Jump to content
The Education Forum

Jim F - if the bullet exploded after hitting the temple


Recommended Posts

C'mon Mike....

You gonna waste time arguing POST ASSASSINATION descriptions of the weapon?

David,

Its more than a post assassination description of the weapon, it is a common myth that the CT side would like to use to show one more facet of how impossible this was.

Your post earlier was right to the point... HOW TO ALIGN A RIFLE SCOPE requires at least 3 shots in a controlled environment with a 4th to confirm the adjustments.

Please tell me when you believe Oswald did this with THAT rifle so that YOU would be confident as a sharpshooter that after disassembly, transportation within an unlined, unpadded paper sack... and re-assembled... those little adjustments stayed since as you post:

Mr. FRAZIER - When we fired on November 27th, the shots were landing high and slightly to the right. However, the scope was apparently fairly well stabilized at that time, because three shots would land in an area the size of a dime under rapid-fire conditions, which would not have occurred if the interior mechanism of the scope was shifting.

So the scope was working very well 48 hours after the assassination. Still not helping your case here buddy.

So if I understand correctly.. you DO NOT BELIEVE that this "high and to the right" was the condition of the scope during the assassination... yet the scope was "fairly well stablized at the time".

You understand correctly. My whole point is that no one can ever know the condition of the rifle at the time of the assassination, because the scope had been removed during the fingerprinting process, as Frazier tells us.

Remember when you asked me sometime ago, if disassembling the rifle would compromise the integrity of the scopes accuracy? I told you no not as long as the scope had not been taken off the rifle. In this case, the scope had been removed, as it was loose when Frazier first received it on 11/23/67.

Oswald simply taking the barrel from the stock would not compromise the scopes integrity, so long as some care were taken in carrying it.

Oswald carried the disassembled rifle to work with the scope already aligned, assembles the rifle... scope is still aligned...

fires the rifle 3 times and leaves it.... the DPD now have it in their possession and within 48 hours after the assassination the scope is working perfectly - only high and to the right...

The scope DOES NOT CHANGE ALIGNMENT during Oswald's journey with it YET

the scope CHANGES ALIGNMENT in the 48 hours between discovery and testing. (you claim the condition of the scope at the time of the shots is unknowable - I agree - yet as I keep eluding to Mike... some things have to happen in a certain order for Oswald to pull this off alone... Using a properly sighted scope HAS to be one of them, no?)

Here is the thing David, we do not know if Oswald carried the scope to work properly aligned, thats really in fact my whole point. We do not know the condition. Now the reason the scope was somewhat stable, is because no one had made any elevation and windage adjustments with the knobs. This is what causes the instability. However someone did dismount the entire scope from the rifle. Once this was done, all hope of knowing the assassination alignment was lost. See what I am getting at here?

I would have to agree that "high and to the right" does seem to take into account the wind blowing from the shooter's right to left, so whoever left the rifle was at least thinking of that.... or am I making an assumption about scope alignment related to wind?

If you were talking about shooting a significant distance, I would be in complete agreement with ya on this one. However in only 88 yards windage and elevation would play a very small factor.

Explain again how/when Oswald makes adjustments to the scope on the day of the assassination with the wind blowing as it was... or who he knew ahead of time that the wind would be out of the south east... so he could align properly...and when again was that 4th shot, the test shot confirming the scope was still as he wanted?

IF and note I said IF Oswald had zeroed the scope at some point and time, and then did not remove the scope from the barrel, there would be no reason to believe the alignment were bad. There would be no need to sight on scene.

DJ

You and Pat can argue all day about this and that test AFTER THE FACT.

Exactly, those tests are after the fact.

Did Oswald use a scope when he was certified marksman in the Marines?

Describe the difference between what Oswald shot in the Marines and the MC found that day.

Does a shooter of any quality use a scope when potentially required to fire in rapid succession on a moving target form that distance?

Oswald would have fired with iron sights in the Marines. Generally speaking a scope is an aid. If you shoot well with irons you will make a marked improvement with a scope.

Well the M1 weighs about 10 lbs, and the MC about 8. Not to different.

The M1 has a two stage trigger, with a trigger pull of 3lbs. The M1 has a two stage trigger with a final pull of about 4lbs. They are very similar in the trigger feel.

The M1 has iron sights with a battle zero of 200 yards, as does the MC.

The major difference is that the MC is a bolt action, and operating the action requires enough movement so as to have to reacquire the target after each shot.

The M1 is a semi auto, however has sufficient recoil as to have the sights come off the target as well.

The only real epic difference, is rate of fire. The M1 can send more lead down range faster.

In all reality the M1 and the Carcano are similar in many ways.

and finally, talking about what OSWALD did when you have not proven he could have even have gotten there in time is moot.

Get him there first Mike - then talk to me about his scope, his skills and what he needed to do in order for his shooting to be effective.

Could you not have told me that BEFORE i typed all that stuff above!

I hear ya buddy, and will be the first to confess I do need to do some research in this area.

If you would like to make and discuss points one at a time, and walk me through your thinking, I would be very glad to tag along.

thanks

My pleasure David. I really enjoy discussing the case with you.

Mike

But Mike... you miss the point... NO ONE removed the scope from the rifle. Frazier GUESSED that someone had. But no one did. Not in Dallas. Not in Washington.

Your basing your research on what Frazier thought might have happened, when there is no evidence it did, and the only person to say for sure--Lt. Day--said the opposite, is wacky, to say the least.

Now, if you want to claim Day LIED, or at the very least, HID that he'd removed the scope and fired the rifle, etc, we may be getting somewhere. Virtually every piece of evidence pointing to Oswald comes through Day. If you want to call him a xxxx, please do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 132
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

But Mike... you miss the point... NO ONE removed the scope from the rifle. Frazier GUESSED that someone had. But no one did. Not in Dallas. Not in Washington.

Your basing your research on what Frazier thought might have happened, when there is no evidence it did, and the only person to say for sure--Lt. Day--said the opposite, is wacky, to say the least.

Now, if you want to claim Day LIED, or at the very least, HID that he'd removed the scope and fired the rifle, etc, we may be getting somewhere. Virtually every piece of evidence pointing to Oswald comes through Day. If you want to call him a xxxx, please do.

Pat,

Frazier clearly tells us someone did remove the scope.

Representative BOGGS - Excuse me just a moment. Do you have any opinion on whether or not the sight was deliberately set that way?

Mr. FRAZIER - No, sir; I do not. And I think I must say here that this mount was loose on the rifle when we received it. And apparently the scope had even been taken off of the rifle, in searching for fingerprints on the rifle. So that actually the way it was sighted-in when we got it does not necessarily mean it was sighted-in that way when it was abandoned.

Frazier is not speculating, he even says that it is "apparent" that the scope was removed.

I can find no reference in Day's testimony where he said he did not remove the scope. If you have that Pat let me know. That would be of interest to me. I do not see any indication of Day lying, I do not see any reference to the scope being removed, or not being removed. It simply appears in his testimony that this is not addressed.

None of which helps us in the least. You would love to show the scope was misaligned, as would I if I were contending this was a sham. I would love to prove the scope was spot on, for obvious reasons.

Bottom line here is that neither of us can prove what we wish, because there is no way of knowing the condition during the assassination.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks Lee....

read thru some of the Bledsoe thread - at least the civil parts :rolleyes: - and too was excellent. It becomes more and more apparent Oswald was not in many of the places he is claimed to have been...

Reading from Crenshaw's work about Specter I am always blown away by that hypethetical question about the SBT.

"...Assuming that the bullet went back to front and exited the throat... would you consider a wound described as such a wound of exit?"

:blink::huh:

Tom, as we have seen, has gone running when asked to discuss the xrays and photos he uses as "Proof"

that and any explanation as to why a FMJ behaves differently than designed...

or how a single shot to the top of the head leads to cerebellum and floor of the skull injuries...

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=17282&view=findpost&p=220202

I hardly believe Tom would run from that David. That is, if you will pardon the pun, a no brainer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But Mike... you miss the point... NO ONE removed the scope from the rifle. Frazier GUESSED that someone had. But no one did. Not in Dallas. Not in Washington.

Your basing your research on what Frazier thought might have happened, when there is no evidence it did, and the only person to say for sure--Lt. Day--said the opposite, is wacky, to say the least.

Now, if you want to claim Day LIED, or at the very least, HID that he'd removed the scope and fired the rifle, etc, we may be getting somewhere. Virtually every piece of evidence pointing to Oswald comes through Day. If you want to call him a xxxx, please do.

Pat,

Frazier clearly tells us someone did remove the scope.

Representative BOGGS - Excuse me just a moment. Do you have any opinion on whether or not the sight was deliberately set that way?

Mr. FRAZIER - No, sir; I do not. And I think I must say here that this mount was loose on the rifle when we received it. And apparently the scope had even been taken off of the rifle, in searching for fingerprints on the rifle. So that actually the way it was sighted-in when we got it does not necessarily mean it was sighted-in that way when it was abandoned.

Frazier is not speculating, he even says that it is "apparent" that the scope was removed.

I can find no reference in Day's testimony where he said he did not remove the scope. If you have that Pat let me know. That would be of interest to me. I do not see any indication of Day lying, I do not see any reference to the scope being removed, or not being removed. It simply appears in his testimony that this is not addressed.

None of which helps us in the least. You would love to show the scope was misaligned, as would I if I were contending this was a sham. I would love to prove the scope was spot on, for obvious reasons.

Bottom line here is that neither of us can prove what we wish, because there is no way of knowing the condition during the assassination.

Mike, when someone says something is apparent, and then never talks to the one person who would know, they are speculating.

It is apparent to me that Frazier was telling the WC what they wanted to hear, so they could pretend the scope was properly aligned at the time of the shooting. But he knew this was unlikely.

Here is what Day had to say about the removal of the scope...

Mr. DAY. On the bottom side of the barrel which was covered by the wood, I found traces of a palmprint. I dusted these and tried lifting them, the prints, with scotch tape in the usual manner. A faint palmprint came off. I could still see traces of the print under the barrel and was going to try to use photography to bring off or bring out a better print. About this time I received instructions from the chief's office to go no further with the processing, it was to be released to the FBI for them to complete. I did not process the underside of the barrel under the scopic sight, did not get to this area of the gun.

Now you can pretend this means he removed the scope but never bothered to dust the area. But that's pretty silly, IMO. It's apparent to me that if he had removed the scope, he would have dusted the whole barrel before lifting and trying to photograph what was left of the faint palm print.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks Lee....

read thru some of the Bledsoe thread - at least the civil parts :rolleyes: - and too was excellent. It becomes more and more apparent Oswald was not in many of the places he is claimed to have been...

Reading from Crenshaw's work about Specter I am always blown away by that hypethetical question about the SBT.

"...Assuming that the bullet went back to front and exited the throat... would you consider a wound described as such a wound of exit?"

:blink::huh:

Tom, as we have seen, has gone running when asked to discuss the xrays and photos he uses as "Proof"

that and any explanation as to why a FMJ behaves differently than designed...

or how a single shot to the top of the head leads to cerebellum and floor of the skull injuries...

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=17282&view=findpost&p=220202

I hardly believe Tom would run from that David. That is, if you will pardon the pun, a no brainer.

If that's what you think Mike.... yet you too have not addressed the skull graphics I posted and asked you questions about.

I realize you and Tom are not Xray technicians... neither am I. Please help us understand how First - the xray and photo overlay are in ANY WAY CONSISTENT with each other... and Second - please reconcile the images in the other graphic..

and yes, imo the BLACK CIRCLE we see over JFK's right eye is hiding the area in which he was shot... at least one of the shots.

I look forward to it.

DJ

edit: and speaking of No Brainer... are you getting the idea why there had to be a substitute brain for the historical record? JFK's was blasted apart and never sectioned. But that's yet another strange occurance in the world of benign government interaction. :P

Edited by David Josephs
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mike, when someone says something is apparent, and then never talks to the one person who would know, they are speculating.

It is apparent to me that Frazier was telling the WC what they wanted to hear, so they could pretend the scope was properly aligned at the time of the shooting. But he knew this was unlikely.

Not a chance. Who are you trying to kid. How do you know that he did not talk to Day? Did you find anything in the Day testimony to support your previous remark:

Your basing your research on what Frazier thought might have happened, when there is no evidence it did, and the only person to say for sure--Lt. Day--said the opposite,

Can you show me where Day said he did not remove the scope, can you show me that Frazier is making an assumption, and did not in fact talk to Day?

I think these assumptions are ones you are making.

Here is what Day had to say about the removal of the scope...

Mr. DAY. On the bottom side of the barrel which was covered by the wood, I found traces of a palmprint. I dusted these and tried lifting them, the prints, with scotch tape in the usual manner. A faint palmprint came off. I could still see traces of the print under the barrel and was going to try to use photography to bring off or bring out a better print. About this time I received instructions from the chief's office to go no further with the processing, it was to be released to the FBI for them to complete. I did not process the underside of the barrel under the scopic sight, did not get to this area of the gun.

Ah Yes I wondered when you were going to arrive at this tidbit. Once again showing you do not understand the evidence.Do you know which part of the rifle he is talking about? I assure you it is not the part that you think.

You believe that Day is talking about the portion of the top of the barrel right under the scope, he most assuredly is not. He is talking about the BOTTOM of the barrel.

As a visual aid, the blue area is the area you contend he is describing, the red arrow is the area he is actually describing.

rilfeday.jpg

Mr. DAY. On the bottom side of the barrel which was covered by the wood

Day found a partial print under the barrel, UNDER, ON THE BOTTOM, not on the top. This has nothing at all to do with the scope or its removal, and this is certainly no indication that Day did not remove the scope.

Now you can pretend this means he removed the scope but never bothered to dust the area. But that's pretty silly, IMO. It's apparent to me that if he had removed the scope, he would have dusted the whole barrel before lifting and trying to photograph what was left of the faint palm print.

Again, why would he remove the scope to dust the underside of the barrel? This has nothing whatsoever to do with scope removal, you simply just do not know which end of the rifle is up!

SO I ask yet again. Do you have a quote from Day saying he did not remove the scope? You told me that he said such a thing, I really hope this was not your evidence.

Mike

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks Lee....

read thru some of the Bledsoe thread - at least the civil parts :rolleyes: - and too was excellent. It becomes more and more apparent Oswald was not in many of the places he is claimed to have been...

Reading from Crenshaw's work about Specter I am always blown away by that hypethetical question about the SBT.

"...Assuming that the bullet went back to front and exited the throat... would you consider a wound described as such a wound of exit?"

:blink::huh:

Tom, as we have seen, has gone running when asked to discuss the xrays and photos he uses as "Proof"

that and any explanation as to why a FMJ behaves differently than designed...

or how a single shot to the top of the head leads to cerebellum and floor of the skull injuries...

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=17282&view=findpost&p=220202

I hardly believe Tom would run from that David. That is, if you will pardon the pun, a no brainer.

If that's what you think Mike.... yet you too have not addressed the skull graphics I posted and asked you questions about.

I realize you and Tom are not Xray technicians... neither am I. Please help us understand how First - the xray and photo overlay are in ANY WAY CONSISTENT with each other... and Second - please reconcile the images in the other graphic..

and yes, imo the BLACK CIRCLE we see over JFK's right eye is hiding the area in which he was shot... at least one of the shots.

I look forward to it.

DJ

edit: and speaking of No Brainer... are you getting the idea why there had to be a substitute brain for the historical record? JFK's was blasted apart and never sectioned. But that's yet another strange occurance in the world of benign government interaction. :P

David,

I am uncertain exactly what it is that you wish me to reconcile. Those look to me to be perfectly consistent with a single shot to the back of the head.

Now I admit that wound ballistics is not my expressed nitch, but I have seen quite a few of them. Probably more than most.

I am unsure what you find to be inconsistent, can you be more specific?

Mike

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sure Mike...

1. In the photo overlay... it is obvious that JFK has a forehead, a Top of the Head, a right Temple, cheekbones, etc...

NONE of these appear on the xray. How is that possible?

2. There is no bullet hole to the left of the particle/vapor trail - if anything the opening is quite a bit lower...

How do these fragments stay in a straight line from back to front when the path of the bullet, if from back to front, is obviously lower?

3. Why do you suppose the face on xray stops at the line of his nose? See all those circles drawn by Parkland witnesses, Bethesda witnesses and the embalmer.... not a single one puts a gigantic hole as seen in the xray at the front of his face, or anywhere else infront of the ear for that matter... (now if you're going to tell me that witness testimony is not reliable we're not going to get anywhere... these people saw what they saw and not a single on has ever drawn a wound as depicted in that xray.... until Dr. Boswell....

4. What do you make of the perfect black circle hovering over his right temple/forehead area? and if you look it is also in the other Fox photo from that angle. It also shows yet again that there is quite a lot of JFK in front of his right ear that simply disappears on the lateral xray...

If you have not checked out the 5 Investigations link to the History-matters site you might want to do that before you comment.

Mantik's 9 visits is pretty important as well.

Batter up! B)

DJ

One last question... would you or ANY SHOOTER put and carry a disassembled rifle in a paper sack? Isn't that a sure way to bang some parts together that shouldn't... Especially if you have 4 live rounds in there as well?

Edited by David Josephs
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sure Mike...

1. In the photo overlay... it is obvious that JFK has a forehead, a Top of the Head, a right Temple, cheekbones, etc...

NONE of these appear on the xray. How is that possible?

2. There is no bullet hole to the left of the particle/vapor trail - if anything the opening is quite a bit lower...

How do these fragments stay in a straight line from back to front when the path of the bullet, if from back to front, is obviously lower?

3. Why do you suppose the face on xray stops at the line of his nose? See all those circles drawn by Parkland witnesses, Bethesda witnesses and the embalmer.... not a single one puts a gigantic hole as seen in the xray at the front of his face, or anywhere else infront of the ear for that matter... (now if you're going to tell me that witness testimony is not reliable we're not going to get anywhere... these people saw what they saw and not a single on has ever drawn a wound as depicted in that xray.... until Dr. Boswell....

4. What do you make of the perfect black circle hovering over his right temple/forehead area? and if you look it is also in the other Fox photo from that angle. It also shows yet again that there is quite a lot of JFK in front of his right ear that simply disappears on the lateral xray...

If you have not checked out the 5 Investigations link to the History-matters site you might want to do that before you comment.

Mantik's 9 visits is pretty important as well.

Batter up! B)

DJ

One last question... would you or ANY SHOOTER put and carry a disassembled rifle in a paper sack? Isn't that a sure way to bang some parts together that shouldn't... Especially if you have 4 live rounds in there as well?

Ok I can address the rifle question, and will have to do some reading to reply to the others.

I really see no issue with putting the rifle in the sack, so long as moderate care was given. The bullets I would think he already had in the rifle (hopefully not already loaded in the chamber).

I will do some reading and take the others one at a time. Im far more intimidated with medical than I am the ballistic :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fair enough Mike... let's stay with the rifle in the sack...

I think we'd both have to agree that "sack" would have to be over 3 feet long to hold all the parts.

When you get the chance, read Frazier's testimony or anyone else who say Oswald that morning...

the sack they describe and the sack in evidence are not even close to the same....

and if you want to get into the paper bag you might want to check out some of the existing threads...

Quick sample... the Bag photographed outside the TSBD is about 8 inches wide and was folded over once and then a third or about 20" in total width... the paper at the stations where the bag was supposedly made is 24" wide.

No extra paper was found.... and the tape only comes out wet unless you take the machine apart...

the operator of that station NEVER leaves... eats lunch there....

IT's the chicken and the egg again... if the bag was not made by Oswald, assembled at the station or near by based on the tape... 1)how does he get it home 2)when does he put the rifle in it 3)the bag described in the back of Frasier's car is simply NOT the same... so again... I am okay if you say a half dozen or more metal and wooden pieces in an unpadded paper bag is "OK" for transport... problem is, like the timing, the bag, and rifle were never in contact with each other, Oswald never carried THAT bag, and there is no physical evidence the bag in evidence was ever on the 6th floor of the TSBD.

See Mike... one has to prove all the suppositions that bring us to a conclusion before acknowledging the conclusion even merits examination.

I'll agree to let the rifle arrive safely and the scope in perfect working order if you can get that rifle into that bag into Oswald's hands, onto the 6th floor and him getting there in time to use it... If you can't do those things, talking about whether the shots are easy or not iskinda worthless... right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mike, when someone says something is apparent, and then never talks to the one person who would know, they are speculating.

It is apparent to me that Frazier was telling the WC what they wanted to hear, so they could pretend the scope was properly aligned at the time of the shooting. But he knew this was unlikely.

Not a chance. Who are you trying to kid. How do you know that he did not talk to Day? Did you find anything in the Day testimony to support your previous remark:

Your basing your research on what Frazier thought might have happened, when there is no evidence it did, and the only person to say for sure--Lt. Day--said the opposite,

Can you show me where Day said he did not remove the scope, can you show me that Frazier is making an assumption, and did not in fact talk to Day?

I think these assumptions are ones you are making.

Here is what Day had to say about the removal of the scope...

Mr. DAY. On the bottom side of the barrel which was covered by the wood, I found traces of a palmprint. I dusted these and tried lifting them, the prints, with scotch tape in the usual manner. A faint palmprint came off. I could still see traces of the print under the barrel and was going to try to use photography to bring off or bring out a better print. About this time I received instructions from the chief's office to go no further with the processing, it was to be released to the FBI for them to complete. I did not process the underside of the barrel under the scopic sight, did not get to this area of the gun.

Ah Yes I wondered when you were going to arrive at this tidbit. Once again showing you do not understand the evidence.Do you know which part of the rifle he is talking about? I assure you it is not the part that you think.

You believe that Day is talking about the portion of the top of the barrel right under the scope, he most assuredly is not. He is talking about the BOTTOM of the barrel.

As a visual aid, the blue area is the area you contend he is describing, the red arrow is the area he is actually describing.

rilfeday.jpg

Mr. DAY. On the bottom side of the barrel which was covered by the wood

Day found a partial print under the barrel, UNDER, ON THE BOTTOM, not on the top. This has nothing at all to do with the scope or its removal, and this is certainly no indication that Day did not remove the scope.

Now you can pretend this means he removed the scope but never bothered to dust the area. But that's pretty silly, IMO. It's apparent to me that if he had removed the scope, he would have dusted the whole barrel before lifting and trying to photograph what was left of the faint palm print.

Again, why would he remove the scope to dust the underside of the barrel? This has nothing whatsoever to do with scope removal, you simply just do not know which end of the rifle is up!

SO I ask yet again. Do you have a quote from Day saying he did not remove the scope? You told me that he said such a thing, I really hope this was not your evidence.

Mike

Mike, you are 100% wrong. Yet again. Read Frazier's testimony. Read his interviews. READ Day's testimony. Read his interviews. There is no evidence whatsoever that the two men spoke to each other. NONE. And yet you have invented a phone call in which Day told Frazier he removed the scope, and are acting like we should buy into your fantasy. Day removed the barrel from the stock after catching a glimpse of a partial print on the underside of the barrel. He then dusted the barrel. He lifted this print, which turned out to be the palm print linked to Oswald. He said, moreover, that he thought this was an old print, unlike the fresh prints on the trigger guard.

He summarizes what happened in the previously cited response. Here, read it again:

Mr. DAY. On the bottom side of the barrel which was covered by the wood, I found traces of a palmprint. I dusted these and tried lifting them, the prints, with scotch tape in the usual manner. A faint palmprint came off. I could still see traces of the print under the barrel and was going to try to use photography to bring off or bring out a better print. About this time I received instructions from the chief's office to go no further with the processing, it was to be released to the FBI for them to complete. I did not process the underside of the barrel under the scopic sight, did not get to this area of the gun.

When he mentions the underside of the barrel under the scopic sight, he is NOT talking about the print he found "on the bottom side of the barrel which was covered by wood." That print was at the end of the wood stock by the muzzle and nowhere near the scopic sight. He is talking about an area of the rifle he NEVER got to process. This area, moreover, is under the scopic sight. So...does that indicate he removed the scope? Heck no, it suggests the opposite, that he did not. When you READ his testimony and interviews, furthermore, he always talks about putting the barrel back on the stock after being told to stop working on the rifle. He never mentions putting the scope back on.

Now, why do you think that is? Because, ding ding ding, he never removed it!

Edited by Pat Speer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fair enough Mike... let's stay with the rifle in the sack...

I think we'd both have to agree that "sack" would have to be over 3 feet long to hold all the parts.

When you get the chance, read Frazier's testimony or anyone else who say Oswald that morning...

the sack they describe and the sack in evidence are not even close to the same....

and if you want to get into the paper bag you might want to check out some of the existing threads...

Quick sample... the Bag photographed outside the TSBD is about 8 inches wide and was folded over once and then a third or about 20" in total width... the paper at the stations where the bag was supposedly made is 24" wide.

No extra paper was found.... and the tape only comes out wet unless you take the machine apart...

the operator of that station NEVER leaves... eats lunch there....

IT's the chicken and the egg again... if the bag was not made by Oswald, assembled at the station or near by based on the tape... 1)how does he get it home 2)when does he put the rifle in it 3)the bag described in the back of Frasier's car is simply NOT the same... so again... I am okay if you say a half dozen or more metal and wooden pieces in an unpadded paper bag is "OK" for transport... problem is, like the timing, the bag, and rifle were never in contact with each other, Oswald never carried THAT bag, and there is no physical evidence the bag in evidence was ever on the 6th floor of the TSBD.

See Mike... one has to prove all the suppositions that bring us to a conclusion before acknowledging the conclusion even merits examination.

I'll agree to let the rifle arrive safely and the scope in perfect working order if you can get that rifle into that bag into Oswald's hands, onto the 6th floor and him getting there in time to use it... If you can't do those things, talking about whether the shots are easy or not iskinda worthless... right?

David, the bag photographed outside the TSBD was not 8 inches wide, it was by my estimates over 10, and the split-open bag in the archives is not 20 inches wide, it's more like 17. The split open bag in the archives photos, furthermore, gives no indication of having been folded over more than once in the middle. The bags simply don't match, in size or appearance.

yeoldes2.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mike, you are 100% wrong. Yet again. Read Frazier's testimony. Read his interviews. READ Day's testimony. Read his interviews. There is no evidence whatsoever that the two men spoke to each other. NONE. And yet you have invented a phone call in which Day told Frazier he removed the scope, and are acting like we should buy into your fantasy.

Incorrect. I am not inventing anything. I simply said you are assuming there was no call, when yet again, we have no evidence either way. Yet another assumption on your part. I must admit, I would find it hard to believe there was no call. I mean after all Day was in charge of the rifle at the DPD, and Frazier at the FBI. Yet, again, there is no evidence either way.

Day removed the barrel from the stock after catching a glimpse of a partial print on the underside of the barrel. He then dusted the barrel. He lifted this print, which turned out to be the palm print linked to Oswald. He said, moreover, that he thought this was an old print, unlike the fresh prints on the trigger guard.

Now this is interesting. I would like for you to explain to me, just how one determines a "fresh print" from an "old print". To the best of my knowledge there is still no accurate method to date, let alone in 1963.

He summarizes what happened in the previously cited response. Here, read it again:

Mr. DAY. On the bottom side of the barrel which was covered by the wood, I found traces of a palmprint. I dusted these and tried lifting them, the prints, with scotch tape in the usual manner. A faint palmprint came off. I could still see traces of the print under the barrel and was going to try to use photography to bring off or bring out a better print. About this time I received instructions from the chief's office to go no further with the processing, it was to be released to the FBI for them to complete. I did not process the underside of the barrel under the scopic sight, did not get to this area of the gun.

So can you please show me anywhere in the above statement that refers to the TOP of the barrel, which is the area directly under the scope? Day is talking about the bottom of the barrel, the area normally covered by wood. He never makes any reference in the above statement to any part of the top of the barrel.

When he mentions the underside of the barrel under the scopic sight, he is NOT talking about the print he found "on the bottom side of the barrel which was covered by wood." That print was at the end of the wood stock by the muzzle and nowhere near the scopic sight. He is talking about an area of the rifle he NEVER got to process. This area, moreover, is under the scopic sight. So...does that indicate he removed the scope? Heck no, it suggests the opposite, that he did not. When you READ his testimony and interviews, furthermore, he always talks about putting the barrel back on the stock after being told to stop working on the rifle. He never mentions putting the scope back on.

Now, why do you think that is? Because, ding ding ding, he never removed it!

Well then if this is the case, why does he never mention anything about the TOP of the barrel, which is the area you are talking about? He clearly is talking about the bottom of the barrel, under the scope, in the area covered by wood.

You are making yet another assumption here. You are assuming that he had not already processed the area on the top of the barrel, under the scope. Further, he is telling us that he never got to process the area on the bottom of the barrel, under the scope.

Day does not make one single reference to the top of the barrel in anything that you site. Clearly there is not one bit of evidence to support your claims in this statement of Days.

Now I would like to ask you a question about fingerprint procedures.

When printing an item, what is the starting point, and what is the ending point? Where does one begin, and end?

The problem here Pat is you are making to many assumptions. Lack of evidence is never, and should never be considered evidence itself.

You assume Day and Frazier never talked, based on what? No written documentation? So you are trying to fabricate evidence from the lack of evidence.

You then further try to fabricate a statement,by me. making it seems as though I fabricated a phone call. Ridiculous.

SO again I have to ask you to offer some evidence that Day said he never removed the scope. So far you have not offered anything of the sort, the only thing you have offered refers to the bottom of the rifle that has nothing to do with the scope.

Mike

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fair enough Mike... let's stay with the rifle in the sack...

I think we'd both have to agree that "sack" would have to be over 3 feet long to hold all the parts.

When you get the chance, read Frazier's testimony or anyone else who say Oswald that morning...

the sack they describe and the sack in evidence are not even close to the same....

and if you want to get into the paper bag you might want to check out some of the existing threads...

Quick sample... the Bag photographed outside the TSBD is about 8 inches wide and was folded over once and then a third or about 20" in total width... the paper at the stations where the bag was supposedly made is 24" wide.

No extra paper was found.... and the tape only comes out wet unless you take the machine apart...

the operator of that station NEVER leaves... eats lunch there....

IT's the chicken and the egg again... if the bag was not made by Oswald, assembled at the station or near by based on the tape... 1)how does he get it home 2)when does he put the rifle in it 3)the bag described in the back of Frasier's car is simply NOT the same... so again... I am okay if you say a half dozen or more metal and wooden pieces in an unpadded paper bag is "OK" for transport... problem is, like the timing, the bag, and rifle were never in contact with each other, Oswald never carried THAT bag, and there is no physical evidence the bag in evidence was ever on the 6th floor of the TSBD.

See Mike... one has to prove all the suppositions that bring us to a conclusion before acknowledging the conclusion even merits examination.

I'll agree to let the rifle arrive safely and the scope in perfect working order if you can get that rifle into that bag into Oswald's hands, onto the 6th floor and him getting there in time to use it... If you can't do those things, talking about whether the shots are easy or not iskinda worthless... right?

David, the bag photographed outside the TSBD was not 8 inches wide, it was by my estimates over 10, and the split-open bag in the archives is not 20 inches wide, it's more like 17. The split open bag in the archives photos, furthermore, gives no indication of having been folded over more than once in the middle. The bags simply don't match, in size or appearance.

yeoldes2.jpg

http://www.craiglamson.com/misc/bag1.html

Lamson had a field day with this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Craig's work with hypotheticals and physics is all well and good... I will let Pat continue to battle it out with him... Problem is the bag these two are discussing WAS NOT THE BAG OSWALD BROUGHT TO WORK... If he brings a bag at all... The only person putting a bag in his hands is Frazier... and that bag, as you can read, is a small paper sack folded over... Not exactly the 3+ foot bag made of shop packing paper...

THE STATE OF TEXAS

COUNTY OF DALLAS

BEFORE ME, Mary Rattan, a Notary Public in and for said County, State of Texas, on this day personally appeared Buell Wesley Frazier, Age 19, 2439 West 5th Street, Irving, Texas WE 3-8965 who, after being by me duly sworn, on oath deposes and says:

I work at Texas School Book Depository, Corner Elm and Houston. I have worked there since September 13, 1963. I fill orders. About a month ago, I met Lee Harvey Oswald at work. I saw that he was a new man, and I walked up to him and asked him if he was Lee. I figured he must be Lee as my sister had told me about him. I asked him if he would like to ride back and forth with me as I knew his wife lived with Ruth Paine near my house, and he said he would, but only on week ends as he had an apartment of his own in Oak Cliff. After that every Friday evening Lee would ride home with me and then ride back to work with me on Monday morning. He has only rode home from work with me on Fridays, but yesterday morning, Thursday, November 21, 1963, Lee told me that he wanted to ride home with me that evening. I was surprised, and I asked him if he was going with me Friday also, and he said, "No". He told me that he was going home to get some curtain rods. Thursday afternoon Lee rode to Irving with me to Ruth Paine's house, where his wife is staying. I let him out of my car in front of Ruth's house, then I went on. This morning, Friday, November 22, 1963, I got up between 6:00 - 6:30 AM, and got ready to go to work, and then sit down to eat breakfast, about 7:15 AM, me, my mother, and my two little neices [sic] were at the table, and my sister was at the sink. My mother looked up and said, "Who is that looking in the window?" I looked up and said, "That's Lee." I got up and finished getting ready and got my lunch and went to the door and met Lee on the car port. We then walked to my car, it was parked backed up at the side of the car port. Before I got in the car, I glanced in the back seat, and saw a big sack. It must have been about 2' long, and the top of the sack was sort of folded up, and the rest of the sack had been kind of folded under. I asked Lee what was in the sack, and he said "curtain rods", and I remembered that he had told me the day before that he was going to bring some curtain rods. We drove to work the same way that I usually go. We came into town on Stemmons Freeway to Main and Main to Record, and then on across the McKinney and by the warehouse to the parking lot. I parked the car and sit there awhile and run the motor to charge the battery, and while I was doing that, Lee got out and opened the back door and got the package out of the back seat and walked behind the car, then I got out of the car and started walking toward the building where I work. I noticed that Lee had the package in his right hand under his arm, and the package was straight up and down, and he had his arm down, and you could not see much of the package. When we started walking, Lee was just a few feet ahead of me, but he kept waking faster than me, and finally got way ahead of me. I saw him go in the back door at the Loading Dock of the building that we work in, and he still had the package under his arm. I did not see him anymore for about 30 minutes, and then we were both working. Lee did not carry his lunch today. He told me this morning he was going to buy his lunch today. I was standing on the front steps of the building when the Parade came by, and I watched the Parade go by. After President Kennedy had got out of my sight, I heard three shots. I stood there, then people started running by, and I turned, and went back in the building and got my lunch and eat it. I did not see Lee anymore after about 11:00 AM today, and at that time, we were both working, and we were on the first floor.

Wesley Frazier

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN BEFORE ME THIS 22 DAY OF November A.D. 1963

/s/Mary Rattan

Notary Public, Dallas County, Texas

Mr. BALL - Did you see him come in the door?

Mr. DOUGHERTY - Yes; I saw him when he first come in the door--yes.

Mr. BALL - Did he have anything in his hands or arms?

Mr. DOUGHERTY - Well, not that I could see of.

Mr. BALL - About what time of day was that?

Mr. DOUGHERTY - That was 8 o'clock.

Mr. BALL - That was about 8 o'clock?

Mr. DOUGHERTY - Yes, sir.

Mr. BALL - What door did he come in?

Mr. DOUGHERTY - Well, he came in the back door.

Somebody's lying here Mike..... why would Frazier lie and make the bag too small in all its descriptions?

And now it looks as if the Commission itself is not sure which bag is what exhibit

The CHAIRMAN - The Commission will be in order.

Mr. BALL - I would like to assign Commission Exhibit No. 364 to a paper sack which the FBI has identified as their C-109 Exhibit. That will be the Commission's Exhibit No. 364 for identification at this time.

The CHAIRMAN - All right.

(The paper sack referred to was marked Commission's Exhibit No. 364 for identification.)

Mr. BALL - Also for the record I would like to announce that prior to--this morning, Mr. Cortlandt Cunningham and Charles Killion of the Federal Bureau of Investigation laboratory, the Ballistics Division, Firearms Division, I guess it is, broke down, that is unscrewed Commission Exhibit No. 139, an Italian rifle, and that rifle has been placed in, after being disassembled., has been placed in Commission's No. 364 for identification, that paper sack.

The CHAIRMAN - All right.

Mr. BALL - We have also here before the Commission, Commission No. 142 which is a paper sack which is identified as the FBI's Exhibit No. 10. I think that has its number, exhibit number on it.

I have been informed that was 142. My notes show that the brown paper sack is 142.

I think we can call the witness now.

CE364 is a REPLICA BAG made by the FBI http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh16/html/WH_Vol16_0492b.htm

CE142 is supposed to be the actual bag.... if they have the actual bag... what in the world do we need a reploica at the commission questioning??? http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh16/html/WH_Vol16_0269a.htm

Now a question for the lawyers.... Isn't asking Frazier what Oswald said hearsay? inadmissable in court hearsay?

I know the WC was not a court... but anything learned from what Frazier says Oswald said is useless as evidence unless corroborated... right?

Mr. BALL - Did he say anything about being in the Marines?

Mr. FRAZIER - Yes; he told me he was a Marine.

Just imagine:

Mr. Ball - Did Oswald say he was going to kill the president?

Mr. Frazier - Oh yes, said it all the time...he was obsessed... every time we drove home... blah, blah, blah...

and finally Frazier's testimony

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.

Mr. BALL - It was, what part of the back seat was it in?

Mr. FRAZIER - It was in his side over on his side in the far back.

Mr. BALL - How much of that back seat, how much space did it take up?

Mr. FRAZIER - I would say roughly around 2 feet of the seat.

Mr. BALL - From the side of the seat over to the center, is that the way you would measure it?

Mr. FRAZIER - If, if you were going to measure it that way from the end of the seat over toward the center, right. But I say like I said I just roughly estimate and that would be around two feet, give and take a few inches.

Mr. BALL - How wide was the package?

Mr. FRAZIER - Well, I would say the package was about that wide.

Mr. BALL - How wide would you say that would be?

Mr. FRAZIER - Oh, say, around 5 inches, something like that. 5, 6 inches or there. I don't--

Mr. BALL - The paper, was the color of the paper, that you would get in a grocery store, is that it, a bag in a grocery store?

Mr. FRAZIER - Right. You have seen, not a real light color but you know normally, the normal color about the same color, you have seen these kinds of heavy duty bags you know like you obtain from the grocery store, something like that, about the same color of that, paper sack you get there.

Mr. BALL - Was there anything more said about the paper sack on the way into town?

Mr. FRAZIER - No, sir; there wasn't.

Mr. BALL - Did you usually walk up there together.

Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir; we did.

Mr. BALL - Is this the first time that he had ever walked ahead of you?

Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir; he did.

Mr. BALL - You say he had the package under his arm when you saw him?

Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir.

Mr. BALL - You mean one end of it under the armpit?

Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir; he had it up just like you stick it right under your arm like that.

Mr. BALL - And he had the lower part--

Mr. FRAZIER - The other part with his right hand.

Mr. BALL - Right hand?

Mr. FRAZIER - Right.

Mr. BALL - He carried it then parallel to his body?

Mr. FRAZIER - Right, straight up and down.

Representative FORD - Under his right arm?

Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir.

Mr. BALL - Did it look to you as if there was something heavy in the package?

Mr. FRAZIER - Well, I will be frank with you, I didn't pay much attention to the package because like I say before and after he told me that it was curtain rods and I didn't pay any attention to it, and he never had lied to me before so I never did have any reason to doubt his word.

Mike...

Absolutely nothing in Frazier's testimony or Affidavit suggest the bag, if it existed, was anything more than 2' long, and a grocery store type bag.... now look at any of the pictures of the bag being held outside the TSBD - same bag as Frawier describes?

Once again, measuring bags that cannot be physically placed where it was supposed to be other than by the testimony of the same DPD officers, like Lt. Day, who are shown to have told all sorts of interesting stories... precludes the need to compare bags.

Mr. BALL - Did the two of you walk together down to the parking lot?

Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir; we did.

Mr. Lamson cannot show us when Oswald made this bag, the WC did not even ask Frazier if Oswald had brought home ANYTHING let alone a paper bag that thursday (unless you can prove it was brought to the Paines earlier, which you cant), we have no idea if and when any rifle in a blanket even existed othe than the testimony of Marina :blink: and there is no testimony or evidence when Oswald, who was asleep by 9pm thursday night, could have disassembled the rifle and placed the parts into the non-existent paper bag.

I see no point in discussing the bag outside the TSBD until there is any evidence that Oswald had anything to do with it... Kind of like the Rifle. So Mike - if Craig convinces you of ANYTHING regarding those bags outside the TSBD, great. Ask him to get the bag made, to the Paines and back again... and then show us any physical evidence it was in the TSBD, like the clip.

and yet another absurd example of WC evidence gathering against Oswald:

Ruth Paine is allowed to DRAW A PICTURE of CURTAIN RODS she supposedly found in her garage after 11/22.... :huh: and let's please remeber that Ruth has a proven connection to the intelligence community... it's hard to give her credibility when speaking against Oswald... imo.

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0097b.htm

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...