Is this the "rifle" bag?

[Ron Ege]

22 minutes ago, Gerry Down said:

Frazier and his sister said LHO brought a long paper package to work that morning. Oswald denied this. Lo and behold a long paper package is found in the snipers nest.

I do remember that, but I thought the "gun sack" that was found in the "sniper's nest" was quite a bit longer than what BWF and his sister described in their testimony.  Were they not quite adamant the LHO's "sack" was approximately 27", whereas the disassembled rifle was 35" long?

And I thought BWF said he watched LHO carry the sack with the top tucked into his armpit, whist cupping the sack's bottom.

Was it not determined that LHO's arms were not enough to accomplish that?

Perhaps the more knowledgeable here, can help us out?

[Gerry Down]

1 hour ago, Ron Ege said:

I do remember that, but I thought the "gun sack" that was found in the "sniper's nest" was quite a bit longer than what BWF and his sister described in their testimony.  Were they not quite adamant the LHO's "sack" was approximately 27", whereas the disassembled rifle was 35" long?

And I thought BWF said he watched LHO carry the sack with the top tucked into his armpit, whist cupping the sack's bottom.

Was it not determined that LHO's arms were not enough to accomplish that?

Perhaps the more knowledgeable here, can help us out?

Well I take the position that Frazier was mistaken about the length. I know others on here would disagree with that.

[Ron Ege]

OK.

So, I get it.

Your position is that LHO did take the disassembled rifle in the "gun sack", to the TSBD, the day of the assassination.

Thanks.

[Pat Speer]

2 hours ago, Gerry Down said:

Frazier and his sister said LHO brought a long paper package to work that morning. Oswald denied this. Lo and behold a long paper package is found in the snipers nest.

Was it found? Or was it brought there? It's long been noted that Day's carrying the rifle out onto the streets was more than unusual, and that it would have been much more professional for him to have placed the rifle in some sort of sack. He acknowledged, moreover, that he went down to the paper and tape machines before leaving the building. It seems possible then that he ordered Studebaker to make a sack for the rifle, but then got tired of just standing around, and left without the sack. And that Studebaker then took the sack back up to the sixth floor. A long piece of the windowsill was removed from the window. No one has ever explained how that was transported from the building. It seems possible that that was in the sack. 

As far as the photo of the sack on the boxes...this actually undermines the official story as no one ever said anything about leaving the sack laying around for a period after its discovery... It should make you wonder what else was left out...

Edited September 3, 2022 by Pat Speer

[Pat Speer]

21 minutes ago, Gerry Down said:

Well I take the position that Frazier was mistaken about the length. I know others on here would disagree with that.

So, yeah, that's one giant leap for mankind.

But you also seem to be saying that the sack was in the corner as claimed, covering up more than half the empty floor space, and that no one, including Fritz, who'd inspected the area prior to the arrival of Day and Studebaker, noticed it or remembered it. 

That's two giant leaps...

And that, furthermore, neither Studebaker nor Day thought to have it photographed in the building upon its discovery or before leaving the building...

That's three...

Let's go back in order...

We have a piece of evidence that 

1) was not viewed by any of those first viewing the crime scene, even though it should have been obvious...

2) was not photographed in situ upon its discovery, or even that day, by those claiming to have discovered it, and to have recognized its importance...

3) was "found" by men whose stories were in contradiction, and ever-changing...

and 4) was said not to be an item previously seen in the suspect's possession, by the only two witnesses to see the suspect with that item...

 

And what point do you say "Hmmm"?  If not by point 3 than most certainly point 4... Right? 

 

 

[Gerry Down]

37 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

So, yeah, that's one giant leap for mankind.

But you also seem to be saying that the sack was in the corner as claimed, covering up more than half the empty floor space, and that no one, including Fritz, who'd inspected the area prior to the arrival of Day and Studebaker, noticed it or remembered it. 

That's two giant leaps...

And that, furthermore, neither Studebaker nor Day thought to have it photographed in the building upon its discovery or before leaving the building...

That's three...

Let's go back in order...

We have a piece of evidence that 

1) was not viewed by any of those first viewing the crime scene, even though it should have been obvious...

2) was not photographed in situ upon its discovery, or even that day, by those claiming to have discovered it, and to have recognized its importance...

3) was "found" by men whose stories were in contradiction, and ever-changing...

and 4) was said not to be an item previously seen in the suspect's possession, by the only two witnesses to see the suspect with that item...

 

And what point do you say "Hmmm"?  If not by point 3 than most certainly point 4... Right? 

 

 

I don't see any issue here. Whoever moved the sack from the corner to the top of boxes likely simply didn't want to admit after the fact that they did. We'll have to agree to disagree. You are entitled to your opinion