, the bag in the press photos appears NOT to be the same bag as the one in the archives. If you believe differently, please present an argument. But so far, the only counter-arguments to my position the bags are not the same have been presented by Craig Lamson, and he has only claimed that hypothetically the bags could be the same, and has refused thus far to actually claim they are the same.

It is also possible to determine if a photo of a section of skull is a photo of the back of the skull or the front of the skull. I have created many arguments for the so-called mystery photo's being a photo taken of the back of the skull. Now, even I acknowledge there's a very slight I might be wrong. But, if someone were to prove me wrong, this piece of evidence would be moved from the UNKNOWABLE category in which it currently resides. And I would be delighted.

In short, one can argue theory all day long. I'd rather try to establish some facts, whether they fit my theory or not.

"If I read you correctly, Robert, you are suggesting that I stop studying the bag because, IF the bag brought out of the building is NOT the bag in the archives, it casts doubt on YOUR theory that Oswald brought the bag into the building..."

No, you read me incorrectly Pat - particularly the part where you alleged that I would misrepresent the facts in order to protect my own "theory". You can study that bag from now until doomsday for all I care. Maybe you can someday even find another witness who said he wasn't paying attention to it.

Rather than misrepresent me and display all this attitude, why not just tell us where Oswald got those curtain rods? If you can't do that then the rest is irrelevant anyway.

As for comparing paper bags in photos, the very concept is silly. They are paper after all and are malleable. In the photos you posted, the DP photo shows that the top part of the bag is rolled up. Since we don't know how much of it was rolled, it is not possible to determine the ratio of the length to the width so there is no way to confirm that the bottom bag was narrower than the one in the top photo.

BTW Pat, would you like to do a little comparison? Let's weigh the evidence I have for Oswald being an FBI informant against your evidence that he was carrying curtain rods.

Sorry, Robert, you're way off track. First of all, the issue I've raised regarding the bags is width, not length. Second of all, while your theory regarding Oswald's role as an FBI informant is interesting, it is not proof.

If it can be proved the bags are not the same, however--and I feel quite certain it can--that is something concrete that everyone will come to acknowledge. At one point LNs insisted the back wound was at the base of the neck. Then the HSCA released a drawing of the back wound, and proved them wrong. At another point LNs claimed there was no evidence Oswald had ever met Ferrie. Then a photo with the two of them in attendance at a relatively small CAP gathering appeared. Now even LNs acknowledge they probably knew each other, if only for a short time.

If the bag was switched it undermines the entire case against Oswald. It could be an important development.

I could be wrong. But I doubt it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...