JFK Assassination Documents to be released this year

[Fiver]

These ten points deliver a conclusion that what was in Oswald's paper bag from Irving that morning was, as he said to his interrogators, his lunch, full stop. ;

I see your source likes to ignore inconvenient facts.

Mr. BALL - Did you notice whether or not Lee had a package that looked like a lunch package that morning?
Mr. FRAZIER - You know like I told you earlier, I say, he didn't take his lunch because I remember right when I got in the car I asked him where was his lunch and he said he was going to buy his lunch that day.
Mr. BALL - He told you that that day, did he?
Mr. FRAZIER - Right. That is right. So, I assumed he was going to buy it, you know, from that catering service man like a lot of the boys do. They don't bring their lunch but they go out and buy their lunch there.

[Fiver]

A sixth fact is that unanimous testimony of those who saw the bag that Oswald carried rules out that that paper bag could have carried the rifle, which is 34" even if disassembled.

This is another provably false statement by your source.

RANDLE stated that about 7:15 a.m., November 22, 1963, she looked out of a window of her residence and observed LEE HARVEY OSWALD walking up her driveway and saw him put a long brown package, approximately 3 feet by 6 inches, in the back seat area of WESLEY FRAZIER's 1954 black Chevrolet four door automobile.

A seventh fact is that Buell Frazier's testimony in particular is so firm and so steadfast that it is either correct or he has been dishonest, but it is not reasonable that he was mistaken by that magnitude of error (of mistaking a 38" bag for a 25-27" length which Frazier has said from day one is accurate to within about an inch on his estimate).

Frazier's testimony is a lot more vague than your source claims, but it is very firm that Oswald did not bring a lunch that day.

Mr. FRAZIER - Let's see, when I got in the car I have a kind of habit of glancing over my shoulder and so at that time I noticed there was a package laying on the back seat, I didn't pay too much attention and I said, "What's the package, Lee?"

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.
Mr. BALL - Did it appear to you there was some, more than just paper he was carrying, some kind of a weight he was carrying?
Mr. FRAZIER - Well, yes, sir; I say, because one reason I know that because I worked in a department store before and I had uncrated curtain rods when they come in, and I know if you have seen when they come straight from the factory you know how they can bundle them up and put them in there pretty compact, so he told me it was curtain rods so I didn't think any more about the package whatsoever.
Mr. BALL - Well, from the way he carried it, the way he walked, did it appear he was carrying something that had more than the weight of a paper?
Mr. FRAZIER - 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.

Mr. BALL - You will notice that this bag which is the colored bag, FBI Exhibit No. 10, is folded over. Was it folded over when you saw it the first time, folded over to the end?
Mr. FRAZIER - I will say I am not sure about that, whether it was folded over or not, because, like I say, I didn't pay that much attention to it.

Mr. BALL - But are you sure that his hand was at the end of the package or at the side of the package?
Mr. FRAZIER - Like I said, I remember I didn't look at the package very much, paying much attention, but when I did look at it he did have his hands on the package like that.

Mr. BALL - Mr. Frazier, we have here this Exhibit No. 364 which is a sack and in that we have put a dismantled gun. Don't pay any attention to that. Will you stand up here and put this under your arm and then take a hold of it at the side?
Now, is that anywhere near similar to the way that Oswald carried the package?
Mr. FRAZIER - Well, you know, like I said now, I said I didn't pay much attention--
Mr. BALL - Turn around.
Mr. FRAZIER - I didn't pay much attention, but when I did, I say, he had this part down here, like the bottom would be short he had cupped in his hand like that and, say, like walking from the back if you had a big arm jacket there you wouldn't tell much from a package back there, the physical features. If you could see it from the front like when you walk and meet somebody you could tell about the package, but walking from behind you couldn't tell much about the package whatsoever about the width.

[Herlock Sholmes]

A while ago I asked a general question of all of those on the conspiracy side as to what they believe happened.

Oswald from the TSBD and Grassy Knoll gunman.

Someone else from the TSBD and Grassy Knoll gunman.

Someone from a location other than the TSBD (with no one firing from there) and Grassy Knoll gunman.

I’m a little surprised to note that not a single person on the conspiracy side had proved willing to nail their colours to the mast. Why is that? I don’t understand the reluctance. I’m quite prepared to say what I believe happened - Oswald’s fired three shots from the TSBD and there was no one on the Knoll or anywhere else and there was no conspiracy to kill Kennedy’s. (I don’t think that I can be clearer) So why the reluctance on the other side?

Is it because that by stating a position it will follow that there can then be some very specific questions to answer?

[FISHY1118]

It’s difficult to listen to pontifications from people who have only ever read books written from the conspiracy side. It’s hardly surprising that plots are seen in every corner. The world is riddled with conspiracy theorists. You can’t discuss anything properly when you just get ‘fake’ and ‘forgery’ yelled back at every obstacle to their nonsense. I’m sick to the back teeth of hearing about the bloody rifle!

Oswald killed Kennedy using that rifle. It shouldn’t require discussion. It’s what happened.

Of course you are , because it's was a Mauser they took from the TSBD .

What you call fake and forgery are indeed TRUTH and Facts.

Your everybody's lying, were idiots, were mistaken ,were non existant ridiculous argument has been battered to death, and were sick to death of it also.

[Herlock Sholmes]

This is another provably false statement by your source.

RANDLE stated that about 7:15 a.m., November 22, 1963, she looked out of a window of her residence and observed LEE HARVEY OSWALD walking up her driveway and saw him put a long brown package, approximately 3 feet by 6 inches, in the back seat area of WESLEY FRAZIER's 1954 black Chevrolet four door automobile.



Frazier's testimony is a lot more vague than your source claims, but it is very firm that Oswald did not bring a lunch that day.

Mr. FRAZIER - Let's see, when I got in the car I have a kind of habit of glancing over my shoulder and so at that time I noticed there was a package laying on the back seat, I didn't pay too much attention and I said, "What's the package, Lee?"

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.
Mr. BALL - Did it appear to you there was some, more than just paper he was carrying, some kind of a weight he was carrying?
Mr. FRAZIER - Well, yes, sir; I say, because one reason I know that because I worked in a department store before and I had uncrated curtain rods when they come in, and I know if you have seen when they come straight from the factory you know how they can bundle them up and put them in there pretty compact, so he told me it was curtain rods so I didn't think any more about the package whatsoever.
Mr. BALL - Well, from the way he carried it, the way he walked, did it appear he was carrying something that had more than the weight of a paper?
Mr. FRAZIER - 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.

Mr. BALL - You will notice that this bag which is the colored bag, FBI Exhibit No. 10, is folded over. Was it folded over when you saw it the first time, folded over to the end?
Mr. FRAZIER - I will say I am not sure about that, whether it was folded over or not, because, like I say, I didn't pay that much attention to it.

Mr. BALL - But are you sure that his hand was at the end of the package or at the side of the package?
Mr. FRAZIER - Like I said, I remember I didn't look at the package very much, paying much attention, but when I did look at it he did have his hands on the package like that.

Mr. BALL - Mr. Frazier, we have here this Exhibit No. 364 which is a sack and in that we have put a dismantled gun. Don't pay any attention to that. Will you stand up here and put this under your arm and then take a hold of it at the side?
Now, is that anywhere near similar to the way that Oswald carried the package?
Mr. FRAZIER - Well, you know, like I said now, I said I didn't pay much attention--
Mr. BALL - Turn around.
Mr. FRAZIER - I didn't pay much attention, but when I did, I say, he had this part down here, like the bottom would be short he had cupped in his hand like that and, say, like walking from the back if you had a big arm jacket there you wouldn't tell much from a package back there, the physical features. If you could see it from the front like when you walk and meet somebody you could tell about the package, but walking from behind you couldn't tell much about the package whatsoever about the width.

This is so simple but it’s been complicated by conspiracy theorists as usual.

Oswald went to the Paine’s a day earlier - fact.
The tight-fisted Oswald left pretty much every penny that he owned - fact.
Oswald left his wedding ring - fact.

Now, these three fact alone (and they are facts) at the very, very least show that something highly unusual and highly significant/serious was going on. This doesn’t speak of an innocent man. It speaks, at the very minimum, of someone ‘up to something serious.’

Oswald carries a large package to work - fact.

We can quibble all day about the size but Frazier admitted that he paid little attention to it apart from to note that it’s size stood out.

Oswald told him that they were curtain rods - fact.

We know…we don’t guess…we know that these weren’t curtain rods. Oswald didn’t change his plans, leave all of his money and his wedding ring because of his part in a curtain rods smuggling operation.

We don’t need pointless nitpicking. All that we need is to listen to what this ordinary bloke Frazier tells us at the time.

And then, surprise, surprise, on the very floor that Oswald was working what is found …a rifle.

And what happened to the rifle that we know for a fact…because the witnesses at the time told us….was in the Paine’s garage?

It disappeared.

Come on!!

This isn’t hard. Ask yourselves why a conspiracy would bother with all of this? A lying Marina, a lying Ruth Paine, a lying Buell Frazier.

There is no mystery. Oswald took his rifle to work and we all know why.

[FISHY1118]

I commented about Fishy’s cut and pasting because it renders discussion impossible George. When Fiver cut and pasted he was doing it in response to another post to show what was actually said. Even then his posts weren’t as long as the ones pasted by Fishy. This isn’t me trying to tell another poster what to post. It’s purely about this being a discussion forum. A discussion is impossible if absolutely huge chunks are cut and pasted and presented as proof of something. To respond in detail to the points made would take hours for anyone.

What if I had Bugliosi’s book on Kindle for example and just cut and pasted one of the shorter chapters with an “more evidence of guilt” comment, just as Fishy did?There would be no way that you or Fishy or Cobalt or Patrick or anyone could reasonably be expected to respond to such a detailed chunk. Do you think it right that the thread should descend into a “let’s see who can cut and pasted one the most words competition? Why is it Herlock the bad guy as ever when I’m just trying to prevent the thread turning into a pointless cut and paste exercise?

I just did a long post but it wasn’t cut and pasted. It was the result of reading. But I accept that it was too long to allow for any detailed response as it would take someone considerable time to do it.

There was nothing intended as ‘deceptive’ in my post. I was pretty clear in what I meant George. Some of the things that we hear and read in this case is infantile and childish and I’ve listed them before ‘man in the drain’ ‘umbrella man’ ‘Garrison’s army of assassins’ ‘Beverly Oliver’s lies.’ When I see people still defending these aspects of the case can you not understand why it’s so disheartening? Can anyone be less believable than Ricky White and yet Fishy gloatingly proclaims him as part of the solution to the case.

I’ve said before that I didn’t want to get back into the case but failed miserably on that as here I am again. I’ll now re-double my efforts to leave it - especially as everything I seem to say annoys you so much George.

edit….reading your final line….maybe you’re right George. Frustration sets in. But I don’t think that we can get anywhere on small details though. That’s just my opinion. People have been squabbling over them for 60 years. One side will never convince the other I don’t think. Unless something new surfaces.

If I choose to cut and paste herlock its because that is information I've sourced about the case that is relevant to the current discussion , where the problem ? If its to long for you the make yourself a coffee .

[FISHY1118]

None of those statements prove that the autopsy photo was fake.

Of course they do . But well done for going against the medical expert doctors at parkland hospital who saw the back of jfks head the day he was shot. .

[Herlock Sholmes]

Of course you are , because it's was a Mauser they took from the TSBD .

What you call fake and forgery are indeed TRUTH and Facts.

Your everybody's lying, were idiots, were mistaken ,were non existant ridiculous argument has been battered to death, and were sick to death of it also.

You haven’t won a single point Fishy. Not one.

To be honest…you haven’t actually made any points of your own bat. You’ve just posted what conspiracy theorists have written online. But, as you’ve admitted in the past, you’ve only ever read conspiracy theorist work so you can’t be blamed for only seeing what you want to see; it’s simply confirmation bias. If you only read books telling you x you’re never going to listen when someone suggests y.

Nothing can be done about that of course.

[Herlock Sholmes]

If I choose to cut and paste herlock its because that is information I've sourced about the case that is relevant to the current discussion , where the problem ? If its to long for you the make yourself a coffee .

What would the thread be like if we all did that Fishy? This is a forum for discussion. It’s impossible to read, assess and discuss 50 points at a time which is what we are getting.

[GBinOz]

Why is it Herlock the bad guy as ever
I don't consider you to be the bad guy my friend. However I sometimes have difficulty in resisting what is known in Australia as "taking the mickey".

There was nothing intended as ‘deceptive’ in my post.
I wasn't referring to your post when I used the word deceptive.

I’ve said before that I didn’t want to get back into the case but failed miserably on that as here I am again. I’ll now re-double my efforts to leave it - especially as everything I seem to say annoys you so much George.
Your posts don't annoy me Herlock. But if I disagree I'll say so, which seems to annoy you. You have very strong viewpoints and, if you will forgive the suggestion, somewhat of a short fuse when it comes to theories that you have previously considered to be dismissed.

edit….reading your final line….maybe you’re right George. Frustration sets in. But I don’t think that we can get anywhere on small details though. That’s just my opinion. People have been squabbling over them for 60 years. One side will never convince the other I don’t think. Unless something new surfaces.

I think you have hit the nail on the head in that final paragraph.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Of course they do . But well done for going against the medical expert doctors at parkland hospital who saw the back of jfks head the day he was shot. .

And the autopsy pathologists who disagreed?

And the HSCA pathologists who confirmed the WC.

And those used in other inquiries.

I can’t recall exactly but I believe, at the last count, it was 17 pathologists who all confirmed the results. No court in the world would dismiss that many experts.

What is likelier (even though I know what you’re committed to saying)

a - some of the doctors at Parkland - who were almost entirely juniors, who were trying to save the President’s life, who weren’t assessing wounds and weren’t qualified to do so anyway, who were young human beings in a traumatic situation, who commented on a wound to the back of Kennedy’s head which they couldn’t have seen because his head was on the table, who saw an area toward the rear of the head all matted with blood and hat and gore - were simply and honestly mistaken. Bugliosi asked Dr. Carrico, who was there, if it was possibly that they could have been mistaken and he said “absolutely.” So why do you say something can’t be possible when I guy who was actually there said that it was possible?

b - that three pathologists lied requiring faked x-rays in the hope that no one ever gave away their secret. And that one of those pathologists, completely of his own accord, called in a third pathologists to make up for the shortfall in knowledge of gunshot wounds.

You will undoubtedly say b. But a is clearly the reasonable position.