PrayerPerson ???

[David Von Pein]

4 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

Frazier has long said Ball repeatedly tried to trick him into saying the bag he saw was the size of the bag in evidence.

Actually, Pat, Joe Ball didn't need to "trick" Buell Frazier into saying any such thing.....because Frazier himself had already admitted to the FBI---months earlier, on December 1, 1963---that the bag found in the Sniper's Nest (CE142) "could have been" the same bag Frazier saw Oswald carrying on the morning of the assassination. That "could have been" information was brought out in Bardwell Odum's 12/1/63 interview with Frazier, which can be found here in Commission Document No. 7....

"Frazier examined the original [brown paper sack] found by the sixth floor window of the TSBD Building on November 22, 1963, and stated that if that sack was originally the color of the replica sack, it could have been the sack or package which he saw in the possession of Oswald on the morning of November 22, 1963, but that he does not feel he is in a position to definitely state that this original is or is not the sack."

BTW, Linnie Mae Randle said the same thing about the original paper bag (see this page of CD7).

The "original" paper bag, with two of Lee Oswald's fingerprints on it, is 38 inches long.

So much for the bag being only "27 inches" or "2 feet" long.

The two 12/1/63 FBI interviews with Frazier and Randle that I just linked to are quite revealing and important, in my opinion, because when both Frazier and Randle were shown the "original" paper bag found in the Sniper's Nest (which is, indeed, a 38-inch bag), they both told Bardwell Odum and one other FBI agent that the "original" bag could have been the same one they saw Oswald carrying. Now, why would they both have said something like that to the FBI if the bag they each saw on November 22nd had really been almost a foot shorter than the 38-inch "original" bag they were shown by the FBI?

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If the bag that Linnie Mae Randle and Buell Wesley Frazier saw Lee Oswald carrying had REALLY been quite a bit shorter than the "original" bag they were both later shown on December 1st, then there should have been no "ifs" and "coulds" about it in either Randle's mind or Frazier's mind—i.e., the "original" bag (via those conditions) could not possibly have been the bag that Frazier and Randle saw on Nov. 22, regardless of the bag's COLOR.

But instead of saying to the FBI agents something like this....

Regardless of the color issue, there's no way in the world this "original" bag you are showing me now could be the same one I saw Oswald carrying on Nov. 22nd, because this "original" bag is way too long.

....both Frazier and Randle, per Commission Document No. 7, tell two FBI agents that the "original" bag they were shown is still in the mix of possible bags that Lee Oswald "could have been" carrying on November 22nd.

Do conspiracy theorists think that both Buell Frazier and Linnie Randle just TOTALLY IGNORED the LENGTH of the "original" bag when they each said that the original sack was still a candidate for the one they saw Oswald toting on 11/22? Were both Frazier and Randle only concerned with the COLOR of the bags at that point in time in their FBI interviews?

In other words, both Buell & Linnie Mae knew the original bag was much too long, but neither one of them was able to concentrate on two separate aspects of the bag at the same time (color and length), so they each said "could have been" with respect to the color only, all the while totally forgetting that this "original" bag in front of their eyes was entirely too big. Is that what some conspiracists want to contend?

Or maybe some CTers think that FBI agents Bardwell D. Odum and Gibbon E. McNeely were merely putting words into the mouths of both Buell and Linnie Mae that neither of them actually uttered at all during their 12/1/63 interviews --- namely these words: "Could have been the sack".

More:

http://DVP's JFK Archives/2018/03/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-1275

 

Edited September 23, 2022 by David Von Pein

[Tony Krome]

1 hour ago, David Von Pein said:

Obviously not. Because if Oswald had said to Fritz (et al) that he was outside on the steps at the time of the shooting, that key information would most certainly have shown up in the official reports of multiple people who were present to hear Oswald's statements during the interrogations (e.g., the reports of Fritz, Bookhout, Hosty, Kelley, and Holmes).

Instead, we have this:

"I [Captain Fritz] asked him [LHO] what part of the building he was in at the time the President was shot, and he said that he was having his lunch about that time on the first floor." [Warren Report; Page 600]

And this:

"Oswald claimed to be on the first floor when President John F. Kennedy passed this building." [Hosty/Bookhout 11/22/63 joint report; WCR, Page 613]

 

Thanks for that Dave, for me, that proves that Oswald was not the shooter. 

[David Von Pein]

1 minute ago, Tony Krome said:

Thanks for that Dave, for me, that proves that Oswald was not the shooter. 

Wonderful logic there.

[Pat Speer]

30 minutes ago, David Von Pein said:

Actually, Pat, Joe Ball didn't need to "trick" Buell Frazier into saying any such thing.....because Frazier himself had already admitted to the FBI---months earlier, on December 1, 1963---that the bag found in the Sniper's Nest (CE142) "could have been" the same bag Frazier saw Oswald carrying on the morning of the assassination. That "could have been" information was brought out in Bardwell Odum's 12/1/63 interview with Frazier, which can be found here in Commission Document No. 7....

"Frazier examined the original [brown paper sack] found by the sixth floor window of the TSBD Building on November 22, 1963, and stated that if that sack was originally the color of the replica sack, it could have been the sack or package which he saw in the possession of Oswald on the morning of November 22, 1963, but that he does not feel he is in a position to definitely state that this original is or is not the sack."

BTW, Linnie Mae Randle said the same thing about the original paper bag (see this page of CD7).

The "original" paper bag, with two of Lee Oswald's fingerprints on it, is 38 inches long.

So much for the bag being only "27 inches" or "2 feet" long.

The two 12/1/63 FBI interviews with Frazier and Randle that I just linked to are quite revealing and important, in my opinion, because when both Frazier and Randle were shown the "original" paper bag found in the Sniper's Nest (which is, indeed, a 38-inch bag), they both told Bardwell Odum and one other FBI agent that the "original" bag could have been the same one they saw Oswald carrying. Now, why would they both have said something like that to the FBI if the bag they each saw on November 22nd had really been almost a foot shorter than the 38-inch "original" bag they were shown by the FBI?

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Main point....

If the bag that Linnie Mae Randle and Buell Wesley Frazier saw Lee Oswald carrying had REALLY been quite a bit shorter than the "original" bag they were both later shown on December 1st, then there should have been no "ifs" and "coulds" about it in either Randle's mind or Frazier's mind—i.e., the "original" bag (via those conditions) could not possibly have been the bag that Frazier and Randle saw on Nov. 22, regardless of the bag's COLOR.

But instead of saying to the FBI agents something like this....

Regardless of the color issue, there's no way in the world this "original" bag you are showing me now could be the same one I saw Oswald carrying on Nov. 22nd, because this "original" bag is way too long.

....both Frazier and Randle, per Commission Document No. 7, tell two FBI agents that the "original" bag they were shown is still in the mix of possible bags that Lee Oswald "could have been" carrying on November 22nd.

Do conspiracy theorists think that both Buell Frazier and Linnie Randle just TOTALLY IGNORED the LENGTH of the "original" bag when they each said that the original sack was still a candidate for the one they saw Oswald toting on 11/22? Were both Frazier and Randle only concerned with the COLOR of the bags at that point in time in their FBI interviews? In other words, both Buell & Linnie Mae knew the original bag was much too long, but neither one of them was able to concentrate on two separate aspects of the bag at the same time (color and length), so they each said "could have been" with respect to the color only, all the while totally forgetting that this "original" bag in front of their eyes was entirely too big. Is that what some conspiracists want to contend?

Or maybe some CTers think that FBI agents Bardwell D. Odum and Gibbon E. McNeely were merely putting words into the mouths of both Buell and Linnie Mae that neither of them actually uttered at all during their 12/1/63 interviews --- namely these words: "Could have been the sack".

More:

http://DVP's JFK Archives/2018/03/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-1275

 

When shown the bag on 11-22-63 Frazier refused to ID it as the bag. He was so convincing in his refusal, for that matter, that the DPD took to musing the bag supposedly found in the SN was folded up inside the bag viewed by Frazier. 

When asked a few days later to ID the size of the bag against the back seat of his car, Frazier specified that the bag was about 27 inches long and 6 inches wide. When he was shown the bag put into evidence during his testimony, moreover, he once again refused to ID it as the bag he saw and swore the bag he saw was about 27 inches long and 6 inches wide--less than HALF the size of the bag put into evidence.

And this, after being pressured by Ball into changing his testimony...

So no, you can't take one statement in one report and pretend the problem just goes away. Frazier has maintained since the night of the shooting that the bag placed in evidence was not the bag he saw in Oswald's possession. 

As far as Frazier or anyone else saying something "could have been" this or "could have been" that, that doesn't mean much. When pressed, people might say their mom could be an alien. What matters then and now is someone's best recollection. And Frazier's best recollection--that he has never wavered from--is that it was not the same bag. 

P.S. That was some nice cherry-picking you did with that FBI report. You left out that AFTER they were shown the original bag and said maybe (or at least were reported to have said maybe) Bardwell and Odum performed two tests to help them make up their minds--and the original bag FAILED both tests...

From patspeer.com, chapter 2:

In their 12-2 report, Odum and McNeeley re-tell Frazier's story. They write: "As he started to drive out of the yard, Frazier glanced back and noticed a long package, light brown in color, lying on the back of the rear seat and extending from approximately the right rear door to about the center of the seat...Frazier designated an approximate spot on the back seat where he felt the package extended to from the right rear door and measurement by Special Agents Bardwell D. Odum and Gibbon E. McNeeley determined that this spot was 27 inches from the inside of the right door, indicating that Frazier estimates that as the length of the package." They then recount Frazier's recollection of how Oswald carried the package into the building: "Oswald had this package under his right arm, one end of this package being under his armpit and the other end apparently held with his right fingers...Frazier stated that when he saw this package under the arm of Oswald, he reached the conclusion that the package was wrapped in a cheap, crinkly, thin paper sack, such as that provided by Five and Ten Cent Stores." They then describe showing Frazier the replica sack. Agent Odum held the sack under his arm, and they measured how much of the sack was visible to Frazier, when held under his arm. It was 9" by 1". According to Odum's report, Frazier then advised Odum "that he now realizes that his conclusion that the sack was thin, crinkly paper, of the type used in Five and Ten Cent stores, was based to a considerable extent upon the fact that the color of the sack was a very light brown as compared with the type of dark brown paper used for heavier grocery sacks. He noted that the color of the replica sack was the same color as the package which he had seen in possession of Oswald on the morning of November 22, 1963." Odum then shows Frazier the original sack. He writes: "Frazier examined the original found by the sixth floor window of the TSBD Building on November 22,1963, and stated that if that sack was originally the color of the replica sack, it could have been the sack or package which he saw in the possession of Oswald on the morning of November 22, 1963, but that he does not feel he is in a position to definitely state that this original is or is not the sack." This is incredibly disingenuous, and fails to note that Frazier was shown this sack, on the night of the shooting, before it had been discolored by the FBI's tests, and had refused to identify it as the sack or bag brought into work by Oswald. Odum then reports: "Frazier indicated on the replica sack the estimated width of the package in possession of Oswald on the morning of November 22, 1963, and this was found to be an approximate width of six inches." (CD7, 294-297).

They then showed the sack to Frazier's sister, Linnie Mae Randle. She also has her doubts about the sack. Odum reports: "Mrs. Randle states that at the time she saw Oswald walking across the street, he was carrying a long package wrapped in brown paper or a brown sack in his right hand. It appeared to contain something heavy. She stated that it was long but did not touch the ground as he walked across the street. She examined a replica of the sack...She stated that this was the same kind of paper that made up the sack or package that she saw Oswald carrying, and was the same heavy grade of paper, since she recalls noting that there was something heavy in the sack when she saw it, and it was the same color paper as the sack she had seen on the morning of November 22, 1963. She was shown the original paper sack...She stated that if the original sack was previously the same color as the replica sack, that the original sack could have been the one which she saw Oswald carrying on the morning of November 22, 1963...The action of Oswald walking across Westbrook Street was re-enacted by Special Agent McNeeley, carrying the replica sack...in accordance with Mrs. Randle's observations, Special Agent McNeeley grasped the top of the sack with his hand...When the proper length of the sack was reached according to Mrs. Randle's estimate, it was measured and found to be 27 inches long. She demonstrated the width of the sack as it appeared to her, noting that it did have something bulky in it originally. Her designation on the replica sack was found to be 8 1/2 inches for the width of the original package she had seen Oswald carrying." (CD7, p298-299).

Now here, once again, Odum acts as though the recollection of the witness is consistent with the sack carried by Oswald being the sack found in the sniper's nest. This just isn't true. Two witnesses saw the sack. The FBI performed two tests to determine the length of the sack seen by the witnesses. They had Frazier look at his back seat and estimate the length of the package he saw on his back seat. They measured this and it was 27 inches. This confirmed for Frazier that the sack he saw was about 27 inches long. They then re-enacted Oswald walking across the street to get Randle's best estimate of the length of the sack. This led her to conclude the sack she saw was...27 inches long. We've seen some evidence photos. The sack photographed by the FBI is about 38 inches long, approximately 40% longer than the sack described by both Frazier and Randle. It also appears to have been slightly tapered from one end to the other--from about 8 1/2 inches wide at the open end to about 9 1/4 inches wide at the closed end, for an average of 8 7/8 inches wide. Frazier, of course, said the bag in Oswald's possession was about 6 inches wide.

Time for math. 27 x 6 = 162 sq. inches. 38 x 8.875 = 337.25 sq. inches. This means the bag shown Frazier--assuming it was the bag sent on to the FBI--was more than twice as large as the bag he recalled seeing in Oswald's possession.

It was also made from a thicker paper. No wonder he'd refused to ID the bag!

 

 

Edited September 23, 2022 by Pat Speer

[Tony Krome]

6 minutes ago, David Von Pein said:

Wonderful logic there.

It is actually, you just haven't thought it through

[David Von Pein]

1 minute ago, Pat Speer said:

So no, you can't take one statement in one report and pretend the problem just goes away. Frazier has maintained since the night of the shooting that the bag placed in evidence was not the bag he saw in Oswald's possession. 

Oh yes, that's very true. Frazier has always strongly suggested that the bag he saw Oswald carrying into the Book Depository on 11/22 was way too short to be the bag that was found by the police in the Sniper's Nest (CE142).

But those FBI reports in CD7 have got to make you scratch your head just a little bit, though. Because if LHO's bag had really been only 24 to 27 inches in length, why would BOTH Frazier AND Randle have told the FBI that CE142 could have been the bag they saw Oswald carrying---regardless of the color?!

Plus, there's another FBI report from 11/22/63, in which Linnie Randle told James Bookhout that the bag she saw Oswald carrying was "approximately 3 feet" (36 inches) in length. And that was her very first approximation of the bag's size.

 

[David Von Pein]

48 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

P.S.  That was some nice cherry-picking you did with that FBI report. You left out that AFTER they were shown the original bag and said maybe (or at least were reported to have said maybe), Bardwell Odum performed two tests to help them make up their minds--and the original bag FAILED both tests.

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

Edited September 23, 2022 by David Von Pein

[Pat Speer]

8 minutes ago, David Von Pein said:

But there really should have been no "maybe" about it at all in the minds of either Frazier or Randle. And yet, on Dec. 1st, there was a "maybe" being uttered by BOTH of those witnesses.

No, that's not the way it works, David. The FBI showed the bag to Frazier and his sister and said this is x. It is evidence in an important case. Is this what you saw? When they do this kind of thing they get a 90% "maybe" response. But that wouldn't be good enough for a court of law. They then say well what is it about this that makes you doubt it is what you saw? Frazier then says the item I saw appeared a certain way on the back seat, and Randle says it appeared a certain way when Oswald carried it. The FBI then measures out the distance covered by the item on the back seat for Frazier, and re-enacts the carrying of the bag for Randle. 

X FAILED both tests! 

So the answer they gave was not "maybe", it was "no!"

[Bill Brown]

On 9/21/2022 at 6:40 PM, Sandy Larsen said:

 

"We know..." is a figure of speech used when giving a lecture or tutorial when one refers to something already elucidated. "We know from..." is used when a conclusion can readily be drawn from what is about to be said.

But I think that most "CIA did it" authors believe pretty much what I said in my working theory. I just refined and expanded the theory a bit.

 

 

Okay.

 

Because of the evidence, "we know" that Lee Oswald (alone) is a cop-killer and a political assassin.

 

[Denis Morissette]

4 hours ago, Bill Brown said:

 

Okay.

 

Because of the evidence, "we know" that Lee Oswald (alone) is a cop-killer and a political assassin.

 

Excellent! 

[Mark Ulrik]

22 hours ago, Gil Jesus said:

I can agree with the part that he was supposed to meet someone there. Wasn't there a witness in the theater who claimed that Oswald was moving from seat-to-seat sitting next to people ? Isn't this what an intel operative would do ? Sit next to someone, say a phrase and expect that person to answer with another phrase ? Then if that person doesn't answer with the correct phrase, he moves on to the next person ? Sounds plausible to me.

Sounds mildly amusing to me.

[Ron Ege]

I guess it depends on one's sense of humor. 

Anyhow, if valid, then for me the scenario is at least, interesting.

Going from memory, was it not reported by someone that Oswald sat next to two people, maybe three, one being a pregnant woman - moving from seat to seat, in a what, 600 seat theatre, with roughly 20 patrons.

Can any of our more learned members provide a link?

 

[Sandy Larsen]

On 9/22/2022 at 2:46 AM, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

The simpler the explanation, the more likely it is to be correct, and the more likely it is to convince open-minded members of the public.

 

If our goal is to convince open-minded members of the public that a conspiracy was behind the killing of Kennedy, then were finished. Researchers long ago have already done that.

 

On 9/22/2022 at 2:46 AM, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

Too many JFK assassination enthusiasts feel the need to create complex and implausible all-encompassing theories that try to give an explanation for every anomalous detail. There's no need to do so.

 

Some of us want to know more than the fact that Kennedy was killed by a conspiracy. Some of us want to know the details.

If some anomalous detail looks relevant and doesn't appear to have an innocent explanation, it would be good to explore it. Because even if the explanation for that anomaly seems relatively mundane, it could turn out to be quite significant when added to other evidence.

One example of this is when somebody notice that Officer Baker seemed to be running parallel to the sidewalk along the front of the TSBD rather than toward the front steps. This proved to be one piece among several pieces of circumstantial evidence that ultimately showed that the 2nd floor Oswald/Baker encounter was nothing but a fabrication.

 

On 9/22/2022 at 2:46 AM, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

Connecting the killing with the Soviet or Cuban regimes need be done only by implicating one person, who had plausible ties with those regimes, in the crime. As it turned out, this involved the discovery of a rifle at the scene of the crime which could plausibly be linked to an apparently Castro-supporting former defector to the Soviet Union. Whether or not the apparent owner of the rifle turned up for work that day, or wherever he happened to be at the time of the shooting, he would be implicated, and so would the regimes with which he apparently sympathised.

 

Let me get this straight...

The CIA plotters spent a good deal of effort faking evidence that Oswald was conspiring with Cuba and Russia in Mexico City, two months before Kennedy's Dallas trip. They figured that all they needed to do was plant a rifle belonging to Oswald in the TSBD. He didn't have to actually work there. The presence of his rifle was enough to implicate him.

Well that might be a fine plan, but how do you explain the fact that Oswald actually DID get a job there? It was just one enormous coincidence?

That's ridiculous. Of course people were directed to make sure Oswald got a job there. Maybe you don't see it being necessary, but the plotters obviously did. Because he WAS there.

 

On 9/22/2022 at 2:46 AM, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

But it wouldn't require the TSBD to "have been a CIA front".

 

Other evidence points to the TSBD being a CIA front. For example, it appears that there were multiple shooters there. They had to have means to get in and out undetected. They had to get their rifles inside. The floor they were on had to be emptied.

 

On 9/22/2022 at 2:46 AM, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

Officer Tippit's murder might have been entirely unrelated to the assassination.

 

Just another thing  covered up by the government that day? I don't think so.

 

On 9/22/2022 at 2:46 AM, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

Oswald might have gone to the movies to occupy some time before meeting Marina and Ruth at one of the nearby shoe shops. Of course, these events may have been planned as part of the assassination, but there's no need to assume that they were. A simpler explanation is available.

 

Wow, you really aren't interested in determining the facts, are you.

Well, somebody shut off the lights, it's time to go home.

 

BTW, the simplest explanation of all is printed in the Warren Report. Why not just settle for that?

 

[Sandy Larsen]

On 9/21/2022 at 3:35 PM, Ron Ege said:

Do you see Oswald naive enough to have believed in a false flag op as presented by whomever, therefore participating in it, seeing it as his duty to do so?

 

Ron,

Oswald had no idea that he was was being set up by the CIA. Recall that it wasn't even him in Mexico City seemingly plotting with the Cubans and Russians.

As you probably know, everything in the CIA is compartmentalized, and each agent or asset is told only what they "need to know" to accomplish their jobs. Oswald had no need to know about the assassination plot that he was involved in, so he wasn't told.

 

[Sean Coleman]

58 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

Ron,

Oswald had no idea that he was was being set up by the CIA. Recall that it wasn't even him in Mexico City seemingly plotting with the Cubans and Russians.

As you probably know, everything in the CIA is compartmentalized, and each agent or asset is told only what they "need to know" to accomplish their jobs. Oswald had no need to know about the assassination plot that he was involved in, so he wasn't told.

 

Great summation 🤠